Interesting belief

[blazerdave]

Don’t forget an annual Hie to Kolob.

LOL

 

[blazerdave]

No, because if you do that, the Roman Catechism in 80 years will have an entry that says “whom are the San Fran Trekkians; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

YES!!! That’s what I’m after haha

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Probably so! If Islam, Judaism, and non-Christian faiths in general are on board, why not throw in the J-Dubs, Zoroastrians, Trekkies, Plan Nine from Outer Space-goers (of which I’m a member! ), the Klingons, Scientology, and the Cult of Elvis!

But even the open-minded Vatican II catechism won’t allow for salvation for Dodgers fans. That is anathema!! A plague upon their dugout!

No, because if you do that, the Roman Catechism in 80 years will have an entry that says “whom are the San Fran Trekkians; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

 

[AnAtheist]

As for the Liar, Lunatic, Lord argument, it does indeed leave options undiscussed. But what options and are THOSE any more plausible? …]
Did you have any other plausible alternatives to suggest or is ‘stupid’ the best you got?

The whole argument is based on a method from a Sherlock Holmes novel. If all other alternatives are dismissed the only one remaining, however unlikely, must be the truth. That is of course somewhat doubtful as we usually cannot be certain to know all alternatives, but to omit obvious ones makes the whole argument invalid. To arbitrarily omit some because they are not plausible and arbitrarily include some to show they are not plausible is not a correct way of arguing. In fact one might suspect those options left out beforehand are not so implausible at all, so the author didn’t dare to include them knowing he cannot prove them wrong. Perhaps I shoud should change ‘stupid’ to ‘deceitful’.
I could apply the same argument to Homer’s Illias and set up a false dilemma like Homer was either telling the whole truth or he was a liar. he was a reputed and honoured man so he surely wasn’t a liar, Troy has been excavated, therefor Apoll did help to build it as Homer describes. Is that in any way plausible?
That the whole story or at least the wonderful stuff in it was “made up” is indeed very plausible.

 

[manualman]

The whole argument is based on a method from a Sherlock Holmes novel. If all other alternatives are dismissed the only one remaining, however unlikely, must be the truth. That is of course somewhat doubtful as we usually cannot be certain to know all alternatives, but to omit obvious ones makes the whole argument invalid. To arbitrarily omit some because they are not plausible and arbitrarily include some to show they are not plausible is not a correct way of arguing. In fact one might suspect those options left out beforehand are not so implausible at all, so the author didn’t dare to include them knowing he cannot prove them wrong. Perhaps I shoud should change ‘stupid’ to ‘deceitful’.
I could apply the same argument to Homer’s Illias and set up a false dilemma like Homer was either telling the whole truth or he was a liar. he was a reputed and honoured man so he surely wasn’t a liar, Troy has been excavated, therefor Apoll did help to build it as Homer describes. Is that in any way plausible?
That the whole story or at least the wonderful stuff in it was “made up” is indeed very plausible.

Actually, it is an argument that relies on the evidenciary requirements of the legal system. Eyewitness testimony is considered reliable unless contradicted by physical evidence or unless you can establish a motive for suspecting the witness of deception. Eyewitnesses are widely acknowledged to be susceptible to mistakes or misremembering, but their credibility increases greatly the more of them there are and the more consistent their separate testimony is.

As an engineer, my Homer is rather rusty. Are you saying that Homer claimed to be writing factual history? Was he persecuted and eventually executed for sticking to his claims? Citation please…

Surely you have a better alternative explanation than that. Homer clearly was writing a wonderful story to entertain. You really think that’s where the miracles and resurrection accounts came from? The apostles made it all up simply because nobody had yet invented paperback novels or cable TV yet? (entertainment).

 

[Nine_Two]

I could apply the same argument to Homer’s Illias and set up a false dilemma like Homer was either telling the whole truth or he was a liar. he was a reputed and honoured man so he surely wasn’t a liar, Troy has been excavated, therefor Apoll did help to build it as Homer describes. Is that in any way plausible?
That the whole story or at least the wonderful stuff in it was “made up” is indeed very plausible.

Except that Homer was writting down an oral history well after the fact. That argument doesn’t work.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

That’s an argument I never thought I’d hear—Homer, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and Jesus

 

[amhara]

Actually, it is an argument that relies on the evidenciary requirements of the legal system. Eyewitness testimony is considered reliable unless contradicted by physical evidence or unless you can establish a motive for suspecting the witness of deception. Eyewitnesses are widely acknowledged to be susceptible to mistakes or misremembering, but their credibility increases greatly the more of them there are and the more consistent their separate testimony is.

As an engineer, my Homer is rather rusty. Are you saying that Homer claimed to be writing factual history? Was he persecuted and eventually executed for sticking to his claims? Citation please…

Surely you have a better alternative explanation than that. Homer clearly was writing a wonderful story to entertain. You really think that’s where the miracles and resurrection accounts came from? The apostles made it all up simply because nobody had yet invented paperback novels or cable TV yet? (entertainment).

In order to confirm by way of proof the resurrection event, one can apply the same principles of evidence that would be acceptable as proof in a court of law. Many scholars in history have done so.

The evidence for Jesus’ death and resurrection is overwhelming. The New Testament contains six independent testimonies to the fact of the resurrection. These six men (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, and Paul) wrote 24 of the 27 books of the New Testament. Included in their testimonies are various eyewitness accounts as well as reports of other interviewed witnesses of the risen Jesus, including one of over 500 people at one time.

Were these witnesses credible? Critical minds who have considered their testimony point out that these witnesses were both competent and honest. For example, they had no impure motives for their testimony, such as fear, money, or ambition. They had the opportunity to know the truth, were mentally capable, were not gullible, and the documents of their testimony are reliable. There was more than an adequate number of witnesses to verify truth. And there is no contrary evidence.

Simon Greenleaf, Professor of law at Harvard from 1833 to 1848 has been called the greatest authority on legal evidences in the history of the world. When Greenleaf applied legal evidences to the resurrection event, he concluded that it was an historical reality, and that anyone who examined the evidence for it honestly would be convinced this was the case.

There is a book called ‘‘Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony’’ by Richard Bauckham, where he goes through the evidence that the Gospels are actual eyewitness accounts.

Not only did Mary and the 12 disciples see him alive, 500 people also saw him and took note of it. In the court of law you only have to have 1 witness to prove someone’s guilt or innocence. But Jesus has hundreds. If you say the Bible has been tampered with, we have other evidence from outside sources that saw or recorded this Jesus Christ.

faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/questions-of-christians/how-do-you-square-jesus-miracles-with-reality
biblicalfoundations.org/?p=112

 

[manualman]

amahara, that’s very well written and reasoned. Are those your words or are you quoting?

 

[RebeccaJ]

I should make a religion where the San Francisco Giants, Star Trek, listening to “Yes” and “Rush” and eating Thai food are all sacraments. Meism. Peanut Butter Cups are also salvific in my religion as well as traveling and driving in Dodge Challengers.

If country-pop is heretical, I’m in.

 

[rwillenborg]

The Bahai religion reminds me of Espiranto turned into a religion What’s with L Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith and these guys cooking up their own religions?

I should make a religion where the San Francisco Giants, Star Trek, listening to “Yes” and “Rush” and eating Thai food are all sacraments. Meism. Peanut Butter Cups are also salvific in my religion as well as traveling and driving in Dodge Challengers.

I like the peanut butter cups and thai.
But, the Giants, meh, and Yes and Rush aren’t my gig, so I will PROTEST your religion! And it will the Another-meism.
We’re keeping the cups and the thai.
You can have the giants.
I was thinking of adding my dearly beloved Detroit Lions to the creed, but then no one would join, so I will keep that one all to myself.

 

[rwillenborg]

In order to confirm by way of proof the resurrection event, one can apply the same principles of evidence that would be acceptable as proof in a court of law. Many scholars in history have done so.

The evidence for Jesus’ death and resurrection is overwhelming. The New Testament contains six independent testimonies to the fact of the resurrection. These six men (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, and Paul) wrote 24 of the 27 books of the New Testament. Included in their testimonies are various eyewitness accounts as well as reports of other interviewed witnesses of the risen Jesus, including one of over 500 people at one time.

Were these witnesses credible? Critical minds who have considered their testimony point out that these witnesses were both competent and honest. For example, they had no impure motives for their testimony, such as fear, money, or ambition. They had the opportunity to know the truth, were mentally capable, were not gullible, and the documents of their testimony are reliable. There was more than an adequate number of witnesses to verify truth. And there is no contrary evidence.

Simon Greenleaf, Professor of law at Harvard from 1833 to 1848 has been called the greatest authority on legal evidences in the history of the world. When Greenleaf applied legal evidences to the resurrection event, he concluded that it was an historical reality, and that anyone who examined the evidence for it honestly would be convinced this was the case.

There is a book called ‘‘Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony’’ by Richard Bauckham, where he goes through the evidence that the Gospels are actual eyewitness accounts.

Not only did Mary and the 12 disciples see him alive, 500 people also saw him and took note of it. In the court of law you only have to have 1 witness to prove someone’s guilt or innocence. But Jesus has hundreds. If you say the Bible has been tampered with, we have other evidence from outside sources that saw or recorded this Jesus Christ.

faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/questions-of-christians/how-do-you-square-jesus-miracles-with-reality
biblicalfoundations.org/?p=112

I have to say too that I find it very compelling that when the letters were written, many of the 500 (wasn’t that just men? So there would have been women and children in addition to that, too?) would most certainly have still been alive.
I also find the growth of christianity fascinating. Not just the apostles, of course, but everyone who followed them…I mean, had the Jews and the Gentiles who converted to christianity all simply gone mad? Who would sign up for this? Who in their right mind would join a cult that was detested by the Jews and the Romans, knowing that death would be the price they would pay? And over and over and over again in the gospels this message resounds ‘This is gonna suck for you’. Over and over, the gospels say there will be crosses, and this will divide families, and basically that living the Christian life can be fairly miserable. No one could claim that they were trying to put a ‘spin’ on it, that’s for sure. Yet people joined.
And I think about the popes, too. Actually, it was this little comparison that gave me great pause - For the first 400 years of christianity EVERY single pope was martyred. Every single one. In the 250 years of US history, 4 presidents have been killed in office. Now, pretend it was ALL of them. And pretend this would continue for another 150 years. I know I would certainly regard that office and the men who have held it VERY differently.
Anyway, just my two cents.

 

[SecretBeliever]

Wow, rwillenborg, your fact about the popes blows me away! Can I use your paragraph to show people? Like my husband? (he’s why I’m "Secret"Believer) Well, I should say, do you have an “official” source that you’ve gotten this from? He’s a stickler on “show me the evidence”. Thanks!

 

[rwillenborg]

Wow, rwillenborg, your fact about the popes blows me away! Can I use your paragraph to show people? Like my husband? (he’s why I’m "Secret"Believer) Well, I should say, do you have an “official” source that you’ve gotten this from? He’s a stickler on “show me the evidence”. Thanks!

newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

But he won’t like this for two reasons:

1. SOME of the popes we have very hard evidence that they were martyred. Some we have strong reason to believe they were, and some popes we don’t know much about but the stories told of them suggest they were martyred.
   He won’t like that this is a catholic website, but they cite their sources, so he can dig them up for himself.
   Here is what you should ask of him though. Ask that he approach catholic history with the SAME scrutiny with which he looks at other historical information. In other words, this is 2000 year old events, if he’s looking for fingerprints and dna it’s not going to be there, and he knows that. If he wants to say that such and such information is garbage because he can’t find enough evidence then he might also end up throwing out some other very historical pieces, too.
   My husband’s still an atheist.
   We had a conversation the other day about Matthew 24 - there’s a line where Jesus tells his disciples to run to the mountains if anything happens to the temple. In that era, that was very contrary to the commonly held belief. The commonly held belief was to run TO the city - that’s where there were walls, and soldiors, and food stores. That is where you went for safety. the christians, howeve,r when the temple was destroyed, ran for the mountains. We know this because there is Josephus (a jewish historian) christian writers and Roman writers all saying that that’s what happened. So I was saying to my husband that was fairly strong evidence that this was an actual prediction made by Jesus and he was like ‘No, I still think it’s made up’ and I’m like ‘Okay, I showed you historical documentation supporting MY SIDE from THREE different groups of people. What’s you evidence?’ He didn’t have any, but still, he insisted, Sometimes, you need the eyes to see.

 

[arthra]

the Baha’i Faith originated within Shia Islam, and claims that its founder, Baha’u’llah, is the lastest “manifestation of God” to appear on earth, along with previous manifestations who have included Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, the Buddha, Christ Jesus, and Mohammad.

they propegate values such as peace, tolerance, unity, and education, and are very evangelistic in their outreach.

obviously, only Christ is God in flesh. not simply one “manifestation” among many, and certainly not on par with the Buddha, or Mohammad. He is God in flesh, Saviour, and Lord.

He is the only way to the Father, and He was crucified as is risen from the dead.

the Baha’is affirm His crucifixion but deny His bodily resurrection, claiming instead that the resurrection was of a “spiritual” and not a corpereal nature. they also affirm that God truly did send Mohammad, which is not something attested to in Christian faith. Mohammad may have been sincere and pious, but he was certainly not guided by the same God whom Christians call “Father”.

the Baha’i Faith also denies the trinity, denies the second coming of Christ (except in the context of Baha’u’llah being the second coming of Christ), and seeks to unite all mankind within its parameters. in a way it is both universalist and triumphalist, and does have many redeeming and admirable points. but it is not a faith inspired by God, or capable of leading a person to Him.

I would like to respond to the above post and submit a few revisions or corrections if I might… First it is not actually accurate in my view to say Baha’is deny the trinity…

The epitome of the discourse is that the Reality of Christ was a clear mirror, and the Sun of Reality – that is to say, the Essence of Oneness, with its infinite perfections and attributes – became visible in the mirror. The meaning is not that the Sun, which is the Essence of the Divinity, became divided and multiplied – for the Sun is one – but it appeared in the mirror.

This is why Christ said, “The Father is in the Son,” meaning that the Sun is visible and manifest in this mirror.

The Holy Spirit is the Bounty of God which becomes visible and evident in the Reality of Christ. The Sonship station is the heart of Christ, and the Holy Spirit is the station of the spirit of Christ. Hence it has become certain and proved that the Essence of Divinity is absolutely unique and has no equal, no likeness, no equivalent.
This is the signification of the Three Persons of the Trinity

(Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 113)

Baha’is also accept the Bab, Siyyid Ali Muhammad as the Forerunner of Baha’u’llah in much the same way that John the Baptist prepared the way for Christ… Baha’is believe that the Bab fulfilled prophecies about the Return of Christ in 1844 when He declared His Mission in Shiraz, Iran… The life of the Bab has many points of similarity to that of the life of Christ. Teh Bab also fulfilled prophecies we believe of the Mahdi and the Promised One of Islam in 1260 AH which is the same year as the Gregorian calendar 1844…

Baha’is accept the Bible as an inspired Holy Book and believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. we also accept that the soul begins at conception and that abortion especially for economic reasons is forbidden…

 

[seeker57]

This is from the official Bahai’ web site:

Throughout history, God has revealed Himself to humanity through a series of divine Messengers, whose teachings guide and educate us and provide the basis for the advancement of human society. These Messengers have included Abraham, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad. Their religions come from the same Source and are in essence successive chapters of one religion from God.

Bahá’u’lláh, the latest of these Messengers, brought new spiritual and social teachings for our time. His essential message is of unity. He taught the oneness of God, the oneness of the human family, and the oneness of religion.

Bahá’u’lláh said, “The earth is but one country and mankind its citizens,” and that, as foretold in all the sacred scriptures of the past, now is the time for humanity to live in unity.

Actually, this sounds somewhat like the ideas behind Unitarian Universalism, except UUs probably would balk at the idea of “divine messengers.”

Still, Bahai beliefs are interesting.