What if billions of people are wrong?

[silveronsilver]

<< Reagrding your question, Jesus is quite clear in the New Testament that He is the only way to God. >>



EVERY OTHER PROPHET AND RELIGIOUS FIGURE THAT EVER LIVED HAS SAID THE SAME THING!!!

Even the Scientologist nutcake L. Ron Hubbard said something along these lines.

Just because someone claims to be the real deal, DOES NOT MAKE HIM THE REAL DEAL!

Why are you so naive? Did your mother drop you on your head when you were a baby?

 

[Riprorin]

Silveronsilver, C.S. Lewis wrote a small book tiltled "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic". I would encourage you to read it. It will probably only take a few hours of your time.

If you study the life and the teachings of Christ, I believe that there is only one logical conclusion. He is Lord.

 

[littlelilith]

To anyone who enjoys using Pascal's Wager to debate ...

There are a few problems with that. For one, if you say that you might as well believe in God, just in case.. well, what if Christianity is wrong and, say, Islam is right? Or ANY other religion which teaches, basically, that it provides the way to salvation and that the alternative is hell or some form of punishment--you could hardly believe ALL those religions at once, just to be 'safe'. You could pretend that you did, perhaps, but that would still violate rules of many of them ('thou shalt have no other gods before me' and such).

However, you cannot really force yourself to believe anything if you don't truly believe it. You may come to believe something over time that you didn't believe before, but imagine how hard it would be to just will yourself to change your beliefs--say that you had decent reason to try to convert yourself to atheism. Could you just will yourself to stop believing in God, and it would happen, just because you 'decided' to? Probably not, if you have any kind of firm belief at all.

On the other hand, you could ignore the above rambling, and I could just say 'Occam's Razor'. [yes, I realize there are problems with that, too.. oh well.]

 

[Moonbeam]

The wonderful Mullah Nasrudin took a deciple on a walk. Along the way they met an arrived Sufi who pointed at the sky indicating that there is one truth and it covers all. The Mullah held up a roap replying yes and ordinary humanity tries to reach it by means as ridiculous as climbing a roap to reach the sky. The student seeing the exchange thought to himself that the Sufi is mad and that the Mullah was warning him that if he tried anything funny he would be bound.

 

[AreaCode707]

<< Silveronsilver, C.S. Lewis wrote a small book tiltled "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic". I would encourage you to read it. It will probably only take a few hours of your time.

If you study the life and the teachings of Christ, I believe that there is only one logical conclusion. He is Lord. >>



Actually, there are three logical conclusions according to the Lord, Liar, Lunatic premise. Jesus has to be one of those three, for the reasons put forth in that literature.

What you believe to be the logical conclusion must include other factors, but the book is interesting nonetheless.

 

[Mani]

<< If you study the life and the teachings of Christ, I believe that there is only one logical conclusion. He is Lord. >>


You know, the same can be said replacing Christ with Mohammed, Krishna, Buddha, or just about any major spiritual figure.

 

[Moonbeam]

linuxboy, the quandry I always face in these threads is that which comes from my opinion that faith in God, real faith in God, is a means by which many find the courage to surrender their cabbage. To attack that faith is to sin against where it might take them. On the other hand, because the faith of so many is built upon the odious notion of exclucivity, coupled with so many logically rejectible absurdities, that these faiths automatically preclude the possibility that huge numbers of others will be able to believe them. For example, unless you are indoctrinated from an early age to believe that Jesus came from a virgin birth or is the only way, those ideas are going to send rationalists packing. We are left with a sacred instrument, Christianity, that is useless for grownig numbers, but important to vast numbers of others. What are we to do? The Christian is going to proclaim to the end that his is the only way, only to cause others with less faith or gulibility to reject the whole notion of religion and loose the point that there is a possibility of real transformation. I don't want to imply that those exclusive Christians are themselves transformed because I think that in a room full of sleeping and awake people, the awake recognize each other and they come from many sources. I guess the good thing is that there's a true self inside everybody. We are not alone.

Elledan, I got a kick out of your response to my myth statement. I thought I had you with that one. Little did I know that Archaeology had shown otherwise. Hehehe. Next time I'll keep it simple and tell you your argument is nice, but full of holes.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

Riprorin the way you describe God, he doesn't sound very altruistic. That he would need us to validate him with superficial words in such a manner makes one wonder what kind of God this really is?

 

[Grunt03]

Here we go once more.

In my opinion their are two subjects that will always go argued about,
and I think that one of the two will bring the end to man kind.

Religion and Race

For we all think that our one race is the best and our Religion is the one and only............
It all bores me.............

 

[Scarpozzi]

"Eat that turkey all night long
fifty million elvis fans can't be wrong"

 

[udonoogen]

<<

<< If you study the life and the teachings of Christ, I believe that there is only one logical conclusion. He is Lord. >>

You know, the same can be said replacing Christ with Mohammed, Krishna, Buddha, or just about any major spiritual figure. >>



what separates Christ from these other religious figures is that they all died and remained so. Christ died and lived again three days later ... and lives again today. whether or not you believe that is up to you ... but no other religious figure predicted and did that.

the book by CS Lewis actually called "Mere Christianity." excellent read (also short, for all you non readers). you can probably read the first book (they are adapted from three short radio talks) while sitting on the pot. =)

edit: clarification. =) ... and again for grammar



<< EVERY OTHER PROPHET AND RELIGIOUS FIGURE THAT EVER LIVED HAS SAID THE SAME THING!!! >>



i dont think every other prophet has said the same thing. buddha, for instance, if i remember correctly ... did not claim to be a god. and as for Christ ... what makes Him different ... see above

 

[Nefrodite]

<< EVERY OTHER PROPHET AND RELIGIOUS FIGURE THAT EVER LIVED HAS SAID THE SAME THING!!! >>

remembering david koresh

 

[tcsenter]

<< If you study the life and the teachings of Christ, I believe that there is only one logical conclusion. He is Lord. >>

Ah, the classic loaded statement. Anyone who has studied the life and teachings of Christ (among other religious doctrines) and comes to the conclusion religion was all a farce thrust upon the illiterate, ignorant, and superstitious masses, whether deliberately or not, couldn't have studied the "true" life and teachings of Christ, therefore he must be lying.

I couldn't help but notice your sweeping assumption that if I had actually read the Bible, it might clarify some of my misconceptions. Your assumption makes an ass out of you (but not me). When I said earlier I've no advanced degree in theology, that wasn't an admission I've never studied theology and the Bible.

<< there's a lot of things in life we accept on faith that are much more illogical that believing in God, isn't there? >>

Care to name a few?

 

[SinNisTeR]

in my opinion it is better to have believed than not.. what do you have to lose? what do you have to gain?

(in a very elementry way..)

you die believing:
heaven

you die disbelieving:
hell

 

[Elledan]

If a god punishes those who refuse to obey the rules it [the god] created, then this god is not just and understanding, but ignorant.

Punishment does not equal justice, forcing people to live by a set of rules is not just.

This all makes clear that the thesis I proposed earlier still hasn't been refuted, but has been strengthened. Since no religion is 'just', the basic description of a religion remains 'an intolerant ideology'.

--

I know that some of you will ask how I know that the above reasoning is correct, but believe me, it's not so hard to grasp. Even a child should be able to understand that it's correct.

--

BTW, Moonbeam, the fossil record has nothing to do with my thesis, only with evolution, which has already been proven to be a fact. The gaps in the fossil record are due to the unpredictable nature of fossilization and the difficulty in finding those fossils. Of many species which once lived, we'll never see a fossil.

 

[Kanalua]

If this is trying to disuade the believers, it's not going to work....if you're trying to get the believers to convince you of something, that's not going to work. You're a smart guy, study it out, then hey, pray about it, sincerely. That's the only way you're going to know if billions of people are wrong. No one can convince you of anything.

 

[linuxboy]

You know the story of the people who wanted to cross the river. They wanted to cross but they wanted to take their thousand pounds of cabbage with them. You can't swim with a thousand pounds of cabbage, they were told. To cross you will have to leave your thousand pounds of cabbage behind.

But dammit, man, cabbage tastes so good !
can't let go of the cabbage. mmmm. tasty.



linuxboy, the quandry I always face in these threads is that which comes from my opinion that faith in God, real faith in God, is a means by which many find the courage to surrender their cabbage. To attack that faith is to sin against where it might take them. On the other hand, because the faith of so many is built upon the odious notion of exclucivity, coupled with so many logically rejectible absurdities, that these faiths automatically preclude the possibility that huge numbers of others will be able to believe them. For example, unless you are indoctrinated from an early age to believe that Jesus came from a virgin birth or is the only way, those ideas are going to send rationalists packing. We are left with a sacred instrument, Christianity, that is useless for grownig numbers, but important to vast numbers of others. What are we to do? The Christian is going to proclaim to the end that his is the only way, only to cause others with less faith or gulibility to reject the whole notion of religion and loose the point that there is a possibility of real transformation. I don't want to imply that those exclusive Christians are themselves transformed because I think that in a room full of sleeping and awake people, the awake recognize each other and they come from many sources. I guess the good thing is that there's a true self inside everybody. We are not alone.


MB, I find both logically and subjectively in my affectations to agree with this sentiment and to the points in your thread. While I have not abandoned my Christianity since such a position would be illogical, given the absense of defeaters, I do think that any education I have gained has tempted me to abandon notions of developed and encumbered ideology in favor of what seems to me a more rational answer. Yet, I look at what I have been given and my soul (if there is such a thing) cries out, realizing that those around me are true, that they are beautiful, that they possess, in theological drivel, the kingdom of God which is within them. Through some act of grace, or something else, I am complete and see through the layers, despite such a pull from what I suppose could be conceived as Satan, even though I cannot make heads nor tails out of a doctrine espousing Trinity without a fourth, evil element, as present in the whole story of Job. But that's getting way off what I wanted to say.

You asked a question which you did not answer. That being, what are we to do? What does the atheist-cum-awakened, the Christian-cum-seer, the person become human do when recognizing that which you call the human disease. Despite the fact that people will cling to no matter what, what is the answer in this postmodern nightmare? I think that the answer has been with us all along. We've seen it in teachers, we've seen it in people, in our relationships, in those quiet moments of solitude when we watch a spider make its web, knowing well that the beutiful arithmetic creation will be destroyed with just an act of will. The answer is that faith, or its congruents, in the many ways available to specific temperaments and mindsets is necessary so that humans may see themselves for who and what they are, without all this ego nonsense. Of course then one encounters the clingers who want a rationalized everything, afraid to emerge from their self-imposed worlds of abstraction and the religiux needing but another justification and warrant to continue with their ways in light of the attack by modernity. At the end, I like your comment. All we can do is look at ourselves, admit ignorance, seek to perceive more, and be mindful that all of us, in our true selves, are not alone. Adhering to that, all these posts can be curtailed or possibly eliminated.


Elledan, I got a kick out of your response to my myth statement. I thought I had you with that one. Little did I know that Archaeology had shown otherwise. Hehehe. Next time I'll keep it simple and tell you your argument is nice, but full of holes.



Although notice, my objections seem to have gone by relatively unnoticed. In effect, we have a sort of recurrence where people say, "damn, far out, I don't get it, better move on". It has to be full of holes, it's just too weird and goofy to make any sense.

but I'm blathering.

If you study the life and the teachings of Christ, I believe that there is only one logical conclusion. He is Lord.

My personal studies have led me to make a somewhat similar conclusion (altough I disagree with your theological lexicon and doctrinal supports as they reek of inanity to me); I remind you that exclusivity becomes a very touchy issue, especially given the veracity of psychic phenomena.

But back to something else. Where are we exactly with this topic? Are we still debating good 'ole Pascal? What do others think of the parables our Beam of a Moon has provided for reflection?

Cheers !

 

[Mani]

<< << If you study the life and the teachings of Christ, I believe that there is only one logical conclusion. He is Lord. >>

You know, the same can be said replacing Christ with Mohammed, Krishna, Buddha, or just about any major spiritual figure. >>



what separates Christ from these other religious figures is that they all died and remained so. Christ died and lived again three days later ... and lives again today. whether or not you believe that is up to you ... but no other religious figure predicted and did that.
>>



There are a number of unique characteristics of all spiritual figures- the resurrection doesn't really set Christ apart as being "The One".

 

[tcsenter]

<< I remind you that exclusivity becomes a very touchy issue, especially given the veracity of psychic phenomena. >>

The veracity of psychic phenomena? lol! We do have some whoppers here on AT.

Wait, Lady Cleo is about to call me...gotta run!

 

[zeruty]

I think people who believe in God only because they fear going to hell if they don't, kind of defeat the purpose...

I have my own theories of all this

I've dubbed this my "Existential Paradox Theorem"

ok.. a little background in my thoughts
(I developed these thoughts on my own, a person once told me some points parallel existing beliefs but I havent looked in to them)

first off... there is the first conclusion I came to a few years ago
Existence is impossible. not improbable or implausible, but impossible.
the first argument people give is "that's obviously untrue, because we exist so you are wrong"
my response to that.. "shut up and continue reading"

question: where do I come from? where does this planet come from?
answer: matter floating around in the universe that gathered together due to gravity, and I'm a distant result of that
question: ok, but where did that matter come from? and where did that gravity come from?
answer: the big bang
question: but where did the matter that was tightly compacted together that went bang, to cause the big bang, come from?
answer: God
question: but where did God come from?
answer: he didn't come from anyone, he always was, is and always will be

but where did God come from? He is impossible. the universe is impossible, existence is impossible. where did it all come from?
everything had to come from somewhere, but there should be nothing
logically speaking, nothing should exist. there was nothing to begin with, it's impossible for something to come from nothing.
I don't know how to argue this point better than that, I am not good at that kind of argueing... I understand the concept, a few other people I've explained it to understand it. some claim to understand it but don't, but the majority just don't understand it. I am sure someone here will understand and can help me explain that part. you can't get something from nothing, it's fairly simple in my mind but it's hard to explain


ok... moving on

My more recent conclusion, that finds an answer to the previous one.
I'll start by asking this question....
If you want to become all-power and omnipotent... how do you go about becoming that way?
think about it for a minute
figure out?
ok well let me tell you how
if you really want to become omnipotent, what you need is a paradox
your future omnipotent, all-powerful self, makes your current normal self, omnipotent
the paradox being... that you must make yourself omnipotent to be omnipotent to make yourself omnipotent in the first place

so how does this link to my first conclusion? and to God, or people's image of God?

ok, with all that nothingness that exists, where the idea of existing doesnt even exist...
the only possible way for something to be created... for something to exist, is a paradox
some lucky person(whom you may know as God or one of many other names) did just this
he didn't exist in the first place(because nothing did) so his existing(omnipotent, all-powerful) self, caused himself to exist in the nothingness, therefore causing there to be something, at which point he created the universe

now... there is only one flaw I've found in this...
I really want to be omnipotent... so I've instructed myself to create a paradox and make myself omnipotent but it isnt working
I guess there are a few possibilities
1. my potentional omnipotent self knows that it would be a Really Bad Thing© for me to be omnipotent, which might I say is a good judgement call on my part, go me!
2. the lucky devil, err... uhh anyways the lucky person who used the paradox loophole first, does not want me to be omnipotent so he is not allowing it. but then I can will myself to be more powerful and overrule him, and he can do the same against me... and he was first so he has the upper hand, and this will be henceforth be known as The Eternal Battle of Zeruty vs. The God or Godlike Entity who beat me to the punch.



ok I know all this will just be blabbering to most people
some will not understand
some will call me stupid
hopefully some will read it, understand, possibly think my ideas have some credibility, and let me know so I get some Warm Fuzzies©

 

[linuxboy]

The veracity of psychic phenomena? lol! We do have some whoppers here on AT.

Wait, Lady Cleo is about to call me...gotta run!


Woah woah woah there my good fellow. It appears I use language again which is perfectly clear in my mind but is understood as something completely different by the majority of the world. Substitute psychic with psychological and you will get better access to my idea. I have no intention of associating my though with any of that hocus-pocus nonsense; merely nascent scientific disciplines. Perhaps I should define every questionable word to help people out since meaning gets so lost when I try and explain something, and given my general proclivity to ramble.


Cheers !

 

[linuxboy]

The veracity of psychic phenomena? lol! We do have some whoppers here on AT.

You know, I really tried to be clear and I thought I was using a defined word. So I went to dictionary.com and saw this:

adj. also psy·chi·cal (-k-kl)
Of, relating to, affecting, or influenced by the human mind or psyche; mental: psychic trauma; psychic energy

Now I used that as an adjective, that is, a thing which modifies a noun, namely the word phenomena. Hence, the adjective definition intends to point the reader to the mind, the noetic or cognitive processes, and alternately, what is commonly called psychology.

Also, my greek bias here still refers to the psyche/psikhika as the old concept of a soul, or that which is internal and is conceived as the immaterial, affective, and generally that which is us and our patterns and dynamics.

Please don't misconstrue my words. I really think your lack of care in looking up the defined meaning was unwarranted in this case. But, I apologize for not being more succinct.


Cheers !

 

[Elledan]

zeruty, your thesis contains many metaphysical elements. What you are trying to find out is what the cause of the universe is.

When you attempt to answer this question, your thesis breaks down, because you aren't even certain what caused the Big Bang (or a similar event). The funny thing is that there doesn't even have to be a cause for the big bang, because before the big bang, if all matter was concentrated in one point, there could have been no 'time', thus causality would not apply.

 

[zeruty]

I'm not saying I am the smartest person
in fact I have my share of confidence problems and self-doubt

I doubt any decision I make, it's my downfall (it's why I don't have a better job[I think I'm not good enough], etc)

and I didn't say it's iron clad and I havent gone to the effort of working out all contingencies
I'm just posting this as kind of a baseline of my thoughts and ideas....there are some ideas in there that seem logically sound to me, but I may be wrong

 

[tcsenter]

<< Please don't misconstrue my words. I really think your lack of care in looking up the defined meaning was unwarranted in this case. But, I apologize for not being more succinct. >>

Sure, psychic and phenomena are two different words. When paired together, "psychic phenomena" takes on a whole new meaning. Just like "psychic" and "medium" are two different words, but "psychic medium" is something altogether different.

The customary and common use of "psychic phenomena" today is in reference to the supernatural type. I accept your apology for using those terms so carelessly.