the right religion

[Enai de a lukal]

Fine.

 

[psychoslice]

Thanks. To me, it seems like lots of people are tricked by language. They think the meaning is in the words, rather than in the mind which produced the words.

yes I agree, and a great observation on your part.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Yes, a mind-blowing revelation, that meanings don't reside in symbols or marks on a page. Whowuldathunkit, eh? Unfortunately, still not relevant to the problem the comment was in reply to. Always a shame when good observations go to waste.

 

[1robin]

Except for, you know, non-Christians. Derp.

That is not what I meant. I meant that Christians spend far more time worrying our selves to death about we have adopted as a theology. vastly more so than any other group.

 

[illykitty]

I agree and that was kind of my point. As to evidence.

1. The bible contains 25,000 historical corroborations.
Corroborations of what, according to who? Is this an argument of numbers?
2. It contains no known historical error outside of less than 5% scribal error and those are all known.
This is still debated. Also, even if true, doesn't prove the Bible to be from God, just an account of people's lives.
3. It has been said by histories greatest experts in testimony and evidence (Greenleaf and Lyndhurst) to pass every test modern law can throw at it. Greenleaf is said to have been a Christian, no bias? Greatest experts is a subjective remark on your part. I love how you didn't post their names in full, did you just assume I would not verify who they are? I couldn't find Lyndhurst.
4. It contains 2000 prophecies that have came to pass in every detail including 350 about one person.
"Prophecies" with lose wordings can mean anything someone wishes them to mean, Jesus didn't fulfil all the prophecies. Just ask Jews.

That is only a tiny fraction of the evidence that was so convincing it converted empires, many of histories greatest scholars in every subject, and billions of people who began life resistant to it. I can't get a lack of evidence from that.

Every true Christian on earth has actual experiential proof of Christ's existence. What is arrogant about telling others of that proof or the mountains of evidence for God? Do not assume because you have uncertainty everyone does.

No group of people on Earth in my experience are as critical as Christians. We constantly second guess even or experiences with God. The fact we always arrive at the same conclusion is proof of the quality of the evidence. The most critical of scientific, philosophic, and historical geniuses in history have been men of faith. It is the height of arrogance to conclude everyone I have mentioned is self delusional.

I can't even begin on this. You've used so far, Argumentum ab auctoritate, argumentum ad populum, no true scotsman and a whole lot of subjective views.

Again, I'd love to see a thread with these "evidences" of Christianity and see how it goes...

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Again, I'd love to see a thread with these "evidences" of Christianity and see how it goes...

I'll second that. Won't be holding my breath, though.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

oops wrong thread...

 

[Ouroboros]

oops wrong thread...

It spun out of direction.

Maybe string theory works better. Hmm...

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I believe so.

Even though theyd had no exposure to jesus, nor held to monotheism?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That is not what I meant. I meant that Christians spend far more time worrying our selves to death about we have adopted as a theology. vastly more so than any other group.

And I think Atheists have adopted far more critisizm and logical reasoning in their choices when determining point of view on the subject of god.

However by me simply stating that it doesn't make an argument. It makes an opinion. Are you simply stating that it is your opinion that Christians are the most critical of all people? Or are you trying to make a debatable argument for it?

 

[1robin]

I can't even begin on this. You've used so far, Argumentum ab auctoritate, argumentum ad populum, no true scotsman and a whole lot of subjective views.

Again, I'd love to see a thread with these "evidences" of Christianity and see how it goes...

That was not the case. Non-theists use fallacies like crutches and do so where they do not apply. Every claim ever made or almost so gains credibility by the numbers of those that believe as they rise. If I had said 25000 historical corroborations and 2500 prophecies, and they have converted billions of people to a world view they were completely hostile to and many of them are histories greatest scholars like Newton, Da Vinci, Sandage, Faraday, Maxwell, and Collins among millions. If I said that equaled proof then you have your desired fallacy. I am using them to indicate the depth and quality of the evidence and that is no fallacy. Being a true Christian is not a Scotsman fallacy. There exists strictly and exhaustive laid out criteria that produce a born again by the power of Christ. Unless this has occurred you are no a Christian, no matter what church is attended, nor even if you have a cross on a chain around your neck, Christ makes actual Christians not church rolls or jewelry.

 

[1robin]

And I think Atheists have adopted far more critisizm and logical reasoning in their choices when determining point of view on the subject of god.

However by me simply stating that it doesn't make an argument. It makes an opinion. Are you simply stating that it is your opinion that Christians are the most critical of all people? Or are you trying to make a debatable argument for it?

No, that was hyperbolic language intended to indicate the high level of scrutiny most Christians apply to their faith.

 

[Manna]

I actually recently started another post saying that one university professor (Mark W Muesse) has an interesting approach to religion where he sees himself as different percentages of different religions (e.g., 26% Muslim, 23% Jewish, 19% Christian, 17% Buddhist, 10% Sihk and 5% Jain).

I think this is a very fascinating approach and one that should be considered more. There would definitely be less disputes if more people thought like this. On the other hand, the question might be how practical it is?

I'm not sure of the right answer but I'm simply putting the idea out there are it is interesting.

 

[Manna]

That was not the case. Non-theists use fallacies like crutches and do so where they do not apply

Good point.

 

[1robin]

I actually recently started another post saying that one university professor (Mark W Muesse) has an interesting approach to religion where he sees himself as different percentages of different religions (e.g., 26% Muslim, 23% Jewish, 19% Christian, 17% Buddhist, 10% Sihk and 5% Jain).

I think this is a very fascinating approach and one that should be considered more. There would definitely be less disputes if more people thought like this. On the other hand, the question might be how practical it is?

I'm not sure of the right answer but I'm simply putting the idea out there are it is interesting.

The purpose of a religion is not to produce the most cultural harmony. The purpose of mine is to get me to heaven. In fact truth being an exclusive category should have more wrong guesses almost to an infinite level that correct conclusions. I would advise Muesse to pursue another theological criteria and quit mixing mutually exclusive revelations. The least resistance is almost always the wrong path.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

No, that was hyperbolic language intended to indicate the high level of scrutiny most Christians apply to their faith.

Well I know this. I am pointing out that its just an opinion not an actual point.

 

[1robin]

Well I know this. I am pointing out that its just an opinion not an actual point.

There is a point in there somewhere but let me tell you two things I do know.

1. A very large percentage of science, history, mathematics, philosophy, and the actual creators of the field themselves have been Christian. They were meticulous and relentless at teasing out the truth of reality. In fact one of sciences maim motivations were Godly men looking for the rationality that should be in a universe created by a rational being. Unless you have some very good reasons to think they acted in the opposite way concerning their faith this is good evidence Christians are among the most scrutinizing group there is. It is almost always a Christian group that organizes the great theological debates of modern times. They are so certain their claims are true they seek out discussions with those that disagree.

2. In 40 years of Christian involvement and many years as a prayer counselor I have found Christians to be the most practical and honest about their doubts and display more of a daily attempt to re-evaluate their faith positions that any other group I have ever heard of.

The fact the Bible is the most scrutinized text in human history is also suggestive of Christians not hiding the basis for their faith and opening it fully up so as to allow all the critical thinking anyone can throw at it.

To compare it to number 2 and 3.

Islam strictly controls all aspects of their faith and texts do not make it into open scrutiny that often. They label a human at birth as a Muslim and in many nations to get out means a trial and possible death. At one time one man composed a Quran he liked out of all the different versions floating around and burned the rest. It and Christianity are polar opposites.

Hinduism claims only a very rare and hard to access is capable of rightly interpreting their scriptures and Hinduism has no transcended cultural boundary by any significant amount. Christianity is the only faith practiced by a significant number of people in every nation on earth.

Hopefully that shed a little more light on my claim.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

There is a point in there somewhere but let me tell you two things I do know.

1. A very large percentage of science, history, mathematics, philosophy, and the actual creators of the field themselves have been Christian. They were meticulous and relentless at teasing out the truth of reality. In fact one of sciences maim motivations were Godly men looking for the rationality that should be in a universe created by a rational being. Unless you have some very good reasons to think they acted in the opposite way concerning their faith this is good evidence Christians are among the most scrutinizing group there is. It is almost always a Christian group that organizes the great theological debates of modern times. They are so certain their claims are true they seek out discussions with those that disagree.

2. In 40 years of Christian involvement and many years as a prayer counselor I have found Christians to be the most practical and honest about their doubts and display more of a daily attempt to re-evaluate their faith positions that any other group I have ever heard of.

The fact the Bible is the most scrutinized text in human history is also suggestive of Christians not hiding the basis for their faith and opening it fully up so as to allow all the critical thinking anyone can throw at it.

To compare it to number 2 and 3.

Islam strictly controls all aspects of their faith and texts do not make it into open scrutiny that often. They label a human at birth as a Muslim and in many nations to get out means a trial and possible death. At one time one man composed a Quran he liked out of all the different versions floating around and burned the rest. It and Christianity are polar opposites.

Hinduism claims only a very rare and hard to access is capable of rightly interpreting their scriptures and Hinduism has no transcended cultural boundary by any significant amount. Christianity is the only faith practiced by a significant number of people in every nation on earth.

Hopefully that shed a little more light on my claim.

1. As a mathematician you don't really seem to get the basics of skewed statistics. Or that their religion has little to nothing to do with their scientific discoveries. Or that even if they weren't christian its more than likely that they would still take the title as a form of social convention. You can't simply lay claim their discoveries to Christianity in the same way that I can't lay claim any discovery to atheism.

2. Anecdotal evidence that is actually stark contrast to my own. As someone who has been highly involved with several religious organizations and people I find they have a wall that they keep in themselves. They constantly have doubts but the Christian religion (as well as others) have failsafes that keep them from going past it. The fact they have constant doubts is not really evidence of the strength of their faith.

And you keep claiming that the bible is some kind of perfect book. However many many many scholars have found that its no different than the koran, or the tora, or any other sacred text. In fact much of the bible has been found to be bullcrap. No historical evidence of Jesus exists. None that is particularly convincing and the vast majority of historians DO accept there is no smoking gun historical evidence of Jesus as a real person. The ones that are still christian are christian on faith rather than reason.

 

[Muffled]

Even though theyd had no exposure to jesus, nor held to monotheism?

I believe one does not need to know Jesus to know there is God although it helps. Multitheism is possible when gods exist which was not the case for aborigines in Australia as far as we know. I suppose it could be developed as an erroneous mind construct. ie. If God is possible then why not gods. It takes God tostrighten people out on that subject.

 

[Muffled]

I actually recently started another post saying that one university professor (Mark W Muesse) has an interesting approach to religion where he sees himself as different percentages of different religions (e.g., 26% Muslim, 23% Jewish, 19% Christian, 17% Buddhist, 10% Sihk and 5% Jain).

I think this is a very fascinating approach and one that should be considered more. There would definitely be less disputes if more people thought like this. On the other hand, the question might be how practical it is?

I'm not sure of the right answer but I'm simply putting the idea out there are it is interesting.

i believe if the person isn't 100% Christian then he isn't a Christian.

My guess is that he was figuring whether his beliefs sourced from Christianity or from other sources. In that case he could consider what % of his beliefs were from which religion. For instance on relgious tests I will often come out with a % of Muslinm and Hinduism but I am 100% Christian.