'There are many paths to god.'

I don't see why there wouldn't be many paths to god. Assuming there is a god... why would an omnipotent god be a selfish, one-track-minded egotistical bastard to want us to follow one particular path?

Is he not omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent? Then all things are known to him... Why would he even obsess over such a fart of a speck of dust in the cosmos... much less care about our spoonfed opinions and outward manifestations of him when he already obviously knows what we're all thinking?

A god could not be omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, and then contain only those anthropomorphic qualities... ignoring all other forms of consciousness in favor of our own limited manifestation. It's completely contradictory.

But then... the Bible-beaters would answer it's true because the Bible says it is.

I've already discounted that line of reasoning in another thread. It is known as a self-perpetuating delusion... such arguments go something like this: It is true because it says it is, and because it says it's the absolute truth, then everything within it, including it's own self-referential "historical accounts" must also be true.

In addition, not unlike a chain letter, it propagates itself with the same ferocity of a computer virus by declaring that if you believe, good things will happen, if you don't, bad things will happen. I need not comment on the absurdity of such self-promotion techniques.

The basic litmus test that such faiths fail is that all other major faiths also claim exclusivity with god, with about as much valid evidence of their historical accuracy as any other. If god is infallible, then what is the fallibility by which each of these faiths mysteriously make claims of divine origin as well? If you answer that man is the fallible link in this chain of events... then one has to assume that your belief is also subject to man's fallibility, by way of the simple fact that you have no empirical, scientifically absolute evidence to prove otherwise.

 

Snowdog, you're assuming just as much as anybody else when you say that God would logically have many paths. Believe it or not, it is just as logical that a perfect and holy God wants his worship to be perfect and holy too. Perfect and holy implies anything less is unacceptable. To take an example from college, professors often ask for an assignment to be done a certain way. It does not mean they are egotistical or anything else. It means that is how the assignment is suppose to be done.

"I've already discounted that line of reasoning in another thread"

You've discounted nothing. You've given your opinion and are accepting that as PROOF that you are right. That is a *slight* attribution error.

 

The basic litmus test that such faiths fail is that all other major faiths also claim exclusivity with god, with about as much valid evidence of their historical accuracy as any other. If god is infallible, then what is the fallibility by which each of these faiths mysteriously make claims of divine origin as well? If you answer that man is the fallible link in this chain of events... then one has to assume that your belief is also subject to man's fallibility, by way of the simple fact that you have no empirical, scientifically absolute evidence to prove otherwise. Except for Hinduism.

These major religions are faith-based. I have never seen a Jewish or Christian believer on the JC say they believe because of scientific proof.

As a father myself, I want my child to follow a certain path: don't get drunk, kill, lie, etc. I don't think it is too much of a stretch to think that if we possess emotions, then a Creator would possess those same qualities (made in His image). A painter or musician puts a little of themselves in their work, right?

 

"These major religions are faith-based."

Granted, but if no religion has a clear advantage in terms of evidence, how can anyone say that one is inherently more true than another?

What if I said I had faith in Odin, and if you didn't believe you'd be damned to Nifleheim?

 

Why, i think i would have to convert. So don't get any big ideas, Geist.

memes.

 

Indeed you would, cydonia, if Darth Geist's beliefs had an effect on you. If not, then you move on either content with where you are or continuing your search.

My own response to Darth Geist's what-if is...nothing. I have my belief in Christ and you have your belief in Odin. As you say, neither has a clear advantage in terms of scientific evidence. To answer your question, how can anyone say that one is inherently more true than another?, I would say that for you Odin is true and for me Christ is true. I stand by my statement of faith. I can say that Christ is true because it is what I believe. It may not be true for you or cydonia. If because of lack of scientific evidence I say that Christ is not true - I betray my faith. See?

 

Uh.....lighten up. Almost everything i say is sarcastic. I don't even know who Odin is.

 

Palpazzar: Snowdog, you're assuming just as much as anybody else when you say that God would logically have many paths. Believe it or not, it is just as logical that a perfect and holy God wants his worship to be perfect and holy too. Perfect and holy implies anything less is unacceptable. To take an example from college, professors often ask for an assignment to be done a certain way. It does not mean they are egotistical or anything else. It means that is how the assignment is suppose to be done.

Oh really? So basically what you're saying is that all the major religions think like the Judeo-Christian-Islamic triad and have the same definition of god within their scriptures... as this "perfect and holy" anthropomorphic, selfish, egotistical character who cares, of all things, for one speck of dust out of the billions of galaxies he has created? I guess that means you're of the opinion that all other religions outside the Biblical definition of god must be flatly wrong. This goes back to what I was saying about evidence...

Secondly, DarthPhelps says These major religions are faith-based. I have never seen a Jewish or Christian believer on the JC say they believe because of scientific proof.

Again, an egocentric response which, like yours, Palpazzar, fails in its own ignorance to recognize first that there are many religions outside Judaism, Christianity and Islam which have different definitions of god. You are right, faith doesn't require proof... I didn't say that it did. However, if there is no evidence to back up your implied claim that yours is the one "correct" definition of god, using Phelps' own argument, it would stand to reason that neither of you can prove my definition of god to be any less valid than yours... because you have no basis upon which to differentiate their respective validity. In that sense, you've both proved my point... that there are, in fact, by their existence, and lack of any evidence that god actually favors one path over another, many paths to god.

Anything else you could possibly say, without evidence, would be simply a matter of faith, right? Well, faith is a personal thing. I may believe that the sky is green... that doesn't make it true for the other 6.5 billion people on this planet. Likewise, 15 percent of the planet's population is Hindu... because they believe god isn't this egotistical, narrow-minded curmudgeon you make him out to be, I guess it makes it true for the other 85 percent of the world's population, eh?

I am not claiming that my interpretation of god is the one correct interpretation... I'm merely refuting your egotistical assertion that yours is the only correct and true interpretation for all.. because there is no basis on which you can make that assertion for anybody but yourself.

I'm not stating an opinion when I observe that there are numerous religions which each hold their own scriptural basis for belief that god is exclusive to their faith. I'm also not stating an opinion when I observe that approximately 50 percent of the world's population believes in faiths other than the Judeo-Christian-Islamic triad, and therefore it cannot be concluded that a Biblical interpretation of god is accepted unanimously.

What you both have done is begun your argument on the presupposition that god is defined as you say he is, because the Bible says so. This is precisely what I mean when I say that your entire argument against the validity of other faiths rests on an egocentric, circular argument otherwise known as a self-perpetuating delusion. Furthermore, making the analogy of a painter putting "a little of themselves" in their work is precisely the kind of self-referential garbage that is spewed forth by people who can't find a means to prove god's exclusivity to one religion by any other means than to invent an argument that works backwards, but not forwards.

You don't know god as a personal acquaintance nor can you introduce him to us in any tangible form for all to see and hear, therefore y

 

Lighten up? I didn't realize my response was heavy-handed. I assure you I am in frequently in a state of being 'up'.

 

Boy, Darth_SnowDog you sure enjoy calling other beliefs egotistical. Why is that?

I recognize that there are many religions outside Judaism, Christianity and Islam. I don't have my handy book of world religions present, however, and chose the ones often criticized on the JC as examples, thank you.

it would stand to reason that neither of you can prove my definition of god to be any less valid than yours...
Well, that was my point, wasn't it?

my point... that there are, in fact, by their existence, and lack of any evidence that god actually favors one path over another, many paths to god
I don't think that a plethera of religious opinion means that God feels all hunky-dorey toward them. Rather I believe it shows the effects of man's varied interpretations. Shoot, we can't agree on economics, death penalty, abortion, jay walking - why should we agree on God?

I'm merely refuting your egotistical [there's that word again] assertion that yours is the only correct and true interpretation for all
I'm saying that my interpretation is true for me, for if it is not, then my faith is not valid by definition. Likewise, your belief that there are many paths to 'god' is your interpretation that applies to everyone, and if we disagree we are labelled "egotistical".

What you both have done is begun your argument on the presupposition that god is defined as you say he is, because the Bible says so. This is precisely what I mean when I say that your entire argument against the validity of other faiths rests on an egocentric, circular argument otherwise known as a self-perpetuating delusion. Furthermore, making the analogy of a painter putting "a little of themselves" in their work is precisely the kind of self-referential garbage that is spewed forth by people who can't find a means to prove god's exclusivity to one religion by any other means than to invent an argument that works backwards, but not forwards.
This is why I asked you once where your Hindu faith came from. What is your guide? A book? Word of mouth? What crime is there in having a Word of God to study and enrich our lives and keep our minds focused on Him? Is your faith self-referential to the Sutra? Pot meet kettle.
I don't know what you're talking about with respect to my artist metaphor. My implying that God put something of Himself in mankind covers all of humanity. I did not specify Chritians.

...it also exemplifies my point that you're thinking in such narrow terms to presuppose all arguments with the assertion that god cares most about us more than any other thing in this infinite universe he has created, of which we know so little...
In truth, I have mentioned on other threads that I believe He may have created other intelligent life forms in this huge, magnificent cosmos. There is no reference to how He may care for humans rather than Rodians, but if there were (in the Bible) then it would be self-referential and no good, right?

memes - zzzzzzzzz.

I'm still in a state of 'up'.

 

BTW - Odin was the main big-guy god of the Norse. Thor was his son. You pick up on this stuff when you watch the old Marvel cartoons as a boy.

 

"You pick up on this stuff when you watch the old Marvel cartoons as a boy."

On the rainbow bridge of Asgaard,
Where the booming heavens roar, (crash, boom)
You'll behold in [something]wonder,
The god of thunder, mighty Thor!

Aww, yeah.

 

Phelps: I would say that I have less objection to your comments than I have to Palpazzar's, and I was trying to address both of them at once... so maybe the line was blurred a bit.

Well, that was my point, wasn't it?

If that's where you say you stand... yes. I may have been unclear that I wasn't referring only to you in that part of my response, but the meat of my statement still holds truth, whether or not you intend to challenge the validity of my faith, or vice-versa.

I don't think that a plethera[sic] of religious opinion means that God feels all hunky-dorey toward them. Rather I believe it shows the effects of man's varied interpretations. Shoot, we can't agree on economics, death penalty, abortion, jay walking - why should we agree on God?

1. I'm not saying we have to agree on god.
2. I'm not saying my definition of god is right.

I am saying that there's no use in comparatively dismissing the validity of my faith or your faith on an assumption (i.e. which religion god favors most) for which no conclusive proof exists... any written or oral opinion, other than that which directly emanates from god's "mouth" to each one of us, on who god is and what he thinks is folklore or hearsay.

Your believing in the words doesn't make them spontaneously emanate from his mouth as opposed to the paper form in which they have existed exclusively for thousands of years. I'm not telling you whether or not to believe the underlying lessons of what the folklore or hearsay teaches. I'm simply stating the obvious... that the words are neither a direct representation of god, nor can they be proven to be the exact duplicate of whatever god may or may not have said... and, at best, no scriptures in any religion can possibly encompass the whole of god's essence, since that is, inarguably to all believers regardless of their religion, beyond words. Would you agree? If so, then it can be concluded that we cannot know the whole of god's intentions, or whether or not god is capable of "changing his mind" over time... e.g. deciding that another messenger needs to be sent, or another faith needs to be built for a different people elsewhere in a spiritual "language" they understand and can relate to. Again these are my interpretations after looking at various religions. I can't expect you to come to the same conclusions without first exploring all religions to the same degree. Furthermore, you admit that your grasp of Hinduism is considerably more limited than my grasp of Christianity. So, and don't take this as arrogance... it would seem you have some catching up to do before we're on the same page.

Is your faith self-referential to the Sutra? Pot meet kettle.

No, my faith is not based on a literal interpretation of the Sutras, Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, Mahabharata, Puranas, Ramayana or the Vedas. Now, there may be other Hindus whose faith is more closely based on a literal interpretation, but I guess that's a personal thing. Furthermore, those Hindus would not refer to me as not being a "true Hindu" in the same sense that I wouldn't call a Frenchman not a "true frenchman" because he occasionally eats Italian food or has since moved to Berlin from Marseilles.

I'm saying that my interpretation is true for me, for if it is not, then my faith is not valid by definition. Likewise, your belief that there are many paths to 'god' is your interpretation that applies to everyone, and if we disagree we are labelled "egotistical".

I wasn't imbuing the words "egotistical" or "egocentric" with a negative connotation. I was merely pointing towards the assertion, which was made more evidently by Palpazzar and not yourself, that there is one right path and it happens, by way of circular reasoning, to be Christianity... by predetermining that all other paths are false, and implying that all other reasoning or faith is "inferior" to Biblical rote, that is an egocentric or egotistical response... in the dictionary sense of those words, self-focus

 

MY point is that it is just as logical for God to have one path as it is for him to have many paths. You're no more able to say than I am. Do you disagree with this, Snowdog?

 

okay, i'm going to jump into the middle of the conversation here without having read most of the thread, so forgive me if this has already been mentioned but...

So, if you believe Jesus is just one of "many paths to god", then how can you believe in such a sick god that would do that when it wasn't even necessary?

i've always been taught that if i was the only person, Jesus still would have died on the cross, just for me. because He loves us that much.

there are people who have lived questionable lives, found christianity, and then turned their lives around. i believe that actions are more important than faith, so for me it isn't important that they found Jesus to be their savior, it was instead important that they started doing good. Jesus' sacrifice wasn't necessary for everyone to be saved, but it was for these people. it wasn't a sick God that would do that when it wasn't necessary, because it was necessary, not for everyone, but for a few people, and that was enough.

 

Palpazzar: Yes and no. Yes because in and of itself, you're right... neither side has more proof than the other in the empirical sense.

However, I ultimately conclude "no" because if we all agree that god is omnipotent, then the very existence of multiple paths under his very nose either defies the infallibility of god's omnipotence...or is part of god's design. So, either god is not god, god is not omnipotent, and/or all paths are equally valid.

 

Just to point out one thing in your "no" condition. As I read it, you are assuming the certain existance of multiple paths. Now, as that is your conclusion, I see what you're saying. However, how would you expand that statement in the case of a single path to God?

 

Palpazzar: Define "god".

Though, regardless of the definition, I'm sure that the one thing you have not tried to argue is that god is not omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient... if that is the case... and you want me to assume that there is one path to god... I cannot.

I cannot accept that there is, in fact, one path, even if I begin with the assumption that there is... because that assumption contradicts these truths:

1. That many paths exist which the people of the world follow, whether "right" or "wrong", in an effort to be one with god.

2. That if god is infallible, none of these paths could have come into being without his knowing or permission.

3. That if god would allow these paths to come into being, his omniscience would still tell him what the all believers and "nonbelievers" (those on the perceived "incorrect" paths) are really thinking, thus...

Because the so-called "nonbelievers" who are on all the "other" incorrect paths truly themselves believe that in their worship, they worship god, (in other words, who in their right mind would worship what they themselves believe is the "wrong" deity?) which we have agreed to define as the see-all, know-all, be-all of the universe, then god already knows that their actions are intent upon worshiping him--as opposed to, say, Elvis, Count Chocula or the Great Pumpkin.

There is a passage in Hindu scripture, in fact, that says precisely what I just did. God already knows what you mean, even if you aren't doing it "right". That is a monotheistic-henotheistic belief... one that asserts that there is one god, but it is accepting of other beliefs and does not presume to be the only true interpretation of that one god. Mind you, those thoughts came from Hinduism in a span between 1000 and 5500 years before Christ was born.

 

In that case, Snowdog, why is it so important for you to attempt to destroy Christianity and enlighten me of my 'ingnorance'? Don't you ascribe to a live and let live approach?

Since you are secure in your belief that there is not a single approach you should be fine with people taking theirs. Yet you are not. Why?

 

...no scriptures in any religion can possibly encompass the whole of god's essence, since that is, inarguably to all believers regardless of their religion, beyond words. Would you agree? If so, then it can be concluded that we cannot know the whole of god's intentions, or whether or not god is capable of "changing his mind" over time... e.g. deciding that another messenger needs to be sent, or another faith needs to be built for a different people elsewhere in a spiritual "language" they understand and can relate to.
Do I agree with the first statement? Yes I do. I wouldn't go so far as to say the Bible encompasses the whole of God's essense. However I disagree with your conclusion thereafter (but I see what you're saying). While we cannot know the whole of God's intentions, (and he has shown a capacity to change his mind in Biblical references), if I believe the Bible to be true as God's Word to us then for me, conflicting doctrines must be false. Chritianity's belief that Jesus was the fulfillment of the Messiah prophecy and the Koran's assertion that Jesus was not the Son of God but just another prophet (this is what I believe Islam teaches - correct me if I'm wrong) forces Judaism, Christianity and Islam (sorry to bring these three into it again, but I need an example) to be doctrinally conflicted. They all are trying to connect with the same God, however, and I will agree that this drive to find Him is due to His calling to us.

Yes, I do need catching up, but since I don't have much free time these days (married with child) I hope you can help me along. The suggestion in the other thread about a Hindu thread would be nice. You can give us the lowdown on the main points of your faith.

 

Phelps,

You married with child?!

Why didn't you marry a grown woman like I did?


EDIT: Just trying to lighten the tone.

 

Palpazzar: In that case, Snowdog, why is it so important for you to attempt to destroy Christianity and enlighten me of my 'ingnorance'? Don't you ascribe to a live and let live approach?

You have a point, Palpazzar... I've perhaps been as vocal about my beliefs as you have been about yours. However, I didn't realize that Christ's entire worth was based solely on a dogmatic assumption that he was speaking to all peoples of the earth, and that God never changes his mind or is misinterpreted in scripture. Did you not read what I said about direct words from the mouth of god vs. something you read? Unless god comes down here and tells me so I can see it, hear it, and even videotape it, anything else... including Hindu scripture... would be hearsay. Which is precisely why I don't take all the particulars of Hindu scripture literally. I don't believe that I am a direct descendant of the Sons of Pandu, nor do I necessarily need to accept that the Battle of Kuruksetra actually happened to be a benevolent person and follow the benevolent teachings of Krishna. Likewise, I don't think you need to get so mired in the minutiae to follow the essence of the good things Christ was trying to teach... but that's just my view.

I'm not attempting to destroy the fundamentals of what Christ taught... Forgive me if my logic has unraveled the idiocy of thousands of years of dogmatic reasoning and the human presupposition that only those things that declare themselves to be divine in origin can be true, and that only one of them can be true, and that every other one is false... these are man-made assertions based on vague passages that don't even begin to encompass the whole of god, and I know my fellow Christian Phelps is down with that... what, are you going to tell me now that he's not a "true Christian" because he agrees with Christ's teachings but doesn't take every last word in the Bible literally?

How can you say that I'm bashing your faith when your faith isn't even based on the direct Hebrew translation of the Bible? I'm not against your faith... I'm against whatever conglomerated mess the Christian dogma has become, and why it has become a marketing machine hell-bent on destroying other cultures by disrespecting them and not letting them live and let live.

Since you are secure in your belief that there is not a single approach you should be fine with people taking theirs. Yet you are not. Why?

I'm fine with you being a Christian. But... you asked, so I answered.

I want to clarify I'm not out to make you into a Hindu... I'm simply trying to get you to realize that being a better Christian doesn't involve beating down other people's faiths (especially when you know next to nothing about them). I know your dogma gives you this holier-than-thou feeling by telling you to go out into the world feeling more confident of your salvation than the next guy, and personally I think that is a sin... it's called "vanity." But that's just my view.

I never once tried to get you to believe in the particulars of Hinduism. I never said it's the right path for everyone. By the same token, neither is Christianity. But then, how can one say there is one right path? This thread asks that question... and here's my most concise answer, an excerpt from another thread:

By this I mean that if you're to assert one religion is true... and also agree that god is omnipotent, then whichever path is true wouldn't be a path that negates all other paths. There are religions which are henotheistic in nature... they may assert there is one god, but they do not refute other interpretations of that god, and their believers accept this as divine truth.

If there is one correct interpretation of god, why would it be the one that proves god to be fallible by declaring all other interpretations of god as being false? It would more likely seem that the infallible truth lies with the path that asserts all paths are correct. Because, then, that path's truth would be inarguable and backed by the

 

I don't feel like reading every single post in here, but I can already tell that you guys have gone wayyyyy off topic. If I can get on the computer later and have more time, I'll type out some stuff from a book called "The Case For Christ", and totally burn all you people that say Jesus never existed.

It's really kinda ridiculous actually. Most scholars these days don't even dispute the fact that a man named Jesus existed at one point. It's whether he was who he claimed to be that's debatable.

Interesting how this bluster (from TFU) has been mysteriously forgotten. Let's see these killer quotes that will totally debunk the claim that Jesus never lived. My request is really very simple - provide just one piece of reliable primary evidence for Jesus' existence as a historical figure. Obviously, since the claim that he never existed is so utterly ridiculous, this will be a trivial task.

Note: if we want to nitpick, I don't dispute that a man named Jesus existed at one point. Jesus was a common name at the time.

Oh, and I don't even need to comment on the useless appeal to authority contained within this post. Facts derive out of hard, supportable arguments - and the decision on whether Jesus existed must do likewise, regardless of the number of renowned scholars and PhDs who assume he lived.

 

G_M_M: Ha!

...doesn't take every last word in the Bible literally
Well, I'm not necessarily saying that, only that words on paper (even God's Holy Word) describes only so much, and I believe that our attempt to know Him produces a kind of knowledge that resides in our heart. Even then we cannot know the whole of God, and perhaps never will until we pass from this mortal existence. I also would say that I recognize potential translation issues (see the recent posts on the 'everyone will be saved' thread which I just read - oy!) and interpretation of teachings which make the expression 'take every last word of the Bible literally' somewhat difficult (though I still consider the Bible to be true ). Again, we have to rely on the laws being written on our hearts, as it were.

 

Snowdog, you have been very vocal. But not only have you espoused your beliefs, but you have openly attacked others beliefs based upon the assumptions of your own. Furthermore, you have attacked me personally with comments about my ignorance etc.

I have defended my faith, but never attacked yours. And unless I typed something I did not realize, I have not attacked you. I have also tried not to be as condescending to you as you have been with me.

Is this what your belief tells you to do? Now I will go so far as to say this - if it is, then I will stick to what i already have.

Dogma can be a bad thing. I have seen it in certain organizations of religions of all sorts. I avoid dogma in that I am capable of deciding for myself what to believe. I need no authority to tell me such things.

Your logic has not unraveled anything. All it has done is provide the basis for what you believe and nothing more.

I am perfectly capable of going to the traditional Hebrew and Greek as well. I don't need any English translation except to save time. By faith is based on God.

The one thing I will agree with you about is there are groups that have as you put it "become a marketing machine hell-bent on destroying other cultures by disrespecting them and not letting them live and let live". However, historically every religion has groups that do this.

I know you're not trying to convert me.

If you would have payed attention to my posts rather than assuming what your personal dogma tells you, you would have seen that I have not put down anyone else's faith. Nor have I tried to convert anyone. Perhaps you should consider that in dealing with people rather than stereotyping them.

And as for how you finished your post, just remember that you are basing that on what you believe to be true. So does everyone else. You are no more free from bias as any other human. You might be able to critically reason better than some. But unless you claim to be the wisest ever, others reason better than you. Basically, I am saying that you believe you are right, but not everyone reasons as you do- and to be blunt you cannot EMPIRICALLY prove that you are right and they are wrong.