Which Religion is the One True Religion?

Really? What do they do that makes them unacceptable? Perhaps you could give them some direction. You could use the bible as your authority - or you could quote me, I guess - or you could just make something up.

I submit the honest use of the bible might be best.

If you believe the bible, that is.

0 Replies

Ever hear of circular logic/thinking? You can't use the bible to support the bible. That's the reason why science refutes the errors and omissions in the bible. The bible also has contradictions that only people like you can decipher; a special skill that goes beyond logic and straight reading of passages.

0 Replies

Quote, "When people calling themselves Christians are not acting as Christians, are they really Christians?"

Do you call yourself a 'christian?'

0 Replies

"However, I can give a brief answer to the question of what makes a true Christian. It's Jesus' answer actually, made at John 14 34:35: "I am giving YOU a new commandment, that YOU love one another; just as I have loved YOU, that YOU also love one another. 35 By this all will know that YOU are my disciples, if YOU have love among yourselves."

0 Replies

Thou Shalt Not Kill
But weapons are made to kill people. Isn't the Lord against killing? You will read in Exodus 20:13 the command, "Thou shalt not kill." Yet in the next chapter, Exodus 21, God authorizes the taking of life in capital punishment (Verses 12-16). In Exodus 22, God tells the Israelites that it is not murder if a man kills a burglar breaking into his house (Verse 2). In Exodus 23, God approves the fighting of wars (Verses 20-33).

How exactly do you interprest god's love here? That it's okay to kill a burgler breaking into your house for food for his/her starving children?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Ever hear of circular logic/thinking? You can't use the bible to support the bible. That's the reason why science refutes the errors and omissions in the bible. The bible also has contradictions that only people like you can decipher; a special skill that goes beyond logic and straight reading of passages.

OK; You can't use the bible by itself to prove that the bible is the inspired word of God.

The bible make this interesting claim about itself in 2Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight . . ."

So, you should be able to use the bible to teach, reprove, and set things straight.

Why do you think I post in this forum? It is because when I 'preach to the choir' they don't point out my logical flaws; they already believe.

I take the hand grenades you throw into my scriptural soup and do my best to create logical discourse in reply. There may be a few who read my posts and are inspired to read the bible. That would be a fine thing; but I can live without it.

Now, as for your last post; you were the one who (apparently) facetiously mentioned a confrontation with your siblings. I, in turn, simply used your suggestion contrary to intent to create what seemed to be a logical scenario.

0 Replies

My, you are busy. What I thought was your last post wasn't. Sorry; I guess I'm just slow minded.

BTW, the passage you love to quote in Exodus reads "You must not murder."

I believe there is a difference between killing and murder.

As to whether I consider myself a Christian, I am not ignorant of my failings. I find no one on this forum behind me in line for God's love.

0 Replies

"As to whether I consider myself a Christian, I am not ignorant of my failings. I find no one on this forum behind me in line for God's love."

Jeesh, another sinner who calls himself a christian. I repeat your quote, "When people calling themselves Christians are not acting as Christians, are they really Christians?" I don't believe you're a christian by any sense of the word. You seem to think you are above others who call themselves christians. At least you admitted you have "failings." Where you stand in the scheme of christianity is another quesiton all together.

0 Replies

So, in your mind, you can "take a life" that you consider a burgler in your house - in accordance with god's law? You don't consider that "murder?" In the legal system of this country, that is called "murder." It's illegal to commit a crime greater than what is considered "trespassing" or "burglery."

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Ever hear of circular logic/thinking? You can't use the bible to support the bible. That's the reason why science refutes the errors and omissions in the bible. The bible also has contradictions that only people like you can decipher; a special skill that goes beyond logic and straight reading of passages.

Hi C Imposter,

Why cannot the Bible be used in evidence for itself?

If you find an undetermined object, you examine the object itself to figure out the nature of it. You do not go out to the spot where you found it and pick up a completely unrelated object and say "This is the ONLY valid evidence I will use to determine the nature of the unknown object. It is obvious that I cannot examine the object itself to ascertain what it is."

(Of course, related or nearby objects may or not may not be helpful in determining the nature of the found object. It may shed light on your search, or it might be wholly unrelated. Just it's proximity alone wouldn't automatically make it relevant.)

To say that no evidence that the object itself yields is of value seems rather odd, don't you think?

----------------------------------

As for errors and omissions, these two are not the same at all. Just because something is omitted , ( i.e YOU think it should be included , but it is not ) does not indicate error or flaw of any kind. To claim omissions as grounds for rejecting the Bible is just an argument from silence. Not really very relevant either.

---------------------------------

Now if you think you can actually document contradictions in the Bible, have at it. But as I have told others, it is not as easy as it looks.

A good place to start before attempting this would be to read the Bible. All of it. Read it several times over since it is a large and complex document so you can get an idea of the structure as well as the contents.

Don't just quote from your favorite author's "101 Reasons I Don't Believe the Bible". Better know the material before you claim something as a contradiction , which, when examined turns out to be anything but.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

"As to whether I consider myself a Christian, I am not ignorant of my failings. I find no one on this forum behind me in line for God's love."

Jeesh, another sinner who calls himself a christian. I repeat your quote, "When people calling themselves Christians are not acting as Christians, are they really Christians?" I don't believe you're a christian by any sense of the word. You seem to think you are above others who call themselves christians. At least you admitted you have "failings." Where you stand in the scheme of christianity is another quesiton all together.

Jeesh, did I say I was a Christian? OK, I probably did, somewhere.

Where I differ from some who call themselves christian is in my willingness to change. I was born Catholic - christian - right? Well, here is one of the many reasons why I changed:

How did Hitler become Chancellor of Germany? A main player in this drama was Franz von Papen who, under the cloak of anti communism recruited Catholic leaders and industrialists to support Hitler. As a reward, von Papen was appointed vice-chancellor. He then acted as ambassador to Rome to enact a concordat between the Nazi state and the Vatican. Pius XI was delighted to have an ally in the fight against communism.

The concordat was signed in 1933 by von Papen and then Cardinal Pacelli (later to become Pius XII). Hitler had gained the 'moral' support he would need to launch the Third Reich. There's more to the story as you well know.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

... Why cannot the Bible be used in evidence for itself?

If you find an undetermined object, you examine the object itself to figure out the nature of it. You do not go out to the spot where you found it and pick up a completely unrelated object and say "This is the ONLY valid evidence I will use to determine the nature of the unknown object. It is obvious that I cannot examine the object itself to ascertain what it is."

Absolutely ignorant poppycock. A thing or condition appears or purports to have particular attributes. For that thing or condition to be confirmed as having the attributes it seems to present, externally derived, independently corrobarative evidence is required. Such is the very basis of reason, logic, intellectual honesty, the scientific method, and even the central point of the entire nody of the planet's legitimate legal systems.

As for biblical contradictions, only by refusing to acknowledge that they exist may the myriad examples of such, some already cited in this discussion, be dismissed.

No external validatiuon for the Bible exists, though there does exist much credible, well-documented, independently derived information which reveals the work to be an arbitrarilly canonized, imperfectly translated and interpreted collection of folk tales.

If you cannot see the flaws inherent to circular argument and exclusively self-referential validation, and you are given to belief in fantastical tales, then that's your problem. The problem with that problem is that folks inflicted with that problem create so many problems for other folks through their efforts to inflict that problem on other folks. Religion, whatever its stripe, is no answer, it is key among the problems afflicting humankind. Its a problem for all of us.

0 Replies

Well said, timber, but I doubt he understands a word of what you said. Their blindness doesn't allow them to look beyond the little circle they have entrapped themselves into. They would have to negate everything they believed for most of their lives. That's a difficult hurdle to overcome.

0 Replies

I grew up engaging in typical pursuits of an adolescent mind. In the rare instances when my thoughts turned away from concupiscence, I tried to get an understanding of the divine.

Alas, most of what I was being taught: hellfire, trinity, etc. seemed like so much BS. But then I went to college and actually earned a BS. I was so proud. At last, I could understand. But, alas, it was not to be. I had learned about existentialism. Kierkegaard told me I couldn't just be a knight of infinite resignation, I must aspire to become a knight of faith. I was crestfallen

Then someone told me a BS was not sufficient. What I needed was MS. Immediately realizing the MS must mean 'More of the Same', I returned to school. Though I progressed well in my studies, I was still unable to understand the church's support for war, their winking at sexual promiscuity (in spite of it's devastating human effects), and their wish washy support for anything the congregation might want them to teach. It seemed that the bible was being used as ambidexter proof for moral license. Then one of my teachers suggested I needed more.

Realizing that PhD must stand for 'Piled higher and Deeper' I applied to my local grad school. Finally, I could know the truth. YES!

Then someone told me that the bible really didn't teach the things I had been told, that all one needed was to really want to understand.

The first thing I tackled was the life after death BS. I had always figured it was BS because in order to get there, you have to die first! A very undesirable route, as far as I was concerned.

When I was shown that the bible showed God's purpose was for man to live forever on earth, I was on a roll.

I then was able to sift through all of the MS and PhD claimed about the bible. I'm still doing it, actually, because as you well know, it gets piled higher and deeper day by day.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

I grew up engaging in typical pursuits of an adolescent mind. In the rare instances when my thoughts turned away from concupiscence, I tried to get an understanding of the divine.

Alas, most of what I was being taught: hellfire, trinity, etc. seemed like so much BS. But then I went to college and actually earned a BS. I was so proud. At last, I could understand. But, alas, it was not to be. I had learned about existentialism. Kierkegaard told me I couldn't just be a knight of infinite resignation, I must aspire to become a knight of faith. I was crestfallen

Then someone told me a BS was not sufficient. What I needed was MS. Immediately realizing the MS must mean 'More of the Same', I returned to school. Though I progressed well in my studies, I was still unable to understand the church's support for war, their winking at sexual promiscuity (in spite of it's devastating human effects), and their wish washy support for anything the congregation might want them to teach. It seemed that the bible was being used as ambidexter proof for moral license. Then one of my teachers suggested I needed more.

Realizing that PhD must stand for 'Piled higher and Deeper' I applied to my local grad school. Finally, I could know the truth. YES!

Then someone told me that the bible really didn't teach the things I had been told, that all one needed was to really want to understand.

The first thing I tackled was the life after death BS. I had always figured it was BS because in order to get there, you have to die first! A very undesirable route, as far as I was concerned.

When I was shown that the bible showed God's purpose was for man to live forever on earth, I was on a roll.

I then was able to sift through all of the MS and PhD claimed about the bible. I'm still doing it, actually, because as you well know, it gets piled higher and deeper day by day.

Sounds like you've been cheated.

The people who taught you...who took your money....should have taught you to think.

That....you are not doing. Or at least, not in a way that shows you got your money's worth out of school.

0 Replies

You are right when you say I do not think very much. But mostly I don't think too much of myself. You could have the answer Frank; or not. I could be wrong; or not.

The difference between us is I don't feel I need to be taught by a piler of the high and deep.

Present company excepted, of course.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

You are right when you say I do not think very much.

Good. That was a good guess on my part.

Quote:

But mostly I don't think too much of myself.

We differ there. I think very highly of myself.

Quote:

You could have the answer Frank...

Well...that depends on the question, of course. But in the area being discussed here on the Internet in a forum subsection titled "Spirituality & Religion"....is think I have the best, most reasonable, logical, and honest answer possible.

Quote:

...or not.

As I said....I think I have the best, most reasonable, logical, and honest answer possible.

Quote:

I could be wrong; or not.

Luckily, on this issue...I can't be wrong.

I acknowledge that I do not know the answer to these kinds of Ultimate Questions. And so long as you are willing to grant that "not being available to me" is equivalent to "I do not know"....I cannot be wrong.

Quote:

The difference between us is I don't feel I need to be taught by a piler of the high and deep.

Not sure what that means. But I suspect you are wrong. I doubt seriously if there is a difference between us that involves whether or not one feels a need to be taught by "a piler of the high and deep"...whatever the hell that is.

0 Replies

Thank you, Frank, for your many words. And, thank you for piling them so neatly. I shall peruse them and distill their essence to be released into your phone booth at a later time. Laughing

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Luckily, on this issue...I can't be wrong.

I acknowledge that I do not know the answer to these kinds of Ultimate Questions. And so long as you are willing to grant that "not being available to me" is equivalent to "I do not know"....I cannot be wrong.

Of course, "I don't know" and "It cannot be known" are worlds apart. They do not mean the same thing at all.

If you claim you do not know, of course, nobody will contradict you. But to claim something is out of bounds for any to know simply on the basis that you don't know it is absurd.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

As for biblical contradictions, only by refusing to acknowledge that they exist may the myriad examples of such, some already cited in this discussion, be dismissed.

Since C Imposter is apparently not going to pick up on it, but you have assumed the argument that he put forth. Have at it. Bring out your best supposed contradictions.

0 Replies

Which Religion is the One True Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know