Why is Every Other Religion Wrong?

[cubinity]

I hate it when appealing to known frauds derails a good argument, don't you?

 

[humblehumility]

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?

I wouldn't say so. I am interested in dialogue, but this conversation is more about "Why is Christianity different?" That only answers part of what my first post addressed. Not only must you answer the question "What separates Christianity?", but also "Why does this belief give more merit than every other belief system?"

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.

I do suppose my premise was a bit shaky given that I lumped in monotheism, polytheism, and spiritualism. Since monotheism seems to be the main topic of debate and is more on target with Christianity, we can stick with that.

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.

Just to keep everything organized and not skip over, I'll concede this along with my last statement.

Strawman. Utter and complete strawman. NEVER does the Old Testament say that God IS the earthquake (i.e. the way Apollo IS the Sun).

Apollo is not the sun, but he is a son, he also had siblings.

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).

Christian God is God of Everything, meaning he's God of earthquakes and natural disasters. Back in times without scientific knowledge, if an Earthquake hit Jerusalem, it was God shaking the Earth. Now that we have science, we know that earthquakes are not under the command of God, but a naturalistic process dealing with tectonic plates. I was simply comparing the people that worshipped God 5,000 years ago to the same mindset of people that worshipped the "gods of the gaps". The Christian God can be seen as a god of the gaps, the gap to explain existence.

Not A god on earth (as in one among many) but THE God on Earth (the totality of the monotheistic creator God).

Jesus is not God though, he is the son of God. Perhaps I'm just uneducated in this area, but I don't see why God would call Jesus his son and place him at his right hand. Why not just call him for who he really is, 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.

To my knowledge, yes.

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?

Sure.

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 is where you lose me. People of any other monotheistic faith would argue that Incarnation and a Triune God do not make that religion valid. They are just characteristics that other religions don't share. Judaism for instance requires no Trinity or Incarnation for their religion to be valid to them.

The RELEVANCE of Christ would still matter.

But the relevance of Christ is entirely personal. To a person of any other monotheistic faith (in which Christianity is outnumbered), Christ means and does nothing.

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.

I agree, but I'll also state that Jesus has not been proven to be the THE God Incarnate any more than Muhammad was proven to be THE prophet/messenger of God. If Muhammad is the true, factual messenger of God then what he says is true and Islam is valid.

Strawman. I never said that. How in the world did you get that from what I said?

I guess I misinterpreted your arguments, I kept asking why Christianity is more valid and you were replying with "Incarnate" and "Holy Trinity" again and again. Since these things cannot be proven or disproven, I assumed you were saying these characteristics are what validates Christianity over other religions.

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.

Refer back to my statement about actually proving he is God Incarnate.

Who has the onus of proof here and why?

The proof would be "every other monotheistic religion", as they go into detail about our creator and purpose without the need for an Incarnation. The only way these other religions are wrong, is if Christianity is right. Yet the only proof Christianity has to offer is nothing more than any other religious proof there is. Text, personal experience, and fellowship.

You are using a strawman definition of the Trinity and so your conclusion is false.

Again perhaps I'm confusing the definition and perception of a trinity. I mentioned this earlier in my reply.

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.

As I said, this would turn into a subjective (meaningless) debate. I can't disprove a subjective experience just like you can't prove one.

I don't have belief, I have disbelief based on the reality I experience.

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.

Is it unlikely or unreasonable

Here - just grant me this: among monotheists, Christians alone teach the Incarnation and Trinity.

Granted.

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.

It's not really doubt, it's just lack of proof. Proof is how I determine what constitutes reality. While Christianity may make different claims, it offers no proof to these claims. Like all other religions, it is faith based and rightly so (because no proof can be given).

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.

I'm doing my best to not hide silently in the corner. I'll say that asking a Christian to question their faith over this may have been a bit arrogant and completely unnecessary to the thread; which is about my own personal question and disbelief.

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).

If you're speaking of "public" in the same terms as "objective", then yes that's the stance I would take. I cannot believe something (on the level of religion) that has no objective basis or proof, I see no reason to.

Your case for private evidence proving Christianity is no stronger than the Muslim who has his own private evidence for Islam. A person in my shoes here is completely twisted around and since nobody has anything objective to offer, I'm left spinning and confused.

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.

I suppose not, religion is quite a powerful drug.

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."

No? They say "prove there is a green chair". At that point, I walk over to the chair, pick it up, and then ask them to sit in it. If I walk to the chair and there is nothing to pick up and nothing to sit on, then I am delusional in believing a chair was there. If it's just one other person accusing me that the chair isn't there, I would call in more people and have them verify that.

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.

Subjective experiences do indeed matter for belief. Belief is not truth.

Personally speaking, I have had many subjective experiences of God and was a born again Christian for about 5 years (regular Christian for 20). I concluded that I was delusional.

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.

Again, I have a disbelief in religion, not belief. I believe that all religions are wrong, and I base that on the proof that there is no objective proof for religions. Subjective proof alone is simply not enough to make something true, no matter how convincing it is.

How in the world is that irrational or deluded? That's social interaction 101.

It's deluded because your belief that is not based on proof is somehow more truthful than every other religion out there. Belief is subjective, truth is not.

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.

Well I think we've at least finally accomplished step 1.

I never said other people's experiences were delusional. You are the only one here who is asserting that other peoples experiences are delusional.

How can you explain a persons religious experience in any religion outside of Christianity? What is this experience of God/religion they have? They will tell you with all their hearts and minds that they believe what they feel is real. But it cannot be real if Christianity is true, so it must be delusion?

 

[humblehumility]

People believe something, and certainly want other people to believe it, too, as they see the belief having some kind of intrinsic value to their lives.

Does there need to be any reason, or any evidence, or anything, really, to justify continuing to believe other than the intrinsic value believing brings?

I mean, I could understand concern where such beliefs lead to harm, as I'm not denying happens in some situations. But, it happens in some situations in everything, not just religious belief, so that isn't really much of a point I guess.

So, if believing something gives the believer a perceived value, and doesn't endanger or harm anyone else, then does a problem exist for anyone who chooses not to believe?

I don't know that a problem exists with that, but maybe I'm wrong.

There's no problem with it, but it doesn't make it truth, or any more correct than any other religious experience. So you're not addressing the question here.

 

[humblehumility]

Yes, there is very strong emperical evidence of Jesus' bodily resurrection:
Shroud of Turin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Uhh, that was proven to be a fraud many years ago. Did you not read your own link on the dating of that shroud?

 

[AlexBP]

And I'm not a Qu'ran expert but I'm sure I could dig up some verses preaching to spread Islam to all the world, which it has done. This coming from declaration of Muhammad, a religious leader.

Color me a little bit confused by this. If you have not studied the Koran or a good summary of it, then how can you possibly be "sure" about what's in it? Don't you generally have to study a book before you know what's in it? Isn't "judging a book by its cover" a stereotypical example of foolishness?

As for me, I haven't read the Koran either. Like many others, I tried reading it but quit about half way through because it was so boring and repetitive. There may be a passage of the type you describe in the part that I did not read, but I certainly don't recall such a thing in the part that I did read.

I don't know, do some searching? Muslim apologetics does exist, so I'm sorry but Christianity isn't unique in this way.

Amazon.com: islam apologetics

You probably should have looked at the books that were on the list before you posted that link. If you did, you would see that they tend to prove my point.

 

[AlexBP]

Sufism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Recall that you said this: "Whether or not Muslims don't feel a 'Holy Spirit', they still feel the spirit of God in their lives." I asked you to back that up with a reliable reference source. Now you give me a link to the Wikipedia article on Sufism. Laying aside the fact that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, I find nothing in that article which would back up the claim that that practitioners of Sufism "feel the spirit of God in their lives", much less that Muslims do generally. Sufism is a set of practices, prayers, rituals, and disciplines by which the practitioner seeks to center his life around the Koran's picture of God. It does not involve God communicating to the practitioner in any direct way, and indeed the article you linked would seem to confirm exactly what I said, namely that Muslims believe the Koran to be God's final and ultimate communication to mankind.

Needless to say, this would stand in sharp contrast with Christian beliefs that the Holy Spirit has been active in guiding human history since the Day of Pentecost.

 

[AlexBP]

Well there are statistics and studies that show the growth rate of Christianity is declining, but I'll concede to the point that it's a growing religion nonetheless (like many others).

A perhaps meaningless point or two that I would argue:

1) One of the reasons it grows is because of reproduction. The more Christians there are that have more Christian babies, the more the growth rate climbs naturally. I was raised a Christian as a child and up until the time when I was 20 I would have polled as a Christian believer and contributed to the statistics. Children are being born faster than they're dying off, so naturally the total population of Christians will grow.

True that. If you look at studies of the average number of children that atheists and agnostics have, versus the average number that religious believers have, you get some inkling of why there are so many religious people. Nonetheless, one should not overestimate the effect that birth rates have, particularly where Christianity is concerned. As the link and book I already mentioned show, Christianity is right now spreading rapidly due to both births and conversions. Millions are converting to Christianity every year. The same is not true for any other religion.

2) People in third world countries are poor, starving, suffering, and have lost almost all hope.

A few are, but the vast majority are not.

Then clean, educated, kind individuals from developed nations come in and tell them that they are saved and loved, and this suffering they experience is not all for nothing. They are promised eternity in bliss with God, and that following the Bible will lead them out of this suffering. This is purely taking advantage of the fact that they are...suffering, and in a desperate need for anything that will show them hope. I guarantee you that you could convince a poor African community that the God of Unicorns loves them and wants them in heaven with him too.

Bible thumpers in developed nations do a much, much worse job convincing random people on the streets to believe that God is out there and "he loves you".
...
With the growth of nonbelievers, technological and scientific advancement...I would.

You seem to assume that religion is closely related to ignorance, poverty, and lack of education. However it's easy to prove this is not so by focusing on actual data. I would point you, for instance, to the article Introduction to the Economics of Religion, by Dr. Laurence R. Iannacone of Santa Clara University. He says the following:

Never mind that the secularization thesis is wrong (Andrew Greeley 1989; R. Stephen Warner 1993); it has spawned a body of stylized facts that few dare question. For example: that religion must inevitably decline as science and technology advance; that individuals become less religious and more skeptical of faith-based claims as they acquire more education, particularly more familiarity with science; and that membership in deviant religious groups (so-called “sects, cults, and fundamentalisms”) is usually the consequence of indoctrination leading to aberrant values, or abnormal psychology due to trauma, neurosis, or unmet needs. Most people “know” these statements to be true, even though decades of research have repeatedly proved them false. As survey, census, and historical data have piled up, the continuing vitality of religion has become apparent,
​

and

Religion is not the province of the poor or uninformed. In numerous analyses of cross-sectional survey data, rates of religious belief and religious activity tend not to decline with income, and most rates increase with education.
​

That debunks the claim that more education and scientific advancement will lead to less religion. On the particular issue of converts in the third world, I'd suggest reading the book God is Back: How the Global Revival of Faith is Changing the World, by John Micklethwait and Adrian Woolridge, both writers on global issues for The Economist, as well as the Philip Jenkins book I mentioned earlier. Both books establish that converts to Christianity in places like South Korea, China, South America, and Africa come from all social classes, but the groups most likely to convert are the middle class and the well-educated. Hence your claim that Christian missionaries are exploiting people who "are poor, starving, suffering, and have lost almost all hope" just isn't true.

In fact, as third-world countries grow more prosperous and provide more education to their citizens, the future for Christianity looks bright indeed. I don't know of any other religion that can say the same.

 

[humblehumility]

Color me a little bit confused by this. If you have not studied the Koran or a good summary of it, then how can you possibly be "sure" about what's in it? Don't you generally have to study a book before you know what's in it? Isn't "judging a book by its cover" a stereotypical example of foolishness?

As for me, I haven't read the Koran either. Like many others, I tried reading it but quit about half way through because it was so boring and repetitive. There may be a passage of the type you describe in the part that I did not read, but I certainly don't recall such a thing in the part that I did read.

Al-Quran 41:53
Soon We will show them our signs in the (farthest) regions (of the earth),
and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth.

Surah As-Saff 61:9
It is He who has sent His Messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, so that He may make it victorious over all other religions, even though the disbelievers detest it

Now Islam isn't the largest religion in the world, yet, but it's growth rate exceeds Christianity's by quite a bit. Give it more time and it's reasonable to conclude that eventually there will be more Muslims than Christians, fulfilling this prophecy of being "victorious" over all other religions. But the first verse "came true", Islam has spread to all the nations in the world.

You probably should have looked at the books that were on the list before you posted that link. If you did, you would see that they tend to prove my point.

I thought your point was that Muslim apologists don't exist? A simple Google search for "Islam apologetics" will show otherwise.

 

[humblehumility]

I find nothing in that article which would back up the claim that that practitioners of Sufism "feel the spirit of God in their lives", much less that Muslims do generally.

From the article

Alternatively, in the words of the Darqawi Sufi teacher Ahmad ibn Ajiba, "a science through which one can know how to travel into the presence of the Divine, purify one's inner self from filth, and beautify it with a variety of praiseworthy traits."[5]

Sufism is not just a set of practices, it's the spiritual art of connecting your inner heart with the divine (God).

I can't speak for Sufis because I don't know any, but it seems their main goal is spiritually connecting with God.

Regardless of all that, what would you call Muslim prayer? Is that not seeking to have a conversation with God, receive answers from God, and live their life according to those answers? Wouldn't expressing Allah's will be "feeling his spirit work in their lives"?

 

[humblehumility]

A few are, but the vast majority are not.

It takes about 30 seconds on the Almighty Google to find some poverty statistics. 3 billion people (half the world) live on less than $2.50/day.

"Around 27-28 percent of all children in developing countries are estimated to be underweight or stunted. The two regions that account for the bulk of the deficit are South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa."

"Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names."

Both books establish that converts to Christianity in places like South Korea, China, South America, and Africa come from all social classes, but the groups most likely to convert are the middle class and the well-educated. Hence your claim that Christian missionaries are exploiting people who "are poor, starving, suffering, and have lost almost all hope" just isn't true.

But they are exploiting poor, starving, suffering children. I didn't say that was the majority of missionary work or that the majority of Christians are poor and suffering. But missionaries DO go to these third world countries with the goal of helping feed/educate them but also spread the good news about God. One of my cousins is doing this very thing in India right now and has been for almost a year. I still support a child through Compassion International, which provides aid and support to millions of suffering children in third world countries, and also spreads the good news about God.

In fact, as third-world countries grow more prosperous and provide more education to their citizens, the future for Christianity looks bright indeed. I don't know of any other religion that can say the same.

Well, the poverty gap in third world countries is growing so I have no clue why you're so optimistic about them.

The future for Islam looks pretty bright, it's spreading faster than Christianity.

 

[salida]

Uhh, that was proven to be a fraud many years ago. Did you not read your own link on the dating of that shroud?

No, it hasn't been proven to be a fraud-wishful thinking. Just because you want it to be doesn't make it true. Plus, show me your sources-I haven't seen any.

 

[humblehumility]

No, it hasn't been proven to be a fraud-wishful thinking. Just because you want it to be doesn't make it true. Plus, show me your sources-I haven't seen any.

Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin

The results of radiocarbon measurements at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich yield a calibrated calendar age range with at least 95% confidence for the linen of the Shroud of Turin of AD 1260 - 1390 (rounded down/up to nearest 10 yr). These results therefore provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval.

The shroud is from ~1200AD, nowhere near the death of Christ.

 

[maizer]

But they are exploiting poor, starving, suffering children. I didn't say that was the majority of missionary work or that the majority of Christians are poor and suffering. But missionaries DO go to these third world countries with the goal of helping feed/educate them but also spread the good news about God. One of my cousins is doing this very thing in India right now and has been for almost a year. I still support a child through Compassion International, which provides aid and support to millions of suffering children in third world countries, and also spreads the good news about God.

Honestly, Korea, Taiwan, and various parts of China are among the most educated people in the world, and they are by no means 3rd world countries.

The future for Islam looks pretty bright, it's spreading faster than Christianity.

It may be spreading fast, but should we not wait a bit longer to see how things go? The vast majority of Islam are in countries that have strict control over their citizens. Lets see what the next generation of Muslims do.

 

[AlexBP]

From the article

Alternatively, in the words of the Darqawi Sufi teacher Ahmad ibn Ajiba, "a science through which one can know how to travel into the presence of the Divine, purify one's inner self from filth, and beautify it with a variety of praiseworthy traits."
​

Sufism is not just a set of practices, it's the spiritual art of connecting your inner heart with the divine (God).

I can't speak for Sufis because I don't know any, but it seems their main goal is spiritually connecting with God.

Regardless of all that, what would you call Muslim prayer? Is that not seeking to have a conversation with God, receive answers from God, and live their life according to those answers?

We seem to be having a gap in communication here. The question concerns whether the experience of the Holy Spirit is duplicated in Islam (and presumably in other religions as well). Now it is and always has been a central part of Christian belief that the Holy Spirit is active in human life, initiating communication with humans and producing results that would not be produced if the Holy Spirit was not active. "the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.” [Gal 5:22] Many Christians will attribute knowledge, judgment, visions, locutions, miracles, and other events to the activity of the Holy Spirit. That tells us precisely what Christians mean when we talk about the intervention of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, we believe that the Holy Spirit can come to everyone, not exclusively to clergy or those who spend a huge amount of time and effort devoting themselves to God.

By contrast, as can be verified from the article you linked to, Muslims do not believe that God can enter their human lives and give them gifts, or really perform any actions at all that will influence human history. If you read a description of Islamic prayer (there's one in the link below) you will see that it makes no mention of God responding to the prayer except in the form of punishment in the afterlife for those who neglect it or do it wrongly. Muslims do not believe that God offers locutions, performs miracles, plants the fruit of the Holy Spirit in their hearts, or anything of that sort. They only believe that by following the instructions in the Koran and teachings based on the Koran, human beings can do things that bring them closer to God's will. This is what is meant by the statement that in Christianity God reaches out to humanity while in Islam humans only reach out to God.

The Basics of the Muslim’s Prayer

Wouldn't expressing Allah's will be "feeling his spirit work in their lives"?

Only if you use the word "spirit" metaphorically, the same way as if I said that I wrote a new song "in the spirit of Bob Dylan". Obviously when Christians feel the Spirit at work in our lives we are not using it metaphorically.

I thought your point was that Muslim apologists don't exist? A simple Google search for "Islam apologetics" will show otherwise.

I did a simple Google search for "Islam apologetics"; it did not show what you wanted it to show, but instead mostly produced Christian websites discussing Islam, which would tend to prove my point. The point, again, is this. Christian apologetics from the time of Augustine through Aquinas to Van Til and Chesterton and thousands of others have started with the assumption of nothing but observable reality and agreed-upon logical rules of deduction and proceeded from there to build a case for the truth of Christianity. No corresponding Muslim apologetic work exists that I know of. There may be works that are labeled "Muslim apologetics" by they all begin with assumption that the Koran is correct, which is in an outsider's understanding what they're trying to prove.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT


This thread has undergone a clean up. As a reminder, the only non-Christian allowed to post in the thread is the OP .
​

 

[AlexBP]

And why do you think that is? Oh, because inventing a "good" religion involves extraordinary claims, which to developed humans requires extraordinary evidence, none of which a new (or old) religion can provide.

First of all, I have to ask how you're defining a "developed human". Once we know that, we can investigate whether your statement is correct or not.

On the whole, though, complaining that nobody's come up with new religious truths in the past few centuries seems to me rather lame, like complaining that nobody's come up with new axioms of planar geometry. It may be that all the necessary ones were already deduced in ancient times and no new ones exist to be found.

Really? I was unaware that supernatural humans existed, since they have never been proven to exist, nor their supernatural "powers" validated with the scientific method. Hook me up with some sources on that though.

Some of the most famous cases would be Teresa Neumann, Bl. Alexandrina da Costa, Saint Padre Pio, and Jakob Lorber. Randy Sullivan's book The Miracle Detective is a chronicle of a skeptic's investigation into claims of miracles, though it focuses mainly on cases involving the Catholic Church. I'm not sure about what to say if you want something "validated with the scientific method" as there is no single scientific method, but if you read up on the first three individuals listed above and Sullivan's book, you'll see that many scientists have investigated miraculous claims and come away convinced of their legitimacy. In the case of Lorber, he was a prophet who wrote works in the mid-19th century that include a great deal of scientific information that scientists were unaware of until the 20th century.

 

[Cuddles333]

Yes, there is very strong emperical evidence of Jesus' bodily resurrection:
Shroud of Turin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Uhh, that was proven to be a fraud many years ago. Did you not read your own link on the dating of that shroud?

This ancient artifact is no fake. As a matter of fact, as more time passes, information obtained from it gets stronger. It is common knowledge that the first carbon dating test was inaccurate. In my opinion it was done on purpose. The very last thing that a person who is in total rebellion against God wants to have confirmed is any evidence of Jesus Christ.

 

[cubinity]

Humblehumility,

Christ may have been totally right in all that He said, even when He said He was the ONLY way to the Father.
However, I respect that it is difficult to filter through the false stuff to get to that truth, which is what makes Christianity appear just as predictably flawed as any other religion.
I would recommend to my fellow believers, if I could, to stick with Biblical arguments for Jesus: a recommendation even I need to be reminded of regularly.

 

[humblehumility]

First of all, I have to ask how you're defining a "developed human". Once we know that, we can investigate whether your statement is correct or not.

A society where the majority of people are literate, have proper tools fr recording, aware of science, and aware of all other religions. Still kind of vague, but doesn't match with any Biblical society.

On the whole, though, complaining that nobody's come up with new religious truths in the past few centuries seems to me rather lame, like complaining that nobody's come up with new axioms of planar geometry. It may be that all the necessary ones were already deduced in ancient times and no new ones exist to be found.

Not lame at all, as I said the reason none have come into existence is because there is no proof for them. Scientology has done a shockingly good job at recruiting millions of people by going the alien route instead of the supernatural God route.

Some of the most famous cases would be Teresa Neumann, Bl. Alexandrina da Costa, Saint Padre Pio, and Jakob Lorber. Randy Sullivan's book The Miracle Detective is a chronicle of a skeptic's investigation into claims of miracles, though it focuses mainly on cases involving the Catholic Church. I'm not sure about what to say if you want something "validated with the scientific method" as there is no single scientific method, but if you read up on the first three individuals listed above and Sullivan's book, you'll see that many scientists have investigated miraculous claims and come away convinced of their legitimacy. In the case of Lorber, he was a prophet who wrote works in the mid-19th century that include a great deal of scientific information that scientists were unaware of until the 20th century.

lol

Every example you provide offers nothing more than something physical. Freak medical conditions are proof of supernatural humans? Come on now.

And witches and warlocks are real too...

 

[humblehumility]

Yes, there is very strong emperical evidence of Jesus' bodily resurrection:
Shroud of Turin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



This ancient artifact is no fake. As a matter of fact, as more time passes, information obtained from it gets stronger. It is common knowledge that the first carbon dating test was inaccurate. In my opinion it was done on purpose. The very last thing that a person who is in total rebellion against God wants to have confirmed is any evidence of Jesus Christ.

lol you people keep linking me to an article that confirms the dating of the Shroud to be ~1200AD.

Do you have any proof that the first carbon TESTS (not test) are inaccurate? Where does this "common knowledge" come from?

No, I have seen some Christians claim the test is inaccurate and ask it to be tested again, but if it is tested again we will not be surprised to confirm what we already know. Christians making unsupported claims, whaddaya know...