Originally posted by phookat
I asked you before, and I'm going to ask you again. In what way do these differences break the logic and conclusion of my proof? If the difference is that one prohibits apple pie and the other doesn't, that doesn't affect my proof.
No. It specifically shows that each faith's GOAL is even different, not to mention it's philosophy of the soul and of the afterlife.
Originally posted by phookat
1) Arlo says there's only one right way, and all other ways are wrong.
2) Arlo is a Christian.
3) Therefore, Arlo believes that Christianity is the only right way, and all other ways are wrong.
Any of these statements false?
A classic example of the strawman argument. Let me help you.
1) Phookat says Christians are bad for believing that their way is THE way to salvation (which raises the obvious question: If they didn't think this, why would they be Christians?) and that such prejudices are unacceptable.
2) Arlo says, of COURSE they feel this way as do most religions in the world. There is a right and wrong choice and it's up to the individual to make it.
3) Phookat says he believes that all religions, faiths, philosophies and cults are equally valid and that there are multiple paths that lead to salvation or eternal reward and they are manifestations from the same source.
4) Arlo says that's preposterous since the differences between the religions, faiths, philosophies and cults conflict with their being inspired by anything short of a diety with a severe case of multiple personality disorder.
5) Phookat says space aliens would have a hard time understanding Christianity.
6) Arlo says he's having a hard time understanding Phookat.
7) Phookat says that's because he's using flawless logic.
8) Arlo says ... riiiiiight.
9) Phookat says Hinduism and Christianity are the same thing.
10) Arlo posts examples proving otherwise.
11) Phookat says "Eh, close enough" and persists in the claim and asks why no proof was offered to counter the claim.
12) Arlo says he's having a hard time taking Phookat seriously now.
13) Phookat says Arlo is ignoring his flawless logic.
14) Arlo says "What logic?!"
15) Phookat says he's now successfully disproven Arlo's claim that only Christians will be spared from burning in oil.
16) Arlo shakes his head in amazement at Phookat's "flawless logic."
Originally posted by phookat
This was not my premise. My premise was and is that any single religion (including Christianity) is not the only correct path. There are many correct paths. Nowhere did I say that *all* philosohies were correct. Furthermore, my scenario does *not* prove that all philosophies are correct, nor was it intended to. My scenario is a proof by contradiction, which disproves your hypothesis (that there is only one right way), and thereby proves the opposite (that there is *not* only one right way).
Which you've yet to prove (not that I asked you to prove it) and to which I offered an equally valid opinion. The only "hypothesis" I offered was that there is indeed one correct choice which you've not disproven by any method whatsoever including your claimed "proof by contradiction." Where's the contradiction other than your repeating that you believe differently than I do? You've proven nothing to me. I doubt you've proven anything to anyone else but yourself here.
Originally posted by phookat
My proof is logical and complete, until you can demonstrate otherwise. You have not done so yet.
Your opinion of yourself in this matter is a bit overrated. But, there too, you have the freedom to believe and express.
Now ... if you're just going to keep repeating how perfectly you've proven your point and how well you've disproven MY "hypothesis" I think I'll do the dust kicking thang like Brother demaw suggested. Peace!
