cicerone imposter wrote:Let's see; not all christians who claim to be a christian is not a christian. Some on this forum claoim to be a christian. Hard to tell which ones are christians. Maybe intrepid can identify the christians for us. It's prolly like interpreting the bible; only the few are blessed to know it's true meaning.
Maybe I can CI. Nay, but it is easier to interpret the bible than to interpret what CI has to say to the people. Does it matter that much to you CI? Are you profiling?
Nah, just curious. You guys have special powers that defies logic.
Will the true god please stand up?
Neo, the Abrahamic mythopaeia is the collection of writings and traditions foundational to the 3 major faith sets which are associated with the Abraham of the bible; Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
When I ask "what about the Abrahamic mythopaeia validates it - let alone elevates its Protestant Christian subset 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?" I am asking an honest, pointed, pertinent question, a question none of the ptro-religionist participants in this discussion have addressed in any manner other than by preaching, proselytizing, and parroting. No reasoned, logical, forenically valid, scientifically derived support for the primacy of any religion has been provided so far in this discussion. While the proposition of the primacy of Protestant Christian theo-philosophy is vigorously proclaimed, iin no way has that proposition been validate, nor have the series of contingent propositions which fiorst would have to be validated to allow validation of the Protestant Christian proposition. Proceeding from unproven assumptions - without establishing that such assumptions might even be warranted, is no way to make a case. One simply cannot found a valid argument on an illicit premise, an unproven assumption, yet there are those here who champion a proposition which is dependent upon an entire string of unproven assumptions.
In this discusasion, it has not been established that any religious belief set is valid, let alone more valid than any other - no differentiation has been made between religious belief and superstition.
Now, there are those in this discussion firmly convinced of one proposition or another, and who press their case apparently to the limit of their abillities to do so. Whether or not there is foundation to their proposition, none has been produced.
Why should a late-medeival/early rennaisance-derived European, egalitarian offshoot of a more ancient patriarchal, Romanized Graeco-Syrian offshoot of Judaism, itself born of Mesopotamian and Assyrian traditions, seasoned with Egyptian and Baylonian culture, be any more valid than Hinduism, or Buddism, or Islam, or Jainism, or Zoroastriansim, or Pantheism, or tree worship?
maporsche wrote:Intrepid wrote:maporsche wrote:timberlandko wrote:responding to one more of real life's ludicrous inanities, maporsche wrote: ... Is that what you have to do to be a good Christian, become an expert in misrepresenting/misreading text?
Whether or not he has to be " ... an expert in misrepresenting/misreading text" its one thing he manages to do well - nearly without equal, I would venture to say, apart from a couple other co-proponents of his proposition in this discussion.
Agreed.
Whether or not he misreads or misrepresents text, as you claim, has absolutely no bearing on being a good Christian. And, if you have something to say about "other co-propoonents why not go ahead and name them. Neither of you take this seriously and seem to enjoy making fun at others people's expense.
Unfortunately I take this VERY seriously. Gandhi once said "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians, Your Christians are so unlike your Christ". Christians have become so adept at misrepresenting/misreading the bible that Christ's intentions are no longer being followed. This doesn't concern me in the slightest, until someone tries to force Christ's beliefs upon me. Some of his beliefs/views are very noble and humane, and I would follow them. I am not anti-Christ, but I am anti-current-Christianity, which has little to do with Christ anymore.
Your conception of Christ's teaching seems to be more along the socialist-pacifist political spectrum and not much to do with what He really taught.
Since you have as little to do with Christ as you possibly can on a daily basis, I don't think that you are the best indicator of what is and what is not Christ's teaching.
real life wrote:maporsche wrote:Intrepid wrote:maporsche wrote:timberlandko wrote:responding to one more of real life's ludicrous inanities, maporsche wrote: ... Is that what you have to do to be a good Christian, become an expert in misrepresenting/misreading text?
Whether or not he has to be " ... an expert in misrepresenting/misreading text" its one thing he manages to do well - nearly without equal, I would venture to say, apart from a couple other co-proponents of his proposition in this discussion.
Agreed.
Whether or not he misreads or misrepresents text, as you claim, has absolutely no bearing on being a good Christian. And, if you have something to say about "other co-propoonents why not go ahead and name them. Neither of you take this seriously and seem to enjoy making fun at others people's expense.
Unfortunately I take this VERY seriously. Gandhi once said "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians, Your Christians are so unlike your Christ". Christians have become so adept at misrepresenting/misreading the bible that Christ's intentions are no longer being followed. This doesn't concern me in the slightest, until someone tries to force Christ's beliefs upon me. Some of his beliefs/views are very noble and humane, and I would follow them. I am not anti-Christ, but I am anti-current-Christianity, which has little to do with Christ anymore.
Your conception of Christ's teaching seems to be more along the socialist-pacifist political spectrum and not much to do with what He really taught.
Since you have as little to do with Christ as you possibly can on a daily basis, I don't think that you are the best indicator of what is and what is not Christ's teaching.
Are you much more prepared to tell me what Christ really thought? I can read/understand Christ's words as well (and apparently better) as you can.
You have no idea what I do and do not know about Christianity. I've posted before, but I'll do it again, I was a devoted Christian for 13 years. I went on a mission trip to Sao Paolo, Brazil for two weeks, Mexico City for 6 weeks, and in many urban areas around Seattle/Tacoma. I have read, followed, and studied the bible. Please tell me that I do not understand.
You betcha. There is no god.
maporsche wrote:real life wrote:maporsche wrote:Intrepid wrote:maporsche wrote:timberlandko wrote:responding to one more of real life's ludicrous inanities, maporsche wrote: ... Is that what you have to do to be a good Christian, become an expert in misrepresenting/misreading text?
Whether or not he has to be " ... an expert in misrepresenting/misreading text" its one thing he manages to do well - nearly without equal, I would venture to say, apart from a couple other co-proponents of his proposition in this discussion.
Agreed.
Whether or not he misreads or misrepresents text, as you claim, has absolutely no bearing on being a good Christian. And, if you have something to say about "other co-propoonents why not go ahead and name them. Neither of you take this seriously and seem to enjoy making fun at others people's expense.
Unfortunately I take this VERY seriously. Gandhi once said "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians, Your Christians are so unlike your Christ". Christians have become so adept at misrepresenting/misreading the bible that Christ's intentions are no longer being followed. This doesn't concern me in the slightest, until someone tries to force Christ's beliefs upon me. Some of his beliefs/views are very noble and humane, and I would follow them. I am not anti-Christ, but I am anti-current-Christianity, which has little to do with Christ anymore.
Your conception of Christ's teaching seems to be more along the socialist-pacifist political spectrum and not much to do with what He really taught.
Since you have as little to do with Christ as you possibly can on a daily basis, I don't think that you are the best indicator of what is and what is not Christ's teaching.
Are you much more prepared to tell me what Christ really thought? I can read/understand Christ's words as well (and apparently better) as you can.
You have no idea what I do and do not know about Christianity. I've posted before, but I'll do it again, I was a devoted Christian for 13 years. I went on a mission trip to Sao Paolo, Brazil for two weeks, Mexico City for 6 weeks, and in many urban areas around Seattle/Tacoma. I have read, followed, and studied the bible. Please tell me that I do not understand.
I have a very clear idea of what you do and do not know about Christianity. That is, unless what you say and what you think are two different things.
You have made it clear that, in your estimation, few if any Christians today follow Christ's teaching. Oh my. Do you mean they are SINNERS ? Isn't that what they told you they were? You mean they have just as many faults as YOU DO?
How could God possibly put up with them?
cicerone imposter wrote:You betcha. There is no god.
But it is not faith that makes you believe that you are right, is it?
Well maybe it's about time you told us what
does make you BELIEVE you are right?
What makes you hold to this BELIEF of yours in spite of the fact that you have no evidence to prove it?
real life, When are you going to answer Frank and timber's questions about your religion? We're all waiting. I'll answer your question AFTER you answer theirs. But I got a feeling I won't have to bother.
cicerone imposter wrote:real life, When are you going to answer Frank and timber's questions about your religion? We're all waiting. I'll answer your question AFTER you answer theirs. But I got a feeling I won't have to bother.
If you read my challenge to Timber to frame an honest question, you'll know I'm waiting.
Honest question? ROFLMAO You mean the kind that won't embarrass you?
cicerone imposter wrote:Honest question? ROFLMAO You mean the kind that won't embarrass you?
No I mean an honest question. But if I need any advice on being embarrassed, I'll consider you an expert.
And now you take refuge in ad hominem, real life - like it or not, that comes real close to a default defeat, an admission of failed argument.
Now, what part of "what about the Abrahamic mythopaeia validates it - let alone elevates its Protestant Christian subset 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?" gives you difficulty?
timberlandko wrote:And now you take refuge in ad hominem, real life - like it or not, that comes real close to a default defeat, an admission of failed argument.
Now, what part of "what about the Abrahamic mythopaeia validates it - let alone elevates its Protestant Christian subset 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?" gives you difficulty?
There's Timber reciting his Gelatinous Mass.
And why do YOU believe in myths, Timber?
cicerone imposter wrote:real life, When are you going to answer Frank and timber's questions about your religion? We're all waiting. I'll answer your question AFTER you answer theirs. But I got a feeling I won't have to bother.
Gotta love that one. 'Nuh uh. My friends asked you first. I don't hafta tell you nuttin'. '
Thanks for taking us all back down memory lane to when we were 6, Imposter.
Timber's absolutely correct that "real" life takes refuge in sneers and personal remarks rather than answer the question, which is central to the titular theme of this thread.
The title of this thread is "Which Religion is the One True Religion?"--and therefore, Timber has asked a very simple and crucial question with regard to that topic. So as to remove the "weasel room" from that question, i'll restate his question absent any language which one might contend pre-supposes an answer:
Quote:What about the Abrahamic religious tradition validates it, let alone elevates its Protestant Christian subset above any competing religious tradition? What, apart from conviction and passion on the parts of its adherents, differentiates it, or any of them, from superstition?
Framed in that manner, there is no
a priori assumption about the character of a response. Any of the devout here willing to take a crack at it?
neologist wrote:I just realized I've been absent for 15 pages.
Really???
Jeez....
Quote:
Why all this talk about heaven and immortality of the soul? Do you think I am just spilling vegetable soup when I point out that the soul does not survive death?
No.
At least I don't.
I think you are just mouthing words.
Quote: I'll be happy to give the references again; but folks: when you're dead, you're dead.
Of course, you are going to give "references" from that book of myths that is so screwed up one can damn near reference anything one wants.
And of course, if anyone "references" anything that suggests that, according to its mythology, the soul does survive death...you will simply discount it...right?
Quote:There's more. But this should keep me going.
Are you having a bowl movement?
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:shiyacic aleksandar wrote:Rise above your mechanical mind and youll understand My meaning.
No, I have to agree with timberlandko. You sir, do nothing but spout complete nonsense or phrases of blatant obvious that look logical, but has barely no relevance to what we are discussing.
In your last post, you said:
shiyacic aleksandar wrote:That what is born will certanly die...
You don't say? Goodness, what a revelation! I thought we would live forever! I thought we'd stay young forever and never die! (And just in case you didn't understand, I was being sarcastic).
shiyacic aleksandar wrote:Find what never takes birth nor dies and youll find the secret of immortality.
My freaking panties! What a revelation! That was so blindingly obvious I can't [CENSORED] see! Where do you come up with this stuff? I must dissect your mind and find out the source of your brilliance! (End of Sarcasm)
Is there some kind of hamster inside there running a wheel? Maybe a sole green pea? Did you even read what CI and Frank posted?
Frank Apisa wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
"...when/if I get there." I got good news and bad news for you, Intrepid. The good news is you'll die like everybody else and rot after the bugs take over your body. The bad news is, your body and whatever you call spirit (your brain activity) will disappear for eternity after you quit breathing for the last time. All the time and effort you wasted in thinking there is life after death is for naught. there is no god and there is no heaven or hell. It's only us and this planet earth.
Well...we really do not know that either, ci. But that is an interesting guess.
They were talking about the afterlife, not eternal life in a body, which is clearly what you were talking about. And then you have the cheek to say our minds are too mechanical?
All minds are freaking mechanical. It's just that some have loose screws and some have lost their screws altogether.
As for the rest of your religious people, I have no qualms about religious people. Some of the friends I made could have been religious and were very nice, but I certainly didn't know they were religious because they saw it fit not to try to wear their religion on their sleeve, brandishing it about like some Gay Pride Flag.
The problem is that there's an influential number of religionists try their best to force their religion down our throat.
In our country, the teaching of Christianity in schools is enforced by law. Oh, but there's a number that aren't satisfied with that. They want Christianity to infiltrate every single lesson.
Thank Goodness they aren't in big numbers over here. But over there in the US. I can see loads. They're trying to force Christianity into the science classes with Creationism and ID, none of which are even proper science. They're influencing the President, they're trying to get therapeutic stem cell research banned...
Well, I don't know and I apologise to anyone who was offended, but I was pretty offended by some of the remarks in this thread.
Instead of being childish one must become,one day a true and devote seeker of Truth.
Separate yourself from illusions of your mind and body and your real "I" will appear as clearly as you are now loking at you bottle of whiskey,for exemple.
Detachment is the first step in spirituality and all those who are still attached to "their" parents, wives,friends,cousins and so on are not even in the first class of spirituality.RE-read the new testament and see what Jesus said about it.
Surf on Inner net not on internet! :wink:
