The Absolute Truth

[sojourner]

Well, let's try to follow the thread.

Me:
Can you honestly deny that Christians believe Christianity is the True Religion and religions such as Islam, Hinduism, and even Bahai are False Religions?

You:
Some Christians certainly do. But the preponderance of the religion — including those with spiritual authority — don’t make that kind of judgment about other religions.

Above you commented that spiritual authorities don't make that kind of judgment about other religions. Specifically that their religion is the True religion and the others are not.

But, in fact, spiritual leaders and lay people do believe the other religions are not the True religion. To that point I wrote: Then it should be easy to list prominent Christians who believe Muhammad is a true Messenger and Allah is the True God.

You didn't/couldn't. So instead, you reworded it to "but most Christian leaders I know would say that Muhammed is a true messenger for Islam". Yes, for Islam. But that wasn't the context, was it? I would agree that most people agree that, for Muslims, Muhammad represents a true Messenger. However, that was not the question. The question was Do Christians believe Muhammed is a True Messenger and do Christians believe that the god (Allah) he represents, is the True God.

I think it's a dicey question. I think most mainstream Christian authorities would say that Allah and God and YHVH represent the same deity. I think most would also say that the deity is worshiped differently. I further think most would say that each tradition is valid for the people who call themselves members of each tradition. Xy is valid for Christians. Judaism is valid for Jews. Islam is valid for Muslims.

The question is dicey, because I think most mainstream clergy have a much broader theological view than the average person in the pews, and the average non-churchgoer. Most pew-sitters would likely say that only Xy is the true religion. Most clergy don't go that narrow. That's because clergy tend to be trained to view religious mythology as archetypes, metaphor and allegory, and are better equipped to see the larger picture of how each mythological system provides valid metaphors for very universal spiritual themes. Many pew-sitters tend to view religious mythology as fact. BUT, I think we have to remember that the religion is defined by the spiritual authorities who write the doctrines and preach the theology, not by the average pew-sitter. I think most theologians would be very careful about mixing those metaphors, which is why I say that they would say Xy is valid for Christians. The metaphor mixing only muddies the theological waters. So, when you use the term "Christianity," do you mean the clergy, or the average pew-sitter?

 

[shunyadragon]

Uh huh. "Anecdotal he said", "maybe he said". If I thought it was worth the time, I would go back and find the threads and the authors and the specific comments.

Nevertheless, the type of comments I got back then supporting the knowledge of the writers were just as vague and meaningless as yours today:

• It is likely
• exact wording was likely handed down
• The family was the main transmission

In other words, you don't know. In other words, there is no actual support in the writings showing sources.
When I say your religion is just like others, this is a good example. Christians cannot say how anyone recorded the exact words from the Sermon on the Mount; Bahais cannot say how anyone recorded the exact words spoken between Ballula and the high Government officials. You believe because you don't question anything. You believe because you want to believe. Then you criticize me for pointing it out.

Your making more; he said, but no, he said, 'arguing from ignorance.' which is meaningless and not a coherent argument.

Yes in cases like this particularly if you have writing important accounts for literate participants can very well be handed down literally, particularly when there is only three generations involved.

 

[shunyadragon]

No. That's not what they say. You're the one giving the selective misrepresentation. I used to be RCC. I know what they say. Yes, that's what the doctrine says. But that's not how it works in the field. RC clergy are highly respectful of other clergy. In my own town, the RC bishop allowed the Episcopal diocese to hold their diocesan assembly in the RC cathedral, use their altar for Eucharist, etc. That wouldn't have happened if the RCC didn't hold them in high esteem spiritually. The RCC and my own denomination have been in conversation for years about reconciling. That wouldn't happen if the RCC didn't hold my denomination in high spiritual esteem. You're absolutely wrong on this point, no matter what the doctrine says.

I cited directly from a reference, your are still citing anecdotal second and third person accounts, and no reliable references to back up your arguments.

 

[sojourner]

I cited directly from a reference, your are still citing anecdotal second and third person accounts, and no reliable references to back up your arguments.

I know what I hear time and time again from priests, bishops, and other members of the clergy. Anecdotal or not, that’s the buzz in professional circles. I really don’t care what’s written; it often doesn’t reflect what’s really said and believed. The Faith is written, but you, yourself don’t believe it; you’re not of the Faith. What difference does it really make what’s written? The only evidence written provides is that something was written, not that what’s written is what’s practiced.

 

[shunyadragon]

I know what I hear time and time again from priests, bishops, and other members of the clergy. Anecdotal or not, that’s the buzz in professional circles. I really don’t care what’s written; it often doesn’t reflect what’s really said and believed. The Faith is written, but you, yourself don’t believe it; you’re not of the Faith. What difference does it really make what’s written? The only evidence written provides is that something was written, not that what’s written is what’s practiced.

I cited directly from a reference, your are still citing anecdotal second and third person accounts, and no reliable references to back up your arguments.

The buzz in professional sources is indeed anecdotal subjective second and third person testimony, and subject to group confirmation bias as cited in the description..

As you said, 'individual can believe anything.'

 

[sojourner]

I cited directly from a reference, your are still citing anecdotal second and third person accounts, and no reliable references to back up your arguments.

The buzz in professional sources is indeed anecdotal subjective second and third person testimony, and subject to group confirmation bias as cited in the description..

As you said, 'individual can believe anything.'

I only know what I directly hear people say they believe. At some point, you have to trust that what the clergy say they believe is what they believe.

I have to wonder (using your reasoning) how much of the gospels is anecdotal? How much of what Bahaulla said is anecdotal? How much of what your idolized Pat Robertson says is anecdotal? How much of written doctrine is anecdotal?

We’re not talking about science here, we’re talking about what people believe. Belief is largely anecdotal. What’s the problem?

 

[ecco]

"Number of followers" =/= "mainstream." Many people watch Jerry Springer, too, but that doesn't mean his programming is in good taste. "Mainstream" means "recognized denominations with a history of middle of the road theology. The Anglican Communion is such a body. So is the RCC. Kenneth Carter is the head of the United Methodist Church. Eaton is head of the ELCA. These are all mainstream bodies, whose theology is mainstream. Joel Osteen preaches a non-tradtional prosperity gospel and leads a non-denominational group, meaning that his credentials are questionable. Graham has taken his father's ministry and completely bastardized it. Also not theologically in the mainstream.

Again, if you're really that interested in finding out what these spiritual leaders have to say about the validity of Islam and Hinduism, I'm sure there's plenty to feed your curiosity. If you're not really interested, you won't look. I think you're mostly interested in creating an argument, and I'm not going to feed that monster.

Stop trying to duck, dodge and evade.

You still have been unable to quote one of your mainstream Christian religious leaders say that Hinduism is the True religion and Christianity is not.

You still have been unable to quote one of your mainstream Christian religious leaders say that Islam is the True religion and Christianity is not.

 

[ecco]

I think it's a dicey question. I think most mainstream Christian authorities would say that Allah and God and YHVH represent the same deity.

You keep making assertions. You keep failing to show any support for those assertions.

I think most would also say that the deity is worshiped differently. I further think most would say that each tradition is valid for the people who call themselves members of each tradition. Xy is valid for Christians. Judaism is valid for Jews. Islam is valid for Muslims.

Of course, it's valid for each tradition. No one disputes that. But that is the core issue. Christians believe Christianity is the True religion. Muslims believe Islam if the True religion. Christians do not believe that Islam is a True religion.

The question is dicey, because I think most mainstream clergy have a much broader theological view than the average person in the pews, and the average non-churchgoer. Most pew-sitters would likely say that only Xy is the true religion. Most clergy don't go that narrow. That's because clergy tend to be trained to view religious mythology as archetypes, metaphor and allegory, and are better equipped to see the larger picture of how each mythological system provides valid metaphors for very universal spiritual themes. Many pew-sitters tend to view religious mythology as fact. BUT, I think we have to remember that the religion is defined by the spiritual authorities who write the doctrines and preach the theology, not by the average pew-sitter. I think most theologians would be very careful about mixing those metaphors, which is why I say that they would say Xy is valid for Christians. The metaphor mixing only muddies the theological waters. So, when you use the term "Christianity," do you mean the clergy, or the average pew-sitter?

Pick whomever you choose. Pick from the "most mainstream clergy [that] have a much broader theological view than the average person in the pews. Quote the Christians from among them stating Christians believe Islam is the True religion. Quote the Muslims from among them stating Muslims believe Christianity is the True religion.

No more ducking and dodging and evading.

 

[ecco]

Yes in cases like this particularly if you have writing important accounts for literate participants can very well be handed down literally, particularly when there is only three generations involved.

The point is that you want to / need to believe they were handed down. Because that's all you've got. You have no evidence for that belief.
The point is that you want to / need to believe they were somehow accurately recorded. Because that's all you've got. You have no evidence for that belief.



ETA: It's hypocritically funny that you would criticize someone else for doing the same thing.

I cited directly from a reference, your are still citing anecdotal second and third person accounts, and no reliable references to back up your arguments.

 

[shunyadragon]

The point is that you want to / need to believe they were handed down. Because that's all you've got. You have no evidence for that belief.

The point is that you want to / need to believe they were somehow accurately recorded. Because that's all you've got. You have no evidence for that belief.

There is no evidence either way, and no evidence to justify your selective conclusion that there is even a problem.

ETA: It's hypocritically funny that you would criticize someone else for doing the same thing.

No, the problem is you are drawing negative conclusions for something where there is no evidence for you to reach your hypothetical conclusion for which there is no evidence.

The best primary source, considering the culture and family links is that stories are hand down in writing or orally considering the very close relationship of those involved.

 

[sojourner]

Stop trying to duck, dodge and evade.

You still have been unable to quote one of your mainstream Christian religious leaders say that Hinduism is the True religion and Christianity is not.

You still have been unable to quote one of your mainstream Christian religious leaders say that Islam is the True religion and Christianity is not.

??? I never tried to say that.

 

[sojourner]

You keep making assertions. You keep failing to show any support for those assertions.

What kind of information do you require? I’ve never claimed that these are official stances; they’re merely the opinions of people in charged with whom I’ve communicated.

Christians do not believe that Islam is a True religion.

I’m a Christian. I believe it’s a valid religion. Or do you require some sort of support for the assertion that I’m a Christian?

Quote the Christians from among them stating Christians believe Islam is the True religion

I never made that claim.

Quote the Muslims from among them stating Muslims believe Christianity is the True religion.

I never made that claim either.

 

[sojourner]

The best primary source, considering the culture and family links is that stories are hand down in writing or orally considering the very close relationship of those involved.

Wait... isn’t that what I’m claiming? That the anecdotes have been passed on orally? But somehow that’s not good enough for you?

 

[shunyadragon]

Wait... isn’t that what I’m claiming? That the anecdotes have been passed on orally? But somehow that’s not good enough for you?

No. I am not referring to anecdotes passed on orally, you are.

 

[sojourner]

No. I am not referring to anecdotes passed on orally, you are.

Stories handed down orally =/= beliefs passed on by word of mouth?

I see oral communication between speaker and listener. I see information that is belief-oriented. It all seems anecdotal, which you seem to have a problem with.

 

[shunyadragon]

Stories handed down orally =/= beliefs passed on by word of mouth?

I see oral communication between speaker and listener. I see information that is belief-oriented. It all seems anecdotal, which you seem to have a problem with.

Yes all anecdotal I have a problem, and give only limited creedance in the anecdotal, if that. The most likely is just accepting the anecdotal as the personal perspective of what people believe as individuals

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes all anecdotal I have a problem, and give only limited creedance in the anecdotal, if that. The most likely is just accepting the anecdotal as the personal perspective of what people believe as individuals

In this case no, as I said before Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l baha, and Shoghi Effendi are related as grandfather, father and son. They are intimate in their life, literate, and kept diaries. It is unlikely that their communications were anecdotal and were likely writtentutered, and instructed father to son as was the tradition. The testimonial especially written, like of these three men are adequate for a court of law.

 

[sojourner]

In this case no, as I said before Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l baha, and Shoghi Effendi are related as grandfather, father and son. They are intimate in their life, literate, and kept diaries. It is unlikely that their communications were anecdotal and were likely writtentutered, and instructed father to son as was the tradition. The testimonial especially written, like of these three men are adequate for a court of law.

Oh, so what a dead guy may have said a long time ago is credible. What I am saying now isn’t.

Because you say so.

Gotcha.

 

[shunyadragon]

Oh, so what a dead guy may have said a long time ago is credible. What I am saying now isn’t.

Because you say so.

Gotcha.

Gotcha your own butt!

As far as the degree of objectivity it depends on the documentation and historical references for the degree of objectivity and reliability. We are not talking about history, and we are talking about what churches teach and people believe in the contemporary world, In the case of the present discussion the problem of your second and third hand anecdotal references versus your total lack of references to back up your argument is a sufficient problem.

 

[shunyadragon]

The point is that you want to / need to believe they were handed down. Because that's all you've got. You have no evidence for that belief.
The point is that you want to / need to believe they were somehow accurately recorded. Because that's all you've got. You have no evidence for that belief.



ETA: It's hypocritically funny that you would criticize someone else for doing the same thing.

​

I do not need to believe anything of the sort.

Your not hypothetically funny, your tragically hypothetical and anecdotal, and ah . . . avoiding responding to the substance of my posts.