HellVictorinho:

OK,it is not wrong to you now.

HellVictorinho:
But,if an armed robber actually attacks you,such a question would be......
And,I know you won't say"you are welcome to rob me since there is nothing wrong about it."

9inches:
I said "it is", which means yes. I don't set to confuse. But mind you, we're not talking natural sciences where theories are reduced to short formulas and concise sentences. However, I understand what you mean.

HellVictorinho:

"Can" in English means possibly.
'Objective'and 'Subjective' have different meanings in English.

9inches:

Quote where I said so.

Any armed robber is welcome to rob me.

9inches:
Got it.

Truth by its very nature is exclusive. If it is true, as Christianity claims, that Jesus was crucified, died and rose again -- that it is not true as islam claims, that Jesus never died in the first place, and that somebody else was killed in his place... both claims cannot be true.

It's like asking why Jesus is the only way. Nobody else in history made the claims Jesus did. Nobody else claimed to be able to deal with the problem of the human heart like he did. Nobody else claimed as Jesus did to be "God with us!" So, whether you believe his claims or not, it's evident Jesus was utterly unique.

Note that christianity does not make the argument that other religions are totally false. That would be totally a false assertion. There is some good and truth in just about every other religion. If you apply the law of non contradiction - "A" and "B" cannot both be true at the same time. Either one of them is true or both are false.

So, now you know Christianity and islam could be said to be superficially similar but fundamentally different because they both make contradicting truth claims.

joseph1013:


Okay. You believe murder is objectively evil. If a hired assassin comes to your abode, and while getting a vintage point to take you out, your gateman kills him, has your gateman committed a crime? Is your gateman done an evil deed?

HellVictorinho:

You asked, "what is wrong about that?"

9inches:
Crime is a different conversation about secular law.

No, the gateman hasn't done an evil deed.

joseph1013:
You are being fallacious.

Your argument is akin to this conversation:

John: I am my father's son

Joseph: How do you know?

John: My father told me.

It's called a circular argument.

Jesus died and was crucified. Who told you that? The Bible did. See?

Again, you are being fallacious.

Claiming Christianity is true because of the claims of Jesus is nothing short of nonsensical.

Take any religion in the world, and I will show you what makes them unique.

Mohammed in Islam claims he is the final prophet sent from God. He recognized Jesus and what he has to say, but claims his prophethood is final and complete — no messenger will come after him.

Buddhists claim Buddhism is the most unique religion to have ever existed. They say unlike the barbaric Abrahamic God, there is no almighty God in Buddhism, no one to hand out rewards and punishments. They claim that while all religions teach some forms or variations of stabilizing/single-pointedness meditation, only Buddhism emphasizes Vipassana (Insight) meditation as a powerful tool to assist one in seeking liberation/enlightenment.

I have heard a Hindu say that asking about the uniqueness of Hinduism would be belittling its profundity. He says Hinduism is unparalleled in breadth and depth of exploration, documentation and expression of a Godward aspiration, God-discovery, God-realisation and manifesting this Knowledge in life through art, poetry, scripture and simple life.

So you see, there is nothing special about the claims of Jesus. I can make much more absurd claims and start a movement. Does that mean my religion is the one and only because of that?

You have not offered me any verifiable proof as to why Christianity is true. You can do better, right?

9inches:

Pardon, what did you think my argument was there? What's your understanding of the word "If"?

Where did I claim Christianityis true from the quoted? You're attacking a straw man now. Not good

Right. So what do you mean by "he recognized Jesus and what he has to say"? Do you think that according to the Christian claim of who Jesus says he is and what he taught...that both religions agree? See, I was pointing out the biggest (fundamental) difference between both faiths to dispel any argument of different religions being valid and true. I even used the law of contradiction, that shows what my argument was - the differences, not the validity of the claims.

Boom! You just helped me with another difference! Now can any rational person say both are equally valid and that their exclusive claims are both true? Of course not! Again, apply law of non contradiction - it's either the Christian claim is false and the Buddhist is the truth or vice versa. Both claims can also both be false but they CANNOT both be true. Do you understand that now?

Christianity makes those exact claims too, nothing unique here.

Here's one of Jesus' outrageous (special) claims: (John 6:52-58)
"Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?' Jesus said to them, 'Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.'"

It's either he is a nutjob, as in, a wacko - a crazy lunatic or he's telling the truth. Do you think any religion accepts this claim? Mind you, the group of people Jesus was talking to in this passage all believed in God, yet they were shocked, even a lot of his disciples left him because of such statement.

I asked what type of proof you are asking for. Maybe you can tell it now.

joseph1013:


Which other law are you referring to? Spiritual law?

9inches:
Moral law.

9inches:
Yes, I ASKED.

joseph1013:
Isn't the uniqueness of Christianity an argument for its validity? I'm not having this discussion for discussion sake. It's all targeted towards making you tell us why Christianity is true.

9inches:
Got it.

Truth by its very nature is exclusive. If it is true, as Christianity claims, that Jesus was crucified, died and rose again -- that it is not true as islam claims, that Jesus never died in the first place, and that somebody else was killed in his place... both claims cannot be true.

joseph1013:


You are being fallacious.

Your argument is akin to this conversation:

John: I am my father's son

Joseph: How do you know?

John: My father told me.

It's called a circular argument.

Jesus died and was crucified. Who told you that? The Bible did. See?

joseph1013:
See...you realize that Islam and Christianity agree on certain aspects. They are both Abrahamic religions. They both recognize the Old Testament. Of course, they both disagree. Even Christianity is not singular. These are about 3000 denominations in Christianity, so this exclusivity you intend to give yourself has no validity.

That's the point. The claim is that that's what makes the religion unique.

When I ask for proof of Christianity, offering me absurd statements of Christ does not qualify as proof. Other religions offer some absurd claims too.
When I ask of proof, I'm referring to something tangible. Something like claims of the Bible being inspired by God. Something like a believer being a better human than anyone on earth due to the Holy Spirit indwelling. Something like miraculous claims by Christians that have been verified to be true.
Offering me claims I can make doesn't cut it.

9inches:
You can use the following three tests to ascertain what the truth really is:

1. Correspondence theory
2. Coherence theory
3. Explanatory power

Correspondence theory asks the question, "look, what you believe, or what you've placed your trust in, does it correspond to reality? Does it have factual evidence to back it up." For instance, if I were to say to you "last night Manchester United won the football game", that statement is true if and only if Manchester United actually won the football game. That is the Correspondence theory - what I believe must correspond to factual evidence.

Coherence theory asks the question, "look, what you believe or what you've placed your trust in, does it cohere - is there a high degree of internal consistency?" Let's say, you and I we're talking and you say "hey, I just found out you had a new baby boy, is that right?" And I say to you with much enthusiasm "yes, we do and we are so pleased." Then another friend comes in and says "congrats man, I just heard that you have a son" And I say no no no, who told you that?" Now, you're going to look at me and be like "hold on, which is it?" As you already know, both can't be true because there's a contradiction there - there isn't coherence.

Explanatory power simply asks the question "does what I believe or what I've placed my trust in help me make sense of my observations of the world and also my longings and the desires that I have?" The observations that I have of the world - that the world is not the way it ought to be; there are many things wrong with the world. And then, my longing for significance - to matter; my observation that deep down I know I'm capable of doing great things but at the same time I'm deeply flawed.

The question then becomes, "what faith, system of belief or worldview best explains these observations and these longings?

The original Christian faith passes these three tests with flying colors.

9inches:
No sir, uniqueness does not mean validity. I wonder where you got that from. Something can be unique without it being valid or credible or authentic or even good. Check definition of unique.
By the way, I said this [Quote author=joseph1013 post=74566998]
In terms of answers to question is fine.

I'm actually just interested in the verifiable proof you have to belief that Christianity is the one and only true religion. Got it.

Truth by its very nature is exclusive. If it is true, as Christianity claims, that Jesus was crucified, died and rose again -- that it is not true as islam claims, that Jesus never died in the first place, and that somebody else was killed in his place... both claims cannot be true.
and you mischaracterized my statements and accused me of fallacy

You are being fallacious.

Your argument is akin to this conversation:

John: I am my father's son

Joseph: How do you know?

John: My father told me.

It's called a circular argument.

Jesus died and was crucified. Who told you that? The Bible did. See?

See...you realize that Islam and Christianity agree on certain aspects. They are both Abrahamic religions. They both recognize the Old Testament. Of course, they both disagree. Even Christianity is not singular. These are about 3000 denominations in Christianity, so this exclusivity you intend to give yourself has no validity.Way more than 3000; it's about 33,000 and counting although a lot of them believe precisely the same thing. But even if, let's say, they account for 3000 different beliefs, those differences matter a whole lot, more so, if those are fundamental differences. Like I previously said, every belief system has some good in it; some have more, some have less. But the whole point here is that you should not equivocate different contradicting belief systems even if they share some similarities or have some good in it. It's a postmodern moral relativist and nonsensical thing to do.

That's the point. The claim is that that's what makes the religion unique.Time to check the meaning of the word "unique".

When I ask for proof of Christianity, offering me absurd statements of Christ does not qualify as proof. Other religions offer some absurd claims too.
When I ask of proof, I'm referring to something tangible. Something like claims of the Bible being inspired by God. Something like a believer being a better human than anyone on earth due to the Holy Spirit indwelling. Something like miraculous claims by Christians that have been verified to be true.
Offering me claims I can make doesn't cut it.

Remember this? Now read the highlighted again.
You can use the following three tests to ascertain what the truth really is:

1. Correspondence theory
2. Coherence theory
3. Explanatory power

Correspondence theory asks the question, "look, what you believe, or what you've placed your trust in, does it correspond to reality? Does it have factual evidence to back it up." For instance, if I were to say to you "last night Manchester United won the football game", that statement is true if and only if Manchester United actually won the football game. That is the Correspondence theory - what I believe must correspond to factual evidence.

Coherence theory asks the question, "look, what you believe or what you've placed your trust in, does it cohere - is there a high degree of internal consistency?" Let's say, you and I we're talking and you say "hey, I just found out you had a new baby boy, is that right?" And I say to you with much enthusiasm "yes, we do and we are so pleased." Then another friend comes in and says "congrats man, I just heard that you have a son" And I say no no no, who told you that?" Now, you're going to look at me and be like "hold on, which is it?" As you already know, both can't be true because there's a contradiction there - there isn't coherence.

Explanatory power simply asks the question "does what I believe or what I've placed my trust in help me make sense of my observations of the world and also my longings and the desires that I have?" The observations that I have of the world - that the world is not the way it ought to be; there are many things wrong with the world. And then, my longing for significance - to matter; my observation that deep down I know I'm capable of doing great things but at the same time I'm deeply flawed.

The question then becomes, "what faith, system of belief or worldview best explains these observations and these longings?

The original Christian faith passes these three tests with flying colors.

joseph1013:


What is moral law? Who created it?

9inches:
Merriam-webster: moral law is a general rule of right living especially such a rule or group of rules conceived as universal and unchanging and as having the sanction of God's will, of conscience, of man's moral nature, or of natural justice as revealed to human reason.

HellVictorinho:

You are creationist,period.
And everything you do is in a bid to validate that.

joseph1013:
This comment is difficult to read, as my comments and yours have been lumped together

9inches:
Breaking news!

joseph1013:
Saying the original Christian faith passes these three tests with flying colors by offering rhetoric does not cut it.

joseph1013:
When I ask of proof, I'm referring to something tangible. Something like claims of the Bible being inspired by God. Something like a believer being a better human than anyone on earth due to the Holy Spirit indwelling. Something like miraculous claims by Christians that have been verified to be true.

joseph1013:

Who created this law?

9inches:
God I believe.

9inches:
I totally agree with you. Rhetoric doesn't cut it, and reasonably so. That's why you don't have to take my word for it. Evidence are meant to be tested.

At this your level of faith? You're still struggling with "Preambles of Faith" while asking me to talk to you about "Articles of Faith". Talking to you about deeper matters of faith at this point will sound to you like tales by the moonlight. You'll be lost in confusion. In the Catholic Church, we start from the basics, deal with the fundamentals and work our way deeper. We don't just throw you into the middle of the bible and tell you about 'Works of the holy spirit when you are yet to grasp information about God or Jesus Christ. If you don't know God, how could anything that come out him make sense to you?

joseph1013:


Which of the Gods? And how do you know?

joseph1013:


Hahaha...see what I am saying. Instead of bringing about coherent arguments...you resort to ad hominems.

My questions to you are simple and I have consistently asked them only for you to keep drumming fallacies. Not going to work.

I will repeat: When I ask of proof, I'm referring to something tangible. Something like claims of the Bible being inspired by God. Something like a believer being a better human than anyone on earth due to the Holy Spirit indwelling. Something like miraculous claims by Christians that have been verified to be true.

Can you provide these tangible proofs of your faith? Take any religious beliefs and your rhetoric will fit like a glove.

9inches:
You can use the following three tests to ascertain what the truth really is:

1. Correspondence theory
2. Coherence theory
3. Explanatory power

Only the original Christian faith passes these three tests with flying colors.

9inches:
The uncreated Supernatural from whom every other thing came into being.

9inches:

All you've been saying here is nonsensical, you can try to present sensible arguments. See, it's easy to do what you're doing. Labelling arguments you don't like as incoherent or fallacies doesn't make them as such, especially if you don't "coherently" and credibly refute those arguments. You're being openly dishonest in this conversation.

Come back here and tell all of us how much you tested this and how true/false this is.

joseph1013:


Do you have evidence for such a being?

joseph1013:


I have a feeling I am wasting my time.

- You made a claim.
- You say the claim can be tested via three tests (never mind that there is no universal corroboration of it, but for the sake of indulging you I have allowed it to stand).
- I ask that you tell me how your claim passes the three tests.
- You start ad hominems.

What kind of conversation do you think this is?

9inches:

All you've been saying here is nonsensical, you can try to present sensible arguments. See, it's easy to do what you're doing. Labelling arguments you don't like as incoherent or fallacies doesn't make them as such, especially if you don't "coherently" and credibly refute those arguments. You're being openly dishonest in this conversation.



Come back here and tell all of us how much you tested this and how true/false this is.