Which Religion is the One True Religion?

Indubitably - and one with little patience for parrots.

0 Replies

Quote:

SN95, If you're looking for logic in the bible, you are not going to find it. It's a mesh-mash of contradictions and flaws. Only the appointed christians understand how to read it for it's meaning. All the rest of us are relegated to guesses on how to interpret them.

Actually, anyone who looks for understanding in the bible will find it. The approach you all (set, ci, frank, etc) have taken to the understanding of the bible is ridiculous. Instead of trying to prove the bible right, you have simply been able to just dismiss everything as 'fairy tales'. It is like you are using a map to find error and contradiction, and you aren't even looking for understanding and truth.

0 Replies

Parrots are very annoying birds, although i once taunted the parrot of a friend who was being annoying (the parrot, not the friend), and then felt badly about it later, because the creature was so defenseless.

I sometimes feel that way here, which is why i disappear from such threads for long periods of time. I read, but i don't comment. Take Jesus, for example. That guy is well-meaning, but profoundly deluded. It is a very cruel thing to taunt him, so i don't do it any more. I try as best his lack of command of the language and his residence in fantasy land allow to engage him in discussion. It is usually a pointless exercise, but cruelty toward him would be the equivalent of tormenting a defenseless animal.

0 Replies

thunder_runner32, one achieves understanding objectively, seeking neither to "Prove" a thing or condition to be right or to prove that thing or condition be wrong, but rather working to determine, without preconception or prejudice, the actual, evidenced, independently verifiable qualities of that thing or condition. The simple fact of the matter is that religionists - particularly those afflicted with a fondness for the Abrahamic mythopaeia - provide no forensically valid defense of their absurd assertions. "I'm right because the Bible says so" is a ludicrous proposition, which, in the end, is all the proponents of the silly notion can bring to the argument.

0 Replies

SN95 wrote:

Neo,

Let me try to grasp all of this. Slavery is wrong, can we at least agree on this?

Knowing slavery is wrong and not his intention, why couldn't the God of the bible just come out and say "Slavery is wrong." That's basically what he did in the ten commandments. Murder is wrong, coveting others possessions is wrong, worshipping other Gods is wrong. Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not covet, etc. etc.. He had an easy time telling people what to do in all of those instances, why stop here?

So instead of just coming out and saying slavery is wrong, God instead endorses and regulates it. How is this logical?

*Edit: typo

Divorce was never a part of God's plan; but it also was permitted and regulated. Something to think about. I'll be offline now as I have to leave San Diego without first getting to see my new granddaughter. I'll have more on this later.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

SN95 wrote:
Neo,

Let me try to grasp all of this. Slavery is wrong, can we at least agree on this?

Knowing slavery is wrong and not his intention, why couldn't the God of the bible just come out and say "Slavery is wrong." That's basically what he did in the ten commandments. Murder is wrong, coveting others possessions is wrong, worshipping other Gods is wrong. Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not covet, etc. etc.. He had an easy time telling people what to do in all of those instances, why stop here?

So instead of just coming out and saying slavery is wrong, God instead endorses and regulates it. How is this logical?

*Edit: typo
Divorce was never a part of God's plan...

Is that so???

Did he tell you that privately?

Or is it written somewhere where the rest of us cannot get at it?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

You continue to side-step the issue of the wide-spread christian support for slavery.

I think I've made it quite clear that my agreement is with the abolitionist side of the argument, not the pro-slavery side. So asking me to defend someone else's position is a bit useless, don't you think?

But perhaps you should ask yourself why someone --anyone-- would support it, since you seem to be the one incapable of stating point blank that you think that the goal of the abolitionist was correct.

0 Replies

Frank, Don't you know? Some people have a direct line to god; they speak to him all the time, and are also spoken to. It's called a two-way communication. Only special people have this privilege. They're called christians.

0 Replies

Mebbe I'm missing something here, but it seems to me, real life, that not only have you missed the point of Set's challenge, or that you consciously avoid engaging the argument presented therein, but also you have attempted to reframe it and presented yet another unwarranted assertion. Further, it appears ever increasingly clear to me that not only do you hold a view of history at odds with the mainstream, but that your argument is not presented in accordance with proper forensics. I would say that in this discussion, it would appear you are out of your depth. Like I said, though, mebbe that's just how it appears to me.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Frank, Don't you know? Some people have a direct line to god; they speak to him all the time, and are also spoken to. It's called a two-way communication. Only special people have this privilege. They're called christians.

Maybe there's a DVD bible with bonus footage that we just haven't been told about.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Mebbe I'm missing something here

You are.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

I think I've made it quite clear that my agreement is with the abolitionist side of the argument, not the pro-slavery side. So asking me to defend someone else's position is a bit useless, don't you think?

But perhaps you should ask yourself why someone --anyone-- would support it, since you seem to be the one incapable of stating point blank that you think that the goal of the abolitionist was correct.

That is not the point at all, and attempting to get me to acknowledge the obvious justice of the abolitionist point of view is just another dodge on your part. You were challenged with the scriptural support for slavery. Rather than answer that challenge, you have ranted on about abolitionists, and in the process demonstrated a profound ignorance of the period in which the abolitionists were active.

No one has asked you to defend the point of view of slave holders. You have held christians up as moral people because there were abolitionist, and you will not face the fact that people who were to their own minds good christians found scriptural support for their participation in or support of slavery. This is an important issue because it goes to the heart of the arrogance of the religious fanatics who try to assume the moral high ground when their scripture is obtuse and contradictory, and subject to an interpretation which supports a host of abuses. One of the first publicly courageous atheists in this country, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, was an abolitionist with the courage to preach her beliefs in the South in the days before the American Civil War--which is a hell of a lot more courage than the mealy-mouthed abolitionists of New England displayed, living in the lap of luxury supplied by their ancestors' profits from the slave trade.

Being christian did not make people abolitionists, conviction did. Not being christian did not prevent people from being abolitionist if they had the courage of their convictions. Religion does not make a bad man good; the want of religion does not make a good man bad. You refuse to acknowledge these points because you are desparately devoted to a religionist principle.

You are way out of your depth here, especially when it comes to history. Frank and Neologist can shoot you down time and again on scripture, and it's child's play for the Big Bird or I to shoot you down on history. You're clutching at straws.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
I think I've made it quite clear that my agreement is with the abolitionist side of the argument, not the pro-slavery side. So asking me to defend someone else's position is a bit useless, don't you think?

But perhaps you should ask yourself why someone --anyone-- would support it, since you seem to be the one incapable of stating point blank that you think that the goal of the abolitionist was correct.

That is not the point at all, and attempting to get me to acknowledge the obvious justice of the abolitionist point of view is just another dodge on your part. You were challenged with the scriptural support for slavery. Rather than answer that challenge, you have ranted on about abolitionists, and in the process demonstrated a profound ignorance of the period in which the abolitionists were active.

No one has asked you to defend the point of view of slave holders. You have held christians up as moral people because there were abolitionist, and you will not face the fact that people who were to their own minds good christians found scriptural support for their participation in or support of slavery. This is an important issue because it goes to the heart of the arrogance of the religious fanatics who try to assume the moral high ground when their scripture is obtuse and contradictory, and subject to an interpretation which supports a host of abuses. One of the first publicly courageous atheists in this country, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, was an abolitionist with the courage to preach her beliefs in the South in the days before the American Civil War--which is a hell of a lot more courage than the mealy-mouthed abolitionists of New England displayed, living in the lap of luxury supplied by their ancestors' profits from the slave trade.

Being christian did not make people abolitionists, conviction did. Not being christian did not prevent people from being abolitionist if they had the courage of their convictions. Religion does not make a bad man good; the want of religion does not make a good man bad. You refuse to acknowledge these points because you are desparately devoted to a religionist principle.

You are way out of your depth here, especially when it comes to history. Frank and Neologist can shoot you down time and again on scripture, and it's child's play for the Big Bird or I to shoot you down on history. You're clutching at straws.

AMEN!

Life, if you are gonna argue history....best you choose someone other than Set to argue with because he is a walking encyclopedia of history....and can come up with any page in a second or two.

I do lots of arguing with Set on lots of things....but I steer completely clear of history....or historical references when I'm in combat with him.

You'd do well to do the same.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
Mebbe I'm missing something here

You are.

What I don't have, real life, is irrational guilt, unreasoned superstition, ignorance-based fear, self-serving equivocation, and fairy tales.

The religionist argument on the other hand consists of nothing but irrational guilt, unreasoned superstition, ignorance-based fear, self-serving equivocation, and fairy tales.

I don't miss that intellectually bankrupt mental slavery a bit. Once in a while, it comes about that I find myself having been deluded ... all of us do. I choose not to serve as an active participant in my own delusion, though, nor to embrace delusion as a philosophy.

I've mentioned before, there are reasoned, able, logical, non-circular arguments for the religionist point of view. None so far have been even approached, let alone forwarded and prosecuted in this discussion. "Faith" and "Understanding" or "Acceptance", in the religionist sense,and as presented in this discussion, are not answers, they are not arguments, they are but excuses, evasions, delusions, equivocations.

The unsupported assumptions on which is based the position you fail to present successfully are many, among which would be:

1) There must be a deistic entity.
2) There is a deistic entity
3) This deistic entity consciously and purposefully involves itself with the functioning of the universe
4) This diestic entity consciously and purposefully involves itself with the affairs of humankind
5) This diestic entity is the deistic entity central to the Abrahamic mythopaeia, to the exclusion of any and all other deistic concepts
6) This deistic entity is specific to the Christian subset of the Abrahamic mythopaeia (A subset for which many further assumptions must be made, but never mind)
7) This deistic entity is further specific to the Protestant subset of the Christian subset of the Abrahamic mythopaeia
8) This Protestant Christian deistic entity has formed a covenant with humankind
9) This deistic entity has conveyed that covenant to humankind via a collection of canonical texts
10) This deistic entity communicates on an individual basis with humankind

There are more, many more, but that will suffice for the point. Way too many assumptions are required - so many that probability doesn't even enter the equation. The proposition, as commonly presented, simply cannot be taken seriously. Its all a guess, and those who guess religion has no valid basis debate from a far stronger position than do those who guess in favor of religion. Weakest of all proponents of the religionist philosophy are those who debate from the Evangelical Christian point of view - those unfortunates are so encumbered by assumptions as to make true discovery, reason and understanding unachieveable.

0 Replies

I stay clear of both Frank and Set for the reasons explained above. Wink

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I stay clear of both Frank and Set for the reasons explained above.

I agree with Frank and Setanta on most issues, this one in particular (the original topic of discussion).

However, if you do not agree with them I challenge you to not "stay clear" as Cicerone Imposter and even Frank have stated. I challenge you to research and learn and come up with valid arguments to contradict their own.

While they both may be knowledgable in their particular areas, they are not infallible (nor do they claim to be). So do not stay clear, if you truly believe your point to be the truth, then argue back, just don't waste anyone's time with your mental laziness and dependence on the bible.

0 Replies

Wait a minute . . . i forgot to point out that i'm infallible ? ! ? ! ?

Damn, you get all wrapped up in so many other things, and forget to tie up all the loose ends.

0 Replies

Frank and Set know me well enough to know we don't agree on everything, but then, who does?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Wait a minute . . . i forgot to point out that i'm infallible ? ! ? ! ?

Damn, you get all wrapped up in so many other things, and forget to tie up all the loose ends.

Huge laugh.

No wonder Beth thinks you are the funniest guy on the planet.

:wink:

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Frank and Set know me well enough to know we don't agree on everything, but then, who does?

You mean we have agreed on something.

Like Set....I must be slippin'.

0 Replies

Which Religion is the One True Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know