Muslim's version of God is one.
Christian's version of God is three in one.
Hindu's version of God is one and many and many is one.
Buddhist's version of God is nothing and everything.
Ancient greek's version God is many.
WHo says anyone of these religions is correct? ALL could be correct, well, all could be wrong too!
Originally posted by Tcmc:Muslim's version of God is one.
Christian's version of God is three in one.
Hindu's version of God is one and many and many is one.
Buddhist's version of God is nothing and everything.
Ancient greek's version God is many.
WHo says anyone of these religions is correct? ALL could be correct, well, all could be wrong too!
If logic is to prevail we can only say that either one is correct or all is wrong.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:If logic is to prevail we can only say that either one is correct or all is wrong.
BIC
To polytheists, it is very logical to believe in many Gods.
To monotheists, it is very logical to believe in one God.
Originally posted by Tcmc:BIC
To polytheists, it is very logical to believe in many Gods.
To monotheists, it is very logical to believe in one God.
So monotheists, polytheists, and atheists all very logical. Who is right then, since being logical is no guarantee of truth?
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
And to atheists it is very logical to believe there is no God or gods.So monotheists, polytheists, and atheists all very logical. Who is right then, since being logical is no guarantee of truth?
BIC
That's why to each his own. That's why many people dont like it when christians tell people their God or Gods is the universal truth!
doesnt it smacked of arrogance and calling other religions as false, isnt it deluded?
and they can say their religion is the truth based on the numbers of followers they have in this world.
Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss: Something from Nothing, at ANU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0mljE9K-gY&feature=related
Originally posted by Tcmc:BIC
That's why to each his own. That's why many people dont like it when christians tell people their God or Gods is the universal truth!
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:doesnt it smacked of arrogance and calling other religions as false, isnt it deluded?
and they can say their religion is the truth based on the numbers of followers they have in this world.
Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss: Something from Nothing, at ANU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0mljE9K-gY&feature=related
Please close this thread or ban Broinchrist
Broinchrist has started his non-Christians slamming again
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
If you really live by "to each his own" then why are you proselytising your atheism in this forum? You don't even walk the talk.
BIC
You seem to be not reading what I have typed for so many months.
I am ok with religions and religious people worshipping their Gods (christian, jewish, muslim, taoist etc.
Just not ok with christians telling others their religions are false. :)
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Atheists like Jacky call ALL religions false and their adherents deluded. This is not arrogance? It surely is, and rather hypocritical too.
the same arrogance is also displayed by christians where only theirs is true and all are false la. Both are guilty of committing the same offence larh.
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
the same arrogance is also displayed by christians where only theirs is true and all are false la. Both are guilty of committing the same offence larh.
Actually my point is that it is absurd to label as arrogance a claim to truth. It is purely ad hominem in nature. We do not call people who insist that 2+2=4 arrogant, right? The claim to exclusive truth is either right or wrong, and the focus should be on establishing that, rather than attacking the person which actually deflects from the proper consideration of the claim to the claimant. The claimant is not on trial, the claim is. Of course one can be arrogant in the way one proclaims the truth, but truth in itself is not arrogant.
by making such a claim, it is assuming that the claims made by christianity is as of 2+2=4 which is the truth, however, such is till now an unproven assumption.
Well, anyway both sides are not talkin about the exclusive truth rather only the subjective truth. All in all, arrogance is not in the truth but what is proclaimed as the truth. Both the atheist and the theist does that. But as much as you or the theist, none has been able to prove is not an unproven assumption.
I would suggest not to hastily make such claims la. Still both side committed the same thing.
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:by making such a claim, it is assuming that the claims made by christianity is as of 2+2=4 which is the truth, however, such is till now an unproven assumption.
Well, anyway both sides are not talkin about the exclusive truth rather only the subjective truth. All in all, arrogance is not in the truth but what is proclaimed as the truth. Both the atheist and the theist does that. But as much as you or the theist, none has been able to prove is not an unproven assumption.
I would suggest not to hastily make such claims la. Still both side committed the same thing.
Truth is truth, and by definition exclusive, regardless whether it is mathematical/analytical truths like 2+2=4 or synthetic propositions/truths like whether there is a God. Moreover the existence of God is not a subjective truth but an objective truth. His existence is INDEPENDENT on what one thinks/feels/believe. There is nothing arrogant about the claim or belief that God exists. Again it is a matter of whether the claim or belief is true. A person can be arrogant, but not a claim or a belief. It is not a matter of being hasty, but whether there are good reasons to back up the claim.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Truth is truth, and by definition exclusive, regardless whether it is mathematical/analytical truths like 2+2=4 or synthetic propositions/truths like whether there is a God. Moreover the existence of God is not a subjective truth but an objective truth. His existence is INDEPENDENT on what one thinks/feels/believe. There is nothing arrogant about the claim or belief that God exists. Again it is a matter of whether the claim or belief is true. A person can be arrogant, but not a claim or a belief. It is not a matter of being hasty, but whether there are good reasons to back up the claim.
As long as his existence is debatable then it is not truth already.
" His existence is INDEPENDENT on what one thinks/feels/believe" IF he exists. But no such prove other than the bible which is either not good or is insufficient prove.
Your beliefs and mine are different. I stated my stand and my point. You can continue to believe in yours.
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
As long as his existence is debatable then it is not truth already." His existence is INDEPENDENT on what one thinks/feels/believe" IF he exists. But no such prove other than the bible which is either not good or is insufficient prove.
Your beliefs and mine are different. I stated my stand and my point. You can continue to believe in yours.
Wrong. Just because an issue is debatable does not mean there is no truth to be known. Like I said, God's existence is a matter of truth, He either exists or He does not, regardless of whether we debate about it or not.
There are numerous proofs or lines of evidence that supports theism, to say that only the Bible is proof is wrong.
Yes, our beliefs are different, opposite and contradictory in fact. But either we are both wrong or one of us is right about the beliefs we hold. This is common sense logic that you cannot deny or challenge.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Wrong. Just because an issue is debatable does not mean there is no truth to be known. Like I said, God's existence is a matter of truth, He either exists or He does not, regardless of whether we debate about it or not.
There are numerous proofs or lines of evidence that supports theism, to say that only the Bible is proof is wrong.
Yes, our beliefs are different, opposite and contradictory in fact. But either we are both wrong or one of us is right about the beliefs we hold. This is common sense logic that you cannot deny or challenge.
Not truth and no truth. is a hiuge difference. I said it is debatable means it is not truth already. Not that there's no truth. U misinterpreted.
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:Not truth and no truth. is a hiuge difference. I said it is debatable means it is not truth already. Not that there's no truth. U misinterpreted.
The difference may be mere academic. Anyway, if a belief corresponds to reality, that IS the truth. Just because something is debatable does not mean a position taken is not the truth. Whoever defends a view considers it the truth, i.e affirms the existence of objective truth.
We can only share the kingdom of truth of the almighty Creator of heavens and earth. We cannot change the hearts of the disbelievers. It is the divine authorisation that can release the seals that sealed the eyes, mouth, minds, ears and hearts of these people.
Originally posted by Redmen:We can only share the kingdom of truth of the almighty Creator of heavens and earth. We cannot change the hearts of the disbelievers. It is the divine authorisation that can release the seals that sealed the eyes, mouth, minds, ears and hearts of these people.
Redmen,
Same. You will know the truth of Hinduism unless Lord Krishna helps you. You got to ask.
attachment! sort of the spectre of plagiarism haunting... & f
ittingly, even the chapter on plagiarism was plagiarised...There is only one true belief to self. Its the one self believe in. The fruits that it brings varies accordingly. Still... I believe in inevitability. For many, its the end. For a handful, its a beginning.
True or fake...
Have to wait till we die to determine~
Or maybe even after we die we also dunno XD
Every hindu, muslim, jew, christian, taoist, sikh claim that their Gods are true and that miracles are caused by their Gods.
Every religion claim their religious books hold the truth.
Well, they are all the same.