Which Religion is the One True Religion?

Controlling the vagaries of your mind is the best way ,when one day youll really have knowledge to take use of it,to avoid foolish comments!

I arrived at my decision about refuting the bible from actual human history and how religion has been responsible for many of man's sufferings. I didn't study the bible extensively, but know there are many contradictions and flaws in the good book - and can't reconcile the claim they are the literal word of god. Logic and science speaks louder to me.

You must leave behind common sense and logic to enter your door. No thanks.

timberlandko wrote:

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.

Thank you, Timber.

I have studied the Bible and modern Christianity extensively....and I am happy that I did. I feel I am on solid ground in my rejection of it.

Frank Apisa wrote:

timberlandko wrote:

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.

Thank you, Timber.

I have studied the Bible and modern Christianity extensively....and I am happy that I did. I feel I am on solid ground in my rejection of it.

That makes 2 of us, Frank. While I don't share your politics, our respective philosophies otherwise seem at once to be quite similar, and similarly based.

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 blatantly 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 blatantly 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?

I accept many sources of truth. You have many assertions in your post; let me address just one as so many pages of erudition as well as BS have transpired since:

I have taken the time to review the apparent inconsistencies of the bible one at a time and am satisfied they may all be reconciled to truth/reality. True, I haven't considered all, but each one I dissect comes out in favor of the bible as a whole.

For example, you talk of apocryphal books not included in the bible canon. All that I have considered contain references to doctrines such as the immortality of the soul, an idea not supported either by scripture or rational anaysis.

The power of that belief is incredible. Yet, it is one of the major traps used by religions to control their adherents.

Instead, the bible promises that, at some future time, all who have never known God will have a chance to make their own choice of whether or not they will accept God's promise first made to Adam and Eve.

Nothing to be afraid of there.

Are you saying that you have considered the material from the Bible...and you have come to the intellectual conclusion that it makes more sense to suppose that the senisibilities and instructions contained in it actually came from a GOD (the GOD that created the universe)....rather than from humans who simply put their own sensibilities and instructions into the mouth of a god they invented?

What on earth would cause you to come to that conclusion?

Would you be willing to discuss a half-dozen or so particular passages...and tell me why your intellect tells you that it is more likely this came from a god....than from a human?

I'll be glad to discuss them with you.

timberlandko wrote:

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.

Thank you, Timber.

I have studied the Bible and modern Christianity extensively....and I am happy that I did. I feel I am on solid ground in my rejection of it.

I don't know why you guys bother to try a rational discussion with Jesus there . . . that boy sounds just like somebody trippin' on psylocybin mushrooms . . . and he makes about as much sense . . . took me literally hours to discover that he claims to be thirty-three years of age, and to have been born in what was once Yugoslavia . . . took seconds to realize he's on a messianic martyrdom trip and that English is definitely not his first language. For entertainment he's fine; for rational debate, go find a stray cat, you'll get more sense out of them.

Frank Apisa wrote:

timberlandko wrote:

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.

Thank you, Timber.

I have studied the Bible and modern Christianity extensively....and I am happy that I did. I feel I am on solid ground in my rejection of it.

Frank,

Would you consider yourself an expert in steak if:

you have looked at steak,

smelled steak,

seen steak being grilled,

studied the chemical ingredients in steak,

talked to folks who love steak,

talked to folks who hated steak,

talked to folks who couldn't care less about steak,

read the writings of nutritionists who touted the benefits of steak,

heard the dire warnings of those who insisted it was dangerous,

chemically analyzed steak in the laboratory ---

-----but never had tasted steak?

Frank Apisa wrote:

Are you saying that you have considered the material from the Bible...and you have come to the intellectual conclusion that it makes more sense to suppose that the senisibilities and instructions contained in it actually came from a GOD (the GOD that created the universe)....rather than from humans who simply put their own sensibilities and instructions into the mouth of a god they invented?

What on earth would cause you to come to that conclusion?

Would you be willing to discuss a half-dozen or so particular passages...and tell me why your intellect tells you that it is more likely this came from a god....than from a human?

I'll be glad to discuss them with you.

Start with your favorite and we'll go from there.

Actually....there are people who have never had a baby....and consider themselves experts in having ....babies.

You got a problem with that...deal with it. Question me on it if you choose. But stay away from long list of bullshyt that doesn't apply.

It makes you look like a schnook.