Why is Every Other Religion Wrong?

humblehumility said:

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...

Click to expand...

Try not to generalize. I would encourage you to take note that there are Christians on this thread totally agreeing with you that the Shroud thing is a bad argument and claims being made about it are unsupported.

Just as other atheists make bad arguments and unsupported claims... You wouldn't want us to write you off just because of the things they say, would you?

humblehumility said:

Just curious, what sort of unsupported claims do they make? The only ones I disagree with are "God doesn't exist", and other statements that imply absolute certainty ("Jesus never existed").

Click to expand...

Oh, I just meant to open appreciate for the fact that every group suffers this same characteristic. I guess it was open-ended with nothing particular in mind. As you pointed out, there are some in the atheist camp who make certainty claims on things no one is certain about.
That's all I was getting at.

humblehumility said:

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?"

Click to expand...

Absolutely true (if I am indeed playing "offense" / trying to persuade you, which would rightly place the onus of proof on me).

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.

Click to expand...

Great! That really helps clarify the debate. Incidently, I'm fine if you want to "zoom out" and ask if there is, actually, a monotheistic God (of the sort conceived by Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc.) - I was just getting frustrated at feeling like I was debating a moving target.

Also, and this kind of works as an overview of this entire post, I'm in the process of moving across the country and, in my stress, my tone turned much harsher than I had intended in my prior post. I apologize.

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

Click to expand...

Sure - since we aren't debating polytheism it isn't as relevant at this point, but my issue was more that Apollo is (really) just a god-of-the-gaps (and a finite one) such that, once the gap is gone, the whole reason for Apollo is gone. The monotheistic deity certainly has been used to fill gaps, but given the infinitude (in concept) of such a deity, that God also transcends those gaps and so, even once those gaps are filled the belief in that deity is not fully defeated.

The Christian God can be seen as a god of the gaps, the gap to explain existence.

Click to expand...

I actually have an argument, if we want to turn back to discussing monotheism's merits, as to why the cosmological question (i.e. "why is there something rather than nothing?") and teleological question (i.e. "why is there order in the universe?") are, as fundamentally metaphysical questions, unique from merely physical questions. Physics questions can, conceivably, be answered by the scientific method given a large enough data set. The above questions are not, however, gaps in scientific knowledge, but rather fundamentally different questions - ones which, I think I could argue, science actually cannot (ever, in a non-speculative way) answer without entering into circularity or equivocating on its terms (i.e. redefining "nothing").

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?

Click to expand...

To say He is the Son of God is to say that He is God by nature. It is the difference between someone's creation (i.e. if I'm a woodworker, I make a bench - the bench is not the same as me by nature; it is a different type of thing from me) and their offspring - their begotten (i.e. the woodworker's child would be, by nature, a human being the same way the woodworker is a human being).

Now, for every created species we know of (e.g. humans, horses; heck, even rocks or other inanimate objects), two things of the same nature are distinct from one another and, therefore, have separate existences. IE) just because the woodworker and his/her offspring share a human nature doesn't make them the same person.

That's how we say the Father and Son (and Holy Spirit) are three persons.

But God is not a creature. So we cannot perfectly analogize our human experience of personhood to God. Rather, we must ask "What is this divine nature that the Son of God - God's begotten - inherits?"

Humans have some attributes - things that make them human (that's "human nature"). The divine nature are those things that are universally God - that all three of the persons possess by virtue of having the divine nature.

What are they? It is difficult to say what God IS, since we have very little brains and God is rather big, but it is, to an extent, possible to say what God is not by virtue of either argument or revelation (i.e. I can arrive at the following list through deductive argument, if you'd like to see it; it is also a list consistent with the revelation of God in each of the monotheistic traditions that I'm aware of):

The Divine is not mortal (immortal)
The Divine is not finite (infinite)
The Divine is not changing (beyond time)

I will stop with those three, as I can expand them quite nicely. God is immortal because in part because God is beyond time. We cannot, properly, apply chronology to God (again, if you like, I can provide the argument as to why that is or, if you like, the prooftexts from Islam / Judaism / Christianity).

Change is, by definition, being something at one point in time and then another thing at another point in time. Change demands chronology - time. Without time, God is without change.

God is also infinite. We cannot limit God's power, knowledge, location, etc.

Now, and the following does not stem from deductive philosophy but directly from revelation, we also say that God is a few things: God IS (i.e. has existence / life in Himself - God is life), and God is LOVE (i.e. He doesn't have love, or fall in love, but is, in and of Himself, love itself). I know I've not argued those two things, but as I'm specifically trying to explain the relationship of the Father to the Son (something specific to Christianity), I hope you'll grant me this context just for the purpose of this explanation.

So what, then, can we say of the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit, who also has this self-same divine nature)?

The three persons did not, at any point, come into existence. The Father does not pre-exist the Son or the Spirit, as that would subject God to TIME and would subject the Son and Spirit to FINITUDE (a limit on their being).

So, they have always been - they are IN all the same "times" (and mutually beyond all time).

They also, being mutually infinite, are in all the same "places" (and mutually beyond all concept of place) with all the same omnipotent power.

And they also, being mutually LOVE, have the same motive and do, therefore, the same things (though they, acting in concert, may take different roles in accomplishing the same thing). They have one will - love.

So what do you get if you've got something(s) in the same times and places with the same motives and abilities doing the same things? You have a thing(s) one in essence - essentially one.

And that is what we say: the Father and Son and Spirit are one in essence because they share the one universal divine nature.

I hope that helps with the explanation - I'll present a couple of arguments for WHY we say that below (i.e. I'm aware that the above is just an explanation, not an argument).

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

Click to expand...

Right. This is exactly why the debate centers on these two doctrines.

The syllogism would go something like this:

P1: There is a monotheistic God.
P2: Christians claim that Christ is God.
P3: All other monotheists claim that Christ is not God.
P4: God and "not God" are mutually exclusive.
C: Either Christianity is right and Christ is God (such that all other monotheistic religions are wrong) OR Christianity is wrong and one of the other monotheistic religions is right.

See? It isn't that Judaism is invalid because it doesn't have an Incarnation (though I will make that argument, I haven't yet). It is that, having CLAIMED an Incarnation, Christianity rises and falls on the TRUTH of that claim.

IF (big if) the Incarnation is TRUE, then EVERY OTHER monotheistic religion is false because every other monotheistic religion claims that the Incarnation is not true.

The same logic works for the Trinity. Because ONLY Christians, of the monotheists, believe in a Trinity THEN, it follows, that if the Trinity is TRUE (big if) that the other monotheistic religions are FALSE as they do not teach the Trinity.

Christians say "Trinity!" and every other monotheist says "Not Trinity!"

By the principle of mutual exclusion, only one of those groups can be right.

So IF I can argue "Trinity" THEN I've disproven the other monotheistic faiths by virtue of the fact that they don't teach a Trinity.

It isn't that, in concept, they need a Trinity to be valid (though I'll argue that later); it is that, IF it is true, the fact that they DON'T teach a Triune God would make them false.

Does that help clarify at all?

Its just like saying that atheists and theists are mutually exclusive. IF there is a God, then atheists are wrong. If there isn't, then theists are wrong.

If Christ is God, then Christians are right. If He's not, then we're wrong. If God is Triune, then Christians are right. It God is not, then we're wrong.

That's all I'm getting at so far.

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.

Click to expand...

Do you care about emotional relevance or truth? I can argue either way, so just let me know. You seem, to me, to care about truth; in which case, how other religions FEEL about Christ wouldn't matter if, in fact, Christ is God.

The truth, remarkably, doesn't care about our emotions.

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.

Click to expand...

Yes - you are absolutely right on this point. Muslims, Sikhs, and Baha'i all claim that Mohamed is God's prophet, but Muslims ALONE claim that he is the final and culminating prophet of God. If that claim is true, then every other monotheistic faith is false.

So any argument I use to demonstrate Christ's Incarnation would have to FAIL to work at proving Mohamed's status as prophet (i.e. I have to use the same methodology for Mohamed's claims that I do for Christ's).

If you're with me this far, in the next post I'll attempt to do that. I actually and really do think that I can accomplish this - I think the arguments for the Incarnation do NOT work in a similar fashion for any other faith. I'm not going to commit special pleading (or, at the least, I promise to try really really hard not to and to own up to it if I'm called out for committing special pleading).

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.

Click to expand...

A fair misinterpretation. It appears, at this point, that we've moved past it (yay for a discussion that progresses!).

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

Click to expand...

Now that IS special pleading. I'm sorry, but disbelief IS a belief. A belief, of any sort, is an attempt to interpret our experience of reality. Your interpretation leads you to deny the claim "Christianity is true" - that's a belief. You believe the statement "Christianity is untrue" OR you believe the statement "We don't know if Christianity is true." Somewhere in there, your doubt constitutes a belief.

We may have to agree to disagree on this, but on a philosophical level I point blank refuse to grant agnosticism or doubt some special status as a non-belief belief - I think doubt has to play by the same rules as faith. We're all just a bunch of people doing our best to understand the world around us - we should treat one anothers' beliefs on a level playing field.

It's not really doubt, it's just lack of proof.

Click to expand...

Used to justify doubt. IE) the lack of proof leads you to doubt the truth value of Christianity.

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).

Click to expand...

I think you're making a false assumption here, but I'm ok with letting it go as, at the moment, it isn't interfering in our dialogue and I'm more interested in taking the next step in discussing the Trinity and Incarnation (as I discuss above).

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.

Click to expand...

Cool. That helps clarify the discussion for me. I now understand that you aren't trying to disprove Christianity so much as asking Christians to make their best attempt to justify Christianity to you (i.e. you want us to go on "offense" and view the onus of proof as squarely on us).

Makes sense to me.

If you're speaking of "public" in the same terms as "objective", then yes that's the stance I would take.

Click to expand...

By public I meant only that it was available to the public - that is, something outside the realm of my personal experience (which you can only access via my testimony).

I cannot believe something (on the level of religion) that has no objective basis or proof, I see no reason to.

Click to expand...

Again, though, that's a self-referentially incoherent statement. It cannot pass its own test. You cannot provide reasoned argument nor evidence that ONLY public / objective proof can be used to gain truth.

Even in the above quote, you say "I see no reason to" which is, in a way, circular (for example: you are saying you must have reason to believe something because you don't have any reason not to say you must have reason to believe something - your assume that reason is the only valid way to gain knowledge as part of your argument that reason is the only valid way to gain knowledge).

So either it cannot pass its own test (and ought not, therefore, be believed) or it begs the question / uses circular reasoning.

Evidentialism (the name for the view you provided here) has a popular following in our society, but is generally rejected by philosophers for exactly the reasons I outlined above.

Now, to clarify, that doesn't mean evidence isn't REALLY REALLY useful for gaining knowledge / warranted belief / truth. It may even be the MOST useful thing for gaining truth. But we cannot say it is EXCLUSIVELY able to gain truth or the very idea of evidentialism itself cannot be known as true (since we cannot provide evidence for it).

So we must be open to other means of knowing as well.

In short, I would amend your quote to say "Given its usefulness, I prefer to look for proof / evidence / reason before believing something." That accurately communicates, to me, the grounds on which you'd like to see me satisfy Christianity's onus of proof, but it leaves open the possibility that I may KNOW (validly - that is, as a warranted belief) Christianity in a way that is not presentable in argument or evidence.

Sorry to be picky - but the subtle difference does matter (in the long run) for how these discussion go.

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.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's true. I'm not saying my experience satisfies the onus of proof that you need satisfied in order to believe Christianity. But it does satisfy the onus of proof that I need for me to believe Christianity - that's all I was saying.

Hope that helps clarify.

I suppose not, religion is quite a powerful drug.

Click to expand...

A rather unfair and loaded analogy.

Honestly, I kind of need to call you out on something. You are REALLY quick to accuse Christians of failing to respect the religious experiences of other people, but then you pull stuff like calling OUR experiences the results of drugs, or calling all of us delusional.

Its like you're playing by your own set of rules - you get to dismiss all of our experiences as delusional, drug induced, ignorant (all your words I'm using here), but I (who have said nothing negative about the religious experiences of others) am the one who supposedly doesn't respect the validity of others' experiences.

Just a wee bit hypocritical, my friend.

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.

Click to expand...

And let us say THEY were delusional - such that when you picked up the chair, and (let us say) physically hit them with it, they still refused to see the chair / believe it was there. Let us even say that 20 other people agreed with this delusional person (perhaps they are all delusional). Would you still be warranted, in your own self, with asserting the chair exists?

Also, its an analogy - I was just pointing out that personal experience constitutes a valid ground for belief. Obviously, if someone can present positive evidence or reason AGAINST what I perceive through personal experience then I've run into a legitimate defeater for my belief and ought to change it.

But I cannot conceive of any way for you to demonstrate or argue that the Incarnation is false. I mean, you can show why arguments in favor of it aren't persuasive to you - but the failure of a given argument doesn't make the truth it was pointing to false. I could make a TERRIBLE argument for why 2*2 = 4 and, in reality, 2*2 would still equal 4.

Anyhow, given that a chair is physical and God is not, the chair analogy breaks down rather quickly. My point, granted above, was that my personal experience warrants belief for me until such a time as I have a warranted cause to disbelieve that experience.

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.

Click to expand...

Then isn't your doubt also subject to the same worry? IE) if you believe yourself to be delusional, have you sought medical help? I mean, delusions aren't metaphysical things - they are legitimate disease of the mind. Go see a truly delusional person - someone suffering from clinical delusions - they are not, generally, lucid.

On what grounds did you conclude that you were delusional? If you were delusional, how could you trust the experiences / grounds that led you to think you were delusional?

Perhaps this would help: please define "delusional" as you're using it in this conversation.

Again, I have a disbelief in religion, not belief. I believe that all religions are wrong,

Click to expand...

You seriously don't see the contradiction / double standard in those two statements?

"I don't have belief because I BELIEVE all religions are wrong"

Your belief is that all religions are wrong. That's a belief. You even used the word "believe" as the verb for stating your view that all religions are wrong.

Why does your belief that religions are wrong get to play by one set of rules, but my belief that a religion (Christianity) is right have to play by another, much more rigorous, set of rules?

That's special pleading. Its the very fallacy you keep implying that we, as Christians, commit. Again, I'm sorry to call you out, but you're being a hypocrite here.

and I base that on the proof that there is no objective proof for religions.

Click to expand...

That's an actual logical fallacy - no joke. Its called an "argument from silence."

The absence of proof for something does not necessarily mean that said thing is false. For example, for millenia there was no "proof" available to human minds that black holes existed. Black holes still existed. The absence of available proof does NOT constitute a PROOF that the idea in question is false.

Your assertion that religions are false because of an absence of proof does not, in and of itself, work.

Also, see above for why the underlying epistomology here is self-defeating. You say that religions lack objective proof and are therefore false. Your statement, though, implies a major premise that ideas which lack objective proof are false. You cannot provide objective, airtight proof that the statement "ideas which lack objective proof are false" is, in fact, true. Therefore, according to your own argument, that statement is false and your conclusion (that all religions are false) cannot be warranted by the argument you are currently using.

Written as a syllogism, it would look like this:
P1: Ideas which lack objective proof are false
P2: Religions lack objective proof
C: Religions are false

Your conclusion works IF both premise one and two are warranted. I think both are absolutely false (and I'll attack premise two in a later post - again, see above), but premise one itself is also false. Without the statement "ideas which lack objective proof are false" your argument falls apart.

But there is no objective proof for premise one. Premise one, then, IF TRUE, must be FALSE (as there's no objective proof for it). That is, obviously, nonsense. Something cannot be True and Not True simultaneously (law of non-contradiction). Premise one, literally, contradicts itself. It is false. Without it, your argument fails.

Your conclusion may still very well be correct - but the argument you are currently using is, on an objective level, a failing argument.

Subjective proof alone is simply not enough to make something true, no matter how convincing it is.

Click to expand...

How do you know that statement is true?

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.

Click to expand...

And again, suddenly my experiences are invalidated and dismissed.

See above for why this appears to be highly hypocritical on your part.

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

Click to expand...

Excellent.

How can you explain a persons religious experience in any religion outside of Christianity?

Click to expand...

Any number of ways. Generally, I believe that while God has revealed the highest degree of Truth within Christianity (specifically Orthodox Christianity), that God has also been (and is) present and active in all cultures and all peoples. Their experiences of God are expressions of God's universal love for all people - something I fervently believe in.

I'm not a universalist, but neither am I an exclusivist (i.e. thinking that the Church, somehow, has a monopoly on grace). God does what God wills to do. If God wills to reach out to a Muslim, then praise God. If Buddhists are in heaven (and I really hope they are) then praise God.

Truth matters. But I'm not interested in invalidating others' experiences OR accusing them of being hell bound. That's a bunch of pride I just don't need.

I'm interested in doing the best I can with what light God HAS given me. Given how much I struggle to repent of even the smallest sin, that's plenty enough for a lifetime.

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?

Click to expand...

I dearly hope God is transcendent above our human errors and pettiness. Otherwise, even IF I'm right about Christianity, I'm still pretty well on the losing end of that deal as I am still, in many things, petty and in error.

And lest you think I'm going off the deep end away from Christianity, the view I'm expressing here has been WIDELY held by Christians for the last two millenia. The exclusivists (the type of Christian you seem to be more accustomed to arguing with, just based on some of the assumptions you appear to carry) are not the majority - in fact, they are a recent invention in the history of Christianity.

Christians believe in Truth. They believe it matters. They also believe God is merciful, and that God is love. Put those together and the fact that others have experiences of God isn't all that surprising. In fact, I'd be surprised if that DIDN'T happen.

In Christ,
Macarius

humblehumility said:

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.

Click to expand...

Scientology has only about 20,000 members, not millions. Further, it gets most of its recruits from Hollywood. People there have generally rotted their brains with alcohol, easy sex, and various recreational substances, so it's no surprise that many of them are willing to think Scientology is a good idea.

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...

Click to expand...

I strongly suspect that you at best skimmed a few of the articles and the book. If you read all of them, you'd know that what you say about them is flatly untrue.

humblehumility said:

According to God's own word, they won't be.



.

Click to expand...

Where does the Bible say Buddhist will not be in heaven?

humblehumility said:

I'm just not convinced anything in the Bible actually happened, and that takes Christianity out at it's knees.

Click to expand...

I think your already on your knees praying that people searching for answers aren't going to check. As a "prove it" minded person your goal would be to support your stand rather than just state it.

You'd have to explain how the Bible has stood the test of time both in ancient days as well as modern scrutiny. On 99% of these cases, you'd fail. If you'd like to dispute any of the info below, then please detail your objections....

Bible History & Archaeology Published by the Biblical Archaeology Society | Biblical Archaeology Review

Biblical Archeology

Associates for Biblical Research

How Do You Know The Bible Is True?

humblehumility said:

Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin
The shroud is from ~1200AD, nowhere near the death of Christ.

Click to expand...

Either the Shroud is not authentic and/or the dating method is flawed. After you see the mummeys of the world exhibit, you'll will definitely be a believer in the latter. R-C dating really sucks, except in the minds of those who have no experience with it.

humblehumility said:

Sorry, I wasn't trying to generalize. I was speaking of the multiple persons who are supporting something that has been clearly proven to be a fraud.

Click to expand...

Science can't prove anything about the past.
Past events are outside of the scientific method
and there is no procedure to cover them.

humblehumility said:

Delusions vary on different levels. Some people are so delusional they think they exist in another universe.

Click to expand...

That's to be expected. You know that.

So I used objective means (reality) and outside reasoning (science, debates, books) to gain the most accurate basis of atheism, and at that point did some personal evaluation and asked myself "Which is more of a delusional thought, atheism or Christianity?" As a whole, Christianity seems far more deluded (spirits guiding us, people being raised from the dead, constant worship&praise, "faith").

Click to expand...

We got that covered.
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

That only gets us part of the way, because IF Christianity is not true then it is far more deluded than atheism. If Christianity IS true, then atheism is far more deluded than theism/Christianity. That's where to sort through the delusion, I again used reality and outside reasoning to determine which side was more truthful.

Click to expand...

Of course you did:

Galatians 1:11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I ... ... Dear brothers and sisters, I want you to understand that the gospel
message I preach is not based on mere human reasoning. ...
//bible.cc/galatians/1-11.htm - 16k 2 Corinthians 10:4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons ...
... We use God's mighty weapons, not worldly weapons, to knock down the strongholds
of human reasoning and to destroy false arguments. ...
//bible.cc/2_corinthians/10-4.htm - 17k Matthew 21:25 John's baptism--where did it come from? Was it from ...
... authority to baptize come from heaven, or was it merely human?" They talked it ... what
source, from heaven or from men?" And they began reasoning among themselves ...
//bible.cc/matthew/21-25.htm - 17k

In the end, I came to the conclusion that Christianity makes bold, amazing, and miraculous claims while providing not the tiniest shred of actualized, real evidence.

Click to expand...

The "shred" is only the size of the Cosmos:

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible ... ... invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen,
being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. ...
//bible.cc/romans/1-20.htm - 18k

And for those millennia, people made no claims of black holes existing. We only claimed black holes might exist when we saw evidence that they should exist.

Click to expand...

Not accurate in the slightest.
Black holes started as a mathematical possibility with no evidence what so ever.
Now the theory has been changed to accommodate reality.

Now we have evidence that proves all conceivable theories to be rubbish so science has had to invent brand new
concepts to cover for gaps in our knowledge that we don't understand in the slightest.
http://universe-review.ca/F02-cosmicbg.htm

So God created a hierarchy of religions and placed Christianity at the top? Doesn't sound so fair to the lower classes.

Click to expand...

Actually, He made sure the message gets to everyone. No excuses now and forever - Amen

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible ... ... invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen,
being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. ...
//bible.cc/romans/1-20.htm - 18k

If you don't want to accuse them of it, that's fine. But it doesn't change that the doctrine of Christianity (God) does condemn them to hell.

Click to expand...

Sorry. No excuses.

A quick skim through the Old Testament will show you how "merciful" and "loving" God is to nonbelievers and those that turn from him. Do you have any explanations for the slaughters and killings in the OT? They seem to be completely contradictory to your views of Christianity.

Click to expand...

Those groups you speak of had a role and have been disbanded. History is chock full of sinners and their deeds. The Bible is an accurate history book.

Romans 3:12 All have turned away, they have together become ... ... They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. ...
//bible.cc/romans/3-12.htm - 16k

humblehumility said:

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Buddhists do not believe Jesus is God.

Click to expand...

They may well have faith in Creation which Jesus is responsible for, which is in their favor.

humblehumility said:

Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin



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

Click to expand...

Radiocarbon dating isn't always that accurate.

Radiocarbon dating
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf

Turin shroud test flawed
http://creation.com/focus-111

humblehumility said:

Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin



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

Click to expand...

Also, its not like your claim has proved it to be a fraud once and for all-they are still running tests on it; on the history channel they had a show called The Face of Jesus which was very compelling about 6 months ago. Even if it was proven to be a fraud as there are many people who have made phoneys of things-it would be irrelevant because there our mounds of archeological evidence that supports the bible anyway. My faith isn't at all founded on the shroud of turin-not even close.

humblehumility said:

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...

Click to expand...

Yes, I showed you.

humblehumility said:

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...

Click to expand...

http://www.historian.net/shroud.htm
http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/carbon14.htm
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2002/08/22/loc_shroud_of_turin.html

Its interesting what one can find on the internet.

All the religions at once can't be true because they are all fundamentally different. Its like saying something is white and black at the same time.

Are you a good person? www.livingwaters.com/good/
Can you keep the 10 commandments 100% of the time all the time? Only Jesus did. (This alone shows mankind that they have fallen short spiritually. This is a universal truth). No one is sinless or perfect.

humblehumility said:

Ok so let's say I've accepted the argument "'God' exists and created us". The next step is determining 'which God is it that created us?' People from all cultures over thousands of years have written down their description of the God they worship. Things from mainly monotheistic (edited) religions you should note (but some shared with polytheistic religions):

1. people from all religions deeply experience their God. Christians feel the Holy Spirit and Christ. Muslims feel Allah. Hindus feel Vishnu. Buddhists feel their inner spirit.
2. people from all religions see God create objective experiences for them (that is to say, all gods answer prayers of all religious people).
3. people from all religions rely on an ancient text or hearsay as their religious testimony/guideline
4. people from all religions have at least 1 idol in which they worship or administer supreme respect for
5. people in all monotheistic religions claim that their testimony is supreme over all others
6. people in all religions have hundreds, thousands, millions, or billions of followers

That being said: what separates Christianity from every other religion that's ever been invented by man?

Be careful with your words, and make sure that it can withstand the same level of evidence from any other religion out there. If you can't come up with a response, I think that is reasonable enough to ask you to question your faith until you come up with an answer.

Click to expand...

The bible has predicted several modern events that have come true.

- economic collapse

-The jews returning to israel

- THE INVENTION OF THE TRAIN!

- The bible said that the earth was round before science did.

Please explain how the "normal" writers of the bible who weren't scientists could know something that not even the smartest men in the world at the time could know .