Rebutting theism/non belief in Christ

[LotusCarsLtd]

I need help rebutting an argument I cannot properly respond to. Here is what he said:

"To part one: I have no means of knowing Christ is the only path, or any guaranteed path. The Church says it, that doesn’t make it true except by their own authority, which means nothing (self-verifying, that is). There’s as much evidence to Christ being “the only guaranteed path” as there is any other religion; you’re speaking as a Christian without any attempt to observe Christianity as just one of the major world religions, which is the point of view I’m trying to get across.

On fasting and prayer: my apologies if I phrased that poorly, but I didn’t mean God doesn’t care about those things, I simply meant He doesn’t care about you following the exact months that religions tell you and such. I.E. if you fast on your own for a month and a half, He won’t care whether it’s on Ramadan, Lent, or Passover, he’ll simply see it as a sign of devotion on its own. Same with prayer and service; religions provide a great template for how to go about those, but I don’t feel that following them to the letter (Letter of the Law versus Spirit of the Law) is at all important so long as you’re doing good in His name.

As I said, religion provides a great means for teaching the masses - those who don’t want to have this kind of deep, thought-provoking discussion - a means of doing good without working their brains too hard. And while religions might try to parse that absolute truth (which I agree exists), there’s nothing to show - thus far - that any one religion is closer than any of the rest.

Pointing to the saints of the Church as people with strong devotion is circular logic. There are other people out there who have done great good - Ghandi, as mentioned before, and Martin Luther King Jr. following in his methods - who were never known for a strong devotion toward a specific religion, but rather toward a specific philosophy. I agree today’s society has a convenience-first attitude, but that doesn’t mean the only way to go against it is Christianity.

Ghandi never attempted to find absolute truth; he was too busy doing good to worry about finding truth. And in today’s world, as with every day since the dawn of man, there’s more than enough things blatantly wrong that we can act immediately to fix without worrying about whether it’s right or wrong.

Your thoughts on Ghandi are incorrect, and I strongly encourage you to research him a bit more. He was never for rules; he followed the Golden Rule, and that was it. The Spirit of the Law versus the Letter of the Law is the same lesson Jesus preached so often. My point is, again, that while going through the exact motions of Christianity is nice, there’s no reason to believe that somehow those are the “right” ones, and no reason to believe that God is so choosy over them.

If a man acts to help the poor, does it really matter whether or not he’s Christian, Muslim, Hindu, agnostic, or athiest? I’d argue that in God’s eyes it doesn’t.

(Man it has been a really long time since I’ve had such a nice theological discussion.)"

 

[Mark77]

**Jesus is God & God Is Love!
**
end of discussion…

To try to convince someone of the Truth is not our job, we are called to live as best we can…

To paraphrase Blessed Mother Theresa; **‘we are not called to do great things, we are called to do little things with great love!’ **

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

 

[chessmane4e5]

"To part one: I have no means of knowing Christ is the only path, or any guaranteed path. The Church says it, that doesn’t make it true except by their own authority, which means nothing (self-verifying, that is). There’s as much evidence to Christ being “the only guaranteed path” as there is any other religion; you’re speaking as a Christian without any attempt to observe Christianity as just one of the major world religions, which is the point of view I’m trying to get across.

I would say that we know that Christ did exist and that He was crucified. We are told by the 12 Apostles that Jesus appeared to them 3 days later. There is then historic evidence of the Apostles preaching this, even to the point of death.

So I would ask: How reasonable does it seem that 12 people would lie that Jesus was resurrected? Maybe they would to save face with the public, but when put to the ultimate test, Life or Death, doesn’t it seem likely that 1 of them would have recanted?

On fasting and prayer: my apologies if I phrased that poorly, but I didn’t mean God doesn’t care about those things, I simply meant He doesn’t care about you following the exact months that religions tell you and such. I.E. if you fast on your own for a month and a half, He won’t care whether it’s on Ramadan, Lent, or Passover, he’ll simply see it as a sign of devotion on its own. Same with prayer and service; religions provide a great template for how to go about those, but I don’t feel that following them to the letter (Letter of the Law versus Spirit of the Law) is at all important so long as you’re doing good in His name.

This doesn’t make sense to me, mostly because this person claims to know what God thinks. You may want to ask him by what Authority does he posses this knowledge? At least we can claim as Catholics that we have the One True Church founded by Christ.

I not sure what was said before, but I would define that fasting is one way to sacrifice something for God. It doesn’t make sense what he is saying, because it seems he is attributing that it is the act of fasting that is special, when what is really important is the intent. But it appears to me that this is the same logic employed below, namely “If I do good things, then God should let me into heaven whether I believe in Him or not.”

As I said, religion provides a great means for teaching the masses - those who don’t want to have this kind of deep, thought-provoking discussion - a means of doing good without working their brains too hard. And while religions might try to parse that absolute truth (which I agree exists), there’s nothing to show - thus far - that any one religion is closer than any of the rest.

This is just fallacious. He is implying that people who can not (or chose not) think for themselves need religion, but the really smart and intelligent people can figure it out on their own.

Ask him to explain the appearance of Mary at Fatima in 1917 and the 70,000 people that saw the signs there. If God is sending Mary to us, to give us guidance, I think Catholicism might be closer than the rest.

Pointing to the saints of the Church as people with strong devotion is circular logic. There are other people out there who have done great good - Ghandi, as mentioned before, and Martin Luther King Jr. following in his methods - who were never known for a strong devotion toward a specific religion, but rather toward a specific philosophy. I agree today’s society has a convenience-first attitude, but that doesn’t mean the only way to go against it is Christianity.

Again, not sure what was discussed before, so I do not know if circular logic was employed on your part. It was nice of him to provide 2 examples, although MLK jr was a Baptist Minister, and Ghandi is cited as following Hinduism.

Ghandi never attempted to find absolute truth; he was too busy doing good to worry about finding truth. And in today’s world, as with every day since the dawn of man, there’s more than enough things blatantly wrong that we can act immediately to fix without worrying about whether it’s right or wrong.

Since the dawn of man? really? I would ask for evidence of that

Gandhi dedicated his life to the wider purpose of discovering truth, or Satya. He tried to achieve this by learning from his own mistakes and conducting experiments on himself. He called his autobiography The Story of My Experiments with Truth.

Gandhi stated that the most important battle to fight was overcoming his own demons, fears, and insecurities. Gandhi summarized his beliefs first when he said “God is Truth”. He would later change this statement to “Truth is God”. Thus, Satya (Truth) in Gandhi’s philosophy is “God”.

Not sure what he is reading on Ghandi.

cont…

 

[chessmane4e5]

Your thoughts on Ghandi are incorrect, and I strongly encourage you to research him a bit more. He was never for rules; he followed the Golden Rule, and that was it. The Spirit of the Law versus the Letter of the Law is the same lesson Jesus preached so often. My point is, again, that while going through the exact motions of Christianity is nice, there’s no reason to believe that somehow those are the “right” ones, and no reason to believe that God is so choosy over them.

hahaha He was never for rules, but he did follow the Golden Rule. Slight contradiction. Actually Ghandi was for rules and followed the Ahimsa.

Jesus did come to correct some of the errors in the ways people were adhering to what he calls the Letter of the Law. But how do we know when to follow the Letter and when to Follow the Spirit? Easy. The Catholic Church. Jesus founded His Church upon Peter and we still have that very Church today.

Since we only have one account of God taking human form, I think that is a reason to believe in this religion as opposed to any other.

If a man acts to help the poor, does it really matter whether or not he’s Christian, Muslim, Hindu, agnostic, or athiest? I’d argue that in God’s eyes it doesn’t.

I would argue that it does. It is not simply the act of doing good, but the act of doing God’s Will intentionally. Emphasis seems to be being place on the Second greatest commandment “Love you neighbor” but the First Greatest commandment was “To love your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your might.” How can you do this, but not realize you are doing it?

 

[Della]

I need help rebutting an argument I cannot properly respond to. Here is what he said:

"To part one: I have no means of knowing Christ is the only path, or any guaranteed path. The Church says it, that doesn’t make it true except by their own authority, which means nothing (self-verifying, that is). There’s as much evidence to Christ being “the only guaranteed path” as there is any other religion; you’re speaking as a Christian without any attempt to observe Christianity as just one of the major world religions, which is the point of view I’m trying to get across.

Don’t let him get away with this argument–it’s simply not true. There is plenty of evidence for the claims of Christ and his Church above other faiths. It’s up to him to show there aren’t not for you to prove there are.

On fasting and prayer: my apologies if I phrased that poorly, but I didn’t mean God doesn’t care about those things, I simply meant He doesn’t care about you following the exact months that religions tell you and such. I.E. if you fast on your own for a month and a half, He won’t care whether it’s on Ramadan, Lent, or Passover, he’ll simply see it as a sign of devotion on its own. Same with prayer and service; religions provide a great template for how to go about those, but I don’t feel that following them to the letter (Letter of the Law versus Spirit of the Law) is at all important so long as you’re doing good in His name.

Once again, he’s assuming he’s right with no evidence to back up his assertions. Ask him why God cares about fasting and prayer more than he does about obedience. IOW, why is one virtuous act more important in God’s eyes than another. I’ll bet he can’t answer that since he probably doesn’t know anything about the virtues. He’s just trying to get you to admit to his own, un-thoughtout relativism.

As I said, religion provides a great means for teaching the masses - those who don’t want to have this kind of deep, thought-provoking discussion - a means of doing good without working their brains too hard. And while religions might try to parse that absolute truth (which I agree exists), there’s nothing to show - thus far - that any one religion is closer than any of the rest.

Another unsubstantiated assumption which he cannot prove!

Pointing to the saints of the Church as people with strong devotion is circular logic. There are other people out there who have done great good - Ghandi, as mentioned before, and Martin Luther King Jr. following in his methods - who were never known for a strong devotion toward a specific religion, but rather toward a specific philosophy. I agree today’s society has a convenience-first attitude, but that doesn’t mean the only way to go against it is Christianity.

He’s confusing theology with morality. Don’t let him get away with this fallacy.

Ghandi never attempted to find absolute truth; he was too busy doing good to worry about finding truth. And in today’s world, as with every day since the dawn of man, there’s more than enough things blatantly wrong that we can act immediately to fix without worrying about whether it’s right or wrong.

So what? Ghandi could do whatever he liked. It doesn’t mean there isn’t truth just because one is able to do good without knowing all that is true/false.

Your thoughts on Ghandi are incorrect, and I strongly encourage you to research him a bit more. He was never for rules; he followed the Golden Rule, and that was it. The Spirit of the Law versus the Letter of the Law is the same lesson Jesus preached so often. My point is, again, that while going through the exact motions of Christianity is nice, there’s no reason to believe that somehow those are the “right” ones, and no reason to believe that God is so choosy over them.

Now he’s trying to tell a Christian what his beliefs ought to be. Like he knows!

If a man acts to help the poor, does it really matter whether or not he’s Christian, Muslim, Hindu, agnostic, or athiest? I’d argue that in God’s eyes it doesn’t.

(Man it has been a really long time since I’ve had such a nice theological discussion.)"

Once again, he’s trying to blot out sound theology by trumping it with morality, as if theology can be dumped in favor of morality, and as if everyone agrees on what is moral without it. Poor arguments and a lot of assumptions don’t make for good debate.

 

[LotusCarsLtd]

I not sure what was said before…Again, not sure what was discussed before, so I do not know if circular logic was employed on your part…

Here’s what I said initially, also in response to a previous series of comments the person made:

"To posts #3 and #4: But if we believe that Christ is God and that he is the only means of salvation, then just any faith won’t do. We would need to follow the path of the one Church he founded. But the Church also teaches that those of other faiths could be saved but we have no way of knowing for sure. The only sure path we know of is through Christ and his one Church. We try spreading the faith out of love for mankind and desiring it’s salvation. Why take the risk of following “just any faith”?

To post #5: I’d argue that God does cares about fasting and prayer. He desires us to become better people and to love him more each day. But this cannot be accomplished if we selfishly serve ourselves since we can only have one master: God or self. Fasting helps us to become less selfish and allows us to gain stronger control over ourselves, allowing us to break free from the slavery that is sin and selfishness and to live in the freedom of being a child of God - unbounded and joyous. Prayer allows us to speak to God and to hear his voice - and regular prayer routines help pace one’s day and allow one to, like with fasting, carefully plan the use of our time. So God does care because he cares for our well-being which can only come through maturity - something which is tempered and strengthened through self-denial.

But religion is not simply a template and even if there are a lot of similarities there are some big issues that make one religion completely incompatible with another. Religion is not merely a set of traditions and beliefs but a way of life. Religion is a means toward God and helps delineate between what is false and true. And if there exists an infinite God then there must be an absolute truth to accompany it. An infinite God must be an unchanging one and his teachings must be consistent and absolute otherwise his being is compromised. So with this in mind one religion must necessarily be the true religion and all others false or merely less fully true. That is why the Church says that every religion contains parts of the truth but that the wholeness of the truth is found only in Catholicism… See More

To post #6: I’d also point towards the saints of the church and the other holy men and women. Their common attribute? A strong devotion to truth and following truth, rather than some vague watered-down philosophy of right and wrong as we see expressed in today’s society. Mother Teresa, St. John of the Cross, St. Francis…all were marked by a strong devotion to absolute truth. Their theology and philosophy were not watered-down but absolute and uncompromising. What made them great was not an adherence to the notion of “every religion is similar”; rather, they strongly promoted and lived for an absolute truth. That was their strength. This is what made them so extraordinary. The problem with Gandhi’s approach is that it cannot find absolute truth. Truly seeking and following absolute truth requires us to adhere to the one true religion and reject all others. Otherwise our pursuit of absolute truth is ultimately weak.

But what I feel Gandhi is getting at might be a Pharisaical faith: one grounded not in love for God but in a strict following of rules. This alone does not save, but must be combined with a lived faith. And following the motions is a similar problem, except that the rules aren’t followed at all but only mimicked and there is no faith present. We must follow God’s rules, we must express our faith in concrete actions, but we also need the underlying faith, hope, and charity."