Differing Religions, Which is True?

[MarcoPolo]

In an apologetics class I went to, the priest tried to prove God’s existence by using the apostles as an example: many of them died and we’re executed in horrible ways, and that they wouldn’t die for something they didn’t truly believe in. But many different religions are also ready to die for their beliefs. So this doesn’t prove God’s existence. Can anyone give me solid proof?

Excerpt from article *Now, let’s return to the matter of faith. Should Christianity be rejected on the grounds that there are holy people in other religions? Should Christianity be rejected on the grounds that other religions also have martyrs? You see the parallel here. What is a compelling sign of the truth of Christianity is that it contains all the signal characteristics at once. Miracles. Prophecies. Holy followers. Martyrs. Historicity. Spiritual experience. Etc. The more characteristics a particular faith has that reasonably signal its truth and divine pedigree, the more compelling a case for that faith.

Thus, it is imprudent to reject Christianity, for instance, because other faiths have martyrs because to dismiss Christianity on these grounds is to dismiss suspect #2 in our above example on the grounds that he shares a characteristic with others.*See full article for context: Is faith belief without evidence?

 

[Sy_Noe]

In an apologetics class I went to, the priest tried to prove God’s existence by using the apostles as an example: many of them died and we’re executed in horrible ways, and that they wouldn’t die for something they didn’t truly believe in. But many different religions are also ready to die for their beliefs. So this doesn’t prove God’s existence. Can anyone give me solid proof?

Nope. People may believe they can. But no one truly can without faith. All the Scripture and ECFs and interpretations thereof are not even enough with having faith in them.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Nope. People may believe they can. But no one truly can without faith. All the Scripture and ECFs and interpretations thereof are not even enough with having faith in them.

I agree with you. People can tell you what made them certain of their faith, but that might not work for another person. Every person has to work through the issue of faith by himself or herself, I think.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

What year is this? 2015 AD, or Anno DOMINI. No one can legitimately deny that He was here. In fact, they changed the way they measure time because of Him. when you combine those facts with all the psalms and prophesies from the Old Testament about Him which came true, it is hard not to believe.

What day did you make your post? Friday, or the “day of Frige” the Anglo-Saxon goddess. No one can legitimately deny that she was here. The same holds true for Thor (Thursday = “Thor’s day”) and Woden (Wednesday = “Day of Woden”). In fact, they changed the way they measure time because of them.

 

[Servant19]

In an apologetics class I went to, the priest tried to prove God’s existence by using the apostles as an example: many of them died and we’re executed in horrible ways, and that they wouldn’t die for something they didn’t truly believe in. But many different religions are also ready to die for their beliefs. So this doesn’t prove God’s existence. Can anyone give me solid proof?

Maybe your perspective will change if you consider that any religion that has adherents that are willing to be killed (not suicide), for the religious beliefs they espouse, is a true religion.

Have you considered this possibility?

.

 

[Vouthon]

Maybe your perspective will change if you consider that any religion that has adherents that are willing to be killed (not suicide), for the religious beliefs they espouse, is a true religion.

Have you considered this possibility?

.

With all due respect my friend, I do not think that is great criterion for prudential judgement of the truth of a religion.

There were people willing to give up their lives for Charles Manson and innumerable other apocalyptic cults.

Millions of Germans were willing to sacrifice their lives for the sake of Nazi ideology, which by 1939 had developed into a national, political religion with Hitler as its secular messiah preaching a doctrine of racial hatred.

At the same time millions of Japanese were willing to kill themselves as suicide bombers in fulfilment of their Shinto faith, which regarded the Emperor as a Living God.

One could legitimately argue that people being willing to give up their lives peacefully and passively in an oppressive environment out of a commitment to their faith, according to the dictates of their conscience, is testament to the truth of a religion. I can certainly see the sense in that.

 

[adamhovey1988]

In an apologetics class I went to, the priest tried to prove God’s existence by using the apostles as an example: many of them died and we’re executed in horrible ways, and that they wouldn’t die for something they didn’t truly believe in. But many different religions are also ready to die for their beliefs. So this doesn’t prove God’s existence. Can anyone give me solid proof?

Hey friend could you give me solid proof God doesn’t exist? Could you do it completely and entirely with science? Of course not but face does not mean blindness to reality and I think one would have to be completely blind reality to deny the existence of God. Although I am well spoken on certain matters this is not my forte I can explain why I believe God exists but that might not be a good example for you. Hopefully find what you are looking for God bless

 

[robsully]

Hey friend could you give me solid proof God doesn’t exist? Could you do it completely and entirely with science? Of course not but face does not mean blindness to reality and I think one would have to be completely blind reality to deny the existence of God. Although I am well spoken on certain matters this is not my forte I can explain why I believe God exists but that might not be a good example for you. Hopefully find what you are looking for God bless

I believe PonderingJak has not made any claims that God doesn’t exist. The burden of evidence is not his.
To put forward “prove he doesn’t exist” is not proving he does exist.
His question remains, and remains answered, “give me solid proof”.

 

[ichabode]

So this doesn’t prove God’s existence. Can anyone give me solid proof?

There are many different types of reasons, philosophical arguments and analogies that prove God’s existence. Too many in fact to do justice to the subject in a forum like this. Normally one proof is not sufficient as you can develop a argument against like you mentioned in the original post. The evidence is when you take the various arguments like morality and the first mover and many more examples and combine them. The weight of the arguments are overwhelming. Once you see also that the world and its inhabitants are not governed strictly by material substance and that you do in fact have a soul the intellect must then affirm that something not material must have created the immaterial.

You can look into these books to investigate if the evidence for God exist: “Handbook of Catholic Apologetics” by Tacelli, “Theology for Beginners” and “Theology and Sanity” by Frank Sheed, do a google search on Aquinas five proofs for the existence of God.

On the proof from the Apostles I would add that for the Jews to change their Sabbath something extraordinary had to have occurred. To move the most sacred day Jews worshiped from Saturday to Sunday is tied to the fact that Jesus rose from the dead on Sunday. St. Peter refused to be crucified right side up like his lord and demanded to crucified upside down as he did feel himself worthy.

To end everything that exist does not have to have existed. Just think about yourself and parents, or a table and tree etc. Therefore if everything we know materially follows that principle that you could trace backwards to a time that it did not have to exist you would go back to state when nothing existed. There must be a thing that is existence, a substance or person that is existence itself. The thing which is not possible to not be, but only be is who we call God. God who is existence is the cause of the material universe and immaterial substances like our souls and Angels.

 

[robsully]

I believe PonderingJak has not made any claims that God doesn’t exist. The burden of evidence is not his.
To put forward “prove he doesn’t exist” is not proving he does exist.
His question remains, and remains answered, “give me solid proof”.

Please let me amend "His question remains, and remains unanswered, “give me solid proof”.

 

[Thorolfr]

But nobody dies for what they KNOW to be untrue. That is why the testimony of the Apostles is so compelling. They definitely weren’t lying. But were they merely deceived? Not at all, but I can save that one for next time; I hope I’ve given you a good starting point for now.

So does this mean that believers in other religions who died for their faith were deceived?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

With all due respect my friend, I do not think that is great criterion for prudential judgement of the truth of a religion.

There were people willing to give up their lives for Charles Manson and innumerable other apocalyptic cults.

Millions of Germans were willing to sacrifice their lives for the sake of Nazi ideology, which by 1939 had developed into a national, political religion with Hitler as its secular messiah preaching a doctrine of racial hatred.

At the same time millions of Japanese were willing to kill themselves as suicide bombers in fulfilment of their Shinto faith, which regarded the Emperor as a Living God.

One could legitimately argue that people being willing to give up their lives peacefully and passively in an oppressive environment out of a commitment to their faith, according to the dictates of their conscience, is testament to the truth of a religion. I can certainly see the sense in that.

I agree. I saw a documentary today about Jim Jones and Jonestown. About 1,000 people died because he told them to. No, not a good criterion for judging the truth of anything at all.

 

[surritter]

So does this mean that believers in other religions who died for their faith were deceived?

But read my post again. I claim that no one will die for what they KNOW to be false.
You are referring to people who are deceived, which means it’s false but they don’t know it.

 

[robsully]

But read my post again. I claim that no one will die for what they KNOW to be false.
You are referring to people who are deceived, which means it’s false but they don’t know it.

Can you prove that in fact, that they are deceived, and you are not?

 

[Thorolfr]

Can you prove that in fact, that they are deceived, and you are not?

I was wondering the same thing

 

[surritter]

Can you prove that in fact, that they are deceived, and you are not?

I don’t have to prove that, because it has nothing to do with the premise I was making.

My premise was that no one dies for what they know to be a lie. This helps refute the assertion that the Apostles knew the resurrection was a fake yet persevered in their claims.

Thorolfr then asked if believers in other religions who died for there faith were deceived. The answer is yes, but that’s not the point at all! They died for what they BELIEVED to be true. In that respect they are just as credible as the Apostles.

So I hope you see the difference. Lots of people die for things that are true and things that are false. But my premise was addressing the possibility that someone (of any faith) would die for what they KNOW to be false.

You might then say, “Well, then all who die for their religion believe it to be true.” But you’d be surprised – a lot of early skeptics of Christianity claimed they the Apostles were flat-out lying. That was the select group of skeptics I was addressing. To prove that religions other that Christianity are false is a different topic that you can take up with Aquinas.

 

[robsully]

But read my post again. I claim that no one will die for what they KNOW to be false.
You are referring to people who are deceived, which means it’s false but they don’t know it.

Exactly who was/is deceived.( your claim ). And how can you prove that they are “deceived” and you are not?

 

[surritter]

I was wondering the same thing

See my post above for a reply – with the corrected spelling of “their”

 

[Moses613]

In an apologetics class I went to, the priest tried to prove God’s existence by using the apostles as an example: many of them died and we’re executed in horrible ways, and that they wouldn’t die for something they didn’t truly believe in. But many different religions are also ready to die for their beliefs. So this doesn’t prove God’s existence. Can anyone give me solid proof?

That’s a pretty weak proof. The venerated Jewish tanna (sage) and martyr Rabbi Akiva lived during the incipient stages of Christianity, was 40 years old when the Temple was destroyed, and taught for many decades subsequently. In his old age he was arrested by the Roman governor Quintus Tineius Rufus for publicly teaching Torah, which was outlawed. As a punishment, he was publicly tortured and executed by raking his flesh with metal combs. When his students saw him in devoted prayer during his torture, they asked how he could pray at that time. He answered, “All my life I was worried about the verse, ‘with all your soul’ (and the sages expounded this to signify), even if He takes away your soul. And I said to myself, when will I ever be able to fulfill this command? And now that I am finally able to fulfill it, I should not [pray]?” Then he extended the final word Echad ("[God is] One") until his life expired with that word. A heavenly voice went out and announced: "Blessed are you, Rabbi Akiva, that your life expired with “Echad”.

One story of hundreds of Jewish martyrs. Therefore, Judaism is true. QED. Except that as you mentioned, other religions can come up with such stories as well.

 

[robsully]

Thorolfr then asked if believers in other religions who died for there faith were deceived. The answer is yes, but that’s not the point at all! They died for what they BELIEVED to be true. In that respect they are just as credible as the Apostle.

But I do believe it is the point. Can you prove that they are/were deceived and you and the Apostles are/were not?