Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Spirituality

Spirituality

  1. Standard member Darfius
    The Apologist
    09 Mar '05 17:38 / 1 edit
    From Joe Fist

    Well, with all due respect, I don't think that is the case. I think you could present a case using the Bible and some accounts of the historical places that could be considered valid but why couldn't the Hindu validate our existence from Hinduism? Or the Buddhist?

    Okay, purely hypothetical for sake of discussion and not necesarily my beliefs, I will say I believe we came from a higher being. If up to it, prove conclusively this is Christ.


    Since many religious claims contradict one another, it would seem that not all religions could be simultaneously true. If you examine the world religions, most describe ethical and moral laws that are ascribed to God. Breaking of those laws is an offense to God. How do different religions handle that problem? Many religions say that if one tries to obey God's laws most of the time, God will accept you. However, I believe that we can eliminate that idea as being true of the Creator God of the universe. God designed physical laws of the universe. These laws are constant and unbreakable. God Himself, seems to break those physical laws rarely. I propose that this God would not accept the breaking of His moral laws so easily. In fact, from the nature of the physical laws, it would seem that God would not accept the breaking of His moral laws at all. Nearly all religions claim that God will ignore our breaking of His moral laws as long as we try our best. This is where Christianity differs from all other world religions. Christianity says that our good works cannot erase our bad moral choices. Think of it in terms of our legal systems. We are convicted of crimes on the basis of breaking the law. If we break a law, we are found guilty under the law. It doesn't matter what good things we have done in our lives, if we break the law. We might get a lesser sentence, but we will still be convicted of a crime. So, God cannot simply ignore our crimes against Him. We will be found guilty, despite our good works. Christianity says that our bad deeds (sins) must be eliminated in order to be acceptable to God. The elimination of sins was accomplished by the sacrifice of the Savior (Jesus Christ). Jesus Christ is God Himself, who came to earth, led a sinless life, and died on the cross as a sacrifice to take the sins of mankind. So, God Himself provided a means of eliminating our sins against Him. However, the elimination of sins is not automatic. Since God will allow people into His presence after death, they must agree to His terms. This contract is executed through faith in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ to eliminate our sins. By accepting God's terms, our sins are erased and we can stand in the presence of God without any sin. Only our good deeds will counted for our judgment. Those who don't accept God's terms will be judged on the basis of God's laws - and will be found guilty.

    http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/allreligions.html
  2. Standard member DoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    09 Mar '05 17:46 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Darfius
    From Joe Fist

    [b]Well, with all due respect, I don't think that is the case. I think you could present a case using the Bible and some accounts of the historical places that could be considered valid but why couldn't the Hindu validat ...[text shortened]... judged on the basis of God's laws - and will be found guilty.
    [/b]
    http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/allreligions.html

    Maybe you'd like to try again without the fraud.
  3. 09 Mar '05 17:48
    LOL...

    Better change all the 'I's in your post, Darfius...
  4. Standard member Darfius
    The Apologist
    09 Mar '05 17:53
    What's your point?
  5. Standard member Darfius
    The Apologist
    09 Mar '05 17:57
    There, the explanation still stands. I mean, it doesn't invalidate it? Pardon me for forgetting the link. I don't claim other people's work for my own. Feel free to check me up on that.
  6. Standard member DoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    09 Mar '05 17:58
    Originally posted by Darfius
    What's your point?
    What do God, you, Darvlay, and I all have in common?

    We all know that you did not have a citation in your original post and intended to pass it off as your own argument until I called you on it.
  7. Standard member Joe Fist
    Troubador
    09 Mar '05 17:59 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by Darfius
    From Joe Fist

    [b]Well, with all due respect, I don't think that is the case. I think you could present a case using the Bible and some accounts of the historical places that could be considered valid but why couldn't the Hindu validat ...[text shortened]... be judged on the basis of God's laws - and will be found guilty.
    Not too harp or to be nit-picky, I will attempt to breakdown what you wrote line by line when applicable for discussion. It's sort of what I do for a living. It's an aspect of what I do anyway:

    "Since many religious claims contradict one another, it would seem that not all religions could be simultaneously true."

    While this could seem to be true, why is it not possible? Not too cheapen or make light of what you are trying to point out but the Greeks & Romans had many gods. So did the American Indians.

    "God designed physical laws of the universe. These laws are constant and unbreakable. God Himself, seems to break those physical laws rarely."

    But if God does exist, he could break these laws as so desired and who is to say God is not breaking them now? Can it be proven or not that God willed the tsunami? Earthquakes? The Jewish Holocaust? Jeffrey Dalmer? If God designed the laws surely it is reasonable to believe he is not bound to them?

    To be continued....
  8. Standard member Darfius
    The Apologist
    09 Mar '05 17:59
    Originally posted by Darfius
    There, the explanation still stands. I mean, it doesn't invalidate it? Pardon me for forgetting the link. I don't claim other people's work for my own. Feel free to check me up on that.
    Uh oh. Looks like I didn't PLAN to.
  9. Standard member DoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    09 Mar '05 18:02
    Originally posted by Darfius
    Uh oh. Looks like I didn't PLAN to.
    You mean your plan was to wait 19 minutes before citing the source?
  10. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    09 Mar '05 18:03 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Darfius
    [b/]From Joe Fist

    Well, with all due respect, I don't think that is the case. I think you could present a case using the Bible and some accounts of the historical places that could be considered valid but why couldn't the Hindu valida ...[text shortened]... ty.

    http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/allreligions.html
    Since God will allow people into His presence after death, they must agree to His terms. This contract is executed through faith in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ to eliminate our sins. By accepting God's terms, our sins are erased and we can stand in the presence of God without any sin


    Gee, I didn't know your God was a lawyer! Fax that contract over right away and I'll have my people go over it; maybe we can cut a deal!
  11. Standard member Darfius
    The Apologist
    09 Mar '05 18:04
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    You mean your plan was to wait 19 minutes before citing the source?
    No, my plan was to answer his question. I forgot to include citing the source in my plan. You reminded me. Thank you. You could have simply said "Darfius, please cite the source." You casted me in a light to make me appear to be a liar, which I think at least some people will disagree with.
  12. Standard member Darfius
    The Apologist
    09 Mar '05 18:04
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Since God will allow people into His presence after death, they must agree to His terms. This contract is executed through faith in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ to eliminate our sins. By accepting God's terms, our sins are erased and we can stand in the presence of God without any sin


    Gee, I didn't know your God was a lawyer! Fax that contract over right away and I'll have my people go over it; maybe we can cut a deal!
    It's an analogy.
  13. Standard member Joe Fist
    Troubador
    09 Mar '05 18:17
    I propose that this God would not accept the breaking of His moral laws so easily. In fact, from the nature of the physical laws, it would seem that God would not accept the breaking of His moral laws at all

    Again this is purely based on the assumption that a "God" created moral laws to begin with. But assuming that God did, why would the punishment for breaking any of the moral codes be what they are believed to be? Aside from various religous text stating such, what other evidence is there that any God created a moral code?

    I have no response to what you wrote in regards to Chrisitanity and the legal system. I don't see how it is applicable here in proving the case that a higher being is indeed Jesus Christ? The written account of his life, death on the cross, and that being the sacrafice made for the sins of mankind could be argued as not being factual. As I have said pretty much all along, I could not disprove it either but this could not be factually proven.
  14. Standard member Darfius
    The Apologist
    09 Mar '05 18:20
    Originally posted by Joe Fist
    [b]I propose that this God would not accept the breaking of His moral laws so easily. In fact, from the nature of the physical laws, it would seem that God would not accept the breaking of His moral laws at all

    Again this is purely based on the assumption that a "God" created moral laws to begin with. But assuming that God did, why would the punis ...[text shortened]... id pretty much all along, I could not disprove it either but this could not be factually proven.[/b]
    If the higher being gave us moral codes without telling us the punishment, He would be sadistic. And if He was sadistic, He wouldn't give us life in the first place.
  15. Standard member Joe Fist
    Troubador
    09 Mar '05 18:27
    Originally posted by Darfius
    If the higher being gave us moral codes without telling us the punishment, He would be sadistic. And if He was sadistic, He wouldn't give us life in the first place.
    Right but you are basing this on the assumption of the higher being enabling us with the moral code in the first place. I am stating this may not be the case. To continue the discussion, however, let's assume that the higher being did create the moral code.

    Is it not possible that the higher being is "sadistic"? Should it be automatically assumed that the higher being is "loving"? Why? Some would argue that living the life they are currently living (say disease, in poverty, an abusive situation, etc) is "sadistic" now and may curse God for their existence.

    It wouldn't be sadistic to us if we were not given life because we would not know about it in the first place.