Evolution? How?

The last time I partook was in Miami with dinner. Wink

0 Replies

The 2005 Castle Rock Monterey Pinot Noir is beginning to find its way to the stores at $8.99 -- a great price, considering the 2004 sold out and was around $12.99 towards the end of its availability. It's almost futile to search for the 2004 after the Wine Spectator, and Food and Wine magazine placed it as the best under $20.00.

Okay, a little diversion from the subject other than Jesus drank wine (a more potent brew in those days which accounts for him deluding himself into thinking he walked on water).

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

LW, That's not the only boner in the bible; too many contradictions, omissions, and errors for it to be the word of any god. That believers can ignore all them mistakes is telling; they've all lost their common sense and logical abilities.

It's confounding that a more consistent, less corrupt, less contradictory, more cohesive, more congruent religion has not germainly gained more ground.

0 Replies

With all the problems and weakness of buddhism, it seems to attract many adherents around the world in contemporary times.

0 Replies

What little I know of Buddhism suggests it might be an easier sell if they dropped the anti-materialistic stance and the reincarnation angle. By materialism I do not mean a philosophical school of thought, but a normal attitude towards goodies and gadgets.

0 Replies

Okay, that reincarnation bit -- I know there are some here who wish to be reincarnated as a bicycle seat! Very Happy

0 Replies

Does it have a snorkel option and a passenger manifest (destiny) or is that too materialistic?

0 Replies

Most think of animals such as cow, sheep, dog, cat, .....

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Does it have a snorkel option and a passenger manifest (destiny) or is that too materialistic?

No, you may end up on a man's bike.

0 Replies

What happened to free will?

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
LW, That's not the only boner in the bible; too many contradictions, omissions, and errors for it to be the word of any god. That believers can ignore all them mistakes is telling; they've all lost their common sense and logical abilities.
It's confounding that a more consistent, less corrupt, less contradictory, more cohesive, more congruent religion has not germainly gained more ground.

Why not start one? What would be your #1 axiom?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Most think of animals such as cow, sheep, dog, cat, .....

Some cows end up as bike seats.

0 Replies

neo, Good point; gotta think in broader terms. Wink

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Why not start one? What would be your #1 axiom?

I did, but alas you my prodigal child, have so far forsaken it!

- The Rational Theist must accept that all types of God have equal merit.

- The Rational Theist could not accept a religion in which one idealization of God superceded another idealization of God. (This does not impute what the Rational Theist could accept but only what the rational Theist could not accept)

- The Rational Theist believes Humor is one of the Main Invisible Hands of the Gods.

I do not explicitly say all that the Rational Theist can accept but only what the Rational Theist could not accept i.e. "The rational Theist could not accept a religion in which one idealization of god superceded another idealization of god."

I am not arguing that the rational Theist is ANY more rational in real terms, only in relative terms to the Theist who believes in a limited personification of god.

The rational Theist correctly believes there is just as much likelihood that god is personified in, or as, a monotheist non-corporeal being, and/or polytheist non-corporeal beings and/or a real living being, and/or real living beings, and/or a real thing and/or real things.

I make no argument that the belief in god itself is rational, I make no argument that the rational Theist's beliefs in all personifications of god is rational.

http://able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=71780&highlight=

My #1 axiom would be humorousness is next to godliness.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

neologist wrote:
Why not start one? What would be your #1 axiom?
I did, but alas you my prodigal child, have so far forsaken it!

- The Rational Theist must accept that all types of God have equal merit.

- The Rational Theist could not accept a religion in which one idealization of God superceded another idealization of God. (This does not impute what the Rational Theist could accept but only what the rational Theist could not accept)

- The Rational Theist believes Humor is one of the Main Invisible Hands of the Gods.

I do not explicitly say all that the Rational Theist can accept but only what the Rational Theist could not accept i.e. "The rational Theist could not accept a religion in which one idealization of god superceded another idealization of god."

I am not arguing that the rational Theist is ANY more rational in real terms, only in relative terms to the Theist who believes in a limited personification of god.

The rational Theist correctly believes there is just as much likelihood that god is personified in, or as, a monotheist non-corporeal being, and/or polytheist non-corporeal beings and/or a real living being, and/or real living beings, and/or a real thing and/or real things.

I make no argument that the belief in god itself is rational, I make no argument that the rational Theist's beliefs in all personifications of god is rational.

http://able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=71780&highlight=

OK. I remember. But you were never able to demonstrate the validity of the proposition that all types of God have equal merit.

Just a quick observation: (I believe I posted it before)

Either God is subject to necessity or he is not. The two alternatives do not have equal merit.

Oh, and I agree about the humor, except I would put it a little lower on the list.

0 Replies

neo, They all have equal merit in the simple fact that the people believing in them have sacrificed their common sense and logic to follow it. They have all prayed with the sincerity, heart and mind, and devotion not equaled in most other matters of human society - whether it be Judism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, or Satanism. They all believe equally in their own religion.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

neo, They all have equal merit in the simple fact that the people believing in them have sacrificed their common sense and logic to follow it. They have all prayed with the sincerity, heart and mind, and devotion not equaled in most other matters of human society - whether it be Judism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, or Satanism. They all believe equally in their own religion.

I'll go along with Bertrand Russell's observation that of all the religions in the world, only one may be correct. Except I'll expand that to include atheism and say that of all the religious beliefs in the world, only one may be valid. The remainder are vanity.

Whether I have found it remains to be seen.

0 Replies

Hi Neo,

If you remember, in order for me to demonstrate the validity of the proposition that all types of God have equal merit, I would have to prove God exists.

Thus spake Chum: if there is a god of any sort, the Rational Theist is guaranteed to cover it, something that cannot be said for most (all?) theologies/religions.

Thus spake Chum: the validity of the proposition that all types of God have equal merit can only be expressed by saying that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Rational Theist is on firmer theological ground than all others.

It's irrational to expect an answer to the equal merit / necessity question, but it's not necessarily irrational to abide by the present state of general theological understanding (or lack thereof).

So I figure you would put love as you #1 axiom not humor, and you would be right, but I can't help the tongue in cheek stuff!

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

Was the "sad worm on a hook" tasty? I understand now -- you are a sect within yourself having nothing to do with any particular denomination.

Yes, that is an apt description... I have friends from many churches. It seems it is I who am, if not always, teaching the traditional clergy, protestant, catholic, non denominational alike and even non Christian can learn their Bible from me... Not that I don't have holes in my knowledge that is why I am here to compare things with you all.

Impart what I know. It is not the same as what you know which should make it rather alluring.

I know what you know which should also make the task at hand a bit easier for you. You don't have to explain your beliefs, I once "had" the same beliefs...

The crux of my teaching is "body, soul and spirit". Without understanding these three you cannot understand "truth".

Soul is not spirit, this confuses people. I am here to shed some light on their confusion. That they may be born spiritually and come unto a knowledge (evolve) of God...

Science is how we understand most truth but science is not the only source of truth.

Science is limited by what is unknown scientifically.

0 Replies

If science is limiting, religion is open to all manners of human imagination.
I'd rather believe in science with its limits.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know