the right religion

[1robin]

The existence of dark matter, like other theoretical entities in physics, is inferred from a body of evidence- since you were the one who mentioned dark matter; presumably you're aware that in this case it is gravitational effects on observable matter. And what we do in fact observe is what we would expect, if something having the properties of dark matter did indeed exist- gravitational effects, fluctuations in CMBR, and so on.

Yes we have indication that the gravitational force that is exhibited in the universe is greater than the sum of its material components. That is what we know. The theoretical concept that rectifies this discrepancy is labeled dark matter. There ends what we know. We don't even know what gravity is, dark matter is simply a label for an anomaly we can't explain at this time. It is also self-serving. Dark matter's greatest property (greatest among the ones we simply assigned it) is that it has gravitational effects similar to the matter we do know exists. That is quite a convenient idea. We know dark matter exists because gravity does and because we defined it as that which creates gravity. I also have said several times that I agree with the theory but acknowledge it as so general that it is almost useless at this time.

Now, can we say the same thing of the supernatural? That something like the supernatural- something having at least some of the properties attributed to the supernatural- should indeed exist, given what we do observe? Doesn't look like it- what observations imply something having the properties of the supernatural? Anecdotes of ghost sightings? Mystical experiences? Looks like your "exact match" is not really a match at all.

God is also a label for an anomaly. It's evidence is even better (far simpler and accessible) and is not something we don't understand like gravity. It is testimony, personal experience, and historical evidence. Virtually all NT scholars on both sides agree that 1. Jesus existed and had an unprecedented sense of divine authority, 2. The Romans crucified him, 3. The tomb was found empty, 4. The apostles experienced something soon after that transformed them from cowardly and reluctant witnesses into men willing to risk anything for the truth of a claim they knew the factual nature of. God and what was given in revelation is the best explanation of these facts.

Thanks for the advice, but I'll be fine. I did not flame or say anything inappropriate or even unreasonable- when someone says something as patently false as you did above, it seems charitable to assume that this was due to the influence of drugs or alcohol, rather than sloppy thinking.

You can't defend accusing someone of being on drugs because they do not agree with you. The fact you attempt it anyway is appalling. You have an insufficiency of evidence to make a determination like that, but as this is par for the course I won't elaborate further.

You need to re-read my reply, I wasn't suggesting you compared dark matter to the Gospel. You pointed out that the "quality of testimony" is a primary indicator of the reliability of historical testimony, and I asked you to apply this principle to the Gospels.

There is probably no issue in human history as studied and examined as the evidence for the Gospel claims. In fact there are probably no greater experts on testimony and evidence than Greenleaf and Lyndhurst and both claim that the Gospels meet every modern requirement for historical reliability and testimonial integrity. You can view an exhaustive discourse on this from Greenleaf here: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html

Right- which is why I said that it is curious we haven't even come across any reports of such documents ever having existed- we may not have the documents themselves, but perhaps they are mentioned in writings from the first few centuries when the documents were still available. The absence of any such documents constitutes negative evidence against the factuality of the Gospel accounts.

What? We have four author's in the Gospels, we have over 30 others if we include predictions and prophecies, there are over 40 extra biblical authors that record the extraordinary details about Christ or Christians. There are also at least 2 dozen accounts of Christ's miracles that did not make it into the Bible but were considered. How many do you feel you are entitled to demand from a period where writing was rare? Combine that with 5 million hits concerning the testimony for miracles and it becomes patently absurd to deny the supernatural unless you do what modern scholars do; pressume the supernatural does not exist and then read everything within that framework. Not even to mention the virtual necessity of the supernatural to explain reality as we know it. Nothing nature could possibly create the universe (nature did not exist) for example. Nothing in nature has ever even come close to showing that life can originate from non-life as another.

For one thing, this is a dubious bare assertion, and in any case, nobody claims that Caesar sprouted wings or had magical powers, or anything comparable to the events related in scripture- extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The arbitrary likely hood you assign "supernatural" events has no basis in
reason. There are thousands of times more textual evidence of the miraculous than for Caesars defeat of Versengeterix's 250,000 troops with Caesar’s 40,000. Miracles by definition are exceptions. Why do we have millions of claims to the exceptions and only a few surviving accounts of the above mentioned norm? Why is the less attested norm accepted and the more attested exception denied.
Continued below:

 

[1robin]

Well, but if we're just going to leave it up to the experts, we should mention the majority of Biblical scholars who have come to the same conclusion that I have, i.e. that the Gospels are likely not particularly factually accurate, were not written by the men whose names they bear, were likely constructed from the Gospel of Mark and the Q document, etc etc.

I do not believe that claim is accurate. However until you can provide scholarship from experts with credentials greater than Greenleaf, Lyndhurst, and NT wright you have done nothing to challenge their claims. I have no idea how it is you could even know what you claim. I know of thousands of statements like this that do not bare out what you said:
A leading scholar on the resurrection and apologist William Lane Craig reports,
There is a widespread consensus among New Testament critics that the disciples did see "appearances of Jesus" after his death, and a considerable number interpret these appearances in terms of the bodily resurrection and appearances of Jesus.5

And sloppy thinkers commit fallacies as easily as most of us breath air. (and then try to justify it with hollow statements like this)

When I do so then this might be relevant. Authority used in claims of evidence quality is not a fallacy.

Except, those experts actually give their testimony. The prosecution doesn't just say "oh yeah and then there's this guy, who's an expert, and he agrees with me, so there." If you want to bring expert testimony to bear on the issue- which you're right, is not itself fallacious at all- then tell us what these expert's arguments are- and their expertise will lend some additional credibility to the argument.

I have posted exactly what they stated in thousands of places and linked to them (as I did above) when they are too exhaustive to post. There is no argument possible that claims I do not post the reasons they have concluded what I claim they have. Here is another with statements by dozens of histories top scholars. http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/myredeemer/Evidencep29.html

But if you're just going to drop names of people who supposedly agree with you, this is a textbook appeal to authority fallacy, justify it however you like.

It might be if that is all I was willing to do, however saying that Newton believed X about calculus is not a fallacy (it is not intended to resolve the issue but gauge responses). I have to gauge time constraints with a posters attention, competence, and reasonability. I do this by giving a little info and then adding more as needed.

The point is that the damage to the credibility of Christianity, or the tendency towards anti-intellectualism, is not limited to Catholicism.

The argument can't be made that Christianity is only appealing to less intelligent people. The list of who's who in science was dominated by Christians until very modern times. A large portion of the actual fields themselves were began by Christians. Using some random things one man (Luther) said is in no way an equal claim to Catholicism’s vast history of distorting the Bible and their self justification by demanding tradition supersede scripture (unlike Luther). Catholicism has damaged Christianity more than any other group on an astronomical scale (and that includes non-Christian groups). That is not to say they do not have their bright moments and areas but of the damage done to the faith they are of the most prolific.

Try reading it once again- it will come to you.

Did and it didn't. Nothing Luther said even if equivalent would counter my statement about Catholicism. It is as if I said liberalism is bury the US in more debt than we will ever pay off and you saying "Oh yeah, Rush said X". That is not a counter argument.

As if it wasn't clear from the context, "ratio" is Latin for "reason".

Your contrived astonishment that I do not speak Latin is absurd. I would have looked it up if the argument its self was not so irrational.

I'd say the writings of Martin Luther are at least somewhat important to the protestant faith. Silly kid.

Yes his doctrinal stances and more importantly the cases he built on specific scripture are important. Every theological opinion he ever stated is not. Let me explain in more detail since it seems I must.
1. Catholicism claims Church doctrine (doctrines of men) supersedes scripture.
2. Luther asserted the exact opposite.
3. One man's statements are not an equivalent point to the statements and official actions of the entire Catholic church. Luther never ordered an inquisition (he even condemned just riots in his name). Luther never sold salvation indulgences (he opposed them). Luther never funded conquests that killed tens of thousands. Etc...
4. Luther’s doctrinal stances unlike Catholicism are based on scripture alone.
Arguments fall in categories. Your scientific ones I disagree with but are not irrational. Your historical ones IMO are wrong and invalid but are not outside the bounds of reason. Your philosophical statements are IMO incorrect but can't be called groundless. Your statements about theology (mainly Luther and Catholicism) are inapplicable, groundless, and equate vastly unequal things. They might have worked if I claimed something about protest-ism or Luther’s infallibility. I didn't.

 

[1robin]

I can't agree with you?

Thank goodness, familiar territory.

There is no such thing as "true" Hinduism. It is not a very common belief that there are more than one God it appears that way but there is only one God(Brahman). This is generally a universally known idea.

That makes my claims much easier to validate. Many Hindu's claim far more than one God exist.

Within Hinduism a large number of personal gods (Ishvaras) are worshipped as murtis. These beings are significantly powerful entities known as devas. The exact nature of belief in regards to each deity varies between differing Hindu denominations and philosophies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_deities

The Bhakti tradition offers an explanation for this complicated theology of millions of gods. The way it's explained is that in order to keep the universe running, Krishna, the supreme being, has put into place individuals that oversee different parts of the material universe. These individuals are powerful beings that have been appointed by Krishna and have been bestowed with the necessary powers and abilities to manage and govern their area of creation.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gadadhara-pandit-dasa/the-33-million-demigods-o_b_1737207.html

Given that you claim they are no less right than the ones who claim only one God then my claim stands. Hinduism is categorized as a pluralistic theology. If it did not posit more than one God why would it be called "plural"?

Ok and which two claims are those?

1. The cast system's justification within Hinduism. 2. Multiple God's.

Yes the things that happened after the British withdrawal were bad. But it was important for India to get out from under colonial rule. Colonial rule is never a good thing.

Many nations have been far better off under colonialism than on their own. Even our own colonies would never have survived if we had broken away from England earlier. Colonialism has it's share of problems but in many cases (India being one) the people are better off with it than without it.

Yes that is one of the many reasons Jesus is not the Jewish Messiah. There is no second coming of the Jewish Messiah that is Christian idea. The Jewish Messiah only comes once as a normal human being.

You are misunderstanding the argument. The scriptures about the reign of peace are either about Christ or someone else. Christians could be wrong but that is not what you said. You said they could not be about Christ because he did not establish this reign when he was here in the 1st century. That is untrue because Christians believe he will do so when he comes back. I am not arguing which messianic prophecy interpretation is true. I am saying your methodology is invalid in this instance.

I believe that was in fact the Romans. Show me that the majority of NT scholars regardless of their faith or non-faith apply Isaiah 53 to Jesus? Can you back this claim up?

Of course the Romans physically put Christ on the cross. However they did not want to and it was the public outcry and political intrigue by the Hebrews that led to Christ's death sentence even before the Romans were aware of the issue. Pilot did everything he could to dismiss Jesus but the threat of a riot by the Hebrews tied his hands. If you wish to debate what the NT scholars have determined it will take some time and so that will be all I have time for. I would rather get into Tyre but its your choice. BTW the Jewish interpretation for much of Isaiah is not of a man but of their nation.

Reading the Gospels is pretty clear that they thought Jesus would return during their lifetime and 2,000 years later he's still not here. I'll just keep waiting for his "inevitable" return.

Actually that only comes from one verse (that I can remember). I will grant it is a very complex verse and most scholars I am aware of claim it is a dual prophecy. The passage is beyond resolution in my opinion. I have never heard a satisfactory resolution to Luke 9:27. Many claim it is a statement about his ascension but I avoid any firm stance. That being said virtually al the rest of the future return prophecies make it clear that it many things must take place that haven't. IOW 99% of the prophecies make it clear his return was an event in the distant future.

Did you ignore what I quoted?

There is no quote possible that will change the fact that self-knowledge is core of what GOT claims. Self-knowledge beyond the fact that it condemns us is itself ridiculed in the NT. Every site I have ever read on Thomas makes this distinction.

Oh...sounds like a cool job.

At times it is but most of the time it is frustrating. I think we are always a technological step ahead of our competence.

I don't mind the length and that's quite an interesting story. Could you share these supernatural experiences.

I will give a few examples of the dozen or so I have had.
1. When saved the desire for certain habits I had unsuccessfully tried to break for several years instantly vanished. I could not stand to hear cursing even though I had cursed constantly the day before. 10 years of depression over the loss of my mother disappeared in an instant. 27 years of guilt I had no idea was even there was instantly gone (It was literally like a ton of spiritual weight vanished). etc..
2. I was feeling very sorry for something I did and stopped washing dishes to tell God I was sorry and I immediately hit the floor. I was in a state of perfect contentment lying in the kitchen floor for about 30 minutes and did not have the strength to stand.
3. This is similar to #2. I was praying in a circle with a few other people and felt God very strongly and then felt a jerk and heard a thump. The lady next to me had passed out. In my inexperience I assumed it was medical. Her husband stopped me from helping here and I later learned that is called being slain in the spirit.
4. I had a lady speak in tongues and another interpret it and they said things about me and a friend they had no way of knowing.
5. I struggled for years with a single doctrinal issue. Was salvation to be maintained by merit or was it grace from start to finish. I literally spent hours praying in the floor every week for several years about this. Twice I had an irrational desire to stop praying and turn on the TV. Both times the TV was on the Bible network and both times a preacher named Charles Stanley was on and speaking about this very topic. A third time I prayed in the parking lot of a Christian book store and told God that I would ask the first person I saw for a book on this subject. The first person I met recommended a book by Charles Stanly.
6. There have been many times that I felt God's presence but they are not as entertaining even if just as real.
7. Once I felt God on my way to friends and as I could not think of what I was to do nor why God showed up I decided to do something on my own. My friend was a chess expert (1800+ rating) and someone I had discussed God with many times though he was not a Christian. We had played a few hundred games of chess over the years. I had beaten him twice, however he was very drunk both times. He was not drinking at this time and I beat him terribly and he will still talk about the virtual perfection of the game I played to this day. He is now a believer though that game was only a very small part of his journey to faith.

I could give many more I witnessed and even ones from the other side of the spiritual issue but I always feel a little arrogant about claiming to have experienced God so I will leave it here for now.

 

[1robin]

I don't care if you read it or not, i only posted in the interest of the general public.

As for the result of kicking them out well it was nothing to do with kicking them out, it was a internal political struggle, the horrendous, bloody, and miserable state that you claim was never a result of the British leaving, more the after effect of the British being there in the first place. but that is not the topic.

I know very little about India's history but this particular segment of it is an exception. There was a minor Hindu/Muslim problem when the British controlled the area but no massive battles or general chaos from it. It was when Britain’s military peacekeeping influence was removed that this minor issue boiled over. The division of the land was the issue. That issue would not even have existed if the British had stayed. When their legal and political might was removed it created a power vacuum that put Hindu and Muslim people at each other’s throats. It became so bad they decided to live in separate areas and carved India up into what it is now and Pakistan. The economy tanked and chaos ruled for many years. Even Gandhi who had begun this movement regretted what it had resulted in and even threatened to starve himself to stop the bloodshed.

But if you say that India was worst off when the Christian British left, i would say that it was never better off when they were there, hence the sites i provided.

It was better in many ways. It did suffer some injustice from Britain’s colonial practices but that was virtually nothing compared with the civil war that they had because they kicked them out. History is full of times where a nation was far better off under the control of another. Mexico under Spain. The US under British rule for all of its early years and then under the European's rule from then until now (keep in mind I am a member of a Cherokee tribe). Gall under Rome. Australia under Britain. South Africa under Dutch and Britain rule (in fact most of Africa under any other rule at all). If I ruled the Congo, Chad, or the Sudan I would ask the US to rule over my nation. Etc.... Of course there are details in which they were worse off but in general they were far more stable and just under other rule.

 

[1robin]

Well your sentence makes no since do to poor grammar when you say "not X and"

I stink at grammer and claim so regularly, however I believe you are wrong here. "Not X" is a grammatically correct statement in logic and mathematics (Boolean algebra being an example). X is never the best example of X' (or not X). Look up logical laws for many examples.

 

[Philomath]

Many Hindu's claim far more than one God exist.
Within Hinduism a large number of personal gods (Ishvaras) are worshipped as murtis. These beings are significantly powerful entities known as devas. The exact nature of belief in regards to each deity varies between differing Hindu denominations and philosophies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_deities

That is true and depending on what denomination of Hinduism you follow the Devas can be a multitude of things.

The Bhakti tradition offers an explanation for this complicated theology of millions of gods. The way it's explained is that in order to keep the universe running, Krishna, the supreme being, has put into place individuals that oversee different parts of the material universe. These individuals are powerful beings that have been appointed by Krishna and have been bestowed with the necessary powers and abilities to manage and govern their area of creation.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gadadhara-pandit-dasa/the-33-million-demigods-o_b_1737207.html

That is the Vaishnava perspective. It's not the perspective I or several other Hindu denominations hold.

Given that you claim they are no less right than the ones who claim only one God then my claim stands. Hinduism is categorized as a pluralistic theology. If it did not posit more than one God why would it be called "plural"?

It is pluralistic in the sense that all beliefs about God can be see as valid. For instance Vaishnava's believe God incarnates himself into the world. Shavite's (a denomination I share similar beliefs with) believe God does not incarnate himself. Both beliefs are seen as valid.

1. The cast system's justification within Hinduism.

[youtube]49b6OVCN7-w[/youtube]
Frequently Asked Ques (FAQs) on Caste System & Hinduism : Mr Jay Lakhani - YouTube

2. Multiple God's.

Gods & Goddesses in Hinduism

Many nations have been far better off under colonialism than on their own. Even our own colonies would never have survived if we had broken away from England earlier. Colonialism has it's share of problems but in many cases (India being one) the people are better off with it than without it.

I'm not the most knowledgeable on India's history. I'll let Satyamavejayanti discuss that with you.

You are misunderstanding the argument. The scriptures about the reign of peace are either about Christ or someone else. Christians could be wrong but that is not what you said. You said they could not be about Christ because he did not establish this reign when he was here in the 1st century. That is untrue because Christians believe he will do so when he comes back. I am not arguing which messianic prophecy interpretation is true. I am saying your methodology is invalid in this instance.

They are not about Jesus, I thought I had made that clear? Christians may believe he will return and do so but that is not what the Jewish Messianic prophecy says, that is a Christian idea.

Of course the Romans physically put Christ on the cross. However they did not want to and it was the public outcry and political intrigue by the Hebrews that led to Christ's death sentence even before the Romans were aware of the issue. Pilot did everything he could to dismiss Jesus but the threat of a riot by the Hebrews tied his hands. If you wish to debate what the NT scholars have determined it will take some time and so that will be all I have time for. I would rather get into Tyre but its your choice. BTW the Jewish interpretation for much of Isaiah is not of a man but of their nation.

Alright I guess that will be a debate for another time then. I know that's the correct Jewish interpretation.

Actually that only comes from one verse (that I can remember). I will grant it is a very complex verse and most scholars I am aware of claim it is a dual prophecy. The passage is beyond resolution in my opinion. I have never heard a satisfactory resolution to Luke 9:27. Many claim it is a statement about his ascension but I avoid any firm stance. That being said virtually al the rest of the future return prophecies make it clear that it many things must take place that haven't. IOW 99% of the prophecies make it clear his return was an event in the distant future.

That is very debatable, but we can just keep waiting until his return

There is no quote possible that will change the fact that self-knowledge is core of what GOT claims. Self-knowledge beyond the fact that it condemns us is itself ridiculed in the NT. Every site I have ever read on Thomas makes this distinction.
At times it is but most of the time it is frustrating. I think we are always a technological step ahead of our competence.

*Shrugs* Ok then.

I will give a few examples of the dozen or so I have had.
1. When saved the desire for certain habits I had unsuccessfully tried to break for several years instantly vanished. I could not stand to hear cursing even though I had cursed constantly the day before. 10 years of depression over the loss of my mother disappeared in an instant. 27 years of guilt I had no idea was even there was instantly gone (It was literally like a ton of spiritual weight vanished). etc..
2. I was feeling very sorry for something I did and stopped washing dishes to tell God I was sorry and I immediately hit the floor. I was in a state of perfect contentment lying in the kitchen floor for about 30 minutes and did not have the strength to stand.
3. This is similar to #2. I was praying in a circle with a few other people and felt God very strongly and then felt a jerk and heard a thump. The lady next to me had passed out. In my inexperience I assumed it was medical. Her husband stopped me from helping here and I later learned that is called being slain in the spirit.
4. I had a lady speak in tongues and another interpret it and they said things about me and a friend they had no way of knowing.
5. I struggled for years with a single doctrinal issue. Was salvation to be maintained by merit or was it grace from start to finish. I literally spent hours praying in the floor every week for several years about this. Twice I had an irrational desire to stop praying and turn on the TV. Both times the TV was on the Bible network and both times a preacher named Charles Stanley was on and speaking about this very topic. A third time I prayed in the parking lot of a Christian book store and told God that I would ask the first person I saw for a book on this subject. The first person I met recommended a book by Charles Stanly.
6. There have been many times that I felt God's presence but they are not as entertaining even if just as real.
7. Once I felt God on my way to friends and as I could not think of what I was to do nor why God showed up I decided to do something on my own. My friend was a chess expert (1800+ rating) and someone I had discussed God with many times though he was not a Christian. We had played a few hundred games of chess over the years. I had beaten him twice, however he was very drunk both times. He was not drinking at this time and I beat him terribly and he will still talk about the virtual perfection of the game I played to this day. He is now a believer though that game was only a very small part of his journey to faith.

I could give many more I witnessed and even ones from the other side of the spiritual issue but I always feel a little arrogant about claiming to have experienced God so I will leave it here for now.

:bow: Thanks for sharing your experiences.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

there r many religion in the world, but surly there r only one right religion, but how could we reach the right believe, the right path?

Maybe all of them are wrong

 

[Sha'irullah]

I stink at grammer and claim so regularly, however I believe you are wrong here. "Not X" is a grammatically correct statement in logic and mathematics (Boolean algebra being an example). X is never the best example of X' (or not X). Look up logical laws for many examples.

I understand your usage of the word X but what you are trying to do is avoid questions by making a simplistic response beyond complex.

 

[Sha'irullah]

there r many religion in the world, but surly there r only one right religion, but how could we reach the right believe, the right path?

How would you know which is the right path?

 

[1robin]

I understand your usage of the word X but what you are trying to do is avoid questions by making a simplistic response beyond complex.

It was no less meaningful than the claim "the right religion is no religion" to which I was responding to. I have a bad habit of showcasing the lack of merit in a claim by making one with similar absurdities. However it was beyond simple not complex and was only meant to point out absurdity with absurdity. It alos is actually true which the original claim can't possibly be.

 

[Sha'irullah]

It was no less meaningful than the claim "the right religion is no religion" to which I was responding to. I have a bad habit of showcasing the lack of merit in a claim by making one with similar absurdities. However it was beyond simple not complex and was only meant to point out absurdity with absurdity. It alos is actually true which the original claim can't possibly be.

If no religion can be proven right then the only logical decision is to pick neither. You do not have to pick a religion.
Please explain to me why I must pick one first.
Then explain why that religion is right. Christianity is obviously wrong so do not say Christianity.

Logical fallacy is abundant in you along with unsubstantiated claims.

 

[ZooGirl02]

I believe that the only religion which is 100% correct on faith and morals is the Catholic Church. Other religions have part of the truth but not the whole truth.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I believe that the only religion which is 100% correct on faith and morals is the Catholic Church. Other religions have part of the truth but not the whole truth.

What are your claims to back this up?

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I believe that the only religion which is 100% correct on faith and morals is the Catholic Church. Other religions have part of the truth but not the whole truth.

The Catholics preach hate and intolerance, and go against common sense on a lot of issues. I made you a short list on the other thread... How can you say the have it all figured out?

 

[1robin]

That is true and depending on what denomination of Hinduism you follow the Devas can be a multitude of things.

Since you have finally agreed to exactly what I have been claiming the whole time then we can drop this issue hopefully.

That is the Vaishnava perspective. It's not the perspective I or several other Hindu denominations hold.

That is irrelevant to my claims. I said Hinduism contains many people that believe this and that is true.

It is pluralistic in the sense that all beliefs about God can be see as valid. For instance Vaishnava's believe God incarnates himself into the world. Shavite's (a denomination I share similar beliefs with) believe God does not incarnate himself. Both beliefs are seen as valid.

In the interest of time let's pretend I agree with this. Why would it be called polytheistic many times? That one is less used but is more specific. Since you agreed above that many Hindus believe in multiple deities the issue is resolved as far as I can see.

[youtube]49b6OVCN7-w[/youtube]
Frequently Asked Ques (FAQs) on Caste System & Hinduism : Mr Jay Lakhani - YouTube

[/font][/color]
Gods & Goddesses in Hinduism

Sorry, I am on a DOD server and can't watch video.

I'm not the most knowledgeable on India's history. I'll let Satyamavejayanti discuss that with you.

Ok.

They are not about Jesus, I thought I had made that clear? Christians may believe he will return and do so but that is not what the Jewish Messianic prophecy says, that is a Christian idea.

This is circular reasoning. You can't assume the nature of a thing and then claim that you know it's nature. The issue is anything but settled and in fact I would say many more Biblical scholars by far believe the passages are about Christ than any non-Christ messiah but that is hard to prove. The point is you have no basis for claiming to know that Christ is not who is referred to beyond assuming it. However my statement were about the reasons you gave not about your assumptions about who the prophecy concerns. I could tell Newton; "I thought I told you that calculus is all wrong" is that an argument.

Alright I guess that will be a debate for another time then. I know that's the correct Jewish interpretation.

I agree that is how many Jews interpret the verses and always have. I did give a very possible motivation for their claims but I will drop it there. This has nothing to do with the discussion. I am not bound by Jewish scholarship alone and I think it very flawed.

That is very debatable, but we can just keep waiting until his return

Of course it is debatable and that is exactly the point. Claiming what Jewish people think is not an argument was my point.

*Shrugs* Ok then. [/font][/color]

Look up Gnosticism. It is a very well quantified and historically understood issue.

Thanks for sharing your experiences.

It is kind of my job I guess. For what they are worth. I will add there are no parallels concerning the spiritual claims, nor offers, that Christianity makes concerning experiencing God. Others have minor similarities but Christianity is by far (I mean far) the most expressive about offering and even demanding contact with God for every single Christian on Earth and in history. All other religions seem to be focused on man reaching God through some ceremony, merit, “secret knowledge”, Knowing yourself, or status and may mention spiritual events as a distant 2nd at best. Christianity focuses on God’s attempts to reach man and the spiritual is primary and mandatory. The former is what a false religion should claim and looks like what man invents and seems set up to be impossible to disprove until it is too late. The latter is the one thing no false religion should ever claim and is immediately verifiable personally. For example the apostles if desiring to invent a false belief could easily have said Christ rose spiritually. No one was expecting a bodily resurrection. However they went the very very hard route. They said he rose bodily out of the grave. Why invent a claim that is empirically verifiable. There were guards at the tomb. Both the Romans and then Hebrews had a vested interest in being sure the body was secure yet the claim was it no longer is in the tomb. Why go that absurdly easily disproved route instead of the very easy one readily available if a lie was the goal. There are hundreds of cases of this.

 

[1robin]

If no religion can be proven right then the only logical decision is to pick neither. You do not have to pick a religion.
Please explain to me why I must pick one first.
Then explain why that religion is right. Christianity is obviously wrong so do not say Christianity.

Logical fallacy is abundant in you along with unsubstantiated claims.

For some reason recently it seems virtually impossible to get folks to keep my statement in the same context they were given in. I never said we must choose a religion. In fact God himself in the Bible gives you the freedom to deny all God's and theology as you wish. Not that my statements had anything to do with that. My statement was that the right religion can't possibly be no religion. That is a logical absurdity and had nothing whatever to do with whether we should or could pick no religion. I also never even attempted to prove Christianity was right in what you responded to. This stripping of context and substituting new and inapplicable contexts is getting out of hand. I can explain why Christianity is the most likely to be true of the major theologies but was not doing so. Your claims about fallacy were even less applicable and relevant than the rest of your post if that is possible. There were not even any potential fallacies in what you responded to. If you meant from another post then until you tell me what post the claim is worse than meaningless. My claims are only meant to do what I employ them to. If I gave you a dog for hunting is complaining you can't ride him worth the effort of typing.

 

[1robin]

I believe that the only religion which is 100% correct on faith and morals is the Catholic Church. Other religions have part of the truth but not the whole truth.

I half way agree with you. If you had not said Catholicism but instead Christianity I could have let it slide but Catholicism as it has existed in Papal decree, indulgences, excommunication, conquests, and inquests is indefensible. Where is agrees with scripture I agree it is right. However It Popes even when in infallible mode have made mutually exclusive "infallible claims" their history is one long sad tale of the doctrines of man being preferred over the doctrine of God. While there are many good Catholic practices I regard their influence as the most destructive to true Christianity, bar none in history. The worst most black events of Christian history were presided over by Catholicism.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Protestant Christianity is not without it's horrific moment as well. Let's see, there's the Salem witch trials, forced conversion during the African diaspora, calculated bombings of abortion clinics, public outrage against equality for gays, killings perpetrated by the KKK in the name of Jesus, the Laramie incident, the oppression of Northern Ireland, need I go on?

 

[Philomath]

In the interest of time let's pretend I agree with this. Why would it be called polytheistic many times? That one is less used but is more specific. Since you agreed above that many Hindus believe in multiple deities the issue is resolved as far as I can see.

Hinduism is perceived to be polytheistic by outsiders because of the misunderstanding of what the gods actually are.

This is circular reasoning. You can't assume the nature of a thing and then claim that you know it's nature. The issue is anything but settled and in fact I would say many more Biblical scholars by far believe the passages are about Christ than any non-Christ messiah but that is hard to prove. The point is you have no basis for claiming to know that Christ is not who is referred to beyond assuming it. However my statement were about the reasons you gave not about your assumptions about who the prophecy concerns. I could tell Newton; "I thought I told you that calculus is all wrong" is that an argument.

Ok you keep claiming that "more Biblical scholars by far believe the passages are about Christ than any non-Christ messiah" but you've yet to produce any evidence for it. My basis for claiming to know that Jesus is not the Messiah is because he did not fulfill the Messianic requirements. We are clearly not going to get anywhere on this issue.

I agree that is how many Jews interpret the verses and always have. I did give a very possible motivation for their claims but I will drop it there. This has nothing to do with the discussion. I am not bound by Jewish scholarship alone and I think it very flawed.

Of course you as a Christian will think Jewish scholarship is flawed and biased when it rejects Jesus as the Messiah.

Of course it is debatable and that is exactly the point. Claiming what Jewish people think is not an argument was my point.

It is an argument. What the Jewish people think is the most important thing considering it is their religion after all. You would think the Jews would be the most knowledgeable about their own religion.

It is kind of my job I guess. For what they are worth. I will add there are no parallels concerning the spiritual claims, nor offers, that Christianity makes concerning experiencing God. Others have minor similarities but Christianity is by far (I mean far) the most expressive about offering and even demanding contact with God for every single Christian on Earth and in history. All other religions seem to be focused on man reaching God through some ceremony, merit, “secret knowledge”, Knowing yourself, or status and may mention spiritual events as a distant 2nd at best. Christianity focuses on God’s attempts to reach man and the spiritual is primary and mandatory. The former is what a false religion should claim and looks like what man invents and seems set up to be impossible to disprove until it is too late. The latter is the one thing no false religion should ever claim and is immediately verifiable personally. For example the apostles if desiring to invent a false belief could easily have said Christ rose spiritually. No one was expecting a bodily resurrection. However they went the very very hard route. They said he rose bodily out of the grave. Why invent a claim that is empirically verifiable. There were guards at the tomb. Both the Romans and then Hebrews had a vested interest in being sure the body was secure yet the claim was it no longer is in the tomb. Why go that absurdly easily disproved route instead of the very easy one readily available if a lie was the goal. There are hundreds of cases of this.

*Yawn* another "Christianity is the one true religion post". Christianity is not the only religion that "God attempts to reach man and the spiritual is primary and mandatory". Other religion can make and have made that same exact claim. The apostles have a story for which there's no evidence for. Where's the evidence of Jesus resurrecting from the dead? Some Christians so interpret his resurrection as a spiritual one rather than a physical one.

 

[1robin]

Protestant Christianity is not without it's horrific moment as well. Let's see, there's the Salem witch trials, forced conversion during the African diaspora, calculated bombings of abortion clinics, public outrage against equality for gays, killings perpetrated by the KKK in the name of Jesus, the Laramie incident, the oppression of Northern Ireland, need I go on?

I agree that Protestantism is a far cry from perfect but it's failures have no comparison with Catholicism's on any level. The witch trials killed maybe a dozen. The inquisition alone killed thousands. However to get to the truly horrific genocides and mass murders there is no comparison with the atheistic utopias and evolutionary based racial supremacy regimes. There are at least a thousand deaths that derived from Stalin's atheistic driven ideals alone for every one abortion clinic death. Probably ten thousand to one. There are currently more people killed in any given month in more than one atheist utopia than were killed in the entire history of the KKK. Which by the way began as a response to Northern militant aggression in the wake of the civil war and had nothing to do with race. There is only one argument to these claims and it is a very bad one, but I will await it before I point out it's faults. In fact unlike what another person claimed it does not appear that the best religion is no religion. It appears that the worst religion is no religion.