Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

[Belthazor]

You are not the arbiter of what is rational, Belthazor. And your labeling of my beliefs as "arbitrary" are similar to those of a teenager who labels anything he doesn't understand as "random" or "arbitrary". My own analysis and assessments aren't required to pass your inspection to be legitimately rational

It appears I have offended you, which was definitely not my intent.

I don't believe I ever said your beliefs were "irrational".

[evensaul]

It appears I have offended you, which was definitely not my intent.

I don't believe I ever said your beliefs were "irrational".

No offense taken, and I probably should have addressed those comments at futureboy..

[Belthazor]

No offense taken, and I probably should have addressed those comments at futureboy..

Would you like to continue?
I assure you I have no intention of mocking or belittling your views. I merely am honestly trying to explore thoughts that I don't have.

[evensaul]

Absolutely.

[Belthazor]

Absolutely.

Outstanding, I appreciate you sharing your thoughts on the subject

---------- Post added at 06:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:52 PM ----------

SOME of what the other two religions believe would be proven false, but not the underlying belief in the God of Abraham.

I believe you are wrong. Yes, there are extremely important differences between the three, but the foundational belief in God is the same.

In Christianity, you MUST go thru Jesus, who is God, for salvation. Agreed?

(assuming you agreed)
Clearly, Judaism and Muslims do not agree Jesus is God (as in part of the Trinity. Indeed, they do not believe in the Trinity at all). These three religions totally do not agree on what it takes for salvation, so I do not see they are worshipping the same God at all.

[evensaul]

Outstanding, I appreciate you sharing your thoughts on the subject

My pleasure. But I'll tell you up front that I'm not an expert on these subjects. There are others on ODN who have studied far more than I have, and may disagree with me. I'll share what I believe, but I'm also open to hearing from others.

In Christianity, you MUST go thru Jesus, who is God, for salvation. Agreed?

Yes.

Clearly, Judaism and Muslims do not agree Jesus is God (as in part of the Trinity. Indeed, they do not believe in the Trinity at all).

Agreed.

These three religions totally do not agree on what it takes for salvation...

Okay.

, so I do not see they are worshipping the same God at all.

How is worship of God dependent on a perceived method of salvation?

Your conclusion (shared by a very great many other people) reminds me of the story of a group of blind men who are told that an elephant is being brought to their town, and because they'd never encountered one, they decide to go touch it to find out what kind of beast it is. I'm sure you've heard this story several times, but if not: https://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/b...e-elephant.htm

Okay, the comparison isn't exactly perfect for this debate, but it also isn't too far into the swamp. None of the religions you've mentioned have a perfect understanding of God. And I think two of them are wrong about what is required for salvation. But that doesn't necessarily mean those two are worshiping a different God. I will try to explain a little more clearly, with both scripture and logic.

Do you have any reason to believe that, according to the Old Testament, the Nation of Israel was NOT worshiping the one true God during the time of Abraham? (http://mit.irr.org/28-biblical-passa...e-only-one-god)

Assuming you do not, because you find the scriptures clearly show that the Jews were worshiping the one and only God, then the next question must be: Have Jews replaced that one true God with another deity which they now worship instead? I find no evidence of such a change in the Bible.

Has God, as worshiped by the Jews, changed in nature to become a different god? I find no evidence of that either. Jesus was revealed to be part of the Holy Trinity, but that was only a change in revelation and perception for Christians, not a change in fact.

Do Christians worship the same God that Jews worshiped before the arrival of Jesus? I believe the evidence in the Bible says yes, we do worship the God of Abraham and Moses.

So, 1: Jews have not changed their worship. 2: God has not changed. 3: Christians worship the God of Moses and Abraham. So, it follows that Christians worship the same God as the Jews, regardless of the perceived requirements for salvation.

If you still disagree, then maybe you can answer this question: What evidence is there that God in the Old Testament is replaced by a different God in the New Testament? I see none. Jesus doesn't replace God, He is of God and God is of Him. The two testaments are a continuous story of the One and Only God revealed to be a Holy Trinity in Act 2.

Nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus attempt to dissuade the Nation of Israel from believing and worshiping the same God as they have in the past. He only tells them they must go through Him to reach the Father. In a variety of ways, he says this, but without disparaging their fundamental belief in God, because He is of God that they have worshiped. If Jesus believed that the Jews were worshiping a false god, it is logical to think He would have made that clear.

I'm going to stop there for now, before tackling the issue of Islam, probably at a later date.

[PGA2]

[1] And even they operate on beliefs they cannot show if what you mean by 'show' is physical evidence.

Could you be more specific about who you mean by they?

Sure:

Someone put it quite aptly: "If you can't show it, you don't know it".

'They' refers to those people who hold to the idea that if you can't show it, you don't know it.

[2] It is a question of epistemology - how we know what we know. There are some things which are self-evident. To deny them goes against logic. So logic is one of those things that are self-evident. It is not physical; it is abstract, so it cannot physically be shown, yet you can't deny it without appealing to it. Without using it nothing makes sense.

Logic is merely our expression of how reality has been observed to function. There is nothing self-evident about it.

The laws of logic are necessary for any meaningful exchange. These laws are not physical in nature yet without them nothing can be known.
These laws are the Law of Noncontradiction, the Law of Identity, and the Law of Middle Exclusion. Try operating without using these three laws and still make sense of anything.

The Law of Noncontradiction states that

A cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same manner/sense.

For example, substitute a property, an object, class, or group for A.

Picture a small box you label Object A. Now picture a bigger box that represents everything that is not Box A (non-A) but Box A fits into. Now, let's call/label the little box/Object A = human beings. Everything that is a human being (class/group) fits within Box A. Everything that is outside the smaller box, in the larger box (non-A) is not a human being. The larger box, non-A = everything in the universe that is not a human being. Box A = human beings cannot at the same time equal all cats or all trees. That would contradict what A is. You can't say a human being is a tree. If contradictory things were all true, then a human being could be a cat or tree or anything, and there would be no differences between anything. So the Law of Noncontradiction has to stand as a principle to make sense of anything.

We use the same principle when we look at truth claims. Two contradictory claims cannot both be true at the same time and in the same manner because they state the opposite of the other. We know at least one of them is not true. Belthazor understands this concept in his point about Islam, Judaism and Christianity, when speaking of Jesus. All contradict the other religious beliefs. Therefore, the reasoning is that at least two are wrong beliefs on this point.

The Law of Identity states that A is A. A dog is a dog. A dog is not a cat. Try to function with A meaning something other than what it is, other than the meaning it is and has been given. You won't make sense. A traffic light turned red means STOP (A is STOP). Try giving it the meaning of A is GO and see where your reasoning takes you.

The Law of Middle Exclusion states that either something is or it is not. It can't both be and not be at the same time and in the same sense. What you call 'chair' is EITHER a chair, or it is not a chair. If I say there is a book on the table there EITHER IS or there is not a book on the table. There cannot be a book and not be a book on the table at the same time.

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl2...f_thought.html

God, I claim, is another.

You can claim all you want, but without sufficient evidence, believing such a claim is irrational.

The point is that I can present evidence that I believe is hard to refute and still be rational. The problem in you receiving it is two-fold:
1. Most atheists I dialog with are not interested in looking at the evidence.
2. Most atheists I discuss the Bible with do not have a sufficient knowledge of the Bible or sense of the history involved to understand the strength of the evidence.

This makes the argument difficult because I have to lay a foundation and test them on the aspects of that foundation to ensure they are following the argument.
For instance, is the OT largely concerned with God's relationship to Israel?
Is there a warning to the Israelites contained in the Mosaic Covenant (a conditional covenant)?
Did God send prophets to these people to warn them that if they continued to worship false gods, He would bring judgment on them?
Did God promise a Messiah to come to these Old Covenant people?

If God did promise a Deliverer (Messiah) within the structural promises and timeframe of the Mosaic Covenant and specifically to an Old Covenant people then that prophecy would have to be delivered before God abolished the Old Covenant system of law and sacrifices (because of their unbelief and failure to be obedient to it).
After A.D. 70 these people can no longer meet the requirements of the OT as stipulated in Deuteronomy 28 and as agreed to by these OT people (Exodus 24:3).
So, either God removed the covenant conditions (no written OT records this happened during the writings of the OT), the covenant was fulfilled (in Jesus and via the New Covenant), or the covenant still exists. If it still exists then, how are the people able to follow the commandments God gave via many of the 613 Mosaic Laws. The feast days required an animal sacrifice. The Day of Atonement required the High Priest enter the temple once a year to atone for the sins of the people with animal sacrifices. How can the people be obedient to God after the temple and priesthood is taken out of the way. I was hoping the Rabbi would continue the discussion but he did not.

I can make a compelling case that what the OT prophesied came about as God (through the writers He conveyed His message to) said it would. Hundreds of specific prophesy were fulfilled as relayed centuries before.

I have not seen anyone give sufficient or logical, rational proof to dislodge these prophecies as false.

The hurdle I would like to see atheists and agnostics tackle/explain is how do conscious living beings arise from physical matter?

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with atheism. There are atheists who believe in panspermia and those who don't. In any case, there's nothing wrong with saying "We don't know for sure". In fact, that response is what will lead us to the actual answer - claiming knowledge without sufficient evidence impedes the discovery of the actual answer.

Yes, abiogenesis does have a lot to do with atheism. Either there is a Creator, or the universe arose via impersonal, mindless, irrational, illogical, unintentional happenstance. You run into any number of problems with this view. Why? How is there something rather than nothing? What is the cause of 'something' if it did not always exist. If you claim it always existed, how do you know?

With panspermia do you believe life always existed or did it have a beginning?
Do you believe the universe had a beginning or has it always existed?

If you don't know, then you are what is called a weak atheist or agnostic. If you don't know, then you cannot dismiss God as the cause. You can just plead ignorance.

On the other hand, a Christian is speaking about what they know:

John 3:11
Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony.

I, on the other hand, beginning with God, look for evidence that supports my beginning beliefs.

Could you clarify what you mean by "beginning with God"? Are you a presuppositionalist?

Yes, we all start with a beginning point that cannot be proven. You were not here when/if the universe began. You interpret the evidence through a particular frame of reference (no God). You look for reasons for the universe apart from God. That is the kind of interpretation you rely on to answer life's ultimate questions. I look to the biblical God for my answers.

I use both presuppositional and evidential arguments.

I can make sense of things. I do not believe your belief system can make sense of itself. That, I see, is a significant difference between the two.

No, you claim you can make sense of things, but you are depending on your own fallible reasoning just like we all are.

My worldview has what is necessary to make sense of the universe. Yours begins with mindless matter, plus chance, plus time and energy. How does that create reasoning human beings? You ASSUME it can.

How does the irrational become rational, that which is devoid of intelligence become intelligent? From my worldview, that which is intelligent creates beings that are intelligent. It makes sense. You witiness life coming from the living, intelligent beings creating other intelligent beings.

You, as an intelligent being, feed the information into a computer that aids it and instructs it in the storage and use of intelligent data. There is INTENT behind the operation of the computer. The information does not arise by itself for no reason and program itself, and that without any intention of doing so. When you see information, you understand there is intelligence behind that information. Yet you claim this is not (likely) the case with the universe.

How does something that lacks intent sustain anything for countless periods of time? It can't decide to because it is random and chance happenstance. Chance happenstance does not reason. Science is based on rationality. We (as Christians) are investigating and discovering the thoughts of our Creator. E=MC2, or 2+2=4 do not MEAN anything outside of the thoughts of intelligent beings. You have been lead to believe there is ultimate meaning in a meaningless universe. Why would there be? You and most human beings continually seek meaning and purpose in the universe? Why should there be and why do we continue to find it in a meaningless universe?

We all have faith or belief in some system of thought. You/I build your/my worldview on presuppositions that everything else is based. How logical and reasonable are those starting propositions? You seem to think the theistic system of belief is devoid of evidence. It is not. The evidence is most reasonable. I would argue that without faith or belief in God nothing else ultimately makes sense. Unless there is ultimate standard via and because of an ultimate Creator, there is no surety to what you believe about your existence or me mine. What I'm saying is that God is necessary.

Of course we all have presuppositions, however, the goal should be to limit the amount of unnecessary ones. Barring solipsists, we all operate with the basic presuppositions "the observable universe exists", "we can learn about the universe", and "models with predictive capability are more useful than models without predictive capability". Note that a deity is not necessary. You claim that one is, but miss the mark in demonstrating that one is. You can presuppose one exists, but that would violate the goal of limiting unnecessary presuppositions.

The question is why the universe exists? Why is there something rather than nothing?

I don't miss the mark. I would be glad to have a detailed discussion on prophecy to present the evidence.

Here is a necessary presupposition - either something without intent cause uniformity of nature or a mindful Being caused uniformity of nature.

Why would something random and happenstance cause anything to continue to function in a meaningful/purposeful wayfor countless period of time, continually? There is no reason it should or would, yet it does. Explain why it should.

I have a necessary reason why it does - an intentional, mindful Being caused this uniformity and purpose, and sustains it.

Why would mindless matter acquire reason, meaning, and purpose? There is no reason without a mindful Being, yet it has, according to the secular, atheistic, evolutionary worldview. Explain why this happened. You can't give an adequate reason why something devoid of reason will acquire it, or how that happened.

My worldview can. From a meaningful, necessary Mind come other meaningful reasoning minds. From a Personal Being come other personal beings. And this is what we witness.

[5] The question is, is your understanding of reality/truth 'true truth'? Is it how things really are regarding origins, since philosophical questions seem to descend into ultimate origins? Neither you nor I were there for the origin of the universe or the origin of life. Thus, origins are built upon an interpretation of the data.

Our understanding of things which we weren't present for must of course be built upon an interpretation of available data. This is not a problem. I'm not sure how this addresses the point made about our goal being to have as accurate as possible an understanding of reality and the standards which help us achieve that.

This is just the point - it is an interpretation. You do not know all the facts of origins and never will. These facts do not come stamped 13.47 billion years old.

[6] People claim their standards are true/right/real all the time, yet there is massive disagreement on almost every issue between different systems of thought. Who is actually right?

Those who have sufficient evidence to support their claims.

Theories are continually being revised or discredited and one paradigm is replaced with another paradigm as pointed out by Thomas Kuhn and others.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ic-revolutions

https://projektintegracija.pravo.hr/...evolutions.pdf

Does your 'truth' standard correctly describe reality or just your prejudice?

If it is demonstrated that something about our standards leads to inaccurate representational models of reality, then the standards would of course be modified. What prejudice are you referring to?

You are not neutral, no one outside of an omniscient Being would be unbiased. You funnel everything you believe through a worldview that is built on certain particular starting points that the whole web of beliefs you have are filtered through and hang on.

I am just as wary of the atheist special pleading his case as the atheist who claims the theist of special pleading.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "atheist special pleading his case"? To be clear, I'm using the common definition of atheist as "someone who lacks belief in a deity".

One instance would be where the atheist argues that God is an unlikely reason for the universe. Their explanation is absurd - blind indifferent chance.

Another is when I ask what is the reason for everything existing and the atheist says there is no reason, it just is. Yet, he continually seeks out a reason for everything and says my worldview is devoid of proof.

I ask how something can create itself, like how something devoid of intelligence or life can create intelligent beings or living beings. He doesn't have a logical explanation without a mindful being (because logic requires minds) but he rules out God as the explanation.

Another is how can you believe in something you can't see, or in the case you used, "If you can't show it, you don't know it". We can't show something abstract like a concept but without our conceptions our thinking is impossible. Show me the concept "blue." You operate on things you can't see all the time (the Laws of Logic - explained above) so the principle that you have to see to know is false.

Another is the claim from atheists that they do not believe God exists and there is no evidence for God then pleading ignorance of God when I offer to laid down the evidence (They say they don't have a good knowledge of the Bible yet state there is no evidence without discussion of the evidence).

Peter

[Belthazor]

My pleasure. But I'll tell you up front that I'm not an expert on these subjects. There are others on ODN who have studied far more than I have, and may disagree with me. I'll share what I believe, but I'm also open to hearing from others.

Cool beans

I am no expert either, (and people disagree with me EVERYWHERE, not just here on ODN
I'm just trying to learn stuff.
I believe:
"no man is so lowly that I can not learn from him"

(and hopefully, maybe "he" can learn something from me once in a while)

---------- Post added at 06:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:14 PM ----------

Agreed.

Okay.

Cool. So I think I have an understanding of where you are coming from, up till this point at least

---------- Post added at 06:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:16 PM ----------

How is worship of God dependent on a perceived method of salvation?

Let us start here.
I don't understand this question in relation to my side of the conversation.
Please allow another stab at this...

I thought salvation (eternal life with God after one's death on earth) was the end goal of the three religions we are discussing?

Am I misunderstanding this point?

[evensaul]

I thought salvation (eternal life with God after one's death on earth) was the end goal of the three religions we are discussing?
Am I misunderstanding this point?

It's not supposed to be the goal, though I'm sure it is for many. God is supposed to be worshiped because He deserves it as our Creator, and for all that He provides. When you were young, did you respect your father to get a reward, or because it was both natural and expected?

[Belthazor]

It's not supposed to be the goal, though I'm sure it is for many. God is supposed to be worshiped because He deserves it as our Creator, and for all that He provides. When you were young, did you respect your father to get a reward, or because it was both natural and expected?

Then worshipping God for eternity sounds much less important than worshiping God while we are on earth?
(It's really a side point I suppose anyway...)

---------- Post added at 06:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:45 PM ----------

Nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus attempt to dissuade the Nation of Israel from believing and worshiping the same God as they have in the past. He only tells them they must go through Him to reach the Father. In a variety of ways, he says this, but without disparaging their fundamental belief in God, because He is of God that they have worshiped. If Jesus believed that the Jews were worshiping a false god, it is logical to think He would have made that clear.

Two things here:
1. Saying that " they must go through Him to reach the Father" while simultaneously saying he is God as well, does change things a bit"??
"God" didn't say the people had to go thru Jesus to "reach the father". Jesus said people had to go thru Jesus....

2. He would have no need to "disparage" or replace the God everyone had been worshipping, if he gets to stand between the people and that God.

3. ok, maybe three ( I try to keep a little humor in my argumentation )
How can we tell that the New Testament is the word of God as apposed to the Koran (or insert any other ancient text said to be "of God's word")??

---------- Post added at 06:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:54 PM ----------

When you were young, did you respect your father to get a reward, or because it was both natural and expected?

Just as an aside, does a father deserve "respect" from his offspring just because he is their father?

[evensaul]

Then worshipping God for eternity sounds much less important than worshiping God while we are on earth?

If someone worships God on earth, there is no reason to stop once in Heaven. People who worship sincerely don't see it as a task, or worship unwillingly.

1. Saying that " they must go through Him to reach the Father" while simultaneously saying he is God as well, does change things a bit"??
"God" didn't say the people had to go thru Jesus to "reach the father". Jesus said people had to go thru Jesus....

I don't get the question, or the point you're trying to make.

2. He would have no need to "disparage" or replace the God everyone had been worshipping, if he gets to stand between the people and that God.

Ditto.

3. ok, maybe three ( I try to keep a little humor in my argumentation )
How can we tell that the New Testament is the word of God as apposed to the Koran (or insert any other ancient text said to be "of God's word")??

I was going to write a post on Islam and how it worships the same God as Judaism and Christianity, but that is part of an answer to your question. Here is the short answer:

As I said earlier, the Bible "rings true" to me, both as a result of fulfilled prophecies and an overall feeling I get while reading it. The Koran offers nothing similar. It appears to me that in the Koran, Muhammad affirmed the validity of the Torah, and said that the God of Islam is the same God as that of Judaism and Christianity, as a self-serving strategy to gain acceptance for his new religion. Yes it was truth, but Muhammad then takes Islam in directions not compatible with those religions. He was a descendant of Abraham, and worshiped the same God, but became a false prophet leading believers toward false doctrine. Muslims therefore worship the same God as Jews and Christians, but with misguided beliefs about what God wants of His worshipers. And to the unasked question, yes, I have read the Koran.

Just as an aside, does a father deserve "respect" from his offspring just because he is their father?

"Honor thy father and thy mother" doesn't include qualifiers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honour...and_thy_mother

[Belthazor]

If someone worships God on earth, there is no reason to stop once in Heaven. People who worship sincerely don't see it as a task, or worship unwillingly.

I more meant that since the three religions do not at all agree on salvation (as you acknowledged) and you didn't seem concerned by this, that worshipping God here on earth carried more importance than worshipping God in Heaven (If one made it to Heaven since you make salvation seem not all that important).

---------- Post added at 05:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:07 PM ----------

I don't get the question, or the point you're trying to make.

Jews and Muslins do not agree that Jesus is God. So to them, Jesus is the only one that said people must go thru him to reach God. God has remained silent on the issue. Why would they trust this when God has not spoken?

---------- Post added at 05:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:09 PM ----------

Ditto.

This is not clear at all. If people must go thru Jesus to get to God, why would Jesus disparage that God. You would think he would promote the current God if people must come to him first, no? That way he kinda replaces God, in the sense that there is no direct contact between people and God without Jesus in the middle
And if Jesus is not God (as Jews and Muslims believe), then he has no place to require people go thru him.
Since God has not told people they must go thru Jesus, it is only on Jesus' word that it is true.

---------- Post added at 05:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:18 PM ----------

As I said earlier, the Bible "rings true" to me, both as a result of fulfilled prophecies and an overall feeling I get while reading it. The Koran offers nothing similar.

And this is where the issue resides. I know and believe the Bible "rings true" to you, but again, Muslims and Jews clearly don't agree they have misinterpreted anything. Indeed, using similar evidence, they believe it is you that have misinterpreted (where is Rabbi Dak when you need him) the data. I appreciate that you have read the Koran most Christians have not even considered it. Perhaps "Muhammad takes Islam in directions not compatible with those religions" because "those religions" are wrong

---------- Post added at 05:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:28 PM ----------

"Honor thy father and thy mother" doesn't include qualifiers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honour...and_thy_mother

I asked do all fathers "deserve respect" just because they are fathers? I'm not sure "honor thy father" answers that question.

However, there are many fathers not worthy of any respect (or to be honored for that matter)....
What of fathers that neglect/abuse their children to the point of death. Why would such a person be worthy of respect or to be honored by their own children??????

[evensaul]

I more meant that since the three religions do not at all agree on salvation (as you acknowledged) and you didn't seem concerned by this, that worshipping God here on earth carried more importance than worshipping God in Heaven (If one made it to Heaven since you make salvation seem not all that important)

I doubt any believers make that calculation. And I don’t really have any other response.

Jews and Muslins do not agree that Jesus is God. So to them, Jesus is the only one that said people must go thru him to reach God. God has remained silent on the issue. Why would they trust this when God has not spoken?

I would invite them to read the New Testament and the Old, as a whole, and pray to our mutual God for guidance.

This is not clear at all. If people must go thru Jesus to get to God, why would Jesus disparage that God. You would think he would promote the current God if people must come to him first, no? That way he kinda replaces God, in the sense that there is no direct contact between people and God without Jesus in the middle

I wasn’t clear. I meant that the fact that Jesus did not disparage the God of the Jews is proof that He believed they worshiped the one-and-only real God, of which He was a part.

And this is where the issue resides. I know and believe the Bible "rings true" to you, but again, Muslims and Jews clearly don't agree they have misinterpreted anything. Indeed, using similar evidence, they believe it is you that have misinterpreted (where is Rabbi Dak when you need him) the data. I appreciate that you have read the Koran most Christians have not even considered it. Perhaps "Muhammad takes Islam in directions not compatible with those religions" because "those religions" are wrong

But have they considered not just similar, but the same evidence? Have they read the New Testament? Have they prayed for guidance from our God on what was true? I don’t know, and to my discredit, I have not engaged in such evangelism to have experience on what I ask and suggest.

I asked do all fathers "deserve respect" just because they are fathers? I'm not sure "honor thy father" answers that question.
However, there are many fathers not worthy of any respect (or to be honored for that matter)....
What of fathers that neglect/abuse their children to the point of death. Why would such a person be worthy of respect or to be honored by their own children??????

Yes, I believe “Honor thy father…” answers the question, and yes for all fathers, even those who appear undeserving. To honor or respect (I use interchangeably) means at minimum, to provide food, clothing and shelter and other basic care when needed, simply because it is one’s father who has need. Offspring should recognize that being a father is an extremely difficult job that most men are inexperienced with and are emotionally unprepared for, especially in today’s world of radically changing expectations. And further, that the father who is guilty of neglect or abuse is the product of his own parents, societal influences, possibly traumatic life events, and other factors. He may even have uncontrollable mental illness or, if you are a believer, possession, which caused the neglect or abuse. So every father (and mother) deserves a minimum level of honor or respect from his children. Of course, better fathers may receive more honor or respect from their children, which is up to the offspring.

[Belthazor]

I doubt any believers make that calculation. And I don’t really have any other response.

Yet, the fact remains, that the three religions have incompatible means to achieve salvation.

---------- Post added at 08:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:07 PM ----------

I would invite them to read the New Testament and the Old, as a whole, and pray to our mutual God for guidance.

Now if you could show that this was the true word of God it would have dramatically more relevance.

---------- Post added at 08:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:09 PM ----------

I wasn’t clear. I meant that the fact that Jesus did not disparage the God of the Jews is proof that He believed they worshiped the one-and-only real God, of which He was a part.

Again, why would he disparage the God of the Jews when he put his place is in FRONT of God???

---------- Post added at 08:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:11 PM ----------

But have they considered not just similar, but the same evidence? Have they read the New Testament? Have they prayed for guidance from our God on what was true? I don’t know, and to my discredit, I have not engaged in such evangelism to have experience on what I ask and suggest.

I'm sure both are considered depending on the person.
Do you really think that there are not people who have studied just like you and are Jewish or Muslim as a result of this study, not unlike how you became Christian?
Rabbi's (for instance) spend their lives studying these things!! They do consider themselves experts (is many cases). Clearly they believe they can make the case Christianity is wrong (by virtue of Judaism or Muslim being true).

Can it be proven the New Testament is the true word of God?

---------- Post added at 08:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:17 PM ----------

Yes, I believe “Honor thy father…” answers the question, and yes for all fathers, even those who appear undeserving. To honor or respect (I use interchangeably) means at minimum, to provide food, clothing and shelter and other basic care when needed, simply because it is one’s father who has need. Offspring should recognize that being a father is an extremely difficult job that most men are inexperienced with and are emotionally unprepared for, especially in today’s world of radically changing expectations. And further, that the father who is guilty of neglect or abuse is the product of his own parents, societal influences, possibly traumatic life events, and other factors. He may even have uncontrollable mental illness or, if you are a believer, possession, which caused the neglect or abuse. So every father (and mother) deserves a minimum level of honor or respect from his children. Of course, better fathers may receive more honor or respect from their children, which is up to the offspring.

Perhaps...
I would submit however, just because a man had sex (it could have been a rape), and the result was a pregnancy, does no man honor, in and of itself...

[evensaul]

Yet, the fact remains, that the three religions have incompatible means to achieve salvation.

Yes, that is a fact I have not disputed.

Now if you could show that this was the true word of God it would have dramatically more relevance.

I don't have that knowledge or ability.

Again, why would he disparage the God of the Jews when he put his place is in FRONT of God???

He would say something about them worshiping a false God, or having the devil as a father, if they were. He did that with the Pharisees, if I remember correctly. This point is simply in response to your asking proof that the religions worship the same God. I can't explain it better than I have.

I'm sure both are considered depending on the person.
Do you really think that there are not people who have studied just like you and are Jewish or Muslim as a result of this study, not unlike how you became Christian?
Rabbi's (for instance) spend their lives studying these things!! They do consider themselves experts (is many cases). Clearly they believe they can make the case Christianity is wrong (by virtue of Judaism or Muslim being true).

I'm sure there are some. (Probably more Jews than Muslims.) As I said and you rejected, scripture is subject to interpretation.

Can it be proven the New Testament is the true word of God?

Not that I'm aware of - at least not to the satisfaction of everyone.

[Belthazor]

Yes, that is a fact I have not disputed.

I really appreciate your candor

---------- Post added at 05:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:54 PM ----------

I don't have that knowledge or ability.

And you confident honesty.

But to the topic at hand:

this is the norm all religious artifacts claiming to be "directly from" God. Nobody can really prove their claim of "Gods word".

---------- Post added at 05:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:00 PM ----------

He would say something about them worshiping a false God, or having the devil as a father, if they were. He did that with the Pharisees, if I remember correctly. This point is simply in response to your asking proof that the religions worship the same God. I can't explain it better than I have.

This just doesn't fit. If Jesus can place himself between the current God and humans, I see no reason for him to disparage said God.
To promote that same God would make more sense.
Why would he possibly disparage a God that he is telling people they must go thru him to reach? It is not logical, or I am missing your thought completely...

---------- Post added at 05:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:06 PM ----------

I'm sure there are some. (Probably more Jews than Muslims.) As I said and you rejected, scripture is subject to interpretation.

Not that I'm aware of - at least not to the satisfaction of everyone.

And this is where the suggestion of special pleading comes into play. Since we agree salvation seems quite subjective, and this is of the utmost importance to most people, to choose a particular religion is really just personal choice.

Now, this in NO way suggests you are irrational or even wrong in your beliefs. You may be totally correct or at least partially correct, and that is really the issue we are discussing.

My personal opinion leans toward:

if the Christian God existed, and the Bible was truly God's word, we wouldn't be able to argue about it honestly.
IOW, the Christian God would allow people to know for sure, ABSOLUTE certainty, the choices they were making.

Faith allows an incorrect choice and no way to know for sure what you have chosen until you die (maybe not even then...). The God of the Bible, would allow you to know, before making a choice to worship or not...

[evensaul]

This just doesn't fit. If Jesus can place himself between the current God and humans, I see no reason for him to disparage said God.
To promote that same God would make more sense.
Why would he possibly disparage a God that he is telling people they must go thru him to reach? It is not logical, or I am missing your thought completely...

Yeah, I think we're playing ping-pong without either one of us able to return serve. It's pointless, so I give up.

And this is where the suggestion of special pleading comes into play. Since we agree salvation seems quite subjective, and this is of the utmost importance to most people, to choose a particular religion is really just personal choice.

It's personal interpretation mixed with any sense of spirituality one might have. If you want to call that personal choice, fine. But you'll have to explain how that equals a special pleading fallacy. I don't see it.

if the Christian God existed, and the Bible was truly God's word, we wouldn't be able to argue about it honestly.
IOW, the Christian God would allow people to know for sure, ABSOLUTE certainty, the choices they were making.

Faith allows an incorrect choice and no way to know for sure what you have chosen until you die (maybe not even then...). The God of the Bible, would allow you to know, before making a choice to worship or not...

You'll probably like this thread:
http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...ghlight=herman
Happy reading.

[Belthazor]

Yeah, I think we're playing ping-pong without either one of us able to return serve. It's pointless, so I give up.

I don't see it that way at all, but thank you for the thoughtful exchange

---------- Post added at 06:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:38 PM ----------

It's personal interpretation mixed with any sense of spirituality one might have. If you want to call that personal choice, fine. But you'll have to explain how that equals a special pleading fallacy. I don't see it.

IOW, quite subjective. The Christian God calls for less than subjectivity at the very least.
How is it not special pleading?

---------- Post added at 06:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:44 PM ----------

http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...ghlight=herman
Happy reading.

I hadn't read this one. I will give it a look and see what I think.

[evensaul]

The Christian God calls for less than subjectivity at the very least.
How is it not special pleading?

Sorry, but I continue to find your comments opaque.

The first sentence sounds like a claim. Explain it, and support with evidence from the New Testament.

[Belthazor]

Sorry, but I continue to find your comments opaque.

Could you expand on that thought so I can be sure what you mean?

---------- Post added at 07:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:59 PM ----------

The first sentence sounds like a claim. Explain it, and support with evidence from the New Testament.

We (you and I in this thread) have decided the New Testament has not been proven to be the true Word of God.