Which Religion is the One True Religion?

Yer a bad man, Frank . . .

You know he won't "wake up" or "snap out of it"--you just like saying that.

0 Replies

Set...as you can imagine, when I wrote those words I had thoughts of Cher clocking Nicholas Cage in Moonstruck.

I wish Life would stand in front of a mirror and clock himself the same way. Maybe he would wake up.

But you are right. More than likely, he will stay unconscious.

Anyway...it is off to the shore for Nancy and me in a little while. Be back to hear more Christian rationalization much, much later.

0 Replies

Jersey shore? Stay outta the water . . .

0 Replies

i havn't read this entire thread, just the first one to get an idea about the question, and here's my answer. Diesm to me is the best relgion, and this is in my opinion. If your not sure what diesm is, it's were people like me belive that God is like a watch maker, he created the earth, and let it go never to see it again, until it got seriously broken, then he sent a repair man to fix it( Hint: Jesus). This is New Age Diesm. There's no church i'm aware of, all you have to do is be yourself, live a somewhat morally upstanding life(cause no one is perfect) and you'll be fine.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Thanks SN and Timber.

I don't think Life is "missing the point"...but rather he is pretending the point is not there.

As SN pointed out, Life....you cannot make theft (the illegal taking of property) or murder (the illegal taking of life) legal.

You can make the unwarrented (and perhaps undesireable) taking of property legal...but then it stops being theft. You can make the unwarrented (and perhaps undesireable) taking of life legal...but then it stops being murder.

In any case....as I pointed out....to use the "laws" of the god of the Bible for one's moral absolutes would allow for slavery to be okay; homosexual conduct would be punishable by death; annihilation of enemies after sieges would be the norm; stoning recalcitrant children to death would be allowed....and who knows what else would come from the absurdities contained in that book you hold so precious.

Wake the hell up, man.

WAKE UP!

Snap out of it!

Yeah, I understood your point. If it's "legal", it's not "murder". And many of the major tyrants of the 20th century played the same semantic game.

Hint: their victims are still dead, even if it was "legal"

So my question, which you avoided was: Does making it "legal" make it "right" ?

You avoided by urging me not to think in terms of "right" and "wrong".

If your only criteria for morality is what a man or body of men at any given point decide is "good for the species" then you have tyranny, oppression of the minority, legalized murder (but you'll have a new name for it), legalized theft (insert new name also), etc

Welcome to Frank's Brave New World. Keep your arms inside the tram at all times. Thank you.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Thanks SN and Timber.

I don't think Life is "missing the point"...but rather he is pretending the point is not there.

As SN pointed out, Life....you cannot make theft (the illegal taking of property) or murder (the illegal taking of life) legal.

You can make the unwarranted (and perhaps undesirable) taking of property legal...but then it stops being theft. You can make the unwarranted (and perhaps undesirable) taking of life legal...but then it stops being murder.

In any case....as I pointed out....to use the "laws" of the god of the Bible for one's moral absolutes would allow for slavery to be okay; homosexual conduct would be punishable by death; annihilation of enemies after sieges would be the norm; stoning recalcitrant children to death would be allowed....and who knows what else would come from the absurdities contained in that book you hold so precious.

Wake the hell up, man.

WAKE UP!

Snap out of it! (Spell check used on quote for clarity)

You are quite right Frank. That is, you are right until you forget that you have been thoroughly shown that Christians are no longer under the law. Why should we continue arguing over your refusal to understand? Wake up, Frank. Read the rest.

Your understanding of Hebrew law is more nearly correct and deserving of explanation. You say you know the bible like the back of your hand, so I'll save the scriptural citations for another post:

God's purpose for mankind was and is for them to live forever on earth. If Adam and Eve had not sinned, they would still be here and we would not have war and crime and sickness and death. There would be no slavery. All would be entitled to the fruits of their labors.

The rebellion in Eden changed man's physical and moral perfection, enslaving all of mankind to sickness and death. God promised a redemption which would eventually come through Jesus, but allowed (what to us seems an interminable) time for the allegations made and implied by Satan to be proven false beyond any doubt. The last six thousand years have shown man to be unable to govern his own affairs and that governments and religious institutions under Satan's influence have dominated man to his injury. (I realize this assertion is subject to dispute, but it seemed obvious even to Solomon.)

There have been many promises made by God to mankind, but one very significant one for this argument is that all who never knew God shall be given the opportunity to experience the life which Adam and Eve lost. The promise applies to all, no matter what the circumstances of one's life and death may have been.

So, the Canaanite children who were made to pass through the fire will be included. Their parents who suffered unimaginable anguish will be included. Soldiers sacrificed to the god of war will be included. Slaves who were cruelly treated will be included, as will be their masters who may have perished mercifully in their sleep.

This promise is in the bible Frank; I know you have read it. I'm not asking you to believe it. I'm not expecting you even to acknowledge it. Just know it is there.

The point is that after you have lived for, lets say, 500 years, would you thank God for the life he has given you or curse him for the 50 or so years you suffered from some injustice or malady?

God gave the Jews the law to separate them from other nations and to serve as a tutor leading to Christ. It was impossible for an imperfect human to follow. Christ not only followed it but fulfilled it by acting as the high priest for his own perfect sacrifice.

The law does seem harsh but it is a perfect reflection of God's understanding of the nature of sin. This post is already longer than I would wish, so I'll get to the biggie: Homosexuality is not part of God's purpose for mankind. The punishment under the law was death. The punishment under Christian law is expulsion from the congregation (spiritual death). Will these ones live again? I believe so. Will they continue as homosexuals? Not according to God's purpose. (I realize modern thinking views homosexuality as not subject to choice, but rather as a manifestation of some hormonal or hypothalamic idiosyncrasy. I submit it may certainly be a Hobsons choice.)

As for slavery, I've already addressed the issue of timing in an earlier post. It was permitted and regulated under the law. One of the regulations allowed for a slave to forego his release and serve his master permanently. Why would anyone want that?

We are all involuntary slaves to the god of sickness and death. If we hope for anything better, we must choose to become slaves to the God life.

If you believe the bible, that is.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

You are quite right Frank. That is, you are right until you forget that you have been thoroughly shown that Christians are no longer under the law. Why should we continue arguing over your refusal to understand? Wake up, Frank. Read the rest.

Well I know that you claim you are no long under the law....but Jesus says differently. And unless you can come up with a reasonable explanation for why your take on what Jesus did should be taken over what Jesus said about what he did...

...I'll go with what Jesus said.

Quote:

Your understanding of Hebrew law is more nearly correct and deserving of explanation. You say you know the bible like the back of your hand, so I'll save the scriptural citations for another post

I have never...anywhere...said I know the Bible like the back of my hand. Don't make shyt up. Deal with what is.

Quote:

God's purpose for mankind was and is for them to live forever on earth. If Adam and Eve had not sinned, they would still be here and we would not have war and crime and sickness and death. There would be no slavery. All would be entitled to the fruits of their labors.

The rebellion in Eden changed man's physical and moral perfection, enslaving all of mankind to sickness and death.

Oh right. Your god place two people in the middle of a garden and told them not to eat the fruit of one particular tree. Any third grader could tell you how that would work out.

And your god made damn sure that neither Adam nor Eve knew right from wrong....evil from good...obedience from disobedience...and then placed the Chief Tempter of the Universe in the garden to make goddam sure they did do what that third grader could have told him they would do...

...and when they did it, the god when apeshyt and punished them severely and ALL THE REST OF MANKIND FOR ALL THE REST OF TIME....for a transgression that was nothing more than a cheap set-up....unworthy of a crooked cop looking for an easy collar.

And you want to tout that particular piece of bullshyt as something to consider and reflect on....and use as inspiration????

Quote:

God promised a redemption which would eventually come through Jesus...

Any god that would pull the shyt your god pulls, Life, couldn't be trusted to bring coffee with cream and sugar....let alone coming through with a redemption.

If the god was interested in "redemption" he never would have put those two unfortunates (in this silly, silly fable) into that position...and since they did not know right from wrong...should have simply passed it over.

And who wants a god who's idea of redemption includes...."I will forgive you for insulting me...but before I do, you must torture and kill my son!"

What a ridiculous myth! I cannot get over grown humans buying into it.

Quote:

As for slavery, I've already addressed the issue of timing in an earlier post. It was permitted and regulated under the law. One of the regulations allowed for a slave to forego his release and serve his master permanently. Why would anyone want that?

This is such stupidity...I am embarrassed to read it. I will not give it any courtesy...because that would be giving it too much.

Your god did not talk about slaves "forgoing" release...except for Hebrew slaves of Hebrew slaveowners. The slaves I mentioned in my citation were slaves forever! The passage actually says it.

Quote:

We are all involuntary slaves to the god of sickness and death. If we hope for anything better, we must choose to become slaves to the God life.

Only if you are a pathetic, superstitious, frightened sheep.

0 Replies

I haven't found the sections you were quoting, but I assume that the references to Christians no longer being under the law come from Jesus' fulfillment/replacement of the Old Testament laws -- a life of love is shown to be more important than strict dedication to a list of rules.

Regarding the references to Eden and specific stories in the Bible... We must remember that the Bible is a work of Literature. Literalism is a predominantly American quality that has stemmed from our protestant history -- the denial of the papacy meant that something must be an ultimate authority and so it became the Bible. Considering that, at some point Christians have to be able to realize that reason can go beyond this literalism. Evolution did occur. The story of Eden did not "actually" occur. Placed within a historical and cultural context, however, and used to help explain where Judaism came from, which is related to our religion, helps us understand Christianity as a corporeal religion -- most people cannot understand things from the beginning in abstraction. A story helps explain them, but it is literature and goes beyond what is literal. You cannot treat the Bible like every thing in it is literally true. The work is largely symbolic, and humanly faulted at that. Go for the Greek philosophy that played an important part of the New Testament if you are looking for "truth" rather than recite stories which, although interesting on a historic and cultural level, are not what we are ultimately aiming for.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

neologist wrote:
You are quite right Frank. That is, you are right until you forget that you have been thoroughly shown that Christians are no longer under the law. Why should we continue arguing over your refusal to understand? Wake up, Frank. Read the rest.

Well I know that you claim you are no long under the law....but Jesus says differently. And unless you can come up with a reasonable explanation for why your take on what Jesus did should be taken over what Jesus said about what he did...

...I'll go with what Jesus said.

Amazing that the early Christians didn't have your take on it, Frank. But then they were stupid bleep sheep, right?

FrankApisa wrote:

Quote:
Your understanding of Hebrew law is more nearly correct and deserving of explanation. You say you know the bible like the back of your hand, so I'll save the scriptural citations for another post

I have never...anywhere...said I know the Bible like the back of my hand. Don't make shyt up. Deal with what is.

Frank, aren't you the one who claims to have studied the bible meticulously? I'm sorry to have put words in your mouth like back of your hand, etc.

So, you don't know the bible very well at all; is that it? Then why are you preaching to me about what it contains? Your use of expletives may perhaps betray your ignorance.

FrankApisa wrote:

Quote:
God's purpose for mankind was and is for them to live forever on earth. If Adam and Eve had not sinned, they would still be here and we would not have war and crime and sickness and death. There would be no slavery. All would be entitled to the fruits of their labors.

The rebellion in Eden changed man's physical and moral perfection, enslaving all of mankind to sickness and death.

Oh right. Your god place two people in the middle of a garden and told them not to eat the fruit of one particular tree. Any third grader could tell you how that would work out.

And your god made damn sure that neither Adam nor Eve knew right from wrong....evil from good...obedience from disobedience...and then placed the Chief Tempter of the Universe in the garden to make goddam sure they did do what that third grader could have told him they would do...

Adam and Eve were physically, mentally and morally perfect and endowed with free will. There is no evidence to suggest prior rebellion of Satan. Eve may have been deceived but Adam had been around a long time, long enough to name the animals. He hadn't just fallen off the Edenic turnip truck. He knew what he was doing.

FrankApisa wrote:

...and when they did it, the god when apeshyt and punished them severely and ALL THE REST OF MANKIND FOR ALL THE REST OF TIME....for a transgression that was nothing more than a cheap set-up....unworthy of a crooked cop looking for an easy collar.

Perhaps you would have preferred Him to zap the rebels then and there. He could have done that. but then you and I would not be here to have this discussion. I don't know about you Frank, but I rather like knocking heads with your metamorphic noggin. I've said before that preaching to the choir is too easy. But you - hey - Rock and Roll!

Frank Apisa wrote:

And you want to tout that particular piece of bullshyt as something to consider and reflect on....and use as inspiration????

Sorry you feel that way, Frank.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
God promised a redemption which would eventually come through Jesus...
Any god that would pull the shyt your god pulls, Life, couldn't be trusted to bring coffee with cream and sugar....let alone coming through with a redemption.

If the god was interested in "redemption" he never would have put those two unfortunates (in this silly, silly fable) into that position...and since they did not know right from wrong...should have simply passed it over.

And who wants a god who's idea of redemption includes...."I will forgive you for insulting me...but before I do, you must torture and kill my son!"

What a ridiculous myth! I cannot get over grown humans buying into it.

You really haven't studied the bible very much, have you? What a fake! You've been relying on the spurious contentions of others without actually taking the time to check them out. I expected more from you, Frank; I certainly did. And, once again, your use of invective betrays your shortcomings in logic and language. You would assume that God promised Jesus' sacrifice against Jesus' free will? Gimme a break!

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
As for slavery, I've already addressed the issue of timing in an earlier post. It was permitted and regulated under the law. One of the regulations allowed for a slave to forego his release and serve his master permanently. Why would anyone want that?
This is such stupidity...I am embarrassed to read it. I will not give it any courtesy...because that would be giving it too much.

Your god did not talk about slaves "forgoing" release...except for Hebrew slaves of Hebrew slaveowners. The slaves I mentioned in my citation were slaves forever! The passage actually says it.

Slaves often had many privileges and could amass wealth. They could own other slaves. Whether or not they could purchase their own freedom is subject to further review. The point of my statement was that many slaves preferred to remain permanent slaves of their master. I'd ask you to recall this, but you obviously didn't read it: By their acceptance of the law, the Israelites agreed to become slaves of God.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
We are all involuntary slaves to the god of sickness and death. If we hope for anything better, we must choose to become slaves to the God life.
Only if you are a pathetic, superstitious, frightened sheep.

BAAAAH!

http://www.dnforum.com/images/smilies/sheep.gif

Have a nice day, Frank. Smile

0 Replies

Thalion wrote:

I haven't found the sections you were quoting, but I assume that the references to Christians no longer being under the law come from Jesus' fulfillment/replacement of the Old Testament laws -- a life of love is shown to be more important than strict dedication to a list of rules.

Regarding the references to Eden and specific stories in the Bible... We must remember that the Bible is a work of Literature. Literalism is a predominantly American quality that has stemmed from our protestant history -- the denial of the papacy meant that something must be an ultimate authority and so it became the Bible. Considering that, at some point Christians have to be able to realize that reason can go beyond this literalism. Evolution did occur. The story of Eden did not "actually" occur. Placed within a historical and cultural context, however, and used to help explain where Judaism came from, which is related to our religion, helps us understand Christianity as a corporeal religion -- most people cannot understand things from the beginning in abstraction. A story helps explain them, but it is literature and goes beyond what is literal. You cannot treat the Bible like every thing in it is literally true. The work is largely symbolic, and humanly faulted at that. Go for the Greek philosophy that played an important part of the New Testament if you are looking for "truth" rather than recite stories which, although interesting on a historic and cultural level, are not what we are ultimately aiming for.

See the points in bold above.......you damn Christrians cannot make up your F***ING minds.

Could it be because you are not using them?

You even disagree with each other...how can anyone take you seriously, how do you take yourselves seriously?

I am truly dumbfounded. I can't believe that for 18 years I too was a believer. What was I thinking....oh yeah, I wasn't.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
neologist wrote:
As for slavery, I've already addressed the issue of timing in an earlier post. It was permitted and regulated under the law. One of the regulations allowed for a slave to forego his release and serve his master permanently. Why would anyone want that?
This is such stupidity...I am embarrassed to read it. I will not give it any courtesy...because that would be giving it too much.

Your god did not talk about slaves "forgoing" release...except for Hebrew slaves of Hebrew slaveowners. The slaves I mentioned in my citation were slaves forever! The passage actually says it.
Slaves often had many privileges and could amass wealth. They could own other slaves. Whether or not they could purchase their own freedom is subject to speculation. The point of my statement was that many slaves preferred to remain permanent slaves of their master. I'd ask you to recall this, but you obviously didn't read it: By their acceptance of the law, the Israelites agreed to become slaves of God.

As mentioned previously, the term slavery is very broad and refers to a number of different practices spread over thousands of years.

The Hebrews leaving Egypt and arriving in Canaan had the slavery experience in Egypt fresh in their minds. That is why , often, laws in the Torah related to slavery or servitude had the admonition "Don't forget that you were slaves in Egypt." as a warning not to overstep the boundaries being laid out and become as the Egyptians had been.

(Of course, if you think the Hebrews were never slaves in Egypt at all , then these passages are quite a puzzle. Why would someone trying to convince someone else to act in a particular manner refer to an event that never happened as the reason that they should keep this admonition? But I digress. )

The Hebrews entering Canaan and having received their allotment of land, were not allowed to sell their land to a foreigner. Thus almost no foreigner could live in the land and support himself. His choices were limited to leaving Canaan, remaining a wanderer or attaching himself in servitude to a Hebrew. It is quite clear that the practice of selling oneself into slavery existed in the land at that time. The Bible has very clear references to this practice as the laws of servitude are discussed and presented.

For a foreigner to sell himself into servitude --slavery-- would certainly be life long because the Hebrews were commanded NEVER to sell their land to a foreigner. (The land allotted to one tribe could not even be sold permanently to another tribe. Thus the year of Jubilee. ) Thus one of the only ways for a foreigner to survive as a resident of Canaan was under a Hebrew as a slave, a servant.

But , of course, for those determined to broadbrush the issue and consider every form of slavery over thousands of years in numerous cultures as having the same causes and resulting in the same practices, this will be brushed aside. Don't confuse them with facts, please.

Were there Hebrews who did overstep their law and take up practices like those of the nations around them? It is quite clear that they did, in more areas than just the subject of slavery. But let's not confuse what they were told to do with what they actually did.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

See the points in bold above.......you damn Christrians cannot make up your F***ING minds.

Could it be because you are not using them?

You even disagree with each other...how can anyone take you seriously, how do you take yourselves seriously?

I am truly dumbfounded. I can't believe that for 18 years I too was a believer. What was I thinking....oh yeah, I wasn't.

ma;
Disagreement about a thing is neither proof nor disproof of its veracity. Nor do your strong feelings prove anything other than you have strong feelings.

Thalion's opinions about the bible are opinions which may or may not be correct. So far, neither of you have posted any substantive argument.

But, I read your posts anyway. Laughing

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

maporsche wrote:
See the points in bold above.......you damn Christrians cannot make up your F***ING minds.

Could it be because you are not using them?

You even disagree with each other...how can anyone take you seriously, how do you take yourselves seriously?

I am truly dumbfounded. I can't believe that for 18 years I too was a believer. What was I thinking....oh yeah, I wasn't.
ma;
Disagreement about a thing is neither proof nor disproof of its veracity. Nor do your strong feelings prove anything other than you have strong feelings.

Thalion's opinions about the bible are opinions which may or may not be correct. So far, neither of you have posted any substantive argument.

But, I read your posts anyway.

I wasn't trying to post an argument....simply asking two questions.

Quote:

...how can anyone take you seriously,
how do you take yourselves seriously?

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

neologist wrote:
maporsche wrote:
See the points in bold above.......you damn Christrians cannot make up your F***ING minds.

Could it be because you are not using them?

You even disagree with each other...how can anyone take you seriously, how do you take yourselves seriously?

I am truly dumbfounded. I can't believe that for 18 years I too was a believer. What was I thinking....oh yeah, I wasn't.
ma;
Disagreement about a thing is neither proof nor disproof of its veracity. Nor do your strong feelings prove anything other than you have strong feelings.

Thalion's opinions about the bible are opinions which may or may not be correct. So far, neither of you have posted any substantive argument.

But, I read your posts anyway.

I wasn't trying to post an argument....simply asking two questions.

Quote:

...how can anyone take you seriously,
how do you take yourselves seriously?

OK, I'll ignore for a moment your non-argument that somehow believers should not be taken seriously.

By your question, are you asking if religions should not be taken seriously? That would be foolhardy since misguided religion has been the driving force behind every abomination in human history. The power exerted by the priesthood has been tremendous and is definitely not a force to be taken lightly.

Or are you simply stating that you have a belief or a solution superior to those espoused in this thread? That may be true.

Let's hear it.

0 Replies

What I do not understand is how can a divine work be read and misinterpreted by so many. Clearly, there are widely differing views on the subject and some of us have to be wrong. If we all read the same thing and this is supposedly written by an omnipotent being, why do we not all come away with the same understanding?

If, for example, I read in the bible that Jesus said, "Some of you here will not taste death before the kingdom of heaven is upon you." To me that is fairly straightforward. Jesus here is obviously wrong, in my view, as I don't know any 2,000 year old living human beings and the kingdom of heaven is not upon us yet. You (Christians) shouldn't have to explain this to me it should be self explanatory or at least elaborated better on Jesus' part. You can say I misunderstand the context but shouldn't the text be readily apparent for everyone so that we can all understand it without having some sort of esoteric decoder at our disposal?

If all the answers are there in the bible then why am I looking at a 100+ page thread that clearly shows otherwise?

0 Replies

SN95 wrote:

If all the answers are there in the bible then why am I looking at a 100+ page thread that clearly shows otherwise?

That's just one more question the proponents of the Abrahamic mythopaeia can answer to the satisfaction of no one but themselves.

0 Replies

You accuse people of not using their minds and being blind followers while at the same time saying that disagreement is a bad thing, which indicates that people are actually thinking. The word Christian which I apply to myself follows after my belief; my belief does not stem from that word which I accept without question prior to my own judgement. I have thoughts on religion which I have stated (in part - a little unclearly maybe - hard to put into words) that make the Bible seem at least partly true in symbol.

0 Replies

Are you addressing me, Thalion? If so, I must respond that I disagree that ever have I said disagreement is a bad thing. What I have said - voluminously and unambiguously - is that in this discussion, the proponents of the Abrahamic mythopaeia have failed to make the case for their points of disagreement with the opponents of the Abrahamic mythopaeia. No argument amounting to more than "I believe" has been presented by the proponents of the proposition, no external, independently verifiable evidence in support of the Abrahamic proposition has been presented, while the proposition repeatedly and in many particulars has been challenged in this discussion both on the basis of its own reference, structure, tradition, practice, and history, and through considerable externally derived, substantive, multiply corroborated contraindication. On that revolves this entire discussion, and on that, to this point in this discussion, the Abrahamic proposition fails.

It is not a bad thing to disagree, or to believe. In this discussion, the proponents of the Abrahamic proposition disagree with their opponents, and present the case for their own beliefs, ineffectually. They, so far, have argued badly.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

SN95 wrote:
If all the answers are there in the bible then why am I looking at a 100+ page thread that clearly shows otherwise?

That's just one more question the proponents of the Abrahamic mythopaeia can answer to the satisfaction of no one but themselves.

That there is disagreement neither proves nor disproves the thing under discussion.

The problem could lie in our tendency to overintellectualize that which is meant to be interpreted simply. Think about it: The God of the bible is said to be the epitome of love. Would it be fair for his message to be so esoteric it could be interpreted only by a coterie of priests?

That is why Jesus said "I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to babes." (Matthew 11:25)

What part of "you must love your neighbor as yourself" don't we understand?

0 Replies

Neo, I gotta say your point amounts to rationalization, not justification. Again we come to nothing more than internal reference. I'll point out as well that the passage you quote amounts to saying explicitly that the Abrahamic proposition is intended for only those gullible enough to fall for it.

0 Replies

Which Religion is the One True Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know