how can any one religion make a valid claim to be the fundamental truth?

Firstly I don’t believe I have made the claim that science is the only source for truths, just that I have a problem when someone or some group makes the claim to be the only source for truth without the inclination or ability to actually prove that assertion beyond the Because I say so . For example:Q: why do you believe that you have the ultimate truth?
A: the bible says soQ: and you can prove the bible is correct in it’s assumptions how?
A: because the bible says soQ: who wrote this marvellous book?
A: well many people over a few hundred years but ultimately God did.Q: how could that be?
A: well the holy spirit breathed the inspiration of god into the minds of the authors.Q: and you know this how?
A: because the bible says so.Repeat ad nauseum.Now on to the meat of your post.It really pisses me off when those of a religious outlook accuse those who don’t believe, of having the moral fortitude of a sea cucumber. To say I have no basis for complaining about truly repugnant acts. To claim I have to tolerate Rape, torture, bigotry, intolerance, child molestation, murder simply because, as you claim my lack of belief in God means I can hold no moral standards worthy of that name, utterly sickens me. How dare you. Just because I don’t subscribe to a set of moral absolutes set down x number of years a go doesn’t mean the morals I keep are anything other than absolute. Murder is wrong, as it is plainly obvious that you wouldn’t want to be murdered or to loose any of your family to murder, so you shouldn’t inflict that on anyone else. Rape is wrong, as it is simply not acceptable to force your self on anyone if they don’t wish it, be it man woman or sheep. And so on.The notion that a Morality with out god will lead to anarchy and a notion of anything goes if flat out wrong.Please go and find a copy of Godless Morality:Keeping Religion out of Ethics by Richard Holloway (pub: cannon gate, isbn 1 84195 578 7) an insightful book written by a Bishop (bishop of Edinburgh till 2000) and has a very insightful take on the subject.--Edit-- Spelling correction --This message has been edited by ohnhai, 01-23-2005 08:19 AM

quote:

---

That's a very pessimistic opinion. I prefer to believe that if there is an ultimate truth, there's at least 6.2 billion different ways to find it.

---

I agree that since each person on the planet is uniquely different ( I think genetically we are something like .002%different as far as DNA code from each other), then each person is going to have a different story about how they found their truth about the meaning of life.Religions attempt to deal with ultimate truths. There are not 6.2 billion versions of it. Only one version. 6.2 billion stories on how to get there, but only one truth. So if any religion is the true one, then it must be illuminated by that truth as a faith. You can take some religions and throw them out imediatly because they loose credibility when some of it's text is proved false. I believe one religion states that the Earth is held up on the backs of four giant elephants standing on a huge turtle. Well, the Mercury missions of the 60's put an end to that notion.Evolution stated that humans were from 5 species, with the Aboriginees at the bottom end of the developmental scale and Europeans at the top. Well, the Human Genome Project put and end to that notion.The Mormons called people of dark skin color part of the curse of Cain or some other Bible character but science has since determined that we all have the same potential at birth for very dark skin but our DNA determines how much of the two forms of melanin are produced, so that puts an end to that notion.From my endeavors, the only source document that hasn't been tripped up when it comes to explanations abut the natural world has been the Bible, so I've looked at what it has to say about religious truth. What it says is that there is a spiritual realm that is outside of our own 4 dimensional world, but it's activities dirrectly affect our situations.This makes logical sense to me, a military mind, because it explains why so many humans could come from one source pair, share all the same genetic code as the source pair, but have such radically different perceptions about the truth. There is an outside source that is steering people in many dirrections, acting like a deflection plate.Some are deflected way off into the twilight zone, others are just barely grazed, but in the economy of ultimate truth, according to the Bible, if you miss by a micron or a country mile, it's still scored a miss. Close only works in horse shoes, hand gernades and strategic nuclear exchange.

quote:

---

The Rockhound (btw sorry about the late reply)

---

That's cool by me. I am the worst abuser in this forum about posting and then being gone for days before I can get back and reply. They have a new smart filter being used by the government which filters out anything that has a religious taste. So replying while out in the field is impossible even though at times I have plenty of spare hours to do so. Actually, they're getting carried away with the filter because it's getting to the point where anything with an http address is filtered out!This message has been edited by Lizard Breath, 01-23-2005 07:38 AM

So you believe all this to be true.I have to ask what convinced you that all you claim was in deed the truth. I’m not asking you to prove anything, just an explanation of what convinced you of the truth?How do you know you are not simply deluding your self (as suggested by Sidelined)Also I would pay attention to Jar’s reply(message 163) because as he says I think you may have miss understood the original question.

quote:

---

Evolution stated that humans were from 5 species, with the Aboriginees at the bottom end of the developmental scale and Europeans at the top. Well, the Human Genome Project put and end to that notion.

---

Really? The HGP ended that idea - that's news to me - that project ran from 1990-2003. Are you really saying that this concept of 5 species was being used in 1990? I suspect you are out by quite a wide margin. anyone else wish to comment? (I'm quite happy to be wrong on this one).

quote:

---

From my endeavors, the only source document that hasn't been tripped up when it comes to explanations abut the natural world has been the Bible,

---

But it has - but what happens when this is shown to christians like yourself is that you pose "but WHAT IF>>>>>" questions over and over again or just take no notice of anything you find too tricky to answer.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-23-2005 07:56 AM

Evolution first posted that humans were 5 different species of organisms. As more information became available, evolution was tweeked to reflect the new data.The Bible has not had that luxury but hasn't needed it. It states that all humans were originally from one breeding pair. It would appear that with all of the human science over thousands of years, evolution as a truth got it wrong about the human species, but the Bible was right, then the Author of the Bible knows more about how we all got here then the author of evolution.

quote:

---

Evolution first posted that humans were 5 different species of organisms. As more information became available, evolution was tweeked to reflect the new data.

---

That's both a dodge and a shift - you clearly linked this concept with work in the HGP. So I'll ask again - was it the HGP that caused this idea to be dropped? or did this happen previously?I know that some christians think that it's their right to dodge and lie for Jesus but I'd like a straight answer.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-23-2005 08:07 AM

Now come on LB. You have to know that it was the Bible that was the primary justification for slavery and considering certain races as inferior. Christianity has always considered non-Christians as savages and beneath contempt. Just look what happened during the Age of Exploration. Are you going to try to tell us that what happened to the South American natives, the North American Indians, the Hindu and Buddhists in India, what happened in Africa were the result of the TOE?That even continues today. We had posts right here recently from Christians related to the Tsunami saying that it was more important to save souls than to feed, cloth or succor.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Christianity has always considered non-Christians as savages and beneath contempt.

---

I'll agree that a tremoundous amount of wrongs in the world have been committed under the banner of Christianity. But to say that Christians have always considered non-Christians as savages is totally false and shows much bias and little fact. I would suggest that you look at some of the Christian efforts just to bring some comfort to those who suffered from the Tsunami and then say weather Christians see them as savages beaneth contempt or as unfortunate victims.It is better to draw a bead on Christianity from the perspective of it's role model who is Jesus, not from all of the people who have boasted to be Christians. Every human who I have ever known has faults and has let me down in one form or another, proving their own falibility as a human. It is therefore consistant that many wrongs will be commited under the banner of Christianity just as much as they were commited under the doctrine of evolution by Communists and even the Nazi's.If you can link the horrible behavior of the boasting Christians over the centuries back to it's founder, Jesus then you should be able to observe similiar behavior in him either by word or deed. I observe though, that it is just another example of humans doing whatever they please to serve a personal interest but cover it or justify it under the banner of God's will. I'll probably see it even in church later on this morning.

quote:

---

That even continues today. We had posts right here recently from Christians related to the Tsunami saying that it was more important to save souls than to feed, cloth or succor.

---

You again are partially true with this. Biblically, it says that even if you could aquire every possible possesion on this planet, it would be of absolutely no value compared to the value of your soul. But again, if you look at the behavior of the founder of Christianity, he is documented as spending a great deal of time feeding people, healing them and reaching out to them. Even when a man came to him to be healed on the Sabath, he showed the priority of the physical need. He did not say "In six days the Lord created the heavens and the Earth, and on the seventh day he rested. Come back therefore tomorrow and the Lord will heal you". No, what he said was "Stretch out your hand".If you want to use humans who boast about their religious affiliations as examples of that religions precepts, you will find that they will always let you down and dissapoint or worse. It is more accurate to look to the writings of the religion itself to see if their behavior is consistant, not the other way around.

quote:

---

That's both a dodge and a shift - you clearly linked this concept with work in the HGP. So I'll ask again - was it the HGP that caused this idea to be dropped? or did this happen previously?

---

It is neither. It's just you trying to find a crack or split in my line or argument and then once created, or in this case perceived, then you'll try to expound on it. Your point is obvious but it is unimportant pertaining to this line of debate.If there was in anyone's mind the notion that humans are different species as reflected by the racial differences that WE perceive, then the HGP put an end to that notion. Anyone who would still believe that there is a curse of Cain or four to five origins for humans is now just perpetuating racism.If in our culture we made the perception of ear lobe size being the most discerning factor of a human, then we would have racism based on ear lobe size. But because humans are programmed to que in on is skin color first, then it becomes the factor for racism. Both factors are of equally little consequence in seperating humans into various species but evolution originally employed one of them for this.

And I must appologize to you. I was lazy...I'll admit it. I threw the absolutist/relativist article in without really seeing the personal context of it.
I was just too lazy ( or tired from work) to formulate a decent response to your question. Ifen and you both were taken aback and I guess I see why. It has been said, however, that any absolute belief has to have been determined to be absolute by holding the belief up to a standard.
How can I prove Christianity to you?To start with, I affirm the truth of Christ as a living presence by the changes that I see within others touched by prayer or belief.
I know that the critics say that "changed lives" does not qualify as an absolute truth proof of Christ because other belief systems also change lives.Well, I don't disagree with them, nor do I wish to disprove other experiences. I have personally seen countless people who have prayed and have transformed before my eyes into a virtual different personality. This is not a dog and pony magic show.
It does not happen due to prayer being some form of magic incantation. It IS a feeling....an awareness of a warmth...a presence that is greater than the sum of us. To me, once I met Him, I knew Him. More than a presence---a character and a friend!One time in particular, shortly after becoming a believer, I and a young friend were in a Cafe and we felt compelled to pray with some young students at another table. We approached them and asked if they wanted to pray with us. (No, we were not pushy or annoying. They offered to let us..) So we did. As I finished praying, with closed eyes I felt a distinct warmth drift down upon me and cover like a blanket. To me, it was God and I felt that it was no big deal...but when I opened my eyes and saw the 4 teens in tears, humbled and in awe of the feeling, I knew that a power greater than human love had been with us and still was with us.Am I suggesting that if I prayed with you or any given person the same would happen? No...I cannot make that claim. I WILL say that
I believe that God could touch anyone of us. I am not arrogantly saying that you are missing out without Him, as if you are not somehow worthy without "my" truth. I WILL say that IF the same experience happened to you, you would be helped by it. So am I suggesting to you that YOU need Jesus? Yes. We all do.
(If we were at a party and you told me that I looked like I needed a beer, would I be insulted that you assumed I was a drinker? Not at all..you just wanted me to feel good. Now do you see why I do what I do?If you were a Buddhist, would I be insulting you by praying with you?
No...for I would not force you to do it.If you were an atheist at a football game, I would not expect you to have to pray the little blurb prayer at the start of the game, but I would expect that you would not be able to prevent it any more than I cannot prevent the displays of public sexual flaunting, fowl language, media saturation of many kinds, and all inclusive lovey dovey talk that characterizes a society wise in its own eyes yet lacking the warmth of a true and living Creator.As I have said before in another post, I do not believe that the U.S. should be a theocracy. I do not believe that everyone be forced to accept the Christian religion. Some day, there will be no religious expression allowed in public. I DO believe that everyone still have the opportunity to find it, and that it be available to all without cost. That is why I do what I do, say what I say, and chill where I chill. This message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-23-2005 07:24 AM

The bible is the guide infinding the truth, not the only way.

I think I expressed my answers to that way back in the thread.Religion cannot hold truth.
Religion is made up by, and run by man, so it has flaws.God is truth, Jesus is truth, and the Holy Spirit is truth. If you want to assign a religion to those things, such as the word Christianity, then go ahead. But it is a blanket statement, I wanted to take further than that.When the truth comes to be with you, then its just you and God. Not a religion.

quote:

---

You are not listening. The truth is inside you, seek it and you will find it. You are a smart person, and you will not be decieved.

---

...unless he is fooled by the Devil or a demon, right? He could think he was talking with God, but it could just as easily be a demon who is pretending to be God.

Yes, and you can read my reply to jar, it is important.I was thinking about this last night, and everything I wrote is so out there for most people, and from my point of view hard to explain to people. It was placed in my heart to remind you, and myself of the faith of Jesus. I may have went a step ahead of what I should have told you.I was watching a testimony of a guy on TBN channel. He was very down to earth, and I feel his testimony was 100% true. It reminded me that we all have different paths, but our destinations are the same.The very first step in finding the truth would be to pray to God, and ask Jesus to come into your life. Even if you are not sure he exists.
Then the Holy Spirit will do the work in you. We all have layers of things embeded in us that keep us from God. Each is specific to us, but the Holy Spirit will help you uncover those layers. He will do it at a pace that you are comfortable with, because he knows you as good as you know yourself.If you or anyone else reading this wants to, try this pray out. You may not see the results of it for years, or it may happen instantly. Some of you may even ridicule it, thats ok, that is to be expected, and it is a sign that it is true.I will make the prayer in a way that you do not have to completely give yourself to God, but express to him, that you wish to know him if he is there.Pray:
Lord in heaven, if you are there, I wish to know you. I wish to have a personal relationship with your son Jesus Christ who died for our sins, so that we may be free. I want the Holy Spirit to enter my life, and to start showing me the way to know you.If anyone wants, my e-mail is available through my profile, and you can e-mail me, and I will pray for you. I would even give you my phone# and we can chat, or I can answer questions, that you may not want to ask in this forum. I can't promise anything, but love.

quote:

---

Science would like to have everything proved 100%, and when it can it will. But often things can’t be proved one way or the other with 100% confidence in that proof, so it remains a theory. In other words we say this is what we believe is happening to the best of our understanding and knowledge, but as we can’t give proof right now we are not gonna say that this is the 100% truth of what is happening with out that proof. If a scientist made a claim to have proved something beyond doubt he better have damn good results and good experimental practice cause he will be asked to prove that claim to be 100% true.

---

Actually, nothing in science, in principle, is ever 100% proven.That is the tenet of tentativity.Because science is a human endeavor, and humans are imperfect and limited creatures, and we can never have all evidence of all things, it is always possible that we could be wrong.If we were to ever consider any scientific explanation 100% correct, it would become dogma.We must always allow that we are coming closer and closer to 100% understanding of a given phenomena but will never, ever consider it 100% understood. We must always allow for new evidence, which may contradict the old understanding.Of course, this does not mean that we don't have great confidence in the reliability of many of our findings and conclusions, but it does mean that we can never say that we understand anything 100%, or "proved" it.Furthermore, even if we were able to "prove" a scientific theory 100%, it would still be a theory. A Theory is an explanitory framework that organizes evidence related to a specific phenomena in nature.Just because a theory becomes highly confirmed doesn't mean that it is no longer an explanitory framework.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-23-2005 10:27 AM