Aren't all religions the same? Is Christ the only way to God?

[Mark Kerr]

I did read your post. Now read my above post, which responded to your above post.

This thread is turning into a legal document!

"See Article 21-A on page 4, which also lists exceptions to rule 13C, as stated in Article 21-A in response to rule 13C."

 

[garyzilla]

I did read your post. Now read my above post, which responded to your above post.

This thread is turning into a legal document!

"See Article 21-A on page 4, which also lists exceptions to rule 13C, as stated in Article 21-A in response to rule 13C."

I idea the Christ took a submissive role while on earth to God the Father. In the cantext it make sence why would pray to God the Father. But it does not mean he is any less God.

 

[Grizzly]

Shows the limitations of logic now doesnt it?

BTW- Grizzly, why the sudden shit-talking about my foil hat? JEALOUS? I'll sell you one along with a bag of magic beans that prevent Tiger attacks? Need proof? I have had the beans for years and I have never ONCE been attacked by a Tiger! They practically sell themselves!

No...

...and...

...next time I'm out your way, I'll take you up on those beans. One would be next to crazy not to have magic beans that protects him from the dreaded Texas tiger. Wait a minute...a Texas, hmpphh?

 

[Grizzly]

Hey, speaking of logic, you had to have taken a logic class right? Oh, nevermind, I remember you saying that you did a thesis or had an article published on symbolic logic.

That's one aspect of philosophy I could never get into. Symbolic logic was just fucked up and the basic level logic seemed to be just wrong. IIRC, you can set it up to have two false premises and a true conclusion. Logically(LOL), that can't happen.

 

[Mark Kerr]

IIRC, you can set it up to have two false premises and a true conclusion. Logically(LOL), that can't happen.

Well, you are on the right track.

Techincally, you can have 2 false premises and have a VALID conclusion.

A conclusion that is both valid (following logically from the premises) and true is SOUND.

Logically (the general meaning), one can have false premises and a true conclusion.

What if told my child: All birds can fly (which would be false), and No turkey is a bird (which is also false). Using that logic, my child could conclude that No Turkeys Can Fly (which would be true).

Isnt logic fun?

 

[Mark Kerr]

But you are right, formal logic is essentially useless in real life. I dont know of many people who express arguments in a Modus Ponens format...

I just use formal logic to create my arguments in my head to make sure they work, that is about as far as it goes.

 

[CyniQ]

I didn't think that that Mr. Mensa had not read Augustine. I just wanted a reference for his assertion that "Augustine ... actually seems to give Plato more credit for Christianity than Christ himself. I guess that that is too much to ask from Mr. Mensa. I too have read Augustine and Marks interpretation just doesn't seem right. I guess that I am not as perceptive as Mr. Mensa.

I'm afraid Rod that Mr. Mensa is correct about Augustine. As I have stated before, Augustine was known to be a sun-worshipper even after his conversion. He was deeply influenced by Plato and possibly even more by Plotinus. The Catholic Encyclopedia says: "Augustine gradually became aquainted with Christian doctrine, and in his mind the fusion of Platonic philosophy with revealed dogmas was taking place."

Without a doubt he is an extremely interesting figure in religious history. Augustine is credited with popularizing the doctrine of original sin, in his own words "had not our first parents sinned, they had not died." He would not approve of the use of the cross as he did not believe in using idles or images in worship. Additionally he taught that Christians do not furnish "temples, altars, nor sacrifices to the martyrs, because not they, but their God, is our God." Based on that I would assume that he would not approve even of his own sainthood. He also retracted his belief that the Church was founded upon Peter having determined that Christ was the Rock spoken of in Matthew 16:18.

What is most notable to me personally is that the Catholic church disagrees with Augustine on matters with which I agree and vice versa. For example those doctrines stated above are ones that I hold to be true. It is the neoplatonic doctrines of immortality of the soul and the "holy" trinity with which I disagree.

oops. looks like I got a little behind

 

[CyniQ]

I idea the Christ took a submissive role while on earth to God the Father. In the cantext it make sence why would pray to God the Father. But it does not mean he is any less God.

The bible tells us in Acts, Philippians and elswhere that Jesus was exalted by his Father. How can you be exalted BY someone who is your equal? Also Paul said that Christ entered heaven itself, so that he could appear in the actual presence of God on our behalf. (Heb 9:24) If you appear in someone elses presence, how can you be that person? You cannot. You must be different and separate.

Similarly, just before being stoned to death, the martyr Stephen gazed into heaven and caught sight of Gods glory and of Jesus standing at Gods right hand. (Acts 7:55) Clearly, he saw two separate individuals but no holy ghost, no Trinity Godhead.

 

[Mark Kerr]

Lets put one of our arguments above in formal logical format and see what happens:

If you are a Man, then you are fallible (If M then F)
Jesus is a man (M)
_____________________
Therefore, Jesus is fallible (F) (Modus Ponens Format)

If you are God, then you are not fallible (If G then ~F) (~=not)
Jesus is God (G)
_____________________
Therefore, Jesus is not fallible (~F) (Modus Ponens Format)

Now we have:

Jesus = F and Jesus = ~F

That is not logically possible as the Law of Non-Contradiction does not allow it.

This was just an example, as I am NOT trying to make a theological point here.

 

[Mark Kerr]

Sorry CyniQ, I posted before I read that you have posted. I was not trying to take any thunder away.

 

[garyzilla]

The bible tells us in Acts, Philippians and elswhere that Jesus was exalted by his Father. How can you be exalted BY someone who is your equal? Also Paul said that Christ entered heaven itself, so that he could appear in the actual presence of God on our behalf. (Heb 9:24) If you appear in someone elses presence, how can you be that person? You cannot. You must be different and separate.

Similarly, just before being stoned to death, the martyr Stephen gazed into heaven and caught sight of Gods glory and of Jesus standing at Gods right hand. (Acts 7:55) Clearly, he saw two separate individuals but no holy ghost, no Trinity Godhead.

This is one of the things that bug me. You have not obviously studied out the Trinity. just because Stephen did not see the Holy Ghost ( The thrid person of the Trinity) does not mean that the Trinity is not real. Come on I thought you where smarter than that. Study it out and then get back to me otherwise do not comment on it.

 

[Chip Bronson]

this thread was interesting up until about 50 posts ago. enough already! it's getting on my fucking nerves. give it a rest for fuck's sake...

 

[CyniQ]

Sorry CyniQ, I posted before I read that you have posted. I was not trying to take any thunder away.

No sweat. Everyday I come into the office I can't wait to see what's up on this thread.

 

[CyniQ]

This is one of the things that bug me. You have not obviously studied out the Trinity. just because Stephen did not see the Holy Ghost ( The thrid person of the Trinity) does not mean that the Trinity is not real. Come on I thought you where smarter than that. Study it out and then get back to me otherwise do not comment on it.

oooooh. Now I am not smart. Those who can't debate, insult.
Okay apologies. that was harsh. But I have studied the Trinity, arguements for and against. It just doesn't make sense, besides, show me in scripture.

 

[garyzilla]

Lets put one of our arguments above in formal logical format and see what happens:

If you are a Man, then you are fallible (If M then F)
Jesus is a man (M)
_____________________
Therefore, Jesus is fallible (F) (Modus Ponens Format)

If you are God, then you are not fallible (If G then ~F) (~=not)
Jesus is God (G)
_____________________
Therefore, Jesus is not fallible (~F) (Modus Ponens Format)

Now we have:

Jesus = F and Jesus = ~F

That is not logically possible as the Law of Non-Contradiction does not allow it.

This was just an example, as I am NOT trying to make a theological point here.

I agree Mark Kerr that it is hard to understand how Jesus can be both God and Man becasue there as never been an example like it. That is what makes Jesus so differant form you and me. But if you believe the Bible, then you have to come to tne conclusion that Jesus is both God and Man.

 

[Bob Smith]

this thread was interesting up until about 50 posts ago. enough already! it's getting on my fucking nerves. give it a rest for fuck's sake...

Then skip the thread. Duh!

 

[Chip Bronson]

No sweat. Everyday I come into the office I can't wait to see what's up on this thread.

you're joking, right?

 

[Chip Bronson]

Then skip the thread. Duh!

c'mon bob, don't be such a killjoy. it's not a crime to fuck with some bros debating the hell out of something is it? besides i'm bored... and i've nothing pertinent to contribute.

 

[garyzilla]

oooooh. Now I am not smart. Those who can't debate, insult.
Okay apologies. that was harsh. But I have studied the Trinity, arguements for and against. It just doesn't make sense, besides, show me in scripture.

I thought I posted about the Trinity earlier in this post, but maybe not. I will do it later.

 

[Chip Bronson]

Then skip the thread. Duh!

and i've been skipping the damn thread for a week now. i couldn't take it anymore today so i had to speak out!