Spirituality
06 Nov 16
07 Nov 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkWhat does a worm in an apple have to do with your superstitions about angels and demons and your immortality?
I believe that universal truth exists, i.e. two contradictory beliefs can't both be true at the same time. If I believe that there is a worm in an apple and you believe that the same apple doesn't contain a worm, then both of our beliefs cannot be true at the same time. There is either a worm in the apple or there isn't.
The thread title "Why I am a Christian" is an outright lie. The OP is what is called post justification for a position already held for other reasons altogether. Even if we convinced the poster that each and every one of the points in the OP were wrong he would still remain Christian - and he knows it.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkLike I've said before more than once, and just a few centimetres up this page in a post I wrote to you, maybe they are all right and God has revealed himself in different ways in different cultural contexts at different times and the only "wrong" bits are the examples of groupist doctrinal overreach where retail religions lay claim to the exclusivity and primacy of their dogmas and narratives, which would simply be an unsurprising upshot of human nature.
That makes no logical sense. Logically they are either all wrong or if one is right, the rest are wrong. They can't logically all be right.
07 Nov 16
Originally posted by FMFI was merely pointing out as I have before that your view is not logical.
I explained my view on this before in a direct response to a question you asked me. It was only a few weeks ago. Have you really forgotten that you asked it? Have you really forgotten that I answered it?
07 Nov 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadOf course you can call it a lie so you don't have to attempt to convince me that your worldview provides better answers to those questions.
The thread title "Why I am a Christian" is an outright lie. The OP is what is called post justification for a position already held for other reasons altogether. Even if we convinced the poster that each and every one of the points in the OP were wrong he would still remain Christian - and he knows it.
07 Nov 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkNot logical? You just mean you disagree with it, that's all, or don't want to entertain it as an idea. If the various religions were indeed based on actual revelations of God in different contexts and at different points in history, and that the human error element was the way each religion claims to be the one and only revelation, then the scenario is not illogical. You don't seem to read the posts you respond to. Either that or you can't remember them.
I was merely pointing out as I have before that your view is not logical.
07 Nov 16
Originally posted by FMFGive me an example of what you mean by 'wrong' bits. Do you mean the 'wrong' bits are the contradictory bits?
Like I've said before more than once, and just a few centimetres up this page in a post I wrote to you, maybe they are all right and God has revealed himself in different ways in different cultural contexts at different times and the only "wrong" bits are the examples of groupist doctrinal overreach where retail religions lay claim to the exclusivity and primacy of their dogmas and narratives, which would simply be an unsurprising upshot of human nature.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkIt doesn't really have any impact on me that you believe angels, demons and immortality exist, except as grist for the forum's mill, so I don't see the significance to me - or anyone - of whether or not you go around saying that what you believe is the "truth". Or, for that matter, "the universal truth"
If I believe angles, demons and immortality exist, and you don't. Is it possible for both of our beliefs to be true?
07 Nov 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI have explained what the "wrong" bits might be 2-3 times in the last page or two. Did you not read my posts? You replied to them. Did you not read the content?
Give me an example of what you mean by 'wrong' bits. Do you mean the 'wrong' bits are the contradictory bits?
Originally posted by FMFNo I am saying it would be illogical for two contradictory statements to both be true at the same time. It cannot be true that there is only one God (as the Quran claims) and millions of gods (as the Vedas claims). It's either one or the other, or neither. However if two different religious texts claimed there was one God, they could both be right about that, or they could both be wrong about that.
Not logical? You just mean you disagree with it, that's all, or don't want to entertain it as an idea. If the various religions were indeed based on actual revelations of God in different contexts and at different points in history, and that the human error element was the way each religion claims to be the one and only revelation, then the scenario is not illogical. You don't seem to read the posts you respond to. Either that or you can't remember them.
07 Nov 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkMaybe God revealed Himself in different ways in different locales and the subscribers to these revelations are mistaken when they refuse to realize that God revealed Himself in different ways in different locales. It's no more far-fetched a possibility than what any one of the resulting, competing retail religions hold to be exclusively true.
No I am saying it would be illogical for two contradictory statements to both be true at the same time. It cannot be true that there is only one God (as the Quran claims) and millions of gods (as the Vedas claims). It's either one or the other, or neither.
07 Nov 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkThe "religious texts" you are referring to were in fact written by people in different cultural contexts at different points in history. None of their followers can substantiate the metaphysical claims of their religions with sufficient evidence to convince all humans to believe the same thing. Maybe that's God's plan.
However if two different religious texts claimed there was one God, they could both be right about that, or they could both be wrong about that.
Originally posted by FMFSo you are saying the same God could reveal to one group of people that there are millions of gods and to another group of people that there is only one God? Yeah right.
Maybe God revealed Himself in different ways in different locales and the subscribers to these revelations are mistaken when they refuse to realize that God revealed Himself in different ways in different locales. It's no more far-fetched a possibility than what any one of the resulting, competing retail religions hold to be exclusively true.