|
|
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many
[Re: NITRO777]
#66735
03/17/06 23:41
03/17/06 23:41
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
@Fastlane
From a philosophical standpoint the only thing that would prove the existence of one God instead of many gods, providing that it was accepted that God exists...is uniqueness.
Jesus is only guy who ever declared that He was the Singular Almighty God. That might sound ridiculously simple, but it true. They all claimed to be prophets(Muhammed, Buddha, Confuscious, Moses), but Jesus proclaimed that not only was there a God, but your looking at Him.
He also, in addition to declaring Himself God spoke definateively to the exclusion of all other gods. He declared Himself the Way, and the ONLY (singular) way. If there was a God (and this postualation assumes there is) then it is logical that God would indeed exclude all others, so He behaved the way God would, not because He wouldnt tolerate other religion and other gods, but simply becauswe He was the only one, and it was the simple truth to declare Himself thus.
Also, He is the only one who gave His life for mankind. The message of God was to feed His body to the world, and give His blood. This is the only God who ever did this, and it is historically true that He hung on the cross.
His greatest proof of divinity was His ressurrection from the dead, because no human can do that. And we witnessed it.
You might not accept the testimony of those saw Him rise from the dead with their own eyes, maybe it is scientifically unproveable, but it doesnt make it any less true.
There. You have it.
|
|
|
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many
[Re: NITRO777]
#66738
03/18/06 04:23
03/18/06 04:23
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,185
mpdeveloper_B
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,185
|
@matt:....okaaaaaaaaay strange...
- aka Manslayer101
|
|
|
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many
[Re: mpdeveloper_B]
#66739
03/18/06 04:40
03/18/06 04:40
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 535
Michigan
ICEman
Developer
|
Developer
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 535
Michigan
|
I've been toying with the notion that I might be the antichrist, actually..
Not really onuh those things one wants to know about themselves.. altho I have never been dead for days and lived again...sooo.. and wouldnt wanna be thought of as God..soo ..I dunno.
I'm ICEman, and I approved this message.
|
|
|
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many
[Re: NITRO777]
#66740
03/18/06 06:37
03/18/06 06:37
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
@Fastlane
From a philosophical standpoint the only thing that would prove the existence of one God instead of many gods, providing that it was accepted that God exists...is uniqueness.
Jesus is only guy who ever declared that He was the Singular Almighty God. That might sound ridiculously simple, but it true. They all claimed to be prophets(Muhammed, Buddha, Confuscious, Moses), but Jesus proclaimed that not only was there a God, but your looking at Him.
He also, in addition to declaring Himself God spoke definateively to the exclusion of all other gods. He declared Himself the Way, and the ONLY (singular) way. If there was a God (and this postualation assumes there is) then it is logical that God would indeed exclude all others, so He behaved the way God would, not because He wouldnt tolerate other religion and other gods, but simply becauswe He was the only one, and it was the simple truth to declare Himself thus.
Also, He is the only one who gave His life for mankind. The message of God was to feed His body to the world, and give His blood. This is the only God who ever did this, and it is historically true that He hung on the cross.
His greatest proof of divinity was His ressurrection from the dead, because no human can do that. And we witnessed it.
You might not accept the testimony of those saw Him rise from the dead with their own eyes, maybe it is scientifically unproveable, but it doesnt make it any less true.
There. You have it.
Why do you believe any of this happened?
|
|
|
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#66741
03/18/06 13:36
03/18/06 13:36
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
Why do you believe any of this happened?
I dont know, I think it is just instinctual, an inherent tendency. Why do you doubt it?
Quote:
Humankind's inherent sense of right and wrong cannot be biologically explained.
There arises in all of us, of any culture, universal feelings of right and wrong. Even a thief gets upset and feels wronged when someone steals from him. If someone violently grabs a child from a family and rapes that child, there is an anger and revulsion and a rage to confront that act as evil, regardless of the culture. Where did we get this sense of wrongness? How do we explain a universal law in the conscience of all people that says murder for fun is wrong?
And in areas like courage, dying for a cause, love, dignity, duty and compassion, where did these come from? If people are merely products of physical evolution, "survival of the fittest," why do we sacrifice for each other? Where did we get this inner sense of right and wrong?
The above is actually a quote from someone else, it is related to what I consider an inner conscience and an inner tendency to believe, which helps answer your question.
If you look at the facts objectively, and if you know anything about people, debates and arguments you will understand that we form arguments based upon inner bias which is established before the facts of the argument are even in place. You pose an interesting question when you ask why I believe in Jesus, but the same question might be asked of you, why dont you believe?
Last edited by NITRO777; 03/18/06 14:00.
|
|
|
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many
[Re: NITRO777]
#66742
03/18/06 19:58
03/18/06 19:58
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 155
USA San Diego CA
Scramasax
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 155
USA San Diego CA
|
Survival of the fittest doesn't disclude benevolence to the social group, but in point of fact, is encouraged. Evil can be distilled as purely good for the singular entity, while good is how it effects the group as a whole. (This discludes actions of people with a brain deceases.) If one robs a bank and gets away with the money, its a real good thing for the individual, but is poor for the macro group.
The more evil something is, the less beneficial for the group. The greater the good the converse is true. This doesn't prove the breath of God, but proves survival is at the core of every living thing. The more complex the creature, the more abstract survival behaviors are.
Fish school, wolfs have packs, whales have pods, people have families, cities and countries. All are mechanisms for group prosperity.
Last edited by Scramasax; 03/18/06 21:23.
|
|
|
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many
[Re: Scramasax]
#66743
03/19/06 00:04
03/19/06 00:04
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,185
mpdeveloper_B
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,185
|
it may be "benificial" to the robber, but that doesn't make it right, or good.
- aka Manslayer101
|
|
|
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many
[Re: ROMAC]
#66744
10/01/06 11:20
10/01/06 11:20
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
|
|
|
I doubt it, but I have considered that you might be the 
