Religious tolerance

Originally posted by reader1107
When I went back to the original, number one post -- yes, on those two issues it is either/or. We agree on that point.

We disagree on the premise that since two points cannot be right, they must both be wrong and therefore it is folly to choose between them. My point is that to believe this in a religious debate means that you must also believe thi ...[text shortened]... gument (even though they have contradictions, it's OK to pick the one that meets your needs).

All I am saying is that if there is a contadiction between two assertions, it is fatuous to just believe in one anyway (that is what I mean by leaving it alone).

Consider this contradiction
1. God exists
2. God does not exist

What you suggested to me, was like, just choose one. The fact remains thet you can never be sure of either. So what you're saying is absurd.

Originally posted by DragonFriend
I'm not asking you (or anybody else) to have faith. What I'm asking is that someone look at the life of Jesus and use some common sense and reason to conclude one of the 3 possible outcomes about Him. Think of Him as a fictional character if you wish and conclude if this fictional character was a liar, a lunatic, or was actually God (in his fictional world, of course).

DF

He was a lair, a lunatic and God.

None of your assertions seem mutually excluxive.

If i look only at the bible and assume it is true then the answer is: yes, Jesus was God.

But why believe the bible is right. Or rather that the authors aren't liars or lunatics. Or that they exist. Or that you exist.

Originally posted by Conrau K
He was a lair, a lunatic and God.

None of your assertions seem mutually excluxive.

If i look only at the bible and assume it is true then the answer is: yes, Jesus was God.

But why believe the bible is right. Or rather that the authors aren't liars or lunatics. Or that they exist. Or that you exist.

You drew a conclusion. Thank you.

So if you can't be sure that anything actually exists (including myself) then why not believe in God? Why not try it out? You have to pretend that your keyboard exists, and that I exist, why not pretend God exists? What are the drawbacks?

DF

Originally posted by DragonFriend
You drew a conclusion. Thank you.

So if you can't be sure that anything actually exists (including myself) then why not believe in God? Why not try it out? You have to pretend that your keyboard exists, and that I exist, why not pretend God exists? What are the drawbacks?

DF

I have explained to you this before. I make a necassary assumption. It is necassary to assume you exist, if there to occur any meaningful dialogue.
However, that doesn't mean you exist. There is always uncertainty. There are drawbacks in believing in God, its called religion.

Why not believe in no-God?
What are the drawbacks?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Why not believe in no-God?
What are the drawbacks?

For me to believe that there is no god would be for me to deny what I have personally experienced. And, unlike you, I accept that things I've actually experienced to be real. To deny what I know to be real is sheer foolishness.

I think the drawbacks are obvious.

DF

Originally posted by DragonFriend
For me to believe that there is no god would be for me to deny what I have personally experienced. And, unlike you, I accept that things I've actually experienced to be real. To deny what I know to be real is sheer foolishness.

I think the drawbacks are obvious.

DF

I proved to you logically that there us uncertainty, yuor right in assrting that not believing in reality is foolish, however there always is uncertainty. No matter how convenient or convincing 2+2 equals 4.
There are many drawbacks in religion (would you like a list?), there are also
good things as well, however these are not inherent in religion itself. A belief in the devine does not predicate righteousness either.
I believe in Christianity without dogma.

Realistically, I should think the answer would be obvious. However, that would require one to accept the obvious for what it is. Regardless, the point of friction lies within the historical records of what Jesus said. You may accept or deny some or all, for whatever purpose. Unless there is agreement upon the historical record, debate of contradicting theories is asinine, as they are working off of different data bases.

Originally posted by Omnislash
Realistically, I should think the answer would be obvious. However, that would require one to accept the obvious for what it is. Regardless, the point of friction lies within the historical records of what Jesus said. You may accept or deny some or all, for whatever purpose. Unless there is agreement upon the historical record, debate of contradicting theories is asinine, as they are working off of different data bases.

We're not talking about different universes. All that has been discussed is the fact that there is a contradiction between two religions. One must be right and one must be wrong. We have not tried to establish which one is right only to demonstrate that either its best to accept one, deny both, or tolerate them all.

originally posted by DragonFriend

LOL You would like it to be that easy, wouldn't you. That would certainly ease your conscience. But lets look at the topic.
In the Bible, Jesus positioned Himself equal to God (that's why they killed Him, for blasphemy). That claim was either true or not.
If true, He deserves to be worshipped as God.
If false, He either knew it was false or ...[text shortened]... moral teacher (a prophet) isn't an option Jesus left us.

Which do you say He is?

DF

Hold on a second. First, even if Jesus claimed to be God and was right, that doesn't entail that he deserves to be worshipped. If, for instance, Jesus currently fails to give folk adequate reason to believe that he is God, then he is not wronged by our failure to worship. Second, even if we did have adequate reason to believe that he is God, that doesn't entail that we ought to worship him, because there is no analytic connection between something's being God and something's being deserving of worship. Third, if Jesus was wrong about being God, but didn't know it, that doesn't entail that he was a lunatic. We can, after all, have false beliefs (both justified and unjustified) without being lunatics. Fourth, if Jesus was wrong about being God and knew it, that doesn't entail that he was demonic. He could have thought that it was in the best interests of his followers to believe that he was God. Anyway, all this is predicated upon the assumption that this was something Jesus actually said, and that he meant it literally rather than metaphorically. In short, this is a false trichotomy you've presented.

Originally posted by bbarr
Hold on a second. First, even if Jesus claimed to be God and was right, that doesn't entail that he deserves to be worshipped. If, for instance, Jesus currently fails to give folk adequate reason to believe that he is God, then he is not wronged by our failure to worship. Second, even if we did have adequate reason to believe that he is God, that doesn't en ...[text shortened]... ally rather than metaphorically. In short, this is a false trichotomy you've presented.

Big welcome back!

Originally posted by vistesd
Big welcome back!

Hey, nice to see you. I hope everything is well with you.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You may have simply stumbled onto something. Either that, or you may have simply stumbled. That, or you simply are something. That, or you are simple.

Didn't Charles Manson say something along these lines?

Originally posted by DragonFriend
In the Bible, Jesus positioned Himself equal to God (that's why they killed Him, for blasphemy). That claim was either true or not.

The Bible was assembled by Christians, and thus articulates fundamental Christian beliefs. Nevertheless, even the Bible reveals that political expediency was more important than blasphemy in the execution of Jesus. The Jewish religious authorities accused him of blasphemy; the Roman civil authorities put him to death. It was a pragmatic decision by a colonial ruler that needed to prevent insurrection by a subject people; at the same time, it was a pragmatic decision by a colonial official that had a career to maintain. Accusations of blasphemy were the context for a political decision.

Originally posted by bbarr
Hold on a second. First, even if Jesus claimed to be God and was right, that doesn't entail that he deserves to be worshipped. If, for instance, Jesus currently fails to give folk adequate reason to believe that he is God, then he is not wronged by our failure to worship. Second, even if we did have adequate reason to believe that he is God, that doesn't en ...[text shortened]... ally rather than metaphorically. In short, this is a false trichotomy you've presented.

Then I suggest you do more research on the life of Jesus.
First, He did give us adequate reason to worship Him. He said He was equal to God and then did things to prove His statements.
Second, you can thumb your nose at the being that created your life if you want, but it's only proper to worship what gave you life (and no, I'm not talking about your parents).
Third, the man claimed to be equal to the creator of the universe and never recanted and so was killed for it. Yes, that would make him insane.
Fourth, getting people to believe their eternal salvation rests in you even though you know: a) it doesn't, b) they will be persecuted for doing so, and c) their souls will go to hell for worshipping a false god, in indeed demonic. The damage done by taking such a position goes beyind this world.
The trichotomy isn't a false one. If you do more research you'll understand why.

DF

Originally posted by Wulebgr
The Bible was assembled by Christians, and thus articulates fundamental Christian beliefs. Nevertheless, even the Bible reveals that political expediency was more important than blasphemy in the execution of Jesus. The Jewish religious authorities accused him of blasphemy; the Roman civil authorities put him to death. It was a pragmatic decision by a colonia ...[text shortened]... at had a career to maintain. Accusations of blasphemy were the context for a political decision.

Yes, on the part of the Romans, it was a political decision. But why was the decision necessary? Because the Jews were in an uproar about His claims and they, by Roman law, weren't allowed to kill somebody, so they handed Him to the Romans for execution. The political decision is at the end of the chain of events. The outrage at His "blasphemous" statements is what started it all. Without Jesus' claims, there would've been no reason for His execution. To state that His death had more to do with politics than religion simply doesn't fit the facts.

DF