Re: Christ not the only way to God
Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 4:11 am
Nobody's faith here is on the line due to your worldview. You're the only one here with hostile remarks, and it gets worse because now you expose more lies.
You commit the tu quoque fallacy multiple times. My philosophy and foundation allow me to build my conclusions. Yours cannot because knowledge and subsequent propositions cannot be known and therefore there is no value there. Its practically atheist with a slight modification. Love is arbitrary as objectively "good" or as a "virtue". There is simply no way you know a single thing about love. If the Tao cannot be known, then you cannot know love. End of story. If it cannot be known, then you simply need to literally shutup. But here you are, still talking about what you think you know. You are man in ignorance, not in enlightenment. Thats the philosophical implications, sir. Don't like it? Abandon it.
Its interesting that you think suffering is the problem. In our view, Jesus' suffering is the solution. Emotional appeals do not invalidate the truth of the ressurection of Christ. All are condemned. All are judged based on their response to the gospel and general revelation. Jesus is THE way, THE truth, THE light, and no one gets to the father except thru the passion of Jesus Christ on the cross. It is by God's grace, and not by works alone.
There is no contradiction. I am not smarter then God. I maintain a philosophical position of analytic philosophy that God can be understood and that he is personal another distinctive entity because all scientific and logical proof shows that in the Kalam cosmological argument. I have never postulated anything as ridiculous that I will make it to heaven by condemning you. I have never claimed that I am the judge, jury, and executioner. Where did I say that, sir?
You on the other hand say that YOU are GOD and that other people are or can be God, too. If that's who you think God is, then yes, I probably am smarter then most of these self professed Gods out there.
I never said 2+2 is God. You're again, mistaken. That illustration is for fact-value distinctions and exclusive truth as a logical and consistent conclusion. Propositions, truth, and knowledge exist and can be known. There are criteria for those proofs.
You need to define truth and knowledge before you attempt to use them in a sentence, friend.
What is truth?
What is knowledge? What is the criteria for knowledge?
What relationship do they have with each other?
Stick to the facts, and lose the rhetoric. Again, never did I say that winning an argument gets me to heaven. If that was true, then the Shinto Buddhist couple, the Mormon, and 6 unitarian universalists I have converted to Christianity will pointlessly testify for me and perhaps I can go rob a bank now or something hoping I was right? I don't hold that view, sir. That's absurd. Again, my entrance into heaven depends on what I do with the foundation that is Jesus Christ because he is the ONLY way I can response to God.
Don't worry about embarrassing me. You don't. Find something else to worry about like avoiding the naturalist fallacy, ad hominem attacks, and the tu quoque fallacy. Especially tu quoque. You come to your own conclusions, sir. You come to your own conclusions via your philosophy, not mine. Got it?
Btw, your response to BW and jlay is ridiculous. Try listening to them instead of making ridiculous claims with baseless proof.
You commit the tu quoque fallacy multiple times. My philosophy and foundation allow me to build my conclusions. Yours cannot because knowledge and subsequent propositions cannot be known and therefore there is no value there. Its practically atheist with a slight modification. Love is arbitrary as objectively "good" or as a "virtue". There is simply no way you know a single thing about love. If the Tao cannot be known, then you cannot know love. End of story. If it cannot be known, then you simply need to literally shutup. But here you are, still talking about what you think you know. You are man in ignorance, not in enlightenment. Thats the philosophical implications, sir. Don't like it? Abandon it.
Its interesting that you think suffering is the problem. In our view, Jesus' suffering is the solution. Emotional appeals do not invalidate the truth of the ressurection of Christ. All are condemned. All are judged based on their response to the gospel and general revelation. Jesus is THE way, THE truth, THE light, and no one gets to the father except thru the passion of Jesus Christ on the cross. It is by God's grace, and not by works alone.
There is no contradiction. I am not smarter then God. I maintain a philosophical position of analytic philosophy that God can be understood and that he is personal another distinctive entity because all scientific and logical proof shows that in the Kalam cosmological argument. I have never postulated anything as ridiculous that I will make it to heaven by condemning you. I have never claimed that I am the judge, jury, and executioner. Where did I say that, sir?
You on the other hand say that YOU are GOD and that other people are or can be God, too. If that's who you think God is, then yes, I probably am smarter then most of these self professed Gods out there.
I never said 2+2 is God. You're again, mistaken. That illustration is for fact-value distinctions and exclusive truth as a logical and consistent conclusion. Propositions, truth, and knowledge exist and can be known. There are criteria for those proofs.
You need to define truth and knowledge before you attempt to use them in a sentence, friend.
What is truth?
What is knowledge? What is the criteria for knowledge?
What relationship do they have with each other?
Stick to the facts, and lose the rhetoric. Again, never did I say that winning an argument gets me to heaven. If that was true, then the Shinto Buddhist couple, the Mormon, and 6 unitarian universalists I have converted to Christianity will pointlessly testify for me and perhaps I can go rob a bank now or something hoping I was right? I don't hold that view, sir. That's absurd. Again, my entrance into heaven depends on what I do with the foundation that is Jesus Christ because he is the ONLY way I can response to God.
Don't worry about embarrassing me. You don't. Find something else to worry about like avoiding the naturalist fallacy, ad hominem attacks, and the tu quoque fallacy. Especially tu quoque. You come to your own conclusions, sir. You come to your own conclusions via your philosophy, not mine. Got it?
Btw, your response to BW and jlay is ridiculous. Try listening to them instead of making ridiculous claims with baseless proof.