33
   

Which Religion is the One True Religion?

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2005 06:33 am
Not at all, i don't care whether there is or is not such a thing as a deity. I do care that religionists attempt to foist their fairy tales onto society, which has an effect on how i may live my life.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2005 07:55 am
I not only care about God but I love the true God...

An atheist, when they try to disprove God will not say,

"Well look at the earth (heaven, stars etc...) they disprove God".

But a theist can say took at the earth (heaven, stars etc...) and say, "this earth is proof of God" and have a reasonable argument...

An atheist cannot use the earth to disprove God... so this tips the scales in the theist's favor when it comes to logic...

Anyone who cannot see that is either blind, in denial or a democrat... Smile
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2005 08:25 am
timberlandko wrote:
RexRed wrote:
Actually we do have electrical forces like a lightning storm (spark) going on when ever we think a thought... these "sparks" travel through the human body at the speed of light...

This is science.. this same light that is in our brain is also in the core of the sun and every part of the universe. Even vacuum is made of energy arrays.

Energy is matter at the speed of light.

And to see this collective energy as connected to God is only slight recognition and progression of logic...

All of life indicates intelligent design and the fact that we are here and reality is real proves something...

I see you have a rather skewed grasp of both physics and physiology - unsurprising.

Quote:
You on the other hand have no proof "at all" that God is not real...

Nor does he claim to have any such proofs.

Quote:
Your guesses go against common logic... creation itself and it's obvious existence is certainly a reason to admire, respect, revere, even worship etc... the unknown...

No, his is the only position consistent with logic. It is dispassionate, objective, and not exclusionary.

Quote:
How about some humility toward the unknown rather than indignation. There are certainly unarguably many things that collectively are "known"...

It seems you become unwilling to trust knowledge only when it relates to God... Is that not rather bold and boisterously trying to cajole the truth from suppressed logic?

That would be projection - and unwarranted assumption - on your part, Rex.

Quote:
This may not be because you do not know God but you disallow that knowledge any room for consideration.

Nonsense. There is no denial or disallowance of consideration from Frank's quarter; he explicity says he's willing to consider valid evidence, which, however, has not been provided, therefore nothing is there to consider.

Quote:
Maybe Frank you should wonder if your intentions are honest to God...

I know I should ask that to myself everyday...

Smile

Lets get back to square one - what about the Abrahamic mythopaeia validates it - let alone elevates it above any competing theo-philosophic myth system? What, apart from conviction and passion on the parts of its adherents, differentiates it, or any of them, from superstition?



You ask:
What about the Abrahamic mythopaeia validates it?

Let's start at square one... how about "monotheism" for starters?

The monotheism of the Bible was a radical idea and it nearly alone civilized the world...

Also
When Frank oversteps the line and makes blanket judgments of the subjective wisdom of the God of the Bible, remember "... judge not lest ye be judged...", he then oversteps the boundaries of agnosticism...

When he oversteps the boundaries he then starts his own anti-God anti-Christ "religion" and is no longer an agnostic.

As much as Frank does not know which God is the right religion he also does not know which is not... Yet, Frank still likes to have the authority of one who "knows"...

Because of the precarious position that Frank has placed himself in he had passed judgment upon a God and this violates the whole premise of the agnostic.

An agnostic cannot say that the Aztec god in all of it's "barbarity" is not the true God so it not only leaves the agnostic blind but mute also...

The reason I answered this third person Frank is because you DID cop out on my post even though that is ok... Smile
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2005 08:53 am
Frank Apisa wrote:
There are a bunch of things the worth faith implies...like bone-headedness...like silliness...like absurd insistence...

...but one thing it does not imply...is certainty.
Paul describes faith as an assured expectation. You know where that is, right?

Does the word 'assured' imply certainty? Maybe another word better describes assured expectation. You tell me. I was just using the one most handy.

I would use the term 'absurd insistence' to describe one who guesses the bible to be inconsistent and subsequently attempts to use the bible to shore up his spurious arguments.

I would use the term 'silliness' to describe the vituperative language used by some in the vain expectation it will somehow enhance a weak proposition.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2005 08:57 am
RexRed wrote:
I not only care about God but I love the true God...


Yeah, sure. Zeus???


Quote:
An atheist, when they try to disprove God will not say,

"Well look at the earth (heaven, stars etc...) they disprove God".


When atheists attempt to provide proof that there are no gods...they very often DO invoke the "look around you..." argument. Do you see any gods?


Your thesis is absurd...and irrelevent, since Setanta has mentioned on several occasions that his atheism does not attempt to "prove" there are no gods...and actually does not assert that.


Quote:
But a theist can say took at the earth (heaven, stars etc...) and say, "this earth is proof of God" and have a reasonable argument...


There is absolutely NOTHING reasonable about that argument. How in the name of logic can you possibly assert that the planet Earth is proof of the existence of any god...let alone the god you refer to as God?


Quote:
An atheist cannot use the earth to disprove God... so this tips the scales in the theist's favor when it comes to logic...


Anyone who actually knows anything about logic would laugh at this adolescent analysis. The theists have absolutely nothing in the way of "proof" of the existence of any gods. You are all working with wild guesses gone ape shyt.


Quote:
Anyone who cannot see that is either blind, in denial or a democrat... Smile


You are selectively blind, Rex...and in incredibly deep denial.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2005 09:04 am
RexRed wrote:

Let's start at square one... how about "monotheism" for starters?

The monotheism of the Bible was a radical idea and it nearly alone civilized the world...


One, it was not a radical idea.

Two, it truly was not monotheism. Any reasonable reading of the Bible reveals that the idiot god of the Bible supposes itself to be one of many gods. The idiot god of the Bible simply does not want any of the Hebrews worshipping any of the other gods.


Quote:
Also
When Frank oversteps the line and makes blanket judgments of the subjective wisdom of the God of the Bible, remember "... judge not lest ye be judged...", he then oversteps the boundaries of agnosticism...


Point to any one actually instance...rather than this strawman bullshyt.


Quote:
When he oversteps the boundaries he then starts his own anti-God anti-Christ "religion" and is no longer an agnostic.


Only in the mind of someone who sees the strength of my arguments, Rex.


Quote:


As much as Frank does not know which God is the right religion he also does not know which is not... Yet, Frank still likes to have the authority of one who "knows"...

Because of the precarious position that Frank has placed himself in he had passed judgment upon a God and this violates the whole premise of the agnostic.


Oh, really. And why is that?

There is absolutely nothing in what I am saying that is at odds with agnosticism.


Quote:

An agnostic cannot say that the Aztec god in all of it's "barbarity" is not the true God so it not only leaves the agnostic blind but mute also...


You do not know what you are talking about...which probably explains why you are doing such a miserable job of setting it to paper.

This last comment makes no sense.


Quote:
The reason I answered this third person Frank is because you DID cop out on my post even though that is ok... Smile


Do whatever you want. But don't think I've ever copped out on you. I'd never do that. And, Rex, there are no questions you've ever asked that would warrant doing so. They are creampuffs for the most part.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2005 09:09 am
neologist wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
There are a bunch of things the worth faith implies...like bone-headedness...like silliness...like absurd insistence...

...but one thing it does not imply...is certainty.
Paul describes faith as an assured expectation. You know where that is, right?


Oh...Paul!!!

Paul is so full of shyt...you can almost smell it when you open to a page where his letters are found.

Paul had absolutely no idea of what Jesus was all about. He hi-jacked the religion and pretty much taught the opposite of what Jesus taught on several issues.


Quote:
Does the word 'assured' imply certainty? Maybe another word better describes assured expectation. You tell me. I was just using the one most handy.


In this particular context, Neo...it implies "self-serving bullshyt."


Quote:
I would use the term 'absurd insistence' to describe one who guesses the bible to be inconsistent and subsequently attempts to use the bible to shore up his spurious arguments.


Well...that has more to do with you inability to deal logically with anything...rather than any truth of the assertion.


Quote:
I would use the term 'silliness' to describe the vituperative language used by some in the vain expectation it will somehow enhance a weak proposition.


Nah...silliness should be used to describe what you do constantly in these threads.

I love ya, Neo.

Please keep posting.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2005 09:59 am
timberlandko wrote:
Neither the theist nor the atheist has any proof whatsoever; conviction, yeah - passion, yeah. Proof? Nope - not a bit of it. Ramble all you want in and out of your mythopaeia's myths, texts and traditions; all they "prove" is that there are myths, texts and traditions Now what both the theist and the atheist have aplenty is the arrogance to claim, in the total absence of either scientically or forensically valid evidence, that they have "The Answer". Thats just plain silly, either way it stacks.

I'm curious, Rex - have you read Aquinas' Summa Theologica? You might do well to familiarize yourself with it. At great lenght, and in great depth and detail, the objections to Christian beliefs are presented, examined, disected, and refuted - refuted, that is, if indeed there must be and is a god and that god is the god of the Abrahamic mythopaeia. However, even though Aquinas proceeds from an illicit premis, he forges a powerful argument - about the only flaw in which is that initial illicit premis concerning the nature of the universe. You see, there is no reason to conclude there must be a god, let alone to conclude that if there be a god, that god be the god of Abrahamic tradition, and further it is unsupportable to conclude that, even if stipulated, that god is in particular the god of the Christian subset of the Abrahamic tradition - thats a bit of a simplification, but even then thats way, way too many assumptions, too many "givens". The Answer may be attainable, it may not be. Whatever, despite claims on either side, no one can produce a validly argued answer. It comes down to superstition. Apart from its man-made holy trappings, nothing differentiates faith from superstition - nothing evidenced so far, anyway.



Very nice post Timber.

I will check out your book.

Here is a bit about me I hope it is not too personal.

My great grandfather, a lawyer/judge (on my mother's side) was one of the founders of the rationalists society of America and he used to travel the country spreading the drivel... Smile

My father was eighty when he died twenty years ago I was born when he was fifty-nine so my great grandfather goes way back.

My father was born in 1905.. a Norwegian immigrant fisherman who landed on Ellis island. He was sea captain on supertankers for the United States all of his life.

My mother's father was a sea captain on supertankers too and sailed through two world wars for the US..

I am not sure what my point was in all of that...

My father was a Lutheran and also a head mason and my mother was a Lutheran also and a worthy matron in the eastern star.

Her father was born in Dallas and her father's father was a lawyer/judge and a rationalist.

I believe I got my desire to proselytize and debate from my great grandfather on my mother's side, even though our beliefs are completely opposed.

I am a Christian and my book of learning is the old and new testaments specifically the epistles of Paul...

When I left the Lutheran religion it was when my brother died (burned to death) and I did not know that I had some secret resentment toward God concerning his death. My life began to get worse and worse. I had no real foundation and I had enormous energy.

I am not certain if I was born again in the Lutheran religion. When I attended it it was rather stoic and somewhat sterile. But there were definitely virtues that shone through.

Yet, I had a Sunday school knowledge of God even after attending youth groups too and later church.

Then after my brothers death my life began to spiral out of control. This was the point when I may have become a general spiritualist. I was thirteen when my older brother died and the general spiritualist subtly grew and bloomed into a young adult.

Then my life seemed to over time become more worthless. I lost all hope and seemed to only want to play with the spirits or be played with, whatever perspective one has.

I was unaware of the spiritual possession of my soul.

My Christian teachings had left my mind completely... I allowed my mind to wander where it would. (this is very personal) Suddenly I had pictured myself jumping from a nearby bridge... Still my life kept spiraling downward..

A week later (I was 18yo) I met some non denomination Bible believing Christians. I of course met them in the weirdest of circumstances and my intensions had nothing to do with God... Yet they saw through my own blindness.

I spent weeks with them doing nothing but reading the Bible and singing psalms to God. The words became suddenly living... They (the Christians) not only saved my life but they gave me an understanding of a truth that will never leave me. Twenty four years later the Bible is even more dear to my heart...

I am a million times more of a person because of their love and grace upon my soul. If I can bring even one person to the light of Christ then I have returned the favor to them and God...

God is my salvation and God is the light in the harbor of uncertainty...

Also
The understanding of the Bible in the seventeen/eighteen hundreds was rather crude.

Rationalists had a heyday back then but that logic does not stand up today with more researched knowledge of the scriptures.

I will check out your book anyway...
I am open to any logic if it seems to be going somewhere.

Peace with God...
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2005 10:05 am
Among the religionists here represented, Neo stands out for presenting what amounts at least to a reasoned, intellectual approach, albeit one based on the same illicit premis to which Aquinas falls afoul. Well, in fairness, despite his relative lack of input, I think Thalion perhaps is in the same league.

As for the others, kids, you don't do well engaging in a war of wits when you are but half armed. The absurd, ludicrous, painfully inept arguments in which you persist accomplish 2 things above all else; expose your lack of intellectual rigor, and subject to ridicule the proposition you champion.

Oh - and a thought from another accomplished Christian theologian;

"If you believe what you like in the Gospel,
and reject what you like - it is not the Gospel
you believe, but yourselves." - St. Augustine
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2005 10:24 am
Rex...the bottom line is that you are a gay man in America...

...who champions the god of the Bible...the Republican Party...and the ideals of conservative America...

...all of which would not piss on you if your clothes burst into flames.

Do whatever the hell you want. Steady the hand of these people attempting to cut your throat. But don't for one second argue that your conduct and perspective in this regard are reasonable or logical.

They most assuredly are not.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2005 10:26 am
timberlandko wrote:
Among the religionists here represented, Neo stands out for presenting what amounts at least to a reasoned, intellectual approach, albeit one based on the same illicit premis to which Aquinas falls afoul. Well, in fairness, despite his relative lack of input, I think Thalion perhaps is in the same league.

As for the others, kids, you don't do well engaging in a war of wits when you are but half armed. The absurd, ludicrous, painfully inept arguments in which you persist accomplish 2 things above all else; expose your lack of intellectual rigor, and subject to ridicule the proposition you champion.

Oh - and a thought from another accomplished Christian theologian;

"If you believe what you like in the Gospel,
and reject what you like - it is not the Gospel
you believe, but yourselves." - St. Augustine


I suspect you meant..."..and reject what you do not like..."
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2005 10:34 am
Frank Apisa wrote:
Rex...the bottom line is that you are a gay man in America...

...who champions the god of the Bible...the Republican Party...and the ideals of conservative America...

...all of which would not piss on you if your clothes burst into flames.

Do whatever the hell you want. Steady the hand of these people attempting to cut your throat. But don't for one second argue that your conduct and perspective in this regard are reasonable or logical.

They most assuredly are not.


Frank, if you think you can knock the Bible down by throwing a few labels at me I find that rather desperate...
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2005 10:35 am
Neo is on a fence so he negates his own presence...
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2005 10:50 am
Frank, all you are doing is saying "Rex you are wrong..."

You have very little substance to counter any of my arguments...

Just because you say so (who is advocating blind faith) doesn't make it so...

You need to have parallels, analogies and real life trials to counter my arguments...

Or because, "I can swear real good".

But because I have a logical reason to disagree with a certain point and, of course, what that reason is...

Like, here is a reason: Maybe the reason why some people cannot see God is because... they have their (spiritual) eyes closed? Was that something you even considered when you made up your mind Frank?

Some people are born blind and some become blind...
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2005 12:22 pm
RexRed wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Rex...the bottom line is that you are a gay man in America...

...who champions the god of the Bible...the Republican Party...and the ideals of conservative America...

...all of which would not piss on you if your clothes burst into flames.

Do whatever the hell you want. Steady the hand of these people attempting to cut your throat. But don't for one second argue that your conduct and perspective in this regard are reasonable or logical.

They most assuredly are not.


Frank, if you think you can knock the Bible down by throwing a few labels at me I find that rather desperate...


I don't throw the labels at you, Rex. I would not even know about the labels if you hadn't brought them forward for consideration.

I think a gay male in this country supporting the god of the Bible...the Republican Party...and conservative America...

...is a goddam fool.

You may not like that...but that is how I feel.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2005 12:27 pm
RexRed wrote:
Frank, all you are doing is saying "Rex you are wrong..."

You have very little substance to counter any of my arguments...


You are kidding here, aren't you.

I have more substance in each of most of my posts than you have in your entire time at Abuzz and A2K. Gimme a goddam break.


Quote:

Just because you say so (who is advocating blind faith) doesn't make it so...


What are you talking about???? How about a particular. Jesus Christ...and you have the nerve to talk about me lacking substance.


Quote:
You need to have parallels, analogies and real life trials to counter my arguments...


BE SPECIFIC FOR CHRISSAKE!

Your 'arguments", Rex, are the arguments of an adolescent. I have absolutely no problem with your silly "arguements."

Or because, "I can swear real good".

Quote:

Like, here is a reason: Maybe the reason why some people cannot see God is because... they have their (spiritual) eyes closed?


And maybe there is no f*****g god to see.

I DO NOT KNOW!

What makes you so goddam certain that you do?


Quote:

Was that something you even considered when you made up your mind Frank?


EARTH CALLING REX.....EARTH CALLING REX.

What are you smoking, boy?

I am an agnostic. I do not know if a God exists...or if no gods exist.

Boy...are you thick!


Quote:
Some people are born blind and some become blind...


And some are as sholes. What is your point?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2005 12:32 pm
Frank, Amen to that! I would also include the soldiers that are fighting the war in Iraq. Why they would continue to support this administration is a big mystery; dying for lies and destroying the identity of a CIA undercover operative by this administration is not my idea of patriotism.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2005 01:01 pm
Note to Frank: Depending on the translation from Latin, the phrase rendered in that quote as "what you like" also may be interpreted "as you wish" or "as you please" ... so Augustine said what he meant and meant what he said. Never the less, I'm sure you get the point.

Note to Rex: I submit you have yet to present an argument; to this point you've engaged in nothing but straw man fallacies, sophistry, emotionalism, and circular logic.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2005 01:06 pm
RexRed wrote:
Amigo wrote:
RexRed wrote:
Amigo wrote:
RexRed wrote:
Amigo wrote:
Religion is a product of man not god.It is as flawed and self-rightous as men.So I believe there can be no one true Religon.None of them could be totally right.Only god is perfect.Religion is not an answer it's a barrier.



What would you prefer a barrier between you and people or a barrier between you and God?
I don't prefer either but if I had to I would choose a barrier between me and god.It would be selfish to choose god over people. We the living. Thats what matters, not god.What point are you trying to demonsrate


Yea, let's ignore our creator so we can pretend we are Gods...

Then we don't have to worry about the "self-righteous" Bible... (sarcasm)


Ro 10:3
For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

Php 3:9
And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
Why does god give us the power of logic and reason and then ask us to abandon it. Are you saying I can't be right without god.I know murder is wrong with or without god. Only I understand it is wrong without blind faith. What if god tells me to kill the infidels?Is that rightous? Now I'm self-rightous and pretending to be god because I don't like religion.You have judged me I have not judged you.Through your bible I have been judged for thinking.





We are born with the "nature" of the world... [things get worse and worse or corrupt]

We need to receive the "nature" of God... [things get better and better]

2Pe 1:4
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Comment:

The emphasis is not to make ourselves good for God... but, we rescue God from the sin placed on him by the world and render God holy
Again the emphasis is not to make ourselves holy before Christ and confess all of our sins... but, we confess the saviour from sin...

We do not have our own righteousness but the righteousness of God...
Oh, how holy and rightous you are to rescue god (No less) from us stupid,blind sinners.Will you please let me burn in hell forever for placing my filthy sin on god? I'm not like you. Your belittlement and judgement has made me see the light. God should give you a sword so you can save him from the world,Make the world right. You are divine we are savages. "The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad" -Friedrich Nietzsche
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2005 06:13 pm
Amigo wrote:

"The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad" -Friedrich Nietzsche


I love IT. Nietzsche is a genius.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/05/2025 at 01:57:16