How Can We Claim Our Faith as Exclusive?

[Petergee]

Fa Chan, I’m sorry but I’m tired of trying to deal logically with your farrago of non-sequiturs, chauvinist assertions (which are not “FACTS” even if you print it in capitals) and now your paranoid accusation of “threats”. I suggest for a start you look at a map of Asia (apparently for the first time). Then see if you can work out which is the largest country in Asia and where Christianity started. If you still can’t learn anything then don’t ask me to teach you, I’m afraid I haven’t the time or patience.

 

[Petergee]

I warned you it would be a slog. There is actually a lot of good info in the thread about Neopagan apologetics, but it is long and one has to sift out the chaff (as with any thread on this forum).

Try that thread, post #178 as a starting point for discussion of the book. I don’t have a summary of the book at any specific place on the forums.

Before we go much further, are you interested in an actual discussion or simply continuing to sneer, which is the way your posts are coming across? I am glad to discuss, but other posters on this forum have worn out my patience with the latter and I really have neither time nor interest for that. If you actually want to go into this in detail in a reasonable, civil way, here are the arguments discussed, both for and against theism. Pick one and we can start from there

1. the ontological argument–that the monotheistic God is not only real, but logically necessary, He doesn’t simply happen to exist but cannot not exist
2. the cosmological argument–the existence of a God is the only explanation for the existence of the universe at all
3. the argument from design (either from order or from purpose)
4. the moral argument–the existence of moral laws require a divine lawgiver
5. the cumulative argument–that all of the above have problems, but together they show that the existence of a god is more likely than not
6. the argument from meaninglessness–that God cannot be both the unchanging ground of being and a person
7. the existence of evil
8. the argument from unbelief
9. the argument from religious experience (the post I referenced refers to that specifically)

Maybe it’s me, but I still can’t see anything resembling a logical argument for the existence of multiple “gods” analagous to the rational basis for belief in God. Certainly not in post 178. Only silly arguments like “there’s more of us than you”, “we have scriptures”, “I have personal feelings of being in contact with God”, which no serious phiilosopher/theologian would entertain.

I certainly wasn’t sneering at you, and if I have a “sneering” attitude to any belief it is only because it isn’t compatible with reason.

Why don’t you pick the argument for polytheism which you think is the strongest and let’s see how we go.

Btw your arguments 6, 7 and 8 seem to be the titles of arguments AGAINST the reality of God.

 

[Fa_Chan]

Fa Chan, I’m sorry but I’m tired of trying to deal logically with your farrago of non-sequiturs, chauvinist assertions (which are not “FACTS” even if you print it in capitals) and now your paranoid accusation of “threats”. I suggest for a start you look at a map of Asia (apparently for the first time). Then see if you can work out which is the largest country in Asia and where Christianity started. If you still can’t learn anything then don’t ask me to teach you, I’m afraid I haven’t the time or patience.

Again, you accuse of non-sequiturs, chauvinist assertions, etc. But yet you don’t show evidence. I asked for evidence and this is what you have responded with. I will assume you don’t have any. As far as China being the largest country in Asia in land mass, it obviously isn’t. Russia has that dubious honor. Although, China does still have the world’s largest population at over 1.3 billion people. I was wrong about the land mass. LOL, I forgot about Russia in this regard.

I’m afraid my patience has also run out and my time from here on will be focused on positive areas that bring joy and not negativity like I find so often here. Life is far too short and I don’t know why I even came back here.

I wish you all well and Godspeed.

Peace…

Fa Chan

 

[KarenNC]

I certainly wasn’t sneering at you, and if I have a “sneering” attitude to any belief it is only because it isn’t compatible with reason.

Why don’t you pick the argument for polytheism which you think is the strongest and let’s see how we go.

Btw your arguments 6, 7 and 8 seem to be the titles of arguments AGAINST the reality of God.

Yes, I included, as I stated and as the book does, arguments both “for and against theism” if you read the post. If polytheism is to stand up to arguments for theism at least as well as monotheism, it also has to answer the arguments against theism. If it can not, then what would be the point?

No, I think I will leave the choice up to you if you want to pursue it. You are the one asserting that it is incompatible with reason. I have no idea which, if any, you would find the strongest argument. What do you consider the strongest argument for a monotheistic Trinitarian God?

 

[Eden]

Thank you. Your response hits the most directly on my questions. I still think, however, that it is more than mere coincidence that relativism coincides with more ready contact with the broader world. And no, I don’t just mean the select areas you’ve pointed out. Those little, ignored folks you mention have also had a big impact on my thinking. Like the Kung in southern Africa or the Plains Indians. There are so many rich and beautiful traits found among these groups. And since they’re less associated with institutionalized corruption, it’s easy to see why Christianity sometimes falls out of popularity, with some open people favoring these more simple expressions of life.

It’s interesting that you mention the !Kung. I read a book about a !Kung woman several years ago. Just about the only thing I remember about that book today is the amount of sexual partner swapping going on. The romantic idea of the “noble savage” is not new to Western culture, in fact, it’s had it’s day and run its course. You’ve suggested this is a new idea, by pointing out that the world is getting smaller as we are able to come into contact with more cultures, more easily. That’s not the case. The idea of the noble savage, which had popular appeal in Europe in the 18th century, is actually viewed as patronizingly racist and condescending by many “intellectuals” today. As Christians, we should be cautious of romanticizing* any* group of people, as we know that *all *mankind suffers from the sinful effects of the Fall.

 

[guanophore]

Look, I know all this jargon. But it ignores my question: How can I know that this stuff is true? What about all the other great wisdom traditions of the world? Only partial truths, if that? How can we know!?!

James 1:5
5 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives to all men generously and without reproaching, and it will be given him."
/COLOR]
Everyman;1867428:

It's all about faith, huh?

It is written that faith is a gift. But if you lose it, does that make God an Indian giver?

It is incumbent upon us to nurture, protect, and defend the deposit of faith that was placed in us when we were justified. This happens through obedience to the faith, and cooperating with God, who is at work within us to will and to do.

Phil 2:12-13

12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

It is true that it is possible to lose one’ s faith, but it seems to me it is not becuase of His “taking it back” but our failure to hold carefully what He has given. The good news is, he came to seek and save the lost, so if we keep getting lost, He will keep coming to find us!

 

[guanophore]

What about the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away?

Don’t leave out the second part! Blessed Be the Name of the Lord! Our job is to bless the Lord in plenty and in want. If we can thank him during the times that are dry and seem devoid of life,then we have not lost our faith.

 

[guanophore]

Everyman: I know what you mean. My wife and I have had similar discussions. Sometimes I wonder, if God maybe didn’t communicate to the different cultures and peoples of the world in different ways and methods. As you mentioned, many of the worlds religions and philosophies are very similar in doctrine and/or teachings. For instance, maybe God manifested himself/related to the Jews and people of that culture as Jesus Christ because that was appropriate for that time and place. Maybe for people of the Orient, it was as Buddha. I certainly don’t know this as a fact, just thinking out loud, but it does make you wonder sometimes.

Certainly God has revealed himself to all, in different ways and times.
Rom 1:19-20
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made."

 

[DLC]

Every religion makes this same calim. The difference with Christianity is that we have a living founder, Jesus Christ. All other religions can show you the grave of their chief.

 

[KarenNC]

Every religion makes this same calim. The difference with Christianity is that we have a living founder, Jesus Christ. All other religions can show you the grave of their chief.

As every religion certainly does not make identical claims (if they did we wouldn’t be having any of these discussions ), which particular claim would that be?

As to the living founder, I already answered that in post #57 of this thread, when you said the same thing. You are comparing apples to oranges. I am not aware of any religions that will be able to show you the grave of their God(s). The founders of Christianity as we know it were the Apostles and Paul.

 

[Keikiolu]

…{snip}…

But I think there’s more at stake than just that. I’m beginning to think this: before globalization, we were all relatively tucked away in our cultural corners safely with our own traditions. We knew there were those that believed differently than us, we came into contact with them on occasion, but they were wrong in what they believed. And we were right. I mean, it’s how we were all raised.

But now, we are a global society, without the luxury of being cut off from these other cultures. And it’s becoming harder and harder to resist the temptation of not seeing similarities between, say, the teachings of Buddha and the teachings of Christ. And it’s becoming harder to reconcile the teachings of Paul with the teachings of Christ.

Point is, claiming dogmatically that mine is the exclusive, true faith is looking pretty narrow and meaningless in this small world of ours. What do we do?

It’s not a question of the fact that there are other beliefs within various proximities.

It’s a question of the fact of what you at base believe.

Do you believe that the (Catholic) Church is the only legitimate church founded by and supported by Jesus?

If you don’t,… then you may CALL yourself a Catholic, but you are simply going through the motions, for whatever motives you may have.

If you do,… then you can perfectly claim that the Church is the only FULLY true church,… while other “denominations” and “religions” may have SOME of the truth, but those within the (Catholic) Church are more advantaged by being members of the fullness of Truth.

Therefore, are you a relativist or can you actually MAKE a decision…?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[mikew262]

Therefore, are you a relativist or can you actually MAKE a decision…?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

Why the sarcasm?

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*
Therefore, are you a relativist or can you actually MAKE a decision…?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.*

Why the sarcasm?

What sarcasm?

The characteristic of “relativists” is that they can’t make decisions.

Do you disagree?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[mikew262]

What sarcasm?

The characteristic of “relativists” is that they can’t make decisions.

Do you disagree?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

No, I wouldn’t say that. Rather a relativist says his decision depends upon the actual situation; there is no absolute truth.

BTW, your sarcasm was evident when you captialized MAKE.

 

[Petergee]

Yes, I included, as I stated and as the book does, arguments both “for and against theism” if you read the post. If polytheism is to stand up to arguments for theism at least as well as monotheism, it also has to answer the arguments against theism. If it can not, then what would be the point?

Agreed, sorry I missed that.

No, I think I will leave the choice up to you if you want to pursue it. You are the one asserting that it is incompatible with reason.

You are the one asserting that “the reality of many gods” may be simply subsituted for “the reality of God” in any rational argument. I have never seen such an argument which was compatible with reason, so I asked you to show me one, and in reply you seem to be doing nothing but dodging the question.

I have no idea which, if any, you would find the strongest argument. What do you consider the strongest argument for a monotheistic Trinitarian God?

The Trinity was revealed by Christ and cannot be deduced from unaided reasoning by those who do not know Christ. If I was in that position I would consider your argument #1 (which is actually related to #2) to be the most persuasive proof of the reality of God (not of the Trinity).

 

[KarenNC]

**You are the one asserting that “the reality of many gods” may be simply subsituted for “the reality of God” in any rational argument. **

No, I didn’t.

**The Trinity was revealed by Christ and cannot be deduced from unaided reasoning by those who do not know Christ. **

Okay, we’ll just take as given that the Trinity is a case of special pleading and leave it at that.

If I was in that position I would consider your argument #1 (which is actually related to #2) to be the most persuasive proof of the reality of God (not of the Trinity).

Actually the ontological argument is pretty weak as a “proof” of theism of any sort. Most Christian scholars don’t find it acceptable even for Christianity, including Aquinas (see newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm "the great majority of scholastic philosophers have rejected the ontological argument as propounded by St. Anselm and Descartes "). As Greer says, it reduces to “a claim that what Anselm likes best must exist, because having what he likes actually exist is one of the things he likes.” I don’t think anyone could argue that polytheism could not meet such an argument equally as well as monotheism, though neither are terribly well supported by it.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/ has further information on this argument, including its supporters and detractors over the centuries.

 

[Petergee]

**You are the one asserting that “the reality of many gods” may be simply subsituted for “the reality of God” in any rational argument. **

No, I didn’t.

I guess to be technically correct, you didn’t actually make this statement yourself, but you do keep urging us to read a book which makes this claim, and you have continually defended it against any criticism. If even you are not sure if the claim has any validity, and as you have repeatedly failed to reproduce when asked, any of the reasons which the book, so you say, gives to support this claim, it’s hard to see why anyone should bother buying or reading it.

**The Trinity was revealed by Christ and cannot be deduced from unaided reasoning by those who do not know Christ. **

Okay, we’ll just take as given that the Trinity is a case of special pleading and leave it at that.

No, it’s not special pleading at all. Just that it depends to some extent on divine revelation. But revealed truths, if they are indeed true, must be totally conformable and compatible with reason, just like truths which can be deduced by unaided reason.

If I was in that position I would consider your argument #1 (which is actually related to #2) to be the most persuasive proof of the reality of God (not of the Trinity).

Actually the ontological argument is pretty weak as a “proof” of theism of any sort. Most Christian scholars don’t find it acceptable even for Christianity, including Aquinas (see newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm "the great majority of scholastic philosophers have rejected the ontological argument as propounded by St. Anselm and Descartes "). As Greer says, it reduces to “a claim that what Anselm likes best must exist, because having what he likes actually exist is one of the things he likes.” I don’t think anyone could argue that polytheism could not meet such an argument equally as well as monotheism, though neither are terribly well supported by it.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/ has further information on this argument, including its supporters and detractors over the centuries.

Interesting opinions of theirs. But you still haven’t given anything resembling a proof of polytheism. In fact you seem to be shifting to frank agnosticism.

 

[KarenNC]

I guess to be technically correct, you didn’t actually make this statement yourself, but you do keep urging us to read a book which makes this claim, and you have continually defended it against any criticism. If even you are not sure if the claim has any validity, and as you have repeatedly failed to reproduce when asked, any of the reasons which the book, so you say, gives to support this claim, it’s hard to see why anyone should bother buying or reading it.

I invite you to show me where the book makes such a claim of a simple substitution. To be accurate, I have defended it against your criticism on this thread. I offered it as a suggestion to one person, who I thought might find it interesting. You are certainly free to read or not read it as you desire.

I have offered to discuss and am willing to do so. One can hardly reproduce a book wholesale, and there are many and varied arguments, which I listed as a starting point. As I said, pick one of the arguments and we can discuss it. You picked, I discussed.

I also asked for your best argument for Trinitarian monotheism, the rational argument that you have said polytheism must answer. So far we have established that the Trinity is true because Jesus said so and that you feel the ontological argument is the most compelling argument for monotheism aside from “Jesus said so.”

**No, it’s not special pleading at all. Just that it depends to some extent on divine revelation. But revealed truths, if they are indeed true, must be totally conformable and compatible with reason, just like truths which can be deduced by unaided reason. **

Very well. Do you allow divine revelation (by which I mean statements about Him/Herself that are attributed to a God by His/Her followers) to be sufficient evidence for the truth of those statements for anyone other than the Christian God? If not, it is special pleading.

I do not find the Trinity to be conformable nor compatible with reason, personally. Perhaps you would care to elaborate on how it is so.

But you still haven’t given anything resembling a proof of polytheism. In fact you seem to be shifting to frank agnosticism.

I offered to allow you to pick an argument from the list of those discussed in the book. You picked the ontological argument. Since, though indeed one of the classical arguments for theism, this argument is not accepted as a reasonable argument for monotheism even by Christian scholars, there is no issue. Polytheism does not need to answer it. It fails on its own merits.

 

[Valke2]

Polytheism necessitates a belief in multiple, independent powers. It would seem to me that this would require an understnading that none of these dieties could be omnipotent (sp?). If that is the case, then there is as aspect of the finite for each diety. Which I think would mean that each deity would have human strengths as well as human weaknesses. If this is correct, and I haven’t spent much time thinking about polytheism, then at some level, the deities are no greater than us, putting aside issues of immoratlity and supernatural powers.

 

[KarenNC]

Polytheism necessitates a belief in multiple, independent powers. It would seem to me that this would require an understnading that none of these dieties could be omnipotent (sp?). If that is the case, then there is as aspect of the finite for each diety. Which I think would mean that each deity would have human strengths as well as human weaknesses.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say “human” strengths and weaknesses, but yes, you are correct. Polytheists do not see any deity as omnipotent or omniscient or omnibenevolent or omnipresent or omni-anything.

If this is correct, and I haven’t spent much time thinking about polytheism, then at some level, the deities are no greater than us, putting aside issues of immoratlity and supernatural powers.

Well, looks to me like immortality and greater than human powers (since the Gods are part of nature, I don’t see their abilities as "super"natural), would make them a bit greater than us by default. They are a different order of being entirely.

Do you “put aside issues of immortality and supernatural powers” for your God?