the right religion

[I.S.L.A.M617]

That is because I am hoping I will not have to. Actually I have learned to save time by only providing evidence when requested. Which claim do you want evidence for?

That there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for Julius Caesar. Don't let that stop you from proving that Jesus is the most textually backed person in history in the other thread, though.

 

[Muffled]

Perhaps that was the point. To try.

To struggle to be as perfect as your father in heaven is perfect. It is through this struggle that you are rewarded.

I look at it as a parent and their child. The child brings home a drawing, the drawing isn't perfect, it is faulty, and it's not colored in the lines, but the parent still cherishes the attempt. Because they know that the child isn't perfect but the child is willing to try. That seems to me what Judaism is about and what Christanity is about because end of the day the God that Christianity follows to is the same God that gave those "seemingly impossible to follow" rules to Judaism.

However i believe it is not a religion that brings a person into right relationship with God. I will grant that it is the goal to achieve and it has to be done to some extent for the person to achieve it but until it is achieved the person is out of right relationship with God.

I beleive it is not what Judaism is about or Christianity but it is what Islam is about. It was always intended for the Jewish people to follow God and the law was only provided because they were not able. Christianity makes God available to everyone and achieves what the Jewish people were not able to do.

 

[Muffled]

Because gurus are real people.

So was Hitler.

 

[Muffled]

1. Yes I'll definitely read about that whenever I get a chance.

2. There do exist miracles and prophecies yes, but they are not the prerequisite of a prophet according to Sikhi. We believe that anyone could do miracles (predictions etc) with spiritual experiences but our goal is to achieve something higher than that, union with God. Sikhi does reject performing miracles for showcase but the ones performed by Gurus were parts of lessons and neccesities. Even our scripture Guru Granth sahib is not a book with predictions BUT a guide to humanity on how to merge back with God and how to lead a truthful life here on earth.
It has a different approach than Christianity, we focus more on what we can do instead of focussing on things that won't help humanity directly. But yes they do exist.

I believe we focus on what God wants us to do. I believe that is right religion and the things we can do is not.

 

[1robin]

That there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for Julius Caesar. Don't let that stop you from proving that Jesus is the most textually backed person in history in the other thread, though.

I have never had to defend the proposition you are challenging. I am never asked to. I have had to defend a very similar one, the textual comparison between the Bible and every other work in ancient history. I will use those same facts to do what you asked for. I realized very quickly that it would be very very involved to go through the pedigree of the various texts for Caesar so I will only compare the primary works for each person and add a few facts along the way.

The primary work that is used to establish what who Caesar was and did is the Gallic Wars. It was written by him. The primary texts used to establish who Jesus was are the Gospels and Paul. Many more exist but as I said I am only going to compare primary sources since to go through everything is just not something that can fit in a post.

The Gallic Wars

1. Author: 1; Caesar.

2. Purpose: All previous Roman leaders had extensive military backgrounds and that was the primary factor that led to their being named as leaders. Caesar did not. Before he could hope to accomplish anything politically he needed to accomplish something militarily. Accordingly he took off to Gall to fight the Germanic tribes there. He was a very good general but he was an even better propagandist. In summary his books purpose was for him to make himself look good to Rome. That is a very suspicious motive.

3. When written: 50-58 BC

4. Total copies currently known: 10

5. Oldest copy known: Written in 1000AD.

The Gospels

1. Authors: 4; Debated (primarily in German redaction scholarship) but as this link shows the traditional authors are more than likely the true sources. There exist no competing authors for any and no claims by the traditional authors that suggest they did not write them.
Blue Letter Bible - FAQs :: The Authors of Scripture

2. Purpose: To record the life and events that surround Jesus of Nazareth. Designed to use multiple attestation and to be appropriate to different audiences. Each author concentrated on the events that his audience would find the most meaningful. Multiple attestation is a very powerful advantage and not a common one in ancient history.

3. When written: Debated (again mostly by German redactionists and revisionists). Good reason exists to suggest all were written before 70AD but certainly in the 1st century. Well within the lifetimes of the authors and eyewitnesses. Paul would be prior to 50Ad but I am only using the Gospels.

4. Total copies currently known: 20,000. That is just the Greek and Latin early copies. %,500 manuscripts, 14,500 partials.

5. Oldest copies known: Oldest manuscript: 325AD. Oldest fragments 125AD

There are other works that justify mention.

For Caesar there are mentions in several histories (12 I could find) from early AD times: 100-300AD

For Christ there are over 40 authors that mention him or the explosion of the faith based on him written immediately after his death. Between 40 and 200 years after. 1 even records a miracle.

Christ also has many non-inspired works like Gospel of Thomas, protovelum of James, Apocalypse of Peter, Infancy Gospel of Mary, and many more. Some of these sources are heretical but we are discussing only the existence of Christ in history not the details concerning his life. There are additional texts for Christ and at least an addition poem about Caesar but my main contention lies in the dates associated with the primary sources above.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

So was Hitler.

Your point?

 

[Ashoka]

Your point?

It's a logical fallacy, I just forget the name xD We went over these last semester, gahhh.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I have never had to defend the proposition you are challenging. I am never asked to. I have had to defend a very similar one, the textual comparison between the Bible and every other work in ancient history. I will use those same facts to do what you asked for. I realized very quickly that it would be very very involved to go through the pedigree of the various texts for Caesar so I will only compare the primary works for each person and add a few facts along the way.

The primary work that is used to establish what who Caesar was and did is the Gallic Wars. It was written by him. The primary texts used to establish who Jesus was are the Gospels and Paul. Many more exist but as I said I am only going to compare primary sources since to go through everything is just not something that can fit in a post.

The Gallic Wars

1. Author: 1; Caesar.

2. Purpose: All previous Roman leaders had extensive military backgrounds and that was the primary factor that led to their being named as leaders. Caesar did not. Before he could hope to accomplish anything politically he needed to accomplish something militarily. Accordingly he took off to Gall to fight the Germanic tribes there. He was a very good general but he was an even better propagandist. In summary his books purpose was for him to make himself look good to Rome. That is a very suspicious motive.

3. When written: 50-58 BC

4. Total copies currently known: 10

5. Oldest copy known: Written in 1000AD.

The Gospels

1. Authors: 4; Debated (primarily in German redaction scholarship) but as this link shows the traditional authors are more than likely the true sources. There exist no competing authors for any and no claims by the traditional authors that suggest they did not write them.
Blue Letter Bible - FAQs :: The Authors of Scripture

2. Purpose: To record the life and events that surround Jesus of Nazareth. Designed to use multiple attestation and to be appropriate to different audiences. Each author concentrated on the events that his audience would find the most meaningful. Multiple attestation is a very powerful advantage and not a common one in ancient history.

3. When written: Debated (again mostly by German redactionists and revisionists). Good reason exists to suggest all were written before 70AD but certainly in the 1st century. Well within the lifetimes of the authors and eyewitnesses. Paul would be prior to 50Ad but I am only using the Gospels.

4. Total copies currently known: 20,000. That is just the Greek and Latin early copies. %,500 manuscripts, 14,500 partials.

5. Oldest copies known: Oldest manuscript: 325AD. Oldest fragments 125AD

There are other works that justify mention.

For Caesar there are mentions in several histories (12 I could find) from early AD times: 100-300AD

For Christ there are over 40 authors that mention him or the explosion of the faith based on him written immediately after his death. Between 40 and 200 years after. 1 even records a miracle.

Christ also has many non-inspired works like Gospel of Thomas, protovelum of James, Apocalypse of Peter, Infancy Gospel of Mary, and many more. Some of these sources are heretical but we are discussing only the existence of Christ in history not the details concerning his life. There are additional texts for Christ and at least an addition poem about Caesar but my main contention lies in the dates associated with the primary sources above.

Mentions of Christianity are not the same thing as mentions of Jesus, the man, and shouldn't be included. There are plenty texts about Christianity that do not mention the name Jesus once.

 

[1robin]

Mentions of Christianity are not the same thing as mentions of Jesus, the man, and shouldn't be included. There are plenty texts about Christianity that do not mention the name Jesus once.

They were not included except as a foot note and even some of those footnoted mention Christ directly. My primary claims were designated as such but as I said I was going to throw in various things to indicate much more exists. It is also kind of hard to remove Christ from a very early work that mentions an explosion of Christianity but that was only a part of a foot note I gave as a bonus.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

They were not included except as a foot note and even some of those footnoted mention Christ directly. My primary claims were designated as such but as I said I was going to throw in various things to indicate much more exists. It is also kind of hard to remove Christ from a very early work that mentions an explosion of Christianity but that was only a part of a foot note I gave as a bonus.

Again, "Christ" and "Jesus" could be two separate entities. Before the name Jesus was ever recorded, there was already talk of "Christ". People referring to "Chrestus" are not definitely referring to Jesus of Nazareth; that much is implied through assumption. I think a person was invented to give a human face to the mythical "Christ" figure. So far I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

However i believe it is not a religion that brings a person into right relationship with God. I will grant that it is the goal to achieve and it has to be done to some extent for the person to achieve it but until it is achieved the person is out of right relationship with God.

I beleive it is not what Judaism is about or Christianity but it is what Islam is about. It was always intended for the Jewish people to follow God and the law was only provided because they were not able. Christianity makes God available to everyone and achieves what the Jewish people were not able to do.

But you still have to try.

Faith without works is useless.

I think Paul understood that, but for Paul he needed faith to be the end all be all. He had done so much wrong to Christians in his mind and whatever his affliction was that he felt there was no way that he could actually be redeemed for them. So faith makes sense, because there what you did in the past "doesn't matter" because you believe.

I wonder though if he ever asked for forgiveness from the Christians or if he just focused on doing works (as he did by spreading the word).

 

[1robin]

Again, "Christ" and "Jesus" could be two separate entities. Before the name Jesus was ever recorded, there was already talk of "Christ". People referring to "Chrestus" are not definitely referring to Jesus of Nazareth; that much is implied through assumption. I think a person was invented to give a human face to the mythical "Christ" figure. So far I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary.

Why do you seem to be watering down a footnote as fast as you can and not even discussing the primary texts I gave. There are many problems with what you claim here but I did not intend to debate the bonus material I gave. As I have said the majority of NT scholars from every side agree not only that Christ is historical but several Biblical facts concerning are in fact historical. They do not comment on un-provable spiritual issues in their fields. You may believe anything you wish. I was discussing what scholarship suggests and Jesus historicity is almost as reliable as any fact in ancient history. I also notice others gave you information to the same effect even I had no idea existed. As I said you are welcome to your beliefs but they are what they are in spite of the evidence not because of it or any lack of it.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Objective in this context means beyond influence of opinion of it's subjects.

Which is almost exactly what I said.

The above fails. No matter what technical language you use everything you say will equal opinion for the foundation of morality without God.

Including when what I say explicitly excludes "opinion"? You're hiding behind this "technical language" objection; when what I describe as objective morality appears to be exactly what you have in mind (i.e. as not dependent upon any person's view or opinion), the only reason "everything I say will equal opinion" is because you're going to pretend as much for the sake of dogmatically maintaining your unsubstantiated and patently false position.

Then for the at least 12th time of asked, pray tell what are their objective foundations? At this point you could say yogurt, aliens, or even fruit bats but please simply state something.

I've already told you; deontological moral realism holds that certain actions are morally right/wrong good/bad in themselves- that is, irrespective of their consequences, or of the opinions or conventions or the moral agents themselves. For some deontologists the "foundation" is a concept of natural rights, which are objective facts discoverable by reason (Hobbes, Locke), for others it is a concept of duty and a rational principle (Kant), and for yet others such as yourself, the foundation is the will of a deity.

On the other hand, consequentialists found their moral realism on the objective consequences of actions; that actions are morally right/wrong good/bad on the basis of their tendency to cause pleasure or pain (again, something that is NOT CONTINGENT or SUBJECT TO the opinions of anyone)- the good objectively consists in what maximizes happiness or pleasure and minimizes pain or suffering.

That is redefining morality as happiness or minimizing pain which is NOT the basis for actual morality. The desire al societies have to defend even bad cultures from obviously superior ones is an example of something universal that opposes your principle.

While I would agree that utilitarianism (i.e. the variety of consequentialism which defines the good as maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering) is not entirely correct, I have no idea what this particular example has to do with it. You're suggesting that defending "bad cultures" is an act universally deemed morally good which does not maximize happiness or minimize suffering? Care to explain?

Another would be that human happiness at least for recorded history has made necessary the unhappiness of many other beings and species.

This alone, of all you've wrote on the subject, is a valid and pertinent criticism of consequentialism; i.e. the interconnectedness of happiness and suffering.

Why is cow happiness not the standard? The only reason to believe human happiness is the standard is because someone said it is.

I don't know that these are mutually exclusive; the consequentialist may just say that he includes happiness by ANYTHING able to feel happiness- so the right action is the one that maximizes happiness, whether of man, cow, bird or anything else that can experience happiness, and minimize suffering across the board as well. And needless to say, this is not the only reason.

You have no other option than opinion. Terminology will never ever help. The more educated I became the more I disdained intellectualism and academia for this reason.

Then I have to suspect that you haven't entirely grasped all the relevant terminology. This whole line of argument reeks of anti-intellectualism and a false dilemma, and carries absolutely zero force as a counter-argument. You can't dismiss an argument by saying how much you disdain "all dem fancy words and stuff".

Please fill in the blank. Killing every form of life on the planet would actually be objectively wrong even without God because of __________________________.

As I've tried to explain, it depends on what form of moral realism- and I don't myself endorse any form of moral realism. But that you're assuming non-divine command moral realists have no good answer to this question just shows that you've never bothered to actually acquaint yourself with any of them, to any degree whatsoever, and that includes what little I've summarized for you has basically gone in one ear and out the other.

So, if I was a consequentialist, I would say that killing all life on the planet would be wrong because it would cause alot of suffering and net no happiness- and the morally wrong is defined as that which causes a net amount of suffering.

If I was a natural rights deontologist, I would say that all humans are moral agents, and have the natural right to life and self-determination, and since killing all life would violate all these rights, it would be wrong. The Kantian would say that it is wrong because it cannot be performed out of duty, and cannot be universalized without being self-contradictory.

Similarly for any other form of moral realism- they all have an answer to this question; that's no problem. The real question is whether any of these answers are tenable- and in this regard, your preferred answer "Because God wills X or not X" doesn't appear any better than any other moral realist answer, and in many respects looks less plausible.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Why do you seem to be watering down a footnote as fast as you can and not even discussing the primary texts I gave.

Because if the primary texts you gave say "Chrestus", it does not automatically follow that they're talking about Jesus.

 

[1robin]

Because if the primary texts you gave say "Chrestus", it does not automatically follow that they're talking about Jesus.

Well that is quite strange. Are you suggesting the companions of Jesus and their companions wrote several texts for the same purpose but some were about Jesus and some were about another person all together doing the exact same things, that they called Chrestus? I think you must be getting confused. No apostle used the word Chrestes. I think they may have used "Christos" a time or two but it meant Jesus the Christ in Latin. Chrestus is a figure from a work by Suetonius and not one of my primary sources.

 

[mounir]

this question whether a specific religion is absolutely true and the only truth that anyone should believe in is something really absurd . why should we think that one religion must be true and the others are just a tradition or something . so this question interests every other religion to think that the other type beliefs are wrong and just mythical stories . so i personally don't believe that one religion is the only truth from God and the others are wrong . lets see and compare for instance ibrahim religions. both Christianity and Judaism are related to Islam and have the same root and even the same prophecies , but Christians and Jews don't believe in Islam prophet . based on my beliefs , i am believing in the unity of God , the only one who created the world , the one who Muslims , Christians and Jews believe in . the good question that someone may enlighten it here , is whether ibrahamic religions contain more evidently truths that other types of other religions like Buddhism and Hinduism .

 

[Ingledsva]

this question whether a specific religion is absolutely true and the only truth that anyone should believe in is something really absurd . why should we think that one religion must be true and the others are just a tradition or something . so this question interests every other religion to think that the other type beliefs are wrong and just mythical stories . so i personally don't believe that one religion is the only truth from God and the others are wrong . lets see and compare for instance ibrahim religions. both Christianity and Judaism are related to Islam and have the same root and even the same prophecies , but Christians and Jews don't believe in Islam prophet . based on my beliefs , i am believing in the unity of God , the only one who created the world , the one who Muslims , Christians and Jews believe in . the good question that someone may enlighten it here , is whether ibrahamic religions contain more evidently truths that other types of other religions like Buddhism and Hinduism .

The answer would be NO.

*

 

[1robin]

The answer would be NO.

*

What in the world possessed you to claim this? The Bible right or wrong is vastly superior in informative quality to any theological text in human history.

 

[metis]

Just how important is it to supposedly having the politically-correct dogma?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The Bible right or wrong is vastly superior in informative quality to any theological text in human history.

Nonsense. My own theological text is vastly superior to the Bible in informative quality.

I mean, let's be real here.