P
Peter_J
Guest
Interesting, womanatwell. 
- Status
P
Peter_J
Guest
I think I see your point. However, it isn’t a simple strict either-or (discuss or don’t discuss). What about a happy medium: discuss, but in a fashion that isn’t too “heavy”?
R
runningdude
Guest
Well, my God came descended from heaven and became man 2020 some years ago, and died and rose again some 1984 years ago…
8
808Catholic
Guest
Ask your atheist friend how many theories of gravity were posed before the current one by Newton? How many of them were correct?
8
808Catholic
Guest
D
Della
Guest
Well, of course, the answer is that all the gods are not gods at all, but earth deities meant to ensure good crops, drinkable water, victory in wars, and the like. All the ancient cultures worshiped such gods in order to get what they needed/wanted from them. So, they all had names that denoted what their area of such help would provide. Interestingly enough, all such cultures had a “head god” to whom the others gave some kind of due, even if they defied the head god.
We see the importance of this kind of thinking when Moses (who had been raised in pharaoh’s court and thus knew about the Egyptian gods, their names, their place in the hierarchy of the gods) asked God when he appeared to him in the burning bush, “What is your name?” Moses wanted to be able to tell his people what kind of God they worshiped. And what did God reply? Did he describe himself as the god of this or that? No, he stated simply and clearly “I am that I am.” God was saying, “I exist, I am existence, I need no other qualifier to identify myself.” He is the God of everything since he created everything and everyone, who has always existed and always will exist even when the heavens and the earth pass away.
This is why the Psalmist wrote: Ps.96:5 For all the gods of the Gentiles are idols: but the Lord made the heavens.
And St. Paul echoes him: 1Cor8:4b …we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but one.
We see the importance of this kind of thinking when Moses (who had been raised in pharaoh’s court and thus knew about the Egyptian gods, their names, their place in the hierarchy of the gods) asked God when he appeared to him in the burning bush, “What is your name?” Moses wanted to be able to tell his people what kind of God they worshiped. And what did God reply? Did he describe himself as the god of this or that? No, he stated simply and clearly “I am that I am.” God was saying, “I exist, I am existence, I need no other qualifier to identify myself.” He is the God of everything since he created everything and everyone, who has always existed and always will exist even when the heavens and the earth pass away.
This is why the Psalmist wrote: Ps.96:5 For all the gods of the Gentiles are idols: but the Lord made the heavens.
And St. Paul echoes him: 1Cor8:4b …we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but one.
9
987mk
Guest
Drugs have a noticeable effect on the condition that they’re prescribed for.
Religion, whether Christian, Hindu, Sikh, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Baha’s, Pagans or Janisists all have the same impact on the believers, with no discernible difference between any of them.
9
987mk
Guest
Jews, Sikh’s and Hindus don’t believe that occurred.
D
Della
Guest
I think all those believers would disagree with you about that.
In any case, all faiths have elements of the truth, and all do have effects on their adherents because ,whether they are aware of it or not, all people of faith are, in their own way, seeking God. God doesn’t squash efforts to seek him, especially now in the Age of Grace–the time after Jesus’ redemptive death and resurrection which has poured out God’s grace on the world. The Church recognizes this, as cited in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:Possible salvation of non-Christians: #s 846-848.
“Outside the Church there is no salvation”
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338
A
Abu
Guest
Shaolen
Quadratus writes (circa 123 A.D.) that in his day there were still persons
around who had been cured or raised from the dead by Jesus – prime witnesses. [Eusebius, *Church History, 4.3, 1.2; See Free From All Error, Fr W. Most, p 12]
Who else, except the Christ, claimed to be God and proved it?
The reality is that:
Fact 1: There was a man called Jesus.
Fact 2: He claimed to be a messenger sent from God.
Fact 3: He did enough to prove that He was such a messenger.
Fact 4: Crowds followed Jesus and He had an inner circle to whom he spoke much more.
Fact 5: He commissioned His followers to continue His teaching and founded His Church.
Fact 6: Jesus affirmed that God would protect that teaching.
Obviously, the Resurrection of Jesus is the key, as the existence and faith of the Catholic communities is not self-explanatory, but dependent on the fact of the spectacular historical Jesus and the fact of His Resurrection.
The evidence of history which attests Christ as the Son of God, sent to redeem humanity, also attests, to this day, to His reality and His truths through the facts of the miracle of the Sun at Fatima, the medically attested miracles that take place at Lourdes, and the Eucharistic miracles.
Christ proved that He is God by His death on the Cross and Resurrection which no other can show. This redeemed humanity from the cataclysm of Original Sin. No other religion has faith in a God who has taken a human nature, historically has been crucified and risen, with the testimony of many eye-witnesses. The historian Eusebius in his Church history, 4.3, 1.2, tells us that writing about 123 A.D., apologist Quadratus cited those in his day who had been cured or raised from the dead by Jesus of Nazareth – prime witnesses – long after the miracles, crucifixion and death of the Son of God. No other religious founder claimed to be God and proved it – not Mohammed of Islam, not in Hinduism, not in Buddhism, not in Taoism, not in Confucianism.
Quadratus writes (circa 123 A.D.) that in his day there were still persons
around who had been cured or raised from the dead by Jesus – prime witnesses. [Eusebius, *Church History, 4.3, 1.2; See Free From All Error, Fr W. Most, p 12]
Who else, except the Christ, claimed to be God and proved it?
The reality is that:
Fact 1: There was a man called Jesus.
Fact 2: He claimed to be a messenger sent from God.
Fact 3: He did enough to prove that He was such a messenger.
Fact 4: Crowds followed Jesus and He had an inner circle to whom he spoke much more.
Fact 5: He commissioned His followers to continue His teaching and founded His Church.
Fact 6: Jesus affirmed that God would protect that teaching.
Obviously, the Resurrection of Jesus is the key, as the existence and faith of the Catholic communities is not self-explanatory, but dependent on the fact of the spectacular historical Jesus and the fact of His Resurrection.
The evidence of history which attests Christ as the Son of God, sent to redeem humanity, also attests, to this day, to His reality and His truths through the facts of the miracle of the Sun at Fatima, the medically attested miracles that take place at Lourdes, and the Eucharistic miracles.
Christ proved that He is God by His death on the Cross and Resurrection which no other can show. This redeemed humanity from the cataclysm of Original Sin. No other religion has faith in a God who has taken a human nature, historically has been crucified and risen, with the testimony of many eye-witnesses. The historian Eusebius in his Church history, 4.3, 1.2, tells us that writing about 123 A.D., apologist Quadratus cited those in his day who had been cured or raised from the dead by Jesus of Nazareth – prime witnesses – long after the miracles, crucifixion and death of the Son of God. No other religious founder claimed to be God and proved it – not Mohammed of Islam, not in Hinduism, not in Buddhism, not in Taoism, not in Confucianism.
K
KEP1983
Guest
The point isn’t whether or not they believe that occurred. The point is that there’s historical evidence that occurred which needs to be explained away. Likewise, we ask for historical evidence that their god manifested in the flesh and gave their revelation themselves.
None of them even claim that. None of them claim that the creator came to earth and lived as a human to found their religion. Only christianity claims that the creator of the universe put on flesh, lived as a human, thus revealing himself to us. All the other religions are, admitted by themselves, created by people searching for a truth outside themselves. Jesus is the only one to say “I AM the truth.”
Likewise christianity is the only one built upon a historically verifiable narrative, places, events, people, etc.
Even if you accepted every claim by every religion, you would still end up with christianity as the most revealed religion, because only christianity even claims to be founded by the Creator putting on human flesh, living, dying, resurrecting, and leaving evidence of it.
K
KEP1983
Guest
Sorry, but that’s not true. How do you defend the idea that there’s no discernable difference between religions? As a former protestant I knew my religion had no people as holy as, say, Mother Theresa or St Francis of Assissi.
The “saints” we looked up to were folks like Calvin and Luther, but we knew that they were very terrible sinners. Great thinkers, but not any more holy than us. There were no great “saints” like Mother Theresa or St Francis in that belief system. Even we recognized that there was a difference in holiness between the Catholic saints and our own revered christians.
We would explain away the distinction by saying that these catholics were just trying to earn their way into heaven by their good works. The saints were an example of the terrible “works salvation,” but we admitted they had better works nonetheless.
I have no problem admitting there are kind and loving people of all backgrounds, but I would challenge anyone to show me the holiness of the Catholic saints existing in other religions. Show me the incorruptible bodies of their saints-- where their bodies never decompose, even without people trying to artificially preserve their bodies.
Google “incorruptible saints.” They’re not artifical preserved either. You can go see their bodies yourself. Show me these consistently existing within other religions.
The idea that there are no discernable differences between religions is just preposterous.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
The crucial question that all religions fundamentally seek to answer is not what the determinable effects are that beliefs in different gods might have, the question is which concept of God can possibly be explanatory of what must be explained in order to properly warrant or justify belief. Or, even more pithily, “Does God exist and what difference does his existence make?”
It might, for example, be argued that Christians, Muslims, Baha’is and Jews have essentially the same God as a referent and propose the existence of the same God, so to argue that these religions each imply a different “God” is not to make a valid claim.
Jainism and Buddhism, again arguably, do not have a “God” that they propose “exists” in any sense of the word. So these can be struck from the list.
Which leaves Hinduism and paganism.
Arguably, Hinduism is pantheistic, so if you want to make a case that the universe is essentially what “God” is, go for it.
If you want to make a case for the possibility that more than one god (polytheism) as a “team” or as opposing entities are responsible for the existence of something rather than nothing, you may try. I doubt that anyone with any metaphysical acumen will accept what you suggest.
In effect, the “3000 gods” is reduced to three “streams” in very short order: classical theism, pantheism and some form of polytheism, and only one, classical theism, has any compelling force whatsoever.
Therefore the 3000 gods “argument,” in no way provides an excuse for not seriously considering why the concept of God found in classical theism and subscribed to by Christians, Muslims, Baha’is and Jews, isn’t the best or only answer to “Why is there something rather than nothing?”
The question of which of those religions best deals with the implications of the existence of God, is an entirely different question and does not absolve anyone from honestly grappling with the prior and more fundamental question of “Does God exist?”
The “3000 gods” objection is basically a deflection from engaging with that question at all, and functions in the same way that claiming that the mere existence of a plethora of available drugs is sufficient to justify not using any of them.
It is, in fact, exactly like answering your physician who prescribes using amiodarone to control your atrial fibrillation by raising the objection that, “There are thousands of drugs, but how do I know that your drug of choice is the best one to ‘answer’ my issue?” Your physician might well-respond, “Suit yourself, then.”
Now you, on this thread, might more validly object that drugs have been “tested,” whereas religions or religious beliefs have not. But that isn’t, principally, what the 3000 gods “argument” addresses, which is either one of two questions: “Does God exist?” or “Which conception of God is true or most true?”
The problem is that the one raising the objection hasn’t personally tested all the “God” concepts or that an accounting of the beliefs of those religions isn’t readily available, but rather seeks to dismiss all testing and all the God or gods concepts MERELY because a plethora of “God beliefs” exists. This is the same logic as dismissing all drugs (gods) merely because thousands exist as an EXCUSE for not making any distinctions between them or to rationalize away any further inquiry into how they substantively differ from each other simply on the grounds that so many do exist.
It is an appeal to awful logic which seeks purely to absolve the one invoking it from having to make any further inquiry or choice whatsoever.
9
987mk
Guest
Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists would make the same claim.
9
987mk
Guest
The logic is sound.
Man creates religion and Gods.
There are thousands of examples of man made Gods, yet we’re to believe that your God is the only real one.
Nope.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
That isn’t “logic.” It is assertion and presumption AND avoids completely the questions of “Who or what is God?” and “Does God exist?” by begging the answers to them.
R
rossum
Guest
Unfortunately for your argument here, there are two major problems. First, God did not create life. He tells us so:
Psalm 42:2 My soul thirsts for God, for the living God.
God is not created, so God cannot have created life. He did not create Himself. God is Himself alive, so He cannot be the origin of life. At best He can be the origin of the second living thing after Himself.
Your second problem is how complex is God? If you posit a highly complex entity to explain complexity, then you have explained nothing. How complex is God? Complex enough to be omniscient, and hence to contain a vast amount of highly complex information, including exact knowledge of the precise DNA sequence of every possible individual of every possible species.
You have assumed the existence of life and complexity, and have not actually explained the origin of either.
Q: What is the easiest way to make a small fortune?
A: Start with a large fortune.
You are ‘solving’ the problem by starting with a large fortune.
rossum
S
Shaolen
Guest
I know the exact video you’re referring to but it seems to be missing
P
PRmerger
Guest
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
In his book, The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist, Andy Bannister utterly dismantles the “one God less” argument. Essentially, the “3000 gods but only yours exists” claim is a backwater version of that argument and fails just as miserably.
Not surprisingly, you seem to think it makes a substantial, almost infallible claim.
Time to revise the logical principles to which you have turned over your mind.
- Status