which religion is wrong?

So who are we left with then? Actually the UUs seem pretty harmless, if a bit confused.

Religion is the opiate of the masses.

au- Sad, but true. The problem is, that without religion, some of those masses would run completely wild.

logicalunit42
People do not see the faults in their own religion, which they follow like lemmings. Only in those of other religions.
Religion and prejudice go hand in hand.

au1929 wrote:

logicalunit42
People do not see the faults in their own religion, which they follow like lemmings. Only in those of other religions.
Religion and prejudice go hand in hand.

they do? then why does any christian have non childbearing sex? didn't jesus say no sex unless its for a child? thats one example of an infinite i can think of...

logicalunit42 wrote:

au1929 wrote:

logicalunit42
People do not see the faults in their own religion, which they follow like lemmings. Only in those of other religions.
Religion and prejudice go hand in hand.

they do? then why does any christian have non childbearing sex? didn't jesus say no sex unless its for a child? thats one example of an infinite i can think of...

This seems a nonsensical post. You might want to explain yourself here. Otherwise, one is left to wonder how AU's contention that religion and prejudice go hand in hand leads you to make statement about sex which is not for procreative purposes. I'm not a biblical scholar, although i have thoroughly studied the history of the bible and its origins; i have read both the "old" and "new testaments" in their entirety, more than once. I don't recall anywhere that "Jesus said" no sex unless it's for a child. Even if you could provide such a citation, what possible bearing would that have on whether or not prejudice and religion go hand in hand? Also, this sentence fragment: "thats one example of an infinite i can think of" makes little sense. That's an example of an infinite what? Do you perhaps mean an absolute? If so, you are once again faced with the necessity of citing some scripture, any scripture, in which it is alledged that Jesus said what you claim.

AU's statement about religion and prejudice does have a sound logical basis. Adherence to religious dogma requires the adherent to accept a contention that the religion in question is the absolutely truthful creed. By inference, any other religion is therefore false. Given that circumstance, the adherent would judge in advance of an acquaintance that anyone professing a different religion is in error, hence the adherent displays prejudice.

That's not an answer to why you posited some rather bizarre contention about Jesus prohibiting sex which is not for procreative purposes.

It is also not answer to AU's contention about prejudice and religion, unless you mean to stipulate that people willfully adhere to a religion which they do not believe is the absolutely truthful creed. In which case, we have left the realm of the absurd for the realm of the sublimely absurd.

have you heard of confession? each religion says not to do certain things. if people believed in their religion, then they wouldn't do those things - thus since so many go to confession, they don't - that seems pretty logical and straightforward to me

logicalunit42 wrote:

have you heard of confession? each religion says not to do certain things. if people believed in their religion, then they wouldn't do those things - thus since so many go to confession, they don't - that seems pretty logical and straightforward to me

The absurdity of what you write is almost enough to lead me to abandon the effort of communicating with you--the snotty tone will clinch the deal, however, so i advise you to drop it. Have you not ever heard the sanctimonious expression "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak?" Your entire thesis hear ignores or denies the concept of sin and redemption.

This also does not address the issue of why people espouse any particular creed. Once again, people adhere to a religion in the belief that it is the absolutely truthful creed, and therefore are disposed to prejudice with regard to those who profess a different, or profess no creed. Their relative merit in living up to the standards of the professed creed has absolutely no bearing on this.

On the other hand, it may prompt some to look into themselves and change their manner of exchange.

Intrepid wrote:

On the other hand, it may prompt some to look into themselves and change their manner of exchange.

Observation noted. :wink:

I will change my manner of exchange when others are held accountable for theirs.

Perhaps I didn't express my apology to the extent a certain poster was looking for but I did acknowledge my bad attitude and was rewarded with and insult. Intrepid, I know what you are getting at but it seems that no one wants an honest opinion around here. I take the criticism as well as I give it. It might make me angry but I expect it.

And as for your comment on tolerance... Tolerance is a wonderful thing until you get someone who abuses your patience and deliberately provokes and insults you. Then I challenge anyone to remain tolerant. It isn't easy for a believer or non believer.