P
Peter_Plato
Guest
This isn’t a claim based on evidence, but one on the non-existence of evidence; discounting, of course, the account in Exodus as evidence.
Moving from Arguments for God to Arguments for a Specific Religion
- Status
N
Nihilist
Guest
One of the chief merits of Christianity is that it DOESN’T claim to be the fullness of Truth. It claim Christ is the fullness of Truth- a very different thing.
I recommend as, a Platonist, you read Nicholas of Cusa- On Learned Ignorance. And I am sure you are familiar with the ‘Mystical Theology’ of St. Dionysus. Both are highly Platonic Christian documet (and orthodox), and both emphasize that knowledge of God consists in a gradual setting aside of truth claims…That Truth transcends religion, though, word and image- the highest knowledge of God consists in progressively greater ‘unknowing’.
A highly Socratic sentiment, is it not?
J
JapaneseKappa
Guest
Wrong. There is evidence that the Israelites split off from the Canaanites over time. That directly contradicts the biblical Exodus myth. There are other issues as well, for example the Israelites are alleged to have invaded and destroyed cities in certain orders. However, archaeological evidence reveals that that the claimed order is impossible (e.g. they allegedly conquered a city which wasn’t inhabited at the time.)
Absences of evidence include:
No evidence Egypt suddenly lost more than half its population.
No evidence of any massive migration through a desert.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
What is the “law of non-contraction?” Is it some kind of prohibition against using contractions? Did Paul use contractions when he shouldn’t have? Is that what you are getting at? Otherwise, you’ve lost me. Oops! I think I used a contraction. Did I break the law of non-contractions? Forgive me, I just didn’t know it was such a big deal with you humble, down-home, spiritual types.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Well, it certainly would have made the city easier to conquer
Actually, so little is known about ancient times that definitive claims like “impossible” are a stretch. It means essentially, “Impossible given what minuscule knowledge we pretend we have.”
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
And the difference would be?
Isn’t the “fullness of truth,” essentially that “Christ is the fullness of truth?”
N
Nihilist
Guest
No. The statement that 'Christ is the ‘fullness of Truth’ is not in itself ‘the fullness of Truth’. It is merely a ‘truth’ in the non-transcendental sense.
If it were the case, there would be two ‘fullness of Truth’- 1. Christ, and 2. The statement “Christ is the Fullness of Truth”.
It’s going down the sophistical road of self-reflexivity, like saying: “It is true that this statement is true.”
A
abucs
Guest
Hi JapaneseKappa.
Do you happen to have the city name and OT bible reference? Thanks.
B
Ben_Quincy
Guest
This is not a thread about Exodus, stay on topic…
Y
ynotzap
Guest
All that means is that your thoughts are in contact with reality and are objective, and transcendant. Otherwise your thoughts remain purely subjective and out of contact with reality and non trancendant.
I
inocente
Guest
I was on my little keyboard. I meant non-contradiction. As methinks you surmised.But I think any religion which claims to know what God is all about makes at least three mistakes. First, it’s a small step from there to treating God as a tool who can be manipulated. There’s a world of difference between a magic ritual which commands god or his spirits to do our bidding (as in cults which make Satan a god) and petitioning not my will, but yours be done.
Even if it manages to avoid that, it takes away the holiness, the otherness, of God by making him familiar, “putting God in its back pocket”.
And third, it makes religion an arms race - theologians are tempted to claim more than their nearest competitor. It encourages tribal gods, the idea that in war, God is on our side.
D
Della
Guest
At least three, if not more.
But I think any religion which claims to know what God is all about makes at least three mistakes.
Definitely true. :yup: We Catholics do not command God to do anything, either. We simply do what Christ commanded us to do. There’s a big difference there, I agree.
Indeed, sound religion needs to have a healthy fear of God not think of God as some kind of pal that will do anything for us simply because we want it so.
An interesting idea, but people don’t go to wars over religious differences only. Most people aren’t that pure-minded.
There are usually other issues, such as power and getting what each side wants–as in WWI. Even the religious wars weren’t just about religion. It would have been better if they had been. They might have been less bloody and less damaging to religion.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
My assumption, considering the title of this thread, is that the question has been resolved that someone is satisfied there is a God, but just needs a little help deciding which religion is the one that comes nearest to worshiping the true God.
You can go bananas studying all the great religions of the world in depth, if you have the time and inclination; or you can take a short cut. You can ask what trait you think would most express the nature of God. If you decide that trait is love, you can ask yourself which religion focuses most fully and most eloquently on God’s love. Then ask if the founder of that religion claims to be human and/or divine. Then decide for yourself if the expression “Love one another as I have loved you” sounds like the most important thing the true God (man or divinity) would say to us.
At that point, depending on your disposition, you might be able to say, “Eureka!”
You can go bananas studying all the great religions of the world in depth, if you have the time and inclination; or you can take a short cut. You can ask what trait you think would most express the nature of God. If you decide that trait is love, you can ask yourself which religion focuses most fully and most eloquently on God’s love. Then ask if the founder of that religion claims to be human and/or divine. Then decide for yourself if the expression “Love one another as I have loved you” sounds like the most important thing the true God (man or divinity) would say to us.
At that point, depending on your disposition, you might be able to say, “Eureka!”
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Here we have a problem. The problem can be highlighted by replacing “God” in your claim with the word “truth.”
**But I think any person who claims to know what truth is all about makes at least three mistakes. First, it’s a small step from there to treating truth as a tool which can be manipulated. **
The problem, it seems to me, is that you assume knowing God, like knowing truth, will necessarily mean the knower and not the known is in control. However, knowing the truth does not entail having power over the truth merely because it is known. In fact, just the opposite. Knowing the truth means the person defers to the truth - the truth has power and authority over the person because the person acknowledges that truth is more important than their subjective consent to it. The truth does NOT consent to the person’s acknowledgement and, thereby, becomes the truth. Rather, the person consents to the authority of truth over their dictates.
Similarly, knowing God, does not, ipso facto, entail power over God. It means the person acknowledges their ontological status vis a vis God, as an aspect of truly knowing God, just as knowing the truth means the person acknowledges that they do not dictate the terms to truth, but are subject to truth’s authority over his/her intellect.
It is simply not true that knowing God fully, entails “treating God as a tool.” God makes himself known and, as such, retains authority. It is not the actions of the knower that brings about knowledge of God. There is nothing we can do to, on our own, come to know God. God reveals himself, and BECAUSE of that is never subject to becoming “a tool.” In fact, his omniscience regarding our motives and will essentially means he will remain hidden and outside of our jurisdiction if the problem of subjugating God to our will raises its ugly head.
He can be fully known, but under his terms, not ours. Which is why your imagined scenario necessarily excludes God. Knowing God is called the beatific vision. The reason we know the beatific vision is possible for humans is because Jesus said, “If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.” (John 14:7)
J
JapaneseKappa
Guest
The Bahá’í Faith pretty heavily emphasizes love. It also fully grants Jesus’ divinity and the divine origins of the Gospels.
D
Della
Guest
Yet, love alone is not enough. Truth is just as important for, as Pope Benedict cited (not the first to express the thought): “love without truth would be blind; truth without love would be like ‘a clanging cymbal’ (I Cor 13: 1).”
Warren W. Wiersbe wrote that: “Truth without love is brutality, and love without truth is hypocrisy.”
We must have both in order to understand what sound religion is and what God wants of us.
J
JapaneseKappa
Guest
So you don’t agree with Charlemagne III that we can choose a religion just based on what we suppose God’s most prominent attribute is. I don’t agree either.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
So by what authority does the Baha’i faith “grant” Jesus’ divinity? Notice this is tantamount to human beings having authority to “decide” on the matter of divinity. By what prescience or inherent aspect of human nature would we know what constitutes divinity? There is a subtle distinction between that and Jesus (Second person of the Godhead) revealing himself to human beings in an undeniable way and making direct proclamations about who and how humans would be granted teaching and moral authority. It is precisely this claim by Jesus that is the definitive one that distinguishes Christianity from other religions.
Christianity does not require Baha’i to endorse it because Jesus (if he is God) does not require any additional support to bolster his claim. Either he is God or he is not. It is a straight forward matter.
You either accept it as the “good news” because you are convinced by Jesus’ words and deeds or you do not. You cannot pretend to have the wherewithal to make final judgements about the nature of God. Once Jesus’ claims are accepted as authentic, the way is open to coming to know God fully because the Judeo-Christian premise is that God reveals himself to humanity, humanity does not come to God. God is not an object that is open to scrutiny and analysis by human tools of intellect and experimentation. The Godhead is the Eternal Truth by Whom (X3) we are led and to Whom we are drawn to know by his initiative.
To say we cannot know God is to say he does not reveal himself. How would anyone know that a priori or by some kind of unilateral decision enacted in the human will absent God?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Actually, according to Thomistic theology, God’s attributes are not and cannot be manifold. Goodness is Truth is Being is Love - these are, essentially, one and simply God.
Y
ynotzap
Guest
Many churches have some truth, and maybe some consider they have the whole truth regarding God, but I doubt it. But how many say they are guaranteed by God-himself that that what they teach the faithful is infallible when it comes to what to believe, and what moral laws to abide by? Humans as a fact are fallible, we are not omniscient, we are changeable, and ignorant. Any guiding belief we create are subjected to these limitation. Would God leave his subjects in this state? The Catholic Church makes the statement that is was guaranteed by Jesus Christ that the Spirit of truth would sustain her in these matters, and that Hell itself would not prevail against her. And whomever dashes himself against this stone (the Church) shall shatter,and upon whom this stone falls shall be crushed. This guarantee appliesto the matters of belief and morals. He gave Peter this authority and guarantee. In collaboration with with the teaching body of the church and endowed, with divine assistance the Pope makes a doctrinal proclamation for all the faithful to believe. the gift of infallibility applies only to matters of faith, and morals for the guidance of the faithful in truth. The Church in spite of all, persecution and conflicts has remained Even with much scandal through the ages, and Jesus prophesied that it would happen, it remains. And it will remain to the end of time. the Chuch has been time tested, and its doctrines are still true for the faithful, and has proven to be the creator of saints, true followers of Jesus Christ. It has been blessed with many spiritual manifestations and miracles and human bodies that lie uncorrupted as a manifestation of the holy lives these people lived, it all the work of the Holy Spirit, the Love of God!!!
- Status