0
   

Rational Theists Step Forward

 
 
Chumly
 
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 03:52 pm
Why are Christians and Muslims and Jews irrational as per an externalized monotheist non-corporeal being, when there is just as much likelihood that god is personified in, or as, polytheist non-corporeal beings and/or a real living being, and/or real living beings, and/or a real thing and/or real things?

Simply by espousing an externalized monotheist non-corporeal being based on belief in no way exclusively delineates god.

Simply by espousing an externalized monotheist non-corporeal being based on belief, in no way makes other contradictory beliefs of god less likely.

- 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- The rational Theist could not accept a religion in which one idealization of god superceded another idealization of god.

Rational Theists Step Forward!
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,800 • Replies: 96
No top replies

 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 04:25 pm
This is a trick, right Chumly? How many times have we theists been told that our beliefs are based on irrationality? We've been through that over and over again.

So, unless you can reconcile the definition of irrational with a belief system, I wouldn't expect too many answers.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 04:31 pm
Nope, not by any means. All theists are not irrational based on my above arguments. Far from it.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 04:35 pm
Well, sorry Chumly, but I would still be considered irrational then. I do not accept that all types of gods have equal merit. I will accept that everyone has the equal right to the god they choose.

Good luck in your search. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 04:43 pm
Even if that god means human sacrifice?
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 04:47 pm
Chumly,

I don't know about anybody elses God but I know what mine expects from me. He doesn't expect me to sacrifice any humans.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 04:58 pm
But do you condone the sacrifice of Jesus?
.
.
.
I already know you did not kill him that was not was I asked.
.
.
.
Boy are we off topic!
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 05:05 pm
I kind of figured you'd work your way into that one, Chumly. I'll catch you later.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 06:33 pm
Re: Rational Theists Step Forward
Chumly wrote:
Why are Christians and Muslims and Jews irrational as per an externalized monotheist non-corporeal being, when there is just as much likelihood that god is personified in, or as, polytheist non-corporeal beings and/or a real living being, and/or real living beings, and/or a real thing and/or real things?

Simply by espousing an externalized monotheist non-corporeal being based on belief in no way exclusively delineates god.

Simply by espousing an externalized monotheist non-corporeal being based on belief, in no way makes other contradictory beliefs of god less likely.

- 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.

Rational Theists Step Forward!



Ha. Just couldn't stay away from S&R , eh Chum?

Momma Angel has pretty much nailed this one already.

Your definition of 'rational' would apparently have the 'rational theist' believing in two or more contradictory ideas at the same time.

Sorry, I guess I don't know any 'rational theists' either.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 06:37 pm
Check this out for humors (at the end):
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=56279&start=3900
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 08:31 pm
Re: Rational Theists Step Forward
Chumly wrote:
Why are Christians and Muslims and Jews irrational as per an externalized monotheist non-corporeal being, when there is just as much likelihood that god is personified in, or as, polytheist non-corporeal beings and/or a real living being, and/or real living beings, and/or a real thing and/or real things?

Simply by espousing an externalized monotheist non-corporeal being based on belief in no way exclusively delineates god.

Simply by espousing an externalized monotheist non-corporeal being based on belief, in no way makes other contradictory beliefs of god less likely.

- 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.

Rational Theists Step Forward!
Rational theists respond only to rational posts.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 08:32 pm
hehehe
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 10:03 pm
I get no respect around here anymore!

<shoves hands in pockets and grumbles>

<thinks to himself, I have prostituted my stunning depth of thought for a few cheap chuckles>
0 Replies
 
queen annie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 04:21 am
Re: Rational Theists Step Forward
Chumly wrote:
- 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.

Rational Theists Step Forward!


And the bear trap goes *snap*. Laughing

But seriously--these two statements somehow make 'sense' to me. I'm not a 'theist' (only because I eschew all forms of 'ism' and 'ist' if I can see them coming.)

But obviously there is a schism in the isms when you look at it this way...
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 04:32 am
0 Replies
 
queen annie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 05:46 am
Chumly wrote:
I figure there may be a number of religious people who accept all personifications of god as being equal in likelihood.


hmmmm... Confused

Now, it may be a matter of semantics--what I'm about to post--if so, please forgive my misunderstanding of your statement, because I'm basing it mostly on the pivot word 'religious.' My idea (my truth, ha ha) of 'religious' is not really truly holy (pure) but rather more like superstitious politics. So if that's far from what you mean, then I'm straying right here.

But, the way I see it--being a 'religious' person is almost a default setting for zero tolerance of any other view, whatsoever. Hence, the various flavors of religion.

But, IMO--just ONE God (or god or ____). Again, IMO--God is all, God is perfect void, all matter and the energy which created it, all Mind, all Soul, all protoplasm, all light, all 'good' and yes, even all 'evil.' I can't say what God is--or what God is not, but I suspect God is not a christian, muslim, democrat, or concerned about religion or geo-politics one iota. A God worth the title is BIGGER than such human scraps (once again, IMO--a bit stronger this time, but still all mine Laughing )

Therefore, how can God be delineated? Rolling Eyes Who the heck am I to presume I possess the ability--even more: the spare time--to determine another's ideas/thoughts/perceptions/conceptions/growth/labels/language? How can I draw a line through an ethereal sphere in which I am less than a micrometer-sized pinpoint?

That's my truest feeling on the matter at this point in time from my own view.

Another thing is this, (even more importantly): I truly feel, with all my mental conviction, that there is no need for me to worry about another in this sense. I truly feel my only responsibility is to love. Without preference.

I'm not sure if I'm rational, but I do know I'm liberated in a certain sense I cannot explain.

A rational theist is an emancipated theist....
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 06:04 am
By religious I did not mean a religion that limits the personification of god. By religious I only meant the belief in god. The rational theist is certainly saner than the "my god is the only god" flatulence.

Sounds like you fit the bill, if so you have a new moniker :wink:
0 Replies
 
queen annie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 06:13 am
Wow. Cool.

As long as it doesn't involve any sort of defined involvement, count me in!

I also don't do bridles or bits. hee hee (or whinny whinny)
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 06:17 am
Smile
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 06:48 am
Chumly- I hear what you are trying to get across, but I am having difficulty in going along with your reasoning. Let us say that the concept of "rational theism" could encompass the entire spectrum of religious thought, including those of a personal nature, not connected to any defined religion, and of kinds and types not yet described.

That concept may be more benevolent, and more inclusive, but, IMO, is no more rational that the belief in one popular religion or another. There are infinite possibilities, and at this point in our evolution, man does not have the foggiest notion of the truth, although some may claim that they do, loudly.

Although what I think that you are attempting to express is the possibility that there may be a life force that is quite unlike the sorts of things that one hears in houses of worship, that supposition cannot be considered any more rational than the ones that have been formerly promulagated. Bottom line is, no one really knows.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Rational Theists Step Forward
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 01:39:06