Which Religion is the One True Religion?

I agree that the clergy has obscured the truth to the point that we will most likely never know the true origins of Christianity. What I do not understand is why you still revere the bible, the very instrument created by and used by the institution you despise so much. You and I have both discussed the collation of the bible, it's origins, and the political agenda behind it. However, for some odd reason you can find no truth anywhere else but in this book which excludes hundreds of credible works, is blantantly erroneous, and subject to the whims of political rulers who have subservience as their numer one agenda.

If, as some assert, we are to take the bible as divine inspiration then we must then assume the man responsible for the bible's collation was also divinely inspired. It was he (Emperor Constantine) who decided what belonged and what did not. Not God, not Jesus, and not any of the disciples. This man, murderer of his own wife and child, is whom you choose to look to as your sole path to spiritual enlightenment. Why?

shiyacic aleksandar wrote:

Dear friends,

I would say that we all live in Truth.It is Gods nickname!

Sounds to me like someone who is in love with his/her guesses about the unknown.

Pathetic!

neologist wrote:

Frank; Do you see a difference between faith and superstition, or are they synonymous?

They are not synonymous....and are only distantly related.

Superstition arises out of a fear of the unknown. All this "I love god" bullshyt is really nothing more than fear and superstition.

"Faith" is nothing more than insisting that a blind guess about the unknown is correct.

My guess is that Christ looked more like Rodney Dangerfield than SA's avatar.

The world would be a much, much better place without you religious nuts **** it up.

Obviously, you do not have the guts or intelligence to see this....but, my love of humanity and compassion for you requires that I attempt to get through the concrete in your skull.

Frank Apisa wrote:

shiyacic aleksandar wrote:

Dear friends,

I would say that we all live in Truth.It is Gods nickname!

Sounds to me like someone who is in love with his/her guesses about the unknown.

Pathetic!

Frank, first, you don't "know" they are "guesses"

... But you respond as if you "know" God in some way we don't... Just because you have denied God and thus have no "experience" with God does not make you "more" knowledgable about a God you refuse to converse with... Yet, you are sure this experience is "pathetic"... Perhaps only your experience is such.

....but you claim God cannot be "known".

You opinions cancel each other out. You cannot herald something with no authority. Can't you see the basic simple logic in that. It is like flicking on a light switch and denying light. You cannot use light to disprove light. You cannot warn us of a God that cannot be known... you cannot use knowledge of God to prove there is no knowledge of God. I have evidence that God exists you have no evidence at all.

You have to jump so many hoops to deny God that, is it really worth it? All for you own deluded self deification. How thin and transparent can one be?

Frank Apisa wrote:

neologist wrote:

Frank; Do you see a difference between faith and superstition, or are they synonymous?

They are not synonymous....and are only distantly related.

Superstition arises out of a fear of the unknown. All this "I love god" bullshyt is really nothing more than fear and superstition.

"Faith" is nothing more than insisting that a blind guess about the unknown is correct.

Frank how can you honestly define faith when you have no "rule of faith".

Frank Apisa wrote:

My guess is that Christ looked more like Rodney Dangerfield than SA's avatar.

Seems like you are the one guessing here...

The problem is deeper than no respect...

Jesus was beaten beyond recognition as a human...

...and you find this a source for humor?

This is one of the first things that (true) Christians obtain from God a sense of tenderness and sensitivity toward others... You could use a little holy spirit Frank, it would smooth off the rough edges of your cantankerous demeanor.

Frank Apisa wrote:

The world would be a much, much better place without you religious nuts **** it up.

Obviously, you do not have the guts or intelligence to see this....but, my love of humanity and compassion for you requires that I attempt to get through the concrete in your skull.

Frank

Your first mistake, you make your own "guess"... you guess that God cannot be known...

So you conclude that truth cannot be known because God cannot be known.

This is religion. This is a guess that has been placed "above" the word of God.

I submit that one make no guesses at all but to only be concerned with what we "know" about God... (which in your case seems to be very little).

Secondly, you treat the Bible with the same guesses. You exalt this apathetic guesswork above the wisdom of God's word. So it is ok for you and your cohorts to "guess" about the Bible. You reason that you do not have to "study" it to find it's true meaning because you operate with the lethargic premise that it is all guesses anyway and so one more (your own) is meet. I on the other hand do not "intentionally" guess about God and his Word but I study the Bible and let it speak. I do not let my own inability to comprehend another point of view that is different from my own blind me from the truth of God...

neologist wrote:

SN95 wrote:

neologist wrote:

The pagan ideas you are referring to are not supported by the bible. As I said, the obfuscation of truth by the clergy has been for their benefit, not yours or mine.

The bible supports, emphasizes, and mimics just about every major pagan belief there ever was.

Actually, the priestcraft has obfuscated truth to the point where that would, indeed, seem so.

I agree that the clergy has obscured the truth to the point that we will most likely never know the true origins of Christianity. What I do not understand is why you still revere the bible, the very instrument created by and used by the institution you despise so much. You and I have both discussed the collation of the bible, it's origins, and the political agenda behind it. However, for some odd reason you can find no truth anywhere else but in this book which excludes hundreds of credible works, is blantantly erroneous, and subject to the whims of political rulers who have subservience as their numer one agenda.

If, as some assert, we are to take the bible as divine inspiration then we must then assume the man responsible for the bible's collation was also divinely inspired. It was he (Emperor Constantine) who decided what belonged and what did not. Not God, not Jesus, and not any of the disciples. This man, murderer of his own wife and child, is whom you choose to look to as your sole path to spiritual enlightenment. Why?

SN95 wrote:

neologist wrote:

SN95 wrote:

neologist wrote:

The pagan ideas you are referring to are not supported by the bible. As I said, the obfuscation of truth by the clergy has been for their benefit, not yours or mine.

The bible supports, emphasizes, and mimics just about every major pagan belief there ever was.

Actually, the priestcraft has obfuscated truth to the point where that would, indeed, seem so.

I agree that the clergy has obscured the truth to the point that we will most likely never know the true origins of Christianity. What I do not understand is why you still revere the bible, the very instrument created by and used by the institution you despise so much. You and I have both discussed the collation of the bible, it's origins, and the political agenda behind it. However, for some odd reason you can find no truth anywhere else but in this book which excludes hundreds of credible works, is blantantly erroneous, and subject to the whims of political rulers who have subservience as their numer one agenda.

If, as some assert, we are to take the bible as divine inspiration then we must then assume the man responsible for the bible's collation was also divinely inspired. It was he (Emperor Constantine) who decided what belonged and what did not. Not God, not Jesus, and not any of the disciples. This man, murderer of his own wife and child, is whom you choose to look to as your sole path to spiritual enlightenment. Why?

Clergy cannot obscure the written word... The word has checks and balances to keep it solid. Only the religions that place themselves around the word contain bias. Yet, the written word remains true... few actually read the word but instead opt to read what others have to say about the word... this is called, "reading around the word". This is not an accurate approach, one must know the very chapter and verse that affirms their beliefs.

Also
Constantine did not write the Bible... he only had the letters of the Bible assembled into one book. On that logic, Paul the apostle persecuted Christians and after his conversion received the greatest revelation to the church...

God chooses whom he will speak to...

Misinterpretation of the church and its past faults came precisely from the St Paul doctrine and his understandigs of the Jesus message, which was red colored like Mars and who you know it my dear Friends, is the god of war.
The pitty is that everyman has to turn it his own way!
Truth is very simple!And Jesus was very simple!

SN95 wrote:

neologist wrote:

SN95 wrote:

neologist wrote:

The pagan ideas you are referring to are not supported by the bible. As I said, the obfuscation of truth by the clergy has been for their benefit, not yours or mine.

The bible supports, emphasizes, and mimics just about every major pagan belief there ever was.

Actually, the priestcraft has obfuscated truth to the point where that would, indeed, seem so.

I agree that the clergy has obscured the truth to the point that we will most likely never know the true origins of Christianity. What I do not understand is why you still revere the bible, the very instrument created by and used by the institution you despise so much. You and I have both discussed the collation of the bible, it's origins, and the political agenda behind it. However, for some odd reason you can find no truth anywhere else but in this book which excludes hundreds of credible works, is blantantly erroneous, and subject to the whims of political rulers who have subservience as their numer one agenda.

If, as some assert, we are to take the bible as divine inspiration then we must then assume the man responsible for the bible's collation was also divinely inspired. It was he (Emperor Constantine) who decided what belonged and what did not. Not God, not Jesus, and not any of the disciples. This man, murderer of his own wife and child, is whom you choose to look to as your sole path to spiritual enlightenment. Why?

Clergy cannot obscure the written word... The word has checks and balances to keep it solid. Only the religions that place themselves around the word contain bias. Yet, the written word remains true... few actually read the word but instead opt to read what others have to say about the word... this is called, "reading around the word". This is not an accurate approach, one must know the very chapter and verse that affirms their beliefs.

Also
Constantine did not write the Bible... he only had the letters of the Bible assembled into one book. On that logic, Paul the apostle persecuted Christians and after his conversion received the greatest revelation to the church...

God chooses whom he will speak to...

Just an observation here - I would venture to say Frank knows more about the Bible - its content, origins, antecedents, development, variations, and history, than do most folks participating in this discussion. I would venture also to say the same regarding Frank's familiarity with what has become modern Christianity, or, for that matter, religion and religious philosophy in general.