How many ways to heaven?
- Thread starter MeridianFlight
- Start date
kevman4christ
New Member
DV,
It is my responsibility as a Pastor to do so. The deal is, we could argue this subject to death but unless you are willing to do the same it is fruitless.
It is my responsibility as a Pastor to do so. The deal is, we could argue this subject to death but unless you are willing to do the same it is fruitless.
Master~Plan
New Member
Hey its Eon! hah, so our paths meet again. How you been?
Islam:
Ive studied this one because like you said, it claims the same history. Around 500 AD (give or take 100 years, I don't feel like looking it up again) theres this man named Muhammad who claims to be more powerful than Christ himself. "Coincidentally" this is about the same time of the earliest known written account of the Koran. The reason I add the word written is because a Muslim will tell you it has been passed down by word of mouth since Abraham. Now Muhammad had a lot to say with a lot of authority, but he never did any promised miraculous signs. Of course a Muslim will argue otherwise. SO here is what it comes down to. The Koran teaches Abraham's lagitamate son was Ishmael, while the Jews say it was Isaac. Also a Muslim will tell you that Abraham blessed Ishmael and a Jew will say otherwise. The problem with Islam is the origin of the Koran. The Jews have the sacred hebrew scriputers that can be dated back to the time of Abraham. Islam tries to counterdict the Jews thousands of years after the fact. I'll take the Jews word on it.
Buhdism:
The whole premise on this one is not lagitamate to me. First of all Buhdims explains what happens and how the world works, but there is no why. Why is the world here? Why is there reincarnation? I guess the main thing that it comes down to is what the heck am I? If I am really a collection of previous consciousness'(sp?) what defines me? I'm not conscious of Bob in England, and thats what makes us 2 different people. No one can tell me what I am or am not, because my word on what I am holds more value than anyone else's word. Then theres the issue of collective life increasing not decreasing. None of it makes any sense to me, so I am left with 2 options. The Buhda was either enlightened, or a liar. From past history of man the latter bieng unfortunately far more common. I'll admit I have not studied Buhdism in depth, and maybe someday I will. As for right now there are other ones that hold more interest.
Just for you Eon I'll tell you why. So theres all these other great claims among christianity as how to live. As we can see they can not all exist and be true, being that they blatently counderdict eachother. This really only leaves us the option of finding out who's pants are on fire...
Islam:
Ive studied this one because like you said, it claims the same history. Around 500 AD (give or take 100 years, I don't feel like looking it up again) theres this man named Muhammad who claims to be more powerful than Christ himself. "Coincidentally" this is about the same time of the earliest known written account of the Koran. The reason I add the word written is because a Muslim will tell you it has been passed down by word of mouth since Abraham. Now Muhammad had a lot to say with a lot of authority, but he never did any promised miraculous signs. Of course a Muslim will argue otherwise. SO here is what it comes down to. The Koran teaches Abraham's lagitamate son was Ishmael, while the Jews say it was Isaac. Also a Muslim will tell you that Abraham blessed Ishmael and a Jew will say otherwise. The problem with Islam is the origin of the Koran. The Jews have the sacred hebrew scriputers that can be dated back to the time of Abraham. Islam tries to counterdict the Jews thousands of years after the fact. I'll take the Jews word on it.
Buhdism:
The whole premise on this one is not lagitamate to me. First of all Buhdims explains what happens and how the world works, but there is no why. Why is the world here? Why is there reincarnation? I guess the main thing that it comes down to is what the heck am I? If I am really a collection of previous consciousness'(sp?) what defines me? I'm not conscious of Bob in England, and thats what makes us 2 different people. No one can tell me what I am or am not, because my word on what I am holds more value than anyone else's word. Then theres the issue of collective life increasing not decreasing. None of it makes any sense to me, so I am left with 2 options. The Buhda was either enlightened, or a liar. From past history of man the latter bieng unfortunately far more common. I'll admit I have not studied Buhdism in depth, and maybe someday I will. As for right now there are other ones that hold more interest.
I know who designed me and why I am created. There is no mystery to me.
Not sure if anyone has told you yet, but that problem is not a problem of intelligent design. That is a problem of everything and anything. I missed the part where Athism solves infinite regression...
hey, calm down man, no need to raise blood pressure. It appears to me that your mind is already made up un the matter, so I'll avoid a sarcastic barrage of replies to what I have researched over the past few years on my own time. Besides, I guess I don't know anything about evidence or reason anyway...
Master~Plan
New Member
rofl now I remember why I love this place.
MasterPlan - haven't seen you for awhile! I'm doing just fine thanks and you? 
Does Islam seriously claim Mohammed is more powerful than Jesus. I thought they were both prophets - albeit Mohammed is the last of them. As for the rest, well if you'd seen modern translations of ancient jewish texts shot to pieces like I have then your faith in the words might be shaken a little. Or a lot. I've given proof of typos and factual errors in the KJV bible on this very forum.
And your rebuttal of Buddhism... C'mon MasterPlan, be honest, you can't feel it lives up to the test of academic rigor?
Does Islam seriously claim Mohammed is more powerful than Jesus. I thought they were both prophets - albeit Mohammed is the last of them. As for the rest, well if you'd seen modern translations of ancient jewish texts shot to pieces like I have then your faith in the words might be shaken a little. Or a lot. I've given proof of typos and factual errors in the KJV bible on this very forum.
And your rebuttal of Buddhism... C'mon MasterPlan, be honest, you can't feel it lives up to the test of academic rigor?
Dark Virtue
New Member
kevman4christ said:
But you didn't answer my question.
Did you study other religions as a Christian? If so, do you believe you could have done so objectively?
Dark Virtue
New Member
Master~Plan said:
That simply proves my point. That was an unabashedly subjective,biased review of other religions.
No, you do NOT know. KNOW is defined as "to perceive directly : have direct cognition of, to have a practical understanding of".
You, more correctly, BELIEVE, "to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something".
There is a HUGE difference.
Say what? If infinite regression is a problem of "everything and anything", then wouldn't that include Intelligent Design? How can infinite regression NOT be a problem of Intelligent Design?
In what way is Atheism supposed to solve infinite regression?
No worries, I wasn't upset. Frustrated, yes. It's frustrating when people use words incorrectly, just as you used KNOW above.
My mind is NOT made up in the matter. My atheistic view is actually a default position. I am not a Strong Atheist, I am a Weak Atheist. I'd like you to do a quick google search and discover the difference between the two. It will help you understand where I am coming from. Just for the record, I don't like Strong Atheism for the same reason I don't like Theism; because it relies on faith and not reason and evidence.
Master~Plan
New Member
hah, doing great. I'm still busy as ever. Taking 12 units and working full time. Found a job at best buy geek squad, I really like it. I"m a few weeks into new semester and so far so good.
I'm pretty sure there were a few facts in the Islam post, might wanna skim it through again....
um, thats what I said. infite regression is not specific to anyone's view. Where did the world come from according to Atheism?
I'm sorry, did you just tell me what I know?
nice talking to you kid.
Master~Plan
New Member
almost forgot, yes
Dark Virtue
New Member
Master~Plan said:
I never said there weren't a few facts in there. That doesn't mean it was an objective review.
Depends on who you talk to. Atheism isn't a religion, it's a LACK thereof. Therefore Atheism isn't meant to answer the origin of Man. You are, however, shifting away from my point. Intelligent Design has a HUGE logical flaw at it's core, that of infinite regression. That is why I am not a proponent of ID.
I'm sorry, did you just tell me what I know?
nice talking to you kid.
Well that was mature.
Dark Virtue
New Member
Master~Plan said:
Care to back that up with some evidence, or should we just take your word for it?
Master~Plan
New Member
alrite I'm sorry, lets start from the ground up. Incase you weren't aware when it comes to what other people know, you have no say, or idea. Who are you to tell me of my experiences and my collective knowledge accumulated over the span of my life? If you ever correct someone else on what they know, it makes you out to be rediculously arrogant.
anyway I saw our conversations going in a destructive downward spiral.
alrite, I'll break it down for you:
point 1. Islam claims a lot of the same history as Christianity. which lead me to study it
point 2. Around 500 AD the first written Koran is made.
point 3. The Koran counterdicts Judaism about what happened in the time of Abraham several thousand years ago.
point 4. Judaism has written specific accounts dating back thousands of years and around the time of Abraham.(way before the first Koran was published)
point 5. Because of the historical evidence I see more reason to believe Jews word(not promise) than to believe the Koran.
Analogy: Today I jot down in a well bound book that It was really the british who dressed as Indians and threw tea bags into the boston harbor.(only about 200 years after the fact)
while were starting from the ground up, it would help in the future if you don't make vague generalizations on a lengthy section of a post. Maybe call me out specifically where I am bieng subjective? So heres what would be more constructive:
"That simply proves my point"<insert previously state point> "That was an unabashedly subjective,biased review of other religions" <insert few specific clips from post that was subject/ close minded>
ok, thankyou thats what I was looking for. So where I was going with my argument wasn't a "right back at you slick". I was trying to suggest it is impossible to know. Bieng human we can not know everything. I have never seen God with my eyes so I don't know if it looks like He should have had a designer. He told us he doesn't, and He has never lied. God has always been, so existing for eternity pretty much kills any way of having a designer. Would you not agree though that this world is full of design?
bieng that nothing I said relies in any way on that statement you'll have to take my word for it, or look it up yourself.
Dark Virtue
New Member
Master~Plan said:
That wasn't my intention and I would ask you to look at the post again and see that I meant no disrespect.
My point was to distinguish between the definition and use of the words KNOW and BELIEVE.
There is a difference, is there not?
You can't KNOW something that can not be proven. You can believe in it, but using the correct definition, you can not KNOW it to be true because it is untestable, it is unable to be proven.
I was simply answering your generalization with one of my own.
EH? If it is impossible to know whether God exists, then why did you say you KNEW? That was my point! Don't say you KNOW when you are just going to say later that you DON'T know. It's about using the proper term in the proper place at the proper time.
You don't KNOW God exists, no one does. Instead, you BELIEVE God exists.
Correct?
What is Intelligent Design? ID is the theory "that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, not an undirected process such as natural selection." If EVERYTHING has a creator, then even the creator must have a creator. You run into a chicken and the egg argument, or infinite regression.
The formal proof goes as follows:
1. Everything has a cause.
2. Nothing can cause itself.
3. Everything is caused by another thing.
4. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
5. There must be a first cause.
6. God was the first cause.
The two problems, or assumptions, here are 1 and 4. There are many, many problems associated with this theory, but I think they would best be covered in a thread of its own.
Master~Plan
New Member
I'm not sure if you remember, but I said I found proof for God, to which you never took seriously and threw off with a sarcastic statement. You have no idea of how God has proved himself to me, so like I said, you have no say about what I know. You think millions of people are following a God that never proves himself?
no thats not what I said at all, don't get all excited... I said its impossible to know about God's designer. Of course I know that God exists.
you missed my question of "Would you not agree though that this world is full of design? " I posted to say that it is impossible to know:
God has always been. We can't understand always.
Master~Plan
New Member
^ just because all my posts are getting misinterpreted. note that after the word "know" in my previous post is a colon, not a period
Dark Virtue
New Member
Master~Plan said:
You are correct, I did act that way. Why? Because of what I have been saying, you misused the definition of PROOF. If you had actual PROOF of the existence of God, you could use it to PROVE God's existence to anyone. Proof is defined as, "the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact". You don't have evidence, you have FAITH, which is believing in something without evidence. You see my point?
See my post above about "knowing" that God exists.
Correct, we can't always KNOW. That doesn't mean we can make guesses that can't be confirmed or denied. That's why we have things called THEORIES. But you don't want to label your belief in a God as a THEORY, do you?
The Shaman
New Member
Gotta agree with you there, Dark.
Master~Plan
New Member
I always find it interesting how a lot of non christians always try to tell me what my faith is. The Bible never talks about having faith that God exist. The Bible talks about having faith that God is there for you, all powerful, and able to back you up. Theres a large difference between the two. I'm gonna break down your paragraph a little bit:
I saw a shooting star last month. I can't prove to anyone that there was a shooting star, but the sight of the star was proof to me, and I know there was a shooting star because I was a witness of the event.
Proof was shown to me of the shooting star and of God. I know both exist
there you go again. I'm sorry do I know you or something? because as far as I know, we have never met. I'm going to say this one last time. You have no idea what I know. Have you ever read through more than five consecutive pages of a Bible? Do you have any idea what Biblical faith is?
Thanx for misquoting me after I made special precautions to avoid confusion
I said "we can't always know: If EVERYTHING has a creator"
Dark Virtue
New Member
Master Plan, you're running around in circles here.
Take a deep breath and stop thinking I'm trying to belittle you or your beliefs, which is not the case.
What I am doing is trying to get you to realize exactly what the words you are using actually mean.
If you have PROOF, then you could use that proof to convince others of God's existence. Since you still believe that you have the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact, then I invite you to share it with me and convince me of the existence of your god.
If you can't, then you do not have PROOF.
As far as your star analogy, have you ever heard the phrase, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"?
Again, please look at the posts I have made in this thread. Not once have I tried to "tell you what your faith is" as you claim. I am trying to get you to understand the difference between proof and belief and know.
Just for the record, I was a Christian for many years. I have read the bible several times. I have also studied several different religions and philosophies, both on my own time and in a collegiate setting. I DO understand what faith is. I know the difference between faith and Faith. I've been on both sides of the fence and can view these topics objectively. If my goal was to belittle you, I could do so easily and quickly. But what would that serve? I wouldn't be here very long would I? That's not my goal.
The following is from wikipedia and may help you understand what I'm trying to get across:
Take a deep breath and stop thinking I'm trying to belittle you or your beliefs, which is not the case.
What I am doing is trying to get you to realize exactly what the words you are using actually mean.
If you have PROOF, then you could use that proof to convince others of God's existence. Since you still believe that you have the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact, then I invite you to share it with me and convince me of the existence of your god.
If you can't, then you do not have PROOF.
As far as your star analogy, have you ever heard the phrase, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"?
Again, please look at the posts I have made in this thread. Not once have I tried to "tell you what your faith is" as you claim. I am trying to get you to understand the difference between proof and belief and know.
Just for the record, I was a Christian for many years. I have read the bible several times. I have also studied several different religions and philosophies, both on my own time and in a collegiate setting. I DO understand what faith is. I know the difference between faith and Faith. I've been on both sides of the fence and can view these topics objectively. If my goal was to belittle you, I could do so easily and quickly. But what would that serve? I wouldn't be here very long would I? That's not my goal.
The following is from wikipedia and may help you understand what I'm trying to get across:
Last edited:
Master~Plan
New Member
thats interesting, from this side its you. Hah, I'm amused now, I bet everytime I thought someone else was going in circles they thought the same about me.
Your making generalizations about me. I couldn't care less what you choose to belittle. Heres the problem. You continue to claim that I do not Know that God exists. You have no idea what I know. Let me repeat for clarity. You have no idea what I know. I Know what know means. I know that God exists. You believe you know what I know. Heres a fact: you do not. Stop talking about things you have no idea of. You can't say what I know. Who are you? what don't you get about this concept? I don't care what you think. You can say whatever you want about Christianity, you won't be the first Ive heard from....
*whew* now that I got that off my chest, if you try and tell me what I know again, we will have to part ways....
and I"m over it now, moving rite along.
Ok, you never adressed the star analogy. The whole point/focus of the star analogy was that:
1.) I have been shown evidence (proof) that the shooting star existed
2.) Therefore I know it existed
3.) There is no possible way of proving it to you
So tell me, is it belief or knowledge of the shooting star?
Heres what it comes down to, I can tell you what Ive seen. so what after that? am I suppose to prove what I saw?
I'm picking up arrogance in your posts. Do you honestly believe if something can not be proven to you that it doesn't exist? Have you seen it all?
Ive seen people walk who were paralyzed.(not talking Benny Hinn) Ive seen people cured of HIV in 1 day after prayer. Ive seen God through his works. Ive had total strangers ,who didn't know anyone I know, call me on the phone and ask for me by name to pray with them over the phone.
as for "extrodinary claims require extradinary evidence", thats a nice sounding statement, but I like how William Lane Craig PHD logically clarifies:
I typed up this clip from a book I finished a while ago for you.
I think that qualifies as a counterdiction