why is any other religion wrong?

[Lion_of_Narnia]

To Lion of Narnia:

I wouldn’t try to conclusivly prove that Jesus was not the Son of God, because it just can’t be done. Likewise you can’t prove he was.

response: actually, what I’ve been stating is He claimed to be the Son of God–and he was NOT a “bad man” in the sense of either being a liar, a looney, an incompetant “guru”, or such an incompetant teacher that his closest followers promoted lies (“mythologized”) about his person and message.

We can argue over the historical accuracy of the bible, but this is likly to be fruitless, because I doubt you as a Christian would be willing to view it as an historical source. I personally believe you can look beyond the words of the bible to the motives of the writers, but if you have faith that the bible was inspired by God then we will get no where.

response: Having a near BA in History I’m actually quite aware of historical criteria–and how the onslaught of “historical critical” method all too often bringsin a materialist bias

Not that this is a problem, because really its an unimportant point. Obviously Christianity comes down to faith.

response: As much as as a materialist bias comes down to unsupported opinion–the "universal negative’ that there are no such things as miracles, supernatural interventions into the casual world

…Thats is way the idea of plate techtonics was refuted at first. With religion people become very set in there ways. You believe something so you will reject any evidence against it as false or flawed. If something supports you point of veiw you are much less likly to look to deeply into all the details of it.

My wife was a geology major at KU, in the early 70’s, when plate techtonics “won over”–and not just her observation but many other geologists recall the theory became accepted because the "old guard’ geologists retired or died off–before then, it was tooth and nails to get any PT article published or a promoter to get tenure. A similar thing is still present in the majority of religious studies schools, domnated by secular academics

quote]

 

[Mr.Bee]

okay this i’ve been putting off for way way to long.

why is any other relgion besides christianity wrong?

1. is it because you have been told this your whole life?
2. its cause the devil has created all of them?

those are only two examples i can think of right now…but please tell me why?

i may be just 15 but i know the line of good and evil and i stay on the good side. i know that what i do is right for me, i can feel it from head to toe…or is that just the devil playing tricks on me?

Hey Reborn P.,

First of all, I’d like to say your doubts and questions are refreshing. Religion without doubt is superstition.

Now, (IMHO) for most of the rest of you responding to RP, much of what you are saying, and the way you are going about saying it doesn’t really make the arguements sound very convincing. If the answer is confusing, requires math, or takes up 4 post spaces, theres a problem And you all wonder why everybody gets so bent out of shape about religion?.. That’s a no-brainer if you surf the internet long enough.

I’m way past 15, but I continue to have these questions (one of the reasons why I’m back exploring this maddening forum) All I know is, I believe in one God, and Jesus suffered to show God loves us, what other God would subject Himself to that agony just to prove a point?. Maybe that is confusing to some, but that’s what it’s all about for me, Catholic or not.

Follow your heart RP, the devils tricks don’t work on the truth.

God Bless

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

To Lion of Narnia:

In the past I have had faith in God. I tried to back it up with evidence sometimes, but that evidence never seemed flawless. Once I lost faith I realised I had no evidence. I have never seen any piece of evidence that could be considered anywhere near proof of Christianity. Thological arguments and works such as those of C.S. Lewis don’t give inrufutable evidence they gave ideas that should be veiwed as proof.

I don’t really understand why you look for evidence of Gods existance. I’m not trying to prove he doesn’t exist. If God exists then any conversion back to Chrisitianty would come through him. I’ve read lots of posts where people talk to Gods voice or of God finding people, so it is gut feelings that draw people into religion and never cold evidence. It all comes down to blind faith.

You require “flawless” evidence–must the position of atheism also require "flawless: evidence? As the late philosopher Mortimer Adler (a former atheist, then a theist, then a Christian, finaly a Catholic) noted in Seven Philosophical Mistakes, very few positions we accept are backed by absolute proof–those being primarily in the field of mathmatics. Outside of that, we accept on all sorts of things on the basis of “beyond reasonable doubt” The position of a Christian apologist is NOT to provide flawless.absolute proof but to present evidence and arguments in favor of the faith at least as good as countering claims–and also to point out when those countering claims may not be so “reasonable”.

I came back to the faith because I found it reasonable–that suppositions against the orthodox Christian position were just that, pre-existant suppositions relying upon accepted, never-questioned tautologies, academic “myths”, and non-rational emotional reactions (Christianity was “patriarchal”, “sexist”, “homphobic” “anti-science”, “puritanical”, etc…) After finding it reasonable, I did “make the leap”–and afterwards found it more reasonable–it engaged my intellect much more strongly than gutless atheism (agnosticism) ever had.

Yes, every conversion back to the Truth comes through Him–and it definetly can come via reason and rational discourse–following the arguement, does it make sense, are there any unstated biases in this position–is the position being held because it’s true or convienent (the last one is especialy true for sexual attitude positions–was in my case)

“The ernest young atheist cannot be to careful of his reading”
–CS Lewis, Surprised by Joy