Do Christians have a warrant to say they are the "true" religion?

Factfinder

@MistakenIdentity

More importantly, it is important to realize that Christianity isn't a single set of beliefs like Judaism or even Islam. Instead, it has split into multiple Churches, and denominations and cults throughout its entire history over matters doctrinal, even to the very nature of the Trinity, their own God! A religion that cannot even agree universally the nature of their own God can hardly call itself logically sound, particularly since all the versions of said God exist to this day - each side unable to convince each other their logically sound arguments are actually true.

Excellent point! Not only could this god not preserve it's word alone; the claim that it uses human agents to 'correct' translations doesn't dissuade followers from believing the word is infallible even though with all the mistakes and contradictions their god was too weak to protect it from. Now as you point out their supposed 'holy spirit' led many followers to differing cults.

Joeseph

They think they do but then again they will claim their verion of Christianity is the correct one.

There are 33,000 denominations of christianity worldwide and they all dissgree on which version is the " true" one demonstrating clearly the egotistical bully boy posturing that's the norm for this lot.

In christianity there are 100's of rules and dictates one is meant to follow most christians totally ignore all that's inconvenient as like most christians going to church half an hour a week proves what a truly humble ,decent ,charitable christians you are.

If adherence to the laws and dictates of your particular book is the benchmark then Muslims win by a country mile , the Quran like the bible says death to homsexuals Muslims under Sharia law do so, Apostates are punished , pregnancy outside marriage is punished, dressing inappropriately , blaspheming etc ,etc these are all crimes in Islam and christianity also Muslims punish offenders as set out in the Quran ,Christians ignore thus disobeying gods law.

It's most amusing to see Christians in the past condemning churches like the Westboro Baptists who held up large posters at gay mens funerals saying " Roast in Hell fags" the complaint being they were not true Christians and their actions were disrespectful yet this is exactly in line with God's word as god called for stoning to death of homosexuals and said the fiery pit awaits them.

Barnardot

@MistakenIdentity If you really want to be objective about it then you would have to say that the Dreamtime religion in Australia is the only true religion.

It is the first religion and goes back over 40,000 years. So you could call Christianity and Islam poor copies of the true religion.

just_sayin

@MistakenIdentity

Christians throughout history have claimed that they are the exclusive religion to worship the only god that exists. Christian apologists claim the religion is the only one that is historically true, logically sound and, further, that everyone must also believe in their religion. However, the facts on the ground show completely the opposite:

Jesus said “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.: (John 14:6). So Jesus did make claims that all paths do not lead to God and that he had provided the only path to God. So Christianity does claim that there is salvation in no one else other than Christ.

Christianity is not historically true
This is proven by the fact that there are no contemporaneous reports of any of the miracles - the virgin birth, the raising of the dead, the feeding of the 5000, and most importantly neither his death, nor his resurrection. In addition, the doctrine that Jesus is the Messiah prophesized by ancient Jewish texts has been in dispute since the beginning, continuing to today, where Jews refuse to concede that Jesus was every the Messiah - specifically for not fulfilling the prophecy of bring peace to the earth.

This is just factually wrong. Jesus death and resurrection is found in the creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 and it is dated no later than 18 months after his death. For historical documents - you don't get any more definitive and closer to the event itself. The miracles of Jesus were written about by eye witnesses to the events such as Matthew, John, James, and Peter. The events were recorded by those who interviewed eye witnesses such as are found in the books of Luke, Acts, and Mark.

The denial of Jesus performing miracles is something none of Jesus' enemies made. In fact we have evidence from the enemies of Jesus that he performed miracles:

“The insurgents with him replied that if Yeshu was the Messiah he should give them a convincing sign. They therefore, brought to him a lame man, who had never walked. Yeshu spoke over the man the letters of the Ineffable Name, and the leper was healed. Thereupon, they worshipped him as the Messiah, Son of the Highest… Yeshu spoke up: “Madam, I am the Messiah and I revive the dead.” A dead body was brought in; he pronounced the letters of the Ineffable Name and the corpse came to life. The Queen was greatly moved and said: ‘This is a true sign.’ …the Sages came before the Queen, complaining that Yeshu practiced sorcery and was leading everyone astray… He spoke the Ineffable Name over the birds of clay and they flew into the air. He spoke the same letters over a millstone that had been placed upon the waters. He sat in it and it floated like a boat. When they saw this the people marveled.” (The Toledot Yeshu)

At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. - Josephus

It was by means of sorcery that He was able to accomplish the wonders which He performed; - Celsus

Celsus, moreover, unable to resist the miracles which Jesus is recorded to have performed, has already on several occasions spoken of them slanderously as works of sorcery; and we also on several occasions have, to the best of our ability, replied to his statements. And now he represents us as saying that we deemed Jesus to be the Son of God, because he healed the lame and the blind. And he adds: Moreover, as you assert, he raised the dead. That He healed the lame and the blind, and that therefore we hold Him to be the Christ and the Son of God, is manifest to us from what is contained in the prophecies: ... Celsus as cited by Origen

“Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events . . . but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 14)

adducing the testimony of Phlegon, who relates that these events took place at the time when our Saviour suffered. And he goes on to say, that Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails. We ask him what he means by the expression, was of no assistance to himself? - Against Celsus Book 2, Chapter 59

It would be odd for Jesus' enemies to claim he performed miracles if he did not. Yet, they all affirm that he did. Now they spin the issue, claiming Jesus did so by sorcery or the Devil, but they do not deny the miracles. in fact, they attempt to use them, to condemn Jesus.

More importantly, it is important to realize that Christianity isn't a single set of beliefs like Judaism or even Islam.

Christianity does have many denominations that is true. Is that because there is no true Christianity, or because people are people and have different opinions? You falsely claimed there are only a single set of beliefs in Judaism and Islam. This is demonstrably false. Even in the time of Jesus, Judaism had divisions such as Pharisees and Sadducees. The Pharisees believed in an afterlife, the Sadducees did not. There are even discussions about this in the New Testament. Within Islam there are Sunni and Shia Muslims.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@MistakenIdentity ; Christianity is true...it is the fulfillment of Elohim's eschatological plan concerning a spiritual war having manifest in the Kingdom, a war that is causation for our creation in Time.

MistakenIdentity

@just_sayin

Firstly, claims by Jesus' own followers are hardly objective - they have the most to gain from inflating what he actually did.

Secondly, his "enemies" claims and references to "sorcery" are equally suspect. And specifically, what does sorcery even mean?

Thirdly, Mark claimed that hundreds of people rose from the dead during the resurrection. If true, surely this would have been more widely reported and documented.

On the point that Christian groups has different ideas and concepts, I agree. It is no different from what happens in other religions. However, being unable to agree on one's own "god", the trinity, and Jesus' specific role within it is not a small matter. Especially if there's a claim that this is the "only" god and that everyone should also worship said god.

Christians can't claim they have the truth when there is so much discord within the religion about literally the very person the religion is named after!

MistakenIdentity

@Barnardot What's your point? That only the first religion is true?

just_sayin

MistakenIdentity said:

@just_sayin

Firstly, claims by Jesus' own followers are hardly objective - they have the most to gain from inflating what he actually did.

Secondly, his "enemies" claims and references to "sorcery" are equally suspect. And specifically, what does sorcery even mean?

Thirdly, Mark claimed that hundreds of people rose from the dead during the resurrection. If true, surely this would have been more widely reported and documented.

On the point that Christian groups has different ideas and concepts, I agree. It is no different from what happens in other religions. However, being unable to agree on one's own "god", the trinity, and Jesus' specific role within it is not a small matter. Especially if there's a claim that this is the "only" god and that everyone should also worship said god.

Christians can't claim they have the truth when there is so much discord within the religion about literally the very person the religion is named after!

Jesus followers are eye witnesses. It is beyond absurd to think that a trial judge would say something as like 'oh, you are a friend of the defendant, you can't be a witness'. This is a bias claim without merit. Eye witness accounts must be judged individually for their credibility. The fact that many of the miracles are repeated by others gives increased credibility to the claims.

Jesus enemies freely admitted that Jesus performed miracles. As I mentioned they even used this common fact against him by claiming it was sorcery (or by Demon association) that Jesus performed healings of the lame, the blind, and raising the dead.

Regarding your 3rd point, I think this is what you may have been referring:

The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.- Matthew 27:52-53

Mathew mentions the sky darkening and earthquakes. It doesn't say hundreds. And you are correct, that there does not appear to be any record of other people being raised from the dead, other than those that the enemies of Jesus claimed Jesus him self raised from the dead in the Jewish Toledot Yeshu. However, sit down for this - Jesus' enemies (Phlegon and Thallus) confirm the darkness (an eclipse) and the earthquakes at the time of Jesus' death and resurrection. It is very odd that if the events did not happen, as Mathew recorded, at Jesus' death and resurrection, that his enemies acknowledged an eclipse and an earthquake.. Why would they acknowledge them if they did not happen?

Your final point is without merit. If I go to a concert and hear Bach played badly, I don't yell 'Bach is a bad composer'. Instead, I recognize that the orchestra didn't represent his works well. In the same way, it is unfair to judge Christ by what others do. The most primary principle of Christianity is that all are sinful and flawed and in need of a savior. The church is made up of flawed sinners who are growing int heir faith.

MistakenIdentity

@just_sayin

Jesus followers are eye witnesses. It is beyond absurd to think that a trial judge would say something as like 'oh, you are a friend of the defendant, you can't be a witness'. This is a bias claim without merit. Eye witness accounts must be judged individually for their credibility. The fact that many of the miracles are repeated by others gives increased credibility to the claims.

This isn't a trial though so your argument makes no sense. There are many examples from all religions, but especially Christianity where claims would be made by someone that are echo'd by their followers, no matter how absurd or unrealistic or illogical. By your reckoning, all the Mormon claims from Joseph Smith's revelations are also true - correct?

Jesus enemies freely admitted that Jesus performed miracles. As I mentioned they even used this common fact against him by claiming it was sorcery (or by Demon association) that Jesus performed healings of the lame, the blind, and raising the dead.

I don't even know why you are talking about Jesus' enemies but if we are to take them seriously, then surely we should take seriously the Jews that do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah, in which case, I have warrant to disbelieve Christianity.

Mathew mentions the sky darkening and earthquakes. It doesn't say hundreds. And you are correct, that there does not appear to be any record of other people being raised from the dead, other than those that the enemies of Jesus claimed Jesus him self raised from the dead in the Jewish Toledot Yeshu. However, sit down for this - Jesus' enemies (Phlegon and Thallus) confirm the darkness (an eclipse) and the earthquakes at the time of Jesus' death and resurrection. It is very odd that if the events did not happen, as Mathew recorded, at Jesus' death and resurrection, that his enemies acknowledged an eclipse and an earthquake.. Why would they acknowledge them if they did not happen?

Mathew 27:45 says " From noon until three in the afternoon darkness came over all the land."

So, can you show me where in the records a three hour eclipse happened? And how is it possible?

Your final point is without merit. If I go to a concert and hear Bach played badly, I don't yell 'Bach is a bad composer'. Instead, I recognize that the orchestra didn't represent his works well. In the same way, it is unfair to judge Christ by what others do. The most primary principle of Christianity is that all are sinful and flawed and in need of a savior. The church is made up of flawed sinners who are growing int heir faith.

I think you miss my primary point - this isn't about Christ, but about Christians and the claims made by Christian dogma, enforced by the Christian Church. Or rather Churches. And if Christians don't even agree about the person who their entire religion is named after, that's not someone playing badly - it is a lot of people inventing competing ideas, unable to prove them, yet continuing to claim they have access to the only truth.

This is all in keeping with Jesus' origin story - co-opting a god, inventing new claims and making themselves as the focal point, unable to prove it but continuing nonetheless. I think if the church is made up flawed sinners you have to reach all the way back to Jesus himself.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

Jesus followers are eye witnesses. It is beyond absurd to think that a trial judge would say something as like 'oh, you are a friend of the defendant, you can't be a witness'.

Actually judges do that all the time. They don't usually disqualify someone from being a wittiness but depending on who's asking the questions they are deemed 'hostile witnesses' if there is a relationship and what ever they say is met with much more scrutiny. Especially bizarre supernatural claims.

Eye witness accounts must be judged individually for their credibility. The fact that many of the miracles are repeated by others gives increased credibility to the claims.

The 'eye witnesses' you speak of are all asserted by religious texts which is nothing but dogmatic tripe and you know it. Deal with it.

Jesus enemies freely admitted that Jesus performed miracles. As I mentioned they even used this common fact against him by claiming it was sorcery (or by Demon association) that Jesus performed healings of the lame, the blind, and raising the dead.

Another nail in the coffin of your faith. Barely mentioning what was claimed by a cult almost 100 years later isn't affirmation of miracles; especially when you admit they assume it was a sorcerer's tricks. Why cling to a faith you're compelled to lie for?

Mathew mentions the sky darkening and earthquakes. It doesn't say hundreds. And you are correct, that there does not appear to be any record of other people being raised from the dead, other than those that the enemies of Jesus claimed Jesus him self raised from the dead in the Jewish Toledot Yeshu. However, sit down for this - Jesus' enemies (Phlegon and Thallus) confirm the darkness (an eclipse) and the earthquakes at the time of Jesus' death and resurrection. It is very odd that if the events did not happen, as Mathew recorded, at Jesus' death and resurrection, that his enemies acknowledged an eclipse and an earthquake.. Why would they acknowledge them if they did not happen?

Bible verses are dogmatic and have no value. Eclipses and earthquakes happen, correlation does not mean causation. Matthew says saints that had died before were raised when Jesus was in your same bible so are you saying he is in error? If Jesus's enemies were affirming the miracle why leave out this important fact?

Your final point is without merit. If I go to a concert and hear Bach played badly, I don't yell 'Bach is a bad composer'. Instead, I recognize that the orchestra didn't represent his works well. In the same way, it is unfair to judge Christ by what others do. The most primary principle of Christianity is that all are sinful and flawed and in need of a savior. The church is made up of flawed sinners who are growing int heir faith.

But we're not talking about concerts. We're talking about how Christianity claims to be the only way to heaven and to have the infallible word of god when in reality there is bitter discord and admitted 'corrections' to false translations or mistaken ones, same thing. You expect people to believe your all powerful god could do anything but it can't perfectly preserve its word or explain itself without confusing its parishioners to the point of bitter feuding.

Barnardot

@MistakenIdentity ;What's your point? That only the first religion is true?

Yes that is my point.

In fact what I said was: the Dreamtime religion in Australia is the only true religion. It is the first religion

Now any one with half a brain can work out from that statement that only the first religion is true. Not hard to deduce that is it?

But thats all right. Your debating skills and attention to detail can only get better.

MistakenIdentity

@Barnardot What does this have to do with my argument?

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

Jesus followers are eye witnesses. It is beyond absurd to think that a trial judge would say something as like 'oh, you are a friend of the defendant, you can't be a witness'.

Actually judges do that all the time. They don't usually disqualify someone from being a wittiness but depending on who's asking the questions they are deemed 'hostile witnesses' if there is a relationship and what ever they say is met with much more scrutiny. Especially bizarre supernatural claims.

Eye witness accounts must be judged individually for their credibility. The fact that many of the miracles are repeated by others gives increased credibility to the claims.

The 'eye witnesses' you speak of are all asserted by religious texts which is nothing but dogmatic tripe and you know it. Deal with it.

Jesus enemies freely admitted that Jesus performed miracles. As I mentioned they even used this common fact against him by claiming it was sorcery (or by Demon association) that Jesus performed healings of the lame, the blind, and raising the dead.

Another nail in the coffin of your faith. Barely mentioning what was claimed by a cult almost 100 years later isn't affirmation of miracles; especially when you admit they assume it was a sorcerer's tricks. Why cling to a faith you're compelled to lie for?

Mathew mentions the sky darkening and earthquakes. It doesn't say hundreds. And you are correct, that there does not appear to be any record of other people being raised from the dead, other than those that the enemies of Jesus claimed Jesus him self raised from the dead in the Jewish Toledot Yeshu. However, sit down for this - Jesus' enemies (Phlegon and Thallus) confirm the darkness (an eclipse) and the earthquakes at the time of Jesus' death and resurrection. It is very odd that if the events did not happen, as Mathew recorded, at Jesus' death and resurrection, that his enemies acknowledged an eclipse and an earthquake.. Why would they acknowledge them if they did not happen?

Bible verses are dogmatic and have no value. Eclipses and earthquakes happen, correlation does not mean causation. Matthew says saints that had died before were raised when Jesus was in your same bible so are you saying he is in error? If Jesus's enemies were affirming the miracle why leave out this important fact?

Your final point is without merit. If I go to a concert and hear Bach played badly, I don't yell 'Bach is a bad composer'. Instead, I recognize that the orchestra didn't represent his works well. In the same way, it is unfair to judge Christ by what others do. The most primary principle of Christianity is that all are sinful and flawed and in need of a savior. The church is made up of flawed sinners who are growing int heir faith.

But we're not talking about concerts. We're talking about how Christianity claims to be the only way to heaven and to have the infallible word of god when in reality there is bitter discord and admitted 'corrections' to false translations or mistaken ones, same thing. You expect people to believe your all powerful god could do anything but it can't perfectly preserve its word or explain itself without confusing its parishioners to the point of bitter feuding.

Actually judges do that all the time. They don't usually disqualify someone from being a wittiness but depending on who's asking the questions they are deemed 'hostile witnesses' if there is a relationship and what ever they say is met with much more scrutiny. Especially bizarre supernatural claims.

As I mentioned one must consider the credibility of the witness. Just saying that because they knew Jesus they are lying because you are angry at God is not a justifiable reason. So what do we know about the character of the earliest Christians?

“They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food—but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.” - Pliny the Younger (61 - 113 AD)

They are described as faithful and not consumed with wealth

“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account….You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.” (Lucian, The Death of Peregrine. 11-13)

The fact witnesses of Jesus miracles suffered for being his followers, with many of the apostles being martyred is also evidence of their belief that what they said was true.

Seems like it is more likely we can believe them than some atheist who is raging mad at God because he falsely blames God for something that happened to him.

Another nail in the coffin of your faith. Barely mentioning what was claimed by a cult almost 100 years later isn't affirmation of miracles; especially when you admit they assume it was a sorcerer's tricks. Why cling to a faith you're compelled to lie for?

You are wrong. The fact that Jesus' enemies openly admit he performed miracles is not a fact that an enemy would naturally admit to. You boasted about Celsus when he trashed Christianity, but then you claim he is an unfaithful witness when he says Jesus healed the lame, healed the blind, and even raised the dead. It seems that they were well aware of Jesus reputation for miracles, and knew they would not be taken seriously if they denied they happened.

Bible verses are dogmatic and have no value.

The Bible is a historical document as well as a religious one. It has about 60 different people that have been corroborated by other historical evidence - often centuries before there was any other known evidence. To claim the have no historical value is silly.

You seem to think that because some scribe wrote something down wrong that God is obligated to that. That's irrational. There are entire fields of study given to this area such as textual criticism, which traces the history of the text and its variants.  Philological criticism, which is the study of the biblical languages for an accurate knowledge of vocabulary, grammar, and style of the period. Form criticism, tradition criticism, and literary criticism. The Christian tradition has never claimed that things like inerrancy applied to every copy manually written down of the Bible throughout time. It seems your hatred towards God has made it difficult for you to make such distinctions.

MistakenIdentity

@just_sayin

I know you're responding to someone else but it is fallacious to claim that just because people believe in something and they are willing to die for it, that means that their beliefs are true.

This should be obvious because Christians have killed and tortured Jews, Pagans and people of other faiths without converting them. So are their religions also true?

Factfinder

@just_sayin

Just saying that because they knew Jesus they are lying because you are angry at God is not a justifiable reason.

Another repeated lie. Another nail in your faith's coffin. Are you sure you believe in the god of the bible? Please quote me saying that by post identification.

Seems like it is more likely we can believe them than some atheist who is raging mad at God because he falsely blames God for something that happened to him.

See answer above.

You boasted about Celsus when he trashed Christianity, but then you claim he is an unfaithful witness when he says Jesus healed the lame, healed the blind, and even raised the dead.

Wow, like three lies in one statement. Impressive even for you. I'm now convinced you're not faithful to your supposed god at all. You just like arguing and reveling in your ignorance, like what Celsus really said. He couldn't be a witness at all as he wasn't around the time when jesus performed what Celsus actually called sorcery and magicians tricks. And no he didn't much care who he offended when he did say those things. Now produce the quote of me saying that "he is an unfaithful witness" that you falsely claim I said.

The Bible is a historical document as well as a religious one. It has about 60 different people that have been corroborated by other historical evidence - often centuries before there was any other known evidence To claim the have no historical value is silly

To believe it accounts for all of history of all that exists is far sillier, and pathetic.

You seem to think that because some scribe wrote something down wrong that God is obligated to that. That's irrational. There are entire fields of study given to this area such as textual criticism, which traces the history of the text and its variants. Philological criticism, which is the study of the biblical languages for an accurate knowledge of vocabulary, grammar, and style of the period. Form criticism, tradition criticism, and literary criticism. The Christian tradition has never claimed that things like inerrancy applied to every copy manually written down of the Bible throughout time. It seems your hatred towards God has made it difficult for you to make such distinctions.

No, what I actually think is god didn't protect its word if we are talking your god, of the bible. Ever read it? Seems your disillusioned faith has caused you to rest your whole world view on believing an atheist can be mad at your mythical god.

just_sayin

MistakenIdentity said:

@just_sayin
I know you're responding to someone else but it is fallacious to claim that just because people believe in something and they are willing to die for it, that means that their beliefs are true.

This should be obvious because Christians have killed and tortured Jews, Pagans and people of other faiths without converting them. So are their religions also true?

You misunderstand the argument. While someone may die for something they believe to be true, no one dies for something they know to be false. The apostles encountered Jesus alive on multiple occasions in Jerusalem and in Galilee after his resurrection. They repeated this throughout out their lives. James, the brother of Jesus, was killed because of his belief in the resurrection. Until the resurrection he believed Jesus was out of his head and was not a believer. How do you go from unbeliever to martyr in just like that if you aren't convinced?

It is hard to explain away the reaction of the apostles after the resurrection. The Jews were not looking for a resurrected Messiah. There actions indicate that they truly believed what they had seen and witnessed.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

While someone may die for something they believe to be true, no one dies for something they know to be false.

How could you possibly know such a thing? It could've been a case of them knowing that their persecutors were going to torture and kill them no matter what anyway because of their famed associations with Jesus when he was alive. So why not say the exact opposite of what your executioners want to hear? Do you deny people die in defiance in extenuating circumstances because there is no way out?

MistakenIdentity

@just_sayin

You misunderstand the argument. While someone may die for something they believe to be true, no one dies for something they know to be false. The apostles encountered Jesus alive on multiple occasions in Jerusalem and in Galilee after his resurrection. They repeated this throughout out their lives. James, the brother of Jesus, was killed because of his belief in the resurrection. Until the resurrection he believed Jesus was out of his head and was not a believer. How do you go from unbeliever to martyr in just like that if you aren't convinced?

It is hard to explain away the reaction of the apostles after the resurrection. The Jews were not looking for a resurrected Messiah. There actions indicate that they truly believed what they had seen and witnessed.

I don't disagree that they died for something they believed to be true but I disagree that their beliefs are necessarily true.

It's highly possible that his apostles wanted to believe so much, they actually thought they saw Jesus. It's also possible they believed in the cause the Jesus led was important enough to die for - maybe it was a suicide pact amongst them for what they felt was for the greater good.

People will willingly die (and kill) for very similar reasons. Even in recent history we know people will kill themselves when demanded by their cult leader. It's obvious the apostles were highly influenced and convinced by Jesus' teachings so this is not at all something that can be easily dismissed.

People even die for political causes to make their countries and their descendants and their peoples have a better life. So dying for ideas is not at all far fetched and in the world of small cults, as Christianity was, it's practically a feature.

Think of the persecutions that the Mormons had to endure - does that convince you that Mormonism is also true. Think of the Islamic suicide terrorists or the Japanese kamikaze pilots. Think the guy who set himself on fire recently.

James could easily have been convinced later on, or impressed enough with Jesus' suicide by Romans, or even forced or compelled to believe by the remaining supporters, or even threatened or any number of equally plausible scenarios.

If you follow the MAGA movement, people that voted Obama became Trump supporters, atheists became Christians, and all sorts of 180 degree changes in beliefs have happened due to the constant indoctrination. So changing one's mind is not a good reason to believe their claims are true, even if it means death.

-------------------

We have enough recent history and realtime examples of all your examples that demonstrate the underlying claims have no merit and actually support the fact that Jesus' followers were cultists.

Factfinder

@MistakenIdentity

There's also the reality we only have Christian tradition that says they were martyred in various ways. Nothing historically or biblically validates these claims...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles_in_the_New_Testament

According to the 18th-century historian Edward Gibbon, early Christians (second half of the second century and first half of the third century) believed that only Peter, Paul, and James, son of Zebedee, were martyred.[76] The remainder, or even all, of the claims of martyred apostles do not rely upon historical or biblical evidence, but only on late legends

MistakenIdentity

@Factfinder

All good points that also apply to Mary's "virgin" birth, all the supernatural claims, and the Trinity and Jesus' specific role within it. The last of which continues to be disputed within Christianity!

MayCaesar

Has anyone ever wondered why there is Christian, Jewish, Hinduist and Muslim faith, but there is no Christian, Jewish, Hinduist and Muslim physics? Because physics describes reality, so the double slit experiment set up in a lab in Palo Alto will produce exactly the same result as it set up in a lab in Jerusalem, or Kolkata, or Tehran. While faith describes fantasy, and different cultures develop different fantasy patterns. There is no experiment that can demonstrate that one fantasy is somehow more real than another fantasy, since the reality content of either one of them is exactly 0%.

Science is objective, while religion is intrinsically subjective. Science describes phenomena happening in the real world, while religion describes phenomena happening in human imagination.

MistakenIdentity

@MayCaesar

This should be the topic of another debate but Christian apologetics will claim that all the religious events are one time historical happenings and they will even agree with you that that the scripture is imagined, except they call it inspired by god.

Anyway, if you start a thread, I see a few other problems with your stance.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@MayCaesar ; There is no "physics" void a supernatural, omnipotent, Creator...if you believe there is, explain.

Factfinder

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Explain evidence of supernatural activity. Keep in mind simply stating it's because we are here and exist is void of legitimacy. As all evidence so far is of nature and points to natural phenomenon.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; All that is present in Time that cannot be explained by a physical or natural means is "supernatural" and therefore mandates a "supernatural" origin and a "supernatural" Originator...and you therefore, as a foolish atheist, are a L-i-a-r because you cannot explain the "supernatural" World that engulfs you but you demand there is no God or Creator; therefore, you're a blind, arrogant, fo-ol.

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ; All that is present in Time that cannot be explained by a physical or natural means is "supernatural" and therefore mandates a "supernatural" origin and a "supernatural" Originator...and you therefore, as a foolish atheist, are a L-i-a-r because you cannot explain the "supernatural" World that engulfs you but you demand there is no God or Creator; therefore, you're a blind, arrogant, fo-ol.

I do not accept the current concepts of god as there is no evidence to support any of the myths to date. It's not a demand. You must lie to yourself to believe in Santa. You invoke an imaginary concept because you don't have an explanation. I simply say I don't know and you in your christ like hatred call me the arrogant fool? Perhaps I don't know this jesus because you produce no works?...

John 13:35 "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

MayCaesar

MistakenIdentity said:

@MayCaesar

This should be the topic of another debate but Christian apologetics will claim that all the religious events are one time historical happenings and they will even agree with you that that the scripture is imagined, except they call it inspired by god.

Anyway, if you start a thread, I see a few other problems with your stance.

Christians will do that, Muslims will, Jews will, Hindus will... The point is that, unlike real concepts (with which science deals), imaginary concepts (with which religion deals) such as "god" cannot be tested in an objective way. How can one test whether the Bible or the Quran was inspired by god? Well, so far they have found only one way of resolving such disputes: through war. Who kills enough infidels to cause the remaining ones to submit - is in the right. This is objective... but also insipid.

In science, one person will claim that neutrinos have mass and another that they do not. They talk to each other and find an experimental idea the outcome of which will determine which one it is. They perform the experiment, find that neutrinos, indeed, do have mass - and move on to the next unresolved issue. Anyone can replicate the experimental results and arrive at the same conclusion. There is no room for personal opinion or cultural dogma here, unless one chooses to reject what their own eyes see.

MistakenIdentity

@MayCaesar

I agree but the definition of "true" in a religious sense isn't in the same objective sense as science. I mean it's obvious from just looking at Christianity alone where there are several conceptions of what Jesus is in relation to their own God/Trinity, that it's not "scientifically" based.

Religious truths are based on interpretations, consensus and a lot of praying. They're more akin to political ideologies than to science. So in that sense it is fair to give them a little bit of leeway.

That said, not being able to define your own god whilst simultaneously imposing it onto others seems a bit much!

MayCaesar

@MistakenIdentity

This argument seems to be quite common in these discussions: "Since we are talking about religion, X has to be interpreted differently here". The most common version of it is this: "Since god is supernatural, common logic does not have to apply to him". In this case, however, it is not clear what exactly we are talking about. If something being religious warrants arbitrary redefinitions of words, then any statement can be interpreted as true, and in that case language is completely useless.

To me, something that is true is just true. There is no such thing as "true in the religious sense", or "true in the metaphorical sense". A statement is either true or false. 2+2=5 is false, regardless of what the person making the claim that it is true believes. And I see zero reason to give anyone a leeway here. What someone believes should not be a factor when evaluating the quality of their argument.

Imagine if I used a similar argument in the secular setting. "I am a billionaire. What, you are saying that I do not have the assets worth a billion dollars? Well, I do not mean 'billionaire' in the same objective sense as in finance. Now, please transfer two million to that realtor company through which I am buying a luxury house". It just does not work. Religious people only get away with this stuff precisely because they talk about imaginary concepts that do not have any consequences in this reality. The reality does not punch them in the face for being wrong, so they can be wrong perpetually and never be incentivized to correct their wrongfulness.

Imagine if their religion actually posited some reality-dependent things. For example, someone believing in Hera (the Greek goddess) and praying to her got to believe that she bestowed on them the ability to fly - and decided to exercise that ability by jumping off a cliff... Imagine an entire religion based around Hera, this being one of its assertions. Well, there would be a very serious health hazard associated with taking this religion seriously.
But believing that there is a god in some other dimension or something - that does not matter and the price one pays for believing in this is much lower, and it is paid much more indirectly.

Factfinder

@MistakenIdentity

Religious truths are based on interpretations, consensus and a lot of praying. They're more akin to political ideologies than to science. So in that sense it is fair to give them a little bit of leeway.

You lost me on this one. Why give delusion any leeway? Religion is a mental disease that should be eradicated. Look how much bloodshed and human misery is caused by it. Interpretations do not automatically reside in truths. These people are willing to do what ever it takes to subdue others to their cultic beliefs. I've heard of no evidence that "interpretations, consensus and a lot of praying" accurately or specifically led to any truths, not to mention so called "religious truths" Absolutes remain so despite "interpretations, consensus and a lot of praying". Those just seem to start strife when one thinks they're right and all others are wrong.

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

And I see zero reason to give anyone a leeway here.

Total agreement. Leeway is given to a cult like movement that involves people of one sex simply proclaiming they're a member of the opposite sex. They are not true to their own biology. No matter how much leeway you give them, a man can't become pregnant or experience female menstrual cycles because the truth is they're male, not female. Praying, consensus and interpretations not withstanding.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ;
The atheist IS an arrogant fo-ol. This is truth.

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ;
The atheist IS an arrogant fo-ol. This is truth.

Good thing I believe in Aphrodite the one true religion...

Aphrodite Greek Goddess of Love and Beauty

MayCaesar

Factfinder said:

@MayCaesar

And I see zero reason to give anyone a leeway here.

Total agreement. Leeway is given to a cult like movement that involves people of one sex simply proclaiming they're a member of the opposite sex. They are not true to their own biology. No matter how much leeway you give them, a man can't become pregnant or experience female menstrual cycles because the truth is they're male, not female. Praying, consensus and interpretations not withstanding.

I have probably taught over 30 courses over my academic career, and my experience has always been that giving students leeway in logical accuracy results in poor understanding of the material. A mistake in one's thinking that is uncorrected is more than just misunderstanding of one narrow concept: it propagates across all concepts in some form. If a student studies hydrodynamics and does not understand very well why liquid flows faster along the center of the pipe than along its edges, then the student will not understand viscosity in general, then he will not understand friction in general, then he will not understand electromagnetic interaction in general...

Similarly, if someone believes that the standards of truth can be relaxed in the religious context, he will also think that they can be relaxed in any convenient context, and the consequences of this kind of thinking are profound.

MistakenIdentity

@Factfinder

You lost me on this one. Why give delusion any leeway? Religion is a mental disease that should be eradicated. Look how much bloodshed and human misery is caused by it. Interpretations do not automatically reside in truths. These people are willing to do what ever it takes to subdue others to their cultic beliefs. I've heard of no evidence that "interpretations, consensus and a lot of praying" accurately or specifically led to any truths, not to mention so called "religious truths" Absolutes remain so despite "interpretations, consensus and a lot of praying". Those just seem to start strife when one thinks they're right and all others are wrong.

I have no problem with people having delusions - we pretty much all live under some kind of crazy framework of our own making. The only problem I have is when theists claim things are true when they cannot prove it.

MistakenIdentity

@RickeyHoltsclaw

The atheist IS an arrogant fo-ol. This is truth.

Who is more arrogant - the one who disbelieves Christians who can't even agree on the nature of their own God? Or the ones that makes the claim but cannot prove it even to other Christians?

Factfinder

MayCaesar said:

Factfinder said:

@MayCaesar

And I see zero reason to give anyone a leeway here.

Total agreement. Leeway is given to a cult like movement that involves people of one sex simply proclaiming they're a member of the opposite sex. They are not true to their own biology. No matter how much leeway you give them, a man can't become pregnant or experience female menstrual cycles because the truth is they're male, not female. Praying, consensus and interpretations not withstanding.

I have probably taught over 30 courses over my academic career, and my experience has always been that giving students leeway in logical accuracy results in poor understanding of the material. A mistake in one's thinking that is uncorrected is more than just misunderstanding of one narrow concept: it propagates across all concepts in some form. If a student studies hydrodynamics and does not understand very well why liquid flows faster along the center of the pipe than along its edges, then the student will not understand viscosity in general, then he will not understand friction in general, then he will not understand electromagnetic interaction in general...

Similarly, if someone believes that the standards of truth can be relaxed in the religious context, he will also think that they can be relaxed in any convenient context, and the consequences of this kind of thinking are profound.

Agreed. The whole 'truth is subjective' movement has undermined peoples perception of reality. They've taken situational circumstances and used them as some kind of providence in eliminating absolutes. It's just not so. like for some a certain vehicle is very affordable and reasonably priced but for others it is overpriced and unreasonably out of reach. Well it's true there is two different perspectives but there is no absolute truth that the car is overpriced or affordable. In this case the absolute truth is the price of the car. Everything else is subjective. Some people can afford and others can't.

Factfinder

MistakenIdentity said:

@Factfinder

You lost me on this one. Why give delusion any leeway? Religion is a mental disease that should be eradicated. Look how much bloodshed and human misery is caused by it. Interpretations do not automatically reside in truths. These people are willing to do what ever it takes to subdue others to their cultic beliefs. I've heard of no evidence that "interpretations, consensus and a lot of praying" accurately or specifically led to any truths, not to mention so called "religious truths" Absolutes remain so despite "interpretations, consensus and a lot of praying". Those just seem to start strife when one thinks they're right and all others are wrong.

I have no problem with people having delusions - we pretty much all live under some kind of crazy framework of our own making. The only problem I have is when theists claim things are true when they cannot prove it.

It doesn't bother me so much that they can not prove their delusions as it does when they try and subject the rest of society under their delusions. Whether by force, vote, or violence. This may seem like an insignificant incident but I knew of someone who enlisted in the military but refused to recite the part of the oath that referred to god as they were atheist and said it would be a lie. Well he almost didn't make it into the Navy because of that.

On your point we all have our little fantasies... well that's true. But in my own little frame of mind I thought of myself as irresistible to most women yet I still didn't force myself. That's the difference between imagining what is and realizing what is not as most women aren't infatuated with me at all. LOL

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

And this kind of subjective thinking corrodes all mental processes, on a very deep level. I remember having a conversation with a student who was accusing J. K. Rowling of being transphobic. Her argument was essentially, "What she says is offensive, so it is transphobic". My attempts to discuss whether what J. K. Rowling said was actually true went nowhere, as the student insisted that her words being "offensive" made any further considerations irrelevant.

Just imagine what consequences on one's life thinking that their emotional response to an idea is more important than truthfulness of that idea has... It is no surprise that these people often do not exercise, have poor diets, are overweight, have terrible work ethics, are poor communicators, and so on and so on. Since they brush away all suggestions that they might be doing something wrong ("Who are you to tell me what I should do?!"), there is no negative feedback telling them that their life is going down the drain.

Conversely, I knew a girl who got sick of everyone telling her that "she is okay the way she is" (she was extremely obese) and decided that enough was enough. Over the course of a year she went from barely being able to fit in her car seat, to looking lean as an Asian model. All other areas of her life also improved respectively.
Putting the truth before the feelings and acting on it makes one into a different person, with drastically different life outcomes.

MistakenIdentity

@MayCaesar

This argument seems to be quite common in these discussions: "Since we are talking about religion, X has to be interpreted differently here". The most common version of it is this: "Since god is supernatural, common logic does not have to apply to him". In this case, however, it is not clear what exactly we are talking about. If something being religious warrants arbitrary redefinitions of words, then any statement can be interpreted as true, and in that case language is completely useless.

Not quite - you can make statements that you can take as being true, but not able to prove it. That doesn't actually make it true but you can behave as if it is true. We do this all the time with our political, cultural or sports affiliations. We make allowances for all sorts of conclusions already.

The mistake theists make is to forget that all their claims are actually opinions and not actual fact. Christians in particular believe they worship the only god which they disagree on and cannot prove, even to each other. Yet they still insist they have the truth and worse, that others need to believe the same as them.

So I will allow theists to believe what they want, but their freedom to do so stops when my own rights are infringed upon.

To me, something that is true is just true. There is no such thing as "true in the religious sense", or "true in the metaphorical sense". A statement is either true or false. 2+2=5 is false, regardless of what the person making the claim that it is true believes. And I see zero reason to give anyone a leeway here. What someone believes should not be a factor when evaluating the quality of their argument.

Well, most things in life can't be boiled down to simple math! So are you saying that Democracy is the best governmental system can only be "factually" and "objectively" true? With no caveats or assumptions or wishes and hopes?

Imagine if I used a similar argument in the secular setting. "I am a billionaire. What, you are saying that I do not have the assets worth a billion dollars? Well, I do not mean 'billionaire' in the same objective sense as in finance. Now, please transfer two million to that realtor company through which I am buying a luxury house". It just does not work.

Again, you reduce the world to simple math and simple facts. These systems are rigorously defined and leave little leeway to establish truth, so obviously apply the same leeway one does on religious or politlcal or economic systems makes no sense.

Religious people only get away with this stuff precisely because they talk about imaginary concepts that do not have any consequences in this reality. The reality does not punch them in the face for being wrong, so they can be wrong perpetually and never be incentivized to correct their wrongfulness.

lol - are you serious? Religion has been the biggest motivator for action in all of human history! It is the greatest preserver of the cumulative wisdom of thousands of years of human activity. It is also the most effective way to control humans en-masse from the cradle to the grave.

" imaginary concepts that do not have any consequences in this reality" is literally how the world runs, whether it is via religious thinking, military strength, political power, or economic advantages. It's all "imaginary" - heck, even money is imaginary, from your billionaire example.

Imagine if their religion actually posited some reality-dependent things. For example, someone believing in Hera (the Greek goddess) and praying to her got to believe that she bestowed on them the ability to fly - and decided to exercise that ability by jumping off a cliff... Imagine an entire religion based around Hera, this being one of its assertions. Well, there would be a very serious health hazard associated with taking this religion seriously.
But believing that there is a god in some other dimension or something - that does not matter and the price one pays for believing in this is much lower, and it is paid much more indirectly.

Meh, I think you're overplaying things that are obviously for inspiration rather than fact - the first person to try will let the others know the actual truth. The best way to deal with religion is to point out that people should keep themselves to themselves and not to force other people to follow them.

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

Yes the age old adage 'the truth is better than any lie' holds despite our feelings. On so many levels.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@MistakenIdentity ; I agree with the Scripture concerning the nature of my Lord...what is the problem you suppose?

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; Unless you trust in Jesus as your Messiah who died for you...you will perish in your sin and die the second death in Hell.

Image: https://debateisland.com/uploads/editor/o6/p12fvztxtuwh.jpg

MistakenIdentity

@RickeyHoltsclaw

And which scripture would that be? Are you an Arian? A Greek Orthodox? A Catholic? A non-Trinitarian? Or a Jew who disbelieves Jesus? Or a Muslim whose scripture say Jesus was just a prophet?

RickeyHoltsclaw

@MistakenIdentity ; I believe Yeshua-Jesus is Elohim (Genesis 1:1) having manifest in flesh to "destroy the works of the Devil" for eschatological purposes.

MistakenIdentity

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Ah - you're a Jehovah's Witness? A non-Trinitatrian?

Factfinder

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Unless you trust in Jesus as your Messiah who died for you...you will perish in your sin and die the second death in Hell.

And what exactly is the difference between that assertion and "he knows when been naughty and nice so you better be good for goodness sake santa clause is coming to town"? There is just as much evidence for that latter.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@MistakenIdentity ; No, I'm a Christian who loves Jesus Christ, adores the Holy Spirit, and seeks to honor the Father whom I cherish.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; You are a sinner in need of a Savior, an Intercessor, and the only Intercessor that can unite you with the Father is Jesus our Messiah.

Image: https://debateisland.com/uploads/editor/4n/i4nnqr5bg0p6.jpg

MistakenIdentity

@RickeyHoltsclaw Of which of the many denominations do you follow? Or do you follow your own path?

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

4 dead as storms slam Houston again; hundreds of thousands lose power

In this Debate

Do Christians have a warrant to say they are the "true" religion?

Debate Information

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch