You know my intentions and intellectual truthfulness? You must have the powers of God.
For your information, I am out to score no "points". This is a serious question and so far nobody has given me any reasons to seek Christianity over any other world religion (Buddhism for example has much more appeal).
I'm observing your rather uncharitable behavior and drawing conclusions from that. You don't seem to be interested in discussion and dialogue, but rather in shifting the onus of proof around until you can play an easy defensive skeptic game.
You've essentially concluded that I ought to be able to prove my religion true to you or it isn't valid / I should question my beliefs.
Is that an accurate summary of your current stance?
Deeply experiencing "religion" can be seen as deeply experiencing "God(s)", as God is the basis of all religions (Buddhists 'God' being one's self). This is a purely subjective feeling, and you have no right to say what a person truly feels in their heart.
You are equivocating horribly here. YOU (not me) made your first premise that there is an existent creator God. YOU did that. If you want to go back on that, then you've changed the entire debate (as you've done in this paragraph).
So which is it, are we starting from the premise that there is a creator God, or are we not?
IF we are, then all of my statements about Taoism and Buddhism are 100% on target (i.e. they are excluded from the discussion because they do not have a creator God - this was YOUR first premise).
Incidentally, Buddhists would not say that they are God (except for shock value). I know of NO Buddhist who would say that he or she created the universe and is the cause for its order. They WOULD say that we shouldn't expect any help from God in reaching enlightenment.
The inner spirit/self is the "God" of these religions. The driving force to life deeply innate within us. You're picking out 1 or 2 religions and trying to say "See, Christianity is different from these 2 religions". Monotheism must explain why Christianity is more true than all religions.
Go back and read my statements in context. Each paragraph I write is not an individual and separately warranted answer to your OP. I was discussing these one or two religions because it makes sense to discuss one or two religions at at time. Furthermore, Buddhism (a form of agnostic humanism) and Taoism (a belief in a non-personal force, rather than a deity) are commonly known EXAMPLES of categories of belief. I was using them to show how that CATEGORY doesn't fit your first premise (that of a creator God) and is, therefore, outside the scope of the discussion.
I then went on to list several OTHER religions that were INSIDE that scope, and to discuss THOSE. So I wasn't saying "Christianity is different from 2 religions and therefore true" - but keep burning those strawmen.
Bible God sends plagues and natural disasters. Meaning the people on Earth saw an earthquake shake a town, and concluded that it was God sending a message. Science has proven that God does not send natural disasters, they happen naturally without God.
Strawman. Utter and complete strawman. NEVER does the Old Testament say that God IS the earthquake (i.e. the way Apollo IS the Sun).
Asserting that God has the power to start an earthquake is entirely different from saying that god y is the "god of earthquakes" because the OT God is transcendent ABOVE those natural forces as well (i.e. has power over them, but is also entirely distinct from them).
I see nothing here that other religions do not have. The Incarnation as in what, a God on earth? That hasn't happened in any other religion that people have believed in?
Not A god on earth (as in one among many) but THE God on Earth (the totality of the monotheistic creator God).
Again, re-read what I wrote. I was talking about Christianity's teachings of the Trinity and Incarnation as unique among the MONOTHEISTIC traditions. Will you grant that, among all the monotheistic traditions, only Christianity teaches a Triune God and an Incarnate God? That was my essential point.
And before you, again, assume that this means I've somehow arrived at answering the OP, I'll grant that I've not.
But before I can argue Christianity's validity, it is first important to indicate its uniqueness. Will you grant that the Trinity and Incarnation make Christianity distinct from the other MONOTHEISTIC traditions?
Because then, at that point, two things needs to be done:
1) Argue monotheism (which you've granted as premise one)
2) Argue the Incarnation (which we've yet to dive in to) while defending the Trinity OR Argue the Trinity (which we've yet to dive in to) while defending the Incarnation.
If both 1 and 2 are accomplished, and the Trinity and Incarnation are unique to Christianity among the monotheistic traditions, then Christianity is only valid faith.
This still misses the point, though. I could argue all of the above to you, and it wouldn't produce anything other than a frustrating debate. The RELEVANCE of Christ would still matter.
You mention that Buddhism appeals to you - to me as well (i.e. I rather like the four noble truths). Christian ascesis (monasticism) has much in common with it, excepting these metaphysical issues we're discussing (i.e. Christians assert that God DOES help us, that the Incarnation has redeemed the physical world as a means of conveying God's grace; finally, we assert - based on the above - that self-emptying is the first step, not the final goal, which is to then be filled by God's eternity).
No, it's not. Why does the fact that Jesus was incarnated on Earth make Christianity any more true than any other religion?
That is very, very simple. If Jesus is really THE God Incarnate, then what Jesus teaches is true, and every other religion true only insofar as it measures up to what God has taught in Jesus.
Is there an unwritten requirement that says "In order for a religion to be true, God must take human form on Earth"? That is a subjective statement and billions of people in different religions would disagree with you on that point.
Strawman. I never said that. How in the world did you get that from what I said?
What I was saying was that IF in this religion we have God Incarnate THEN this religion is true.
Why? Well, first because if Jesus is God then Christians (who worship Jesus, and are the only ones to worship Jesus) are worshiping correctly (that is, their religion is true).
Second because, given that Christianity along among the monotheistic traditions teaches an Incarnation, IF the Incarnation is true then all other monotheistic traditions are less true (e.g. false). The same goes for the Trinity.
Which is my point - why are you not bonkers for believing that? Again, there is no requirement that a God must come down to earth in human form and again, Jesus is not the only God on Earth that has ever existed.
Who has the onus of proof here and why?
Well Jesus isn't a true, full 100% incarnation of the ultimate thing (God). He is 33% of the ultimate thing, hence the Trinity. He is the son and not the father, he sits at the right hand of God, not on God's throne.
You are using a strawman definition of the Trinity and so your conclusion is false.
No point really, we would just get into a subjective debate. Since I would say that anybody that claims to feel the Holy Spirit is either deluded or self-deceived, I would of course suppose the same of Jesus Christ himself.
Suffering a bit from confirmation bias, are you?
Fine - I'll turn the tables a bit. I am not deluded. I claim to feel and experience, in profound ways, the Holy Spirit.
Prove me wrong. If you can't, you should question your beliefs.
Maybe he smoked a lot of hemp or ate a lot of magic mushrooms, people back then didn't know what those things were. Could you disprove that? It actually makes sense, psychedelic hippies are always the ones rallying for peace and love...the message of Jesus.
I've already said the trilemma is probabilistic (not deductive). I wouldn't PROVE that that isn't the case, but rather show how it is LESS LIKELY that that is the case, or LESS REASONABLE.
Ok, and I've been showing everybody that the concept of Jesus Christ is not original, because that seems to be the only piece of evidence Christians have for saying "Christianity is right over all religions". Just because God in this case is seen in a different form does not many it any more true, I don't see where this is a valid argument. Every religion has it's own unique identifiers.
But you asked for CHRISTIANITY'S unique identifiers. And then you get ticked when we point them out.
Here - just grant me this: among monotheists, Christians alone teach the Incarnation and Trinity.
Do you not understand that subjective experience means nothing as far as proof goes?
I wasn't stating my experience as a means of convincing you that I am right. I was pointing out that my experience (which certainly DOES constitute proof for ME, since it is MY EXPERIENCE) means that YOUR doubt does not in any way threaten MY belief.
Even if I cannot EVER convince you of what I believe, that doesn't constitute a valid reason for me to question MY beliefs or experiences.
Why am I pointing that out? Because your OP arrogantly asserted that if I cannot provide YOU with publicly available proof of my beliefs, somehow I ought to question my beliefs. You are shifting the onus of proof at will here to whatever suits you - playing skeptic / defense and then trying to pretend that this argument from silence you are making somehow creates a defeater for our already existing beliefs and experiences.
If you don't get that, then study logic.
You cannot state "Christianity is the only true religion" without proving that.
And what constitutes proof? My experience is sufficient for me (though, naturally, not for you unless you really trust me / my testimony).
So you must not, here, mean "private experience" but "public evidence" where evidence is defined as inductive or deductive reason.
So, in essence, you have a major premise that goes something like this: "One ought not to believe something without public evidence for that belief."
Is that a fair way to state it? I don't want that to be a strawman.
Anyhow, if that IS a fair way to state the major premise (and feel free to modify it to make it more accurate), then you are being self-contradicting.
Why?
There is NO way - none what so ever - to prove through PUBLIC evidence that "One ought not to believe something without public evidence for that belief." Your major premise cannot satisfy its own criteria and is therefore false (or at least, not believable).
View it from my perspective, I am a genuine nonbeliever seeking for the answers on what religion is the true one to follow. I ask you why I should believe Christianity like you and you say "Because I've experienced God in my life." Then I go to a Muslim and ask them why I should believe in Islam over all others and they say "Because I've experienced God". Where am I left? Who do I trust? Logically, nobody.
I actually don't agree with your conclusion there, but that's aside from the point because I honestly wasn't trying to play offense / convince you of Christianity using just my own experience.
I was trying to say that, given my experience, no amount of doubt from you will shake my belief, as you assert that it ought to in your OP.
Which I have done in showing you that subjective arguments do not make something true.
You open your eyes, and see that there is a green chair in the room with you. You therefore go on believing there is a green chair in the room even if someone else comes in and says there isn't. They say "prove there is a green chair in the room or you should stop believing in it" and you say, "I cannot PROVE it, but I experience the green chair so I'm not going to stop believing in it."
That's what's going on here. A simplistic analogy, yes, but if you don't think that subjective experiences matter for belief then it is YOU that is delusional. YOUR lack of experience (also a subjective matter) is part of what constitutes your doubt. Your ability to use your senses is part of what creates literally EVERY BELIEF you have.
If you try to take that away as you do above then you have no grounds for any belief whatsoever (even the belief that you shouldn't have beliefs) and this becomes, rapidly, self-contradicting and irrational.
I'm not the delusional one here. I'm saying something VERY basic: what I experience rightly impacts what I believe. I recognize that others have differing experiences, and so I agree to disagree with them.
How in the world is that irrational or deluded? That's social interaction 101.
Wow - really? You're going to start ad-hom attacks? And you want to call ME irrational?
Give me a break.
Objectively speaking, you have provided no reasons why Christianity is more true than other religions. The only objective things you've pointed out were the unique identifiers of Christianity.
Which is a necessary first step. I'd rather agree on the premises, though, before launching into the major discussion. As you can see from this dialogue, if we don't do that, things get wonky real fast.
Read my responses thus far, I've been explaining how the concept of Jesus and Christianity has been repeated throughout history. While there are always subtle differences between religions, they are all fundamentally the same. Christianity offers no more reason to believe it than does Islam.
Yet Christianity is NOT the same. See the unique identifiers discussed above. This is why I wanted to establish those.
You have not pointed out why Christianity is truth, rather than the appearance of truth. Again, subjective experience means squat because it can very easily be delusion (as in the case of all other religions according to Christianity).
I never said other people's experiences were delusional. You are the only one here who is asserting that other peoples experiences are delusional.
In Christ,
Macarius
