Religion vs. Religion

[Turtle]

I did not answer that joust because I did not see it as a joust. You accused me of dodging. Dodging what, I don't know. Now you say I was dodging your challenge, but that wasn't a challenge the first time you accused me of dodging.

I believe your sole intent on this thread is to take it off topic. You like to accuse people of dodging all the time, as you dodge and weave (haha, your title is weaver) every thread you don't like by taking it off on your own little tangent and turning it into Turtle's world, where only turtle can have an opinion and everyone else is wrong.

I never have claimed to read them. Likewise, in order to tell you whether or not a fake $100 bill is real or not, I do not have to study every possible fake $100 bill in the world. I simply have to have full knowledge of what a real $100 bill looks like.

Strawman argument in bold; logical fallicy.

I am well on topic.

 

 

By extension this is not the place to discus why your non-religion is better than other's religions.

I have not broached the subject of 'non-religion'.

 

1) How is the existence of varying beliefs reconciled theologically?

2) What are the various benefits and problems associated with resolving these conflicts?

1) How do you reconcile Jesus saying 'turn the other cheek' in the Bible, with Krisna urging Arjuna to 'fight' in the Bhagavad-gītā ?

2) Benefits; I am asking. Problems; dodging, strawman arguments, and all manner of obfuscation.

Wow, sorry to everyone who thinks this was going off topic. I'm hoping this will bring it back.

:hyper:

[Boerseun]

Hey - cool it, guys! :)

 

As far as I understand, Turtle asked you why, if you're a Christian, would Islam, for instance, be wrong. The are, however, mutually exclusive. So if you did answer it, can you maybe refer me to the post where you did, cwes?

 

I hold that in 99.99% of the cases, religious followers are following the specific religion of their parents. It's more of a cultural continuity than following any particular conviction. I'm 99.99% convinced that your parents are Christians too, and of the same denomination your are. Am I wrong?

[Turtle]

Hey - cool it, guys! :)

:) Well, I hope CW takes it all with a grain of salt, as I do his spirited debate. That to me is as much a part of a forum as the topic or side one takes in a debate, that is to say the skills and techniques employed. No one would be offended if we were fencing to say we were opponents or that one or the other dodged a thrust. A debate is no less an adversarial art and I dare say we have dealt no low blows, nor has anyone been martyred.

 

Returning to my corner,

Turtler

[cwes99_03]

I don't mind spirited debate, but you are going beyond what I felt were forum rules, Turtle. I pointed that out and you keep saying, "Nonsense!"

Nonsense means that there is nothing of sense. In fact, there was plenty of sense, but you refuse to let someone show you wrong. I did not feel a debate of my religion is better than yours was appropriate for the thread, the forum, or Hypography. Thus I told you that you should change your ways. Boer I believe would agree with me that fighting each other over who's religion is better is not in the interests of the forum.

 

That being said, I believe I must have posted the idea on another thread and I will look for it. I know I have said that there is good reason why different religions feel others are wrong, and that those reasons should stem from a religious teaching/text. Thus why I have asked for more participation in the religion vs. philosophy thread to discuss the differences between human philsophy and religion.

 

Lastly, I could tell Boer that he is half wrong. While I do share the same specific religion of my mother and some of my family members, others are Jewish, Lutheran, Methodist, atheist, and agnostic and non-denominational. While I have a fairly large family, that lead me to a conclusion that faith is only about 50% parental influence. Of course, I also believe that the majority of those denominations are really 90% human philosophy and 10% religion.

[Turtle]

I don't mind spirited debate, but you are going beyond what I felt were forum rules, Turtle.

No archer makes a far shot what doesn't bend the bow.

I pointed that out and you keep saying, "Nonsense!"

Nonsense means that there is nothing of sense. In fact, there was plenty of sense, but you refuse to let someone show you wrong. I did not feel a debate of my religion is better than yours was appropriate for the thread, the forum, or Hypography. Thus I told you that you should change your ways. Boer I believe would agree with me that fighting each other over who's religion is better is not in the interests of the forum.

Extreme claims require extreme challenge, and I must defer to the Slayer as to the intent & purpose of this thread:

Hmmm. I sense a lack of willingness to contemplate the implications of this thread. Your post flirts with it but runs away: How do you deal with the notion that "he[Jesus] may have been a liar or deranged"? How do you deal with others who say so based on their religious beliefs? How do you address your beliefs to those with opposing ones? I think its great that you [sothtown]can admit the possibility that your beliefs may be unfounded, but you don't seem to want to walk through what that means for how you interact with others. That's the point here.

 

Reminder "opposing views" in this thread are not "science." Question here is how we deal with for example, Jews not believing that Jesus was the Messiah (who is yet to come).

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[cwes99_03]

An archer overshoots his target when he fails to judge the distance correctly.

 

I still believe you intentionally are overshooting this thread, in trying to turn it into a thread where the religious argue their viewpoints so you can get a mod to step in and quash it. I refuse to do this and the only thing you have succeeded in is ending the actual discussion that was occuring here on this thread before you came in and attempted, from my point of view, to start a fight.

 

A lot of debate here of late, but no good religion vs. religion the title promises. Let's kick 'er up a notch and make some reasoned and impashioned attacks against the religion you don't believe in.

 

I would like to line up the Mayan religion against its contemporaries, but unfortunately the Wholly Fodder saw fit to burn their sacred writings wholesale. Hey, did you know the Mayans used zero? Whether this knowledge came from God, transport from India, or secular cleverness of their own, it is a power the Jews, Christians, and Muslims lacked in the same age.

[Turtle]

An archer overshoots his target when he fails to judge the distance correctly.

 

I still believe you intentionally are overshooting this thread, in trying to turn it into a thread where the religious argue their viewpoints so you can get a mod to step in and quash it. I refuse to do this and the only thing you have succeeded in is ending the actual discussion that was occuring here on this thread before you came in and attempted, from my point of view, to start a fight.

 

Start a fight/debate? Yes. get a Mod to quash it? No. It is religion that's off the mark, this thread makes that point, and you refuse to acknowledge the logical fallacies inherent in arguing this or that religion is true while another is not. In my view you don't defend your religion in this case because you can't. No one can; that's my point.

The thread is open for anyone else to comment, so I haven't ended anything. Discuss. :doh:

[catholiboy]

But this is the same basically as saying "there are different types of morality; therefore they are all crap". No, this isn't the case; it is however, the case that:

a) Only one of the said religions can be true;

:hyper: we have no way of knowing which one is true, as it is all subjective (taking atheism as a belief system)

This definitely does NOT, however, have connotations with falsehood.

[cwes99_03]

Start a fight/debate? Yes. get a Mod to quash it? No. It is religion that's off the mark, this thread makes that point, and you refuse to acknowledge the logical fallacies inherent in arguing this or that religion is true while another is not. In my view you don't defend your religion in this case because you can't. No one can; that's my point.

The thread is open for anyone else to comment, so I haven't ended anything. Discuss. :hihi:

That is not the point of this thread. The point of this thread was to determine if one's religion believes anothers is false, not to debate why one's religion feels that way.

If no one else comments after your tirade is over, you would see my point. Here's hoping the discussion continues despite your all knowing and all powerful stance that no one can defend their position because you say they can't.

I choose not to because I do not wish a fight (as forum rules have outlined) nor do I choose to turn this into a debate on scripture and your misunderstanding of it (as forum rules have outlined).

 

The answer to the question: do the views of my religion state that other religions (those who claim to be similar and those who claim to be different) are wrong and false? Yes. Do other religions hold fast to the teachings of their holy men and holy writings? Possibly. Does this make them right? No.

 

Why? As a christian, I have to believe 1) that God created the universe and is the only sovereign and rightful ruler of it, 2) that the scriptures are inspired of God and contain no mistakes, and 3) that living according to the ways that God set forth and worshipping in the way that he wants to be worshipped (insofar as an imperfect human can) are the only way to show that you are a christian. That third part identifies the hypocrisy of any "christian" religion that willfully follows non-bible based teachings.

 

I would expect any true believer in their religion to say the same things about their religion. That being that 1) their god(s) is the rightful ruler of all things, 2) that their holy writings show the way their god thinks and wishes their followers to think, and 3) that one must woship in accordance with their god's wishes to be considered a worshipper of that god.

 

Thus the only resulting question to be asked is which one is right? That, according to site rules, is a question not to be discussed on this forum.

[Turtle]

Why? As a christian, I have to believe 1) that God created the universe and is the only sovereign and rightful ruler of it, 2) that the scriptures are inspired of God and contain no mistakes, and 3) that living according to the ways that God set forth and worshipping in the way that he wants to be worshipped (insofar as an imperfect human can) are the only way to show that you are a christian. That third part identifies the hypocrisy of any "christian" religion that willfully follows non-bible based teachings.

 

I would expect any true believer in their religion to say the same things about their religion. That being that 1) their god(s) is the rightful ruler of all things, 2) that their holy writings show the way their god thinks and wishes their followers to think, and 3) that one must woship in accordance with their god's wishes to be considered a worshipper of that god.

 

Thus the only resulting question to be asked is which one is right? That, according to site rules, is a question not to be discussed on this forum.

Tirade, or forceful rhetoric, it seems despite the whining I have brought you to finally give a response that is on point.

There is no one happier than a believer to find such a convenient dodge of saying which is right, by the interpretation of some particular written rules, be it Holy Biblical or Secular Hypographic. Which is my ultimate point that every religion is as slippery as snot on a porcelein doorknob, similarly infectuous, and it is justifiable to make every effort to wipe it away. :hihi:

[cwes99_03]

Strawman: Accusation of a dodge.

 

Not a strawman:

in order to tell you whether or not a fake $100 bill is real or not, I do not have to study every possible fake $100 bill in the world.

 

See why I question your ability for logic.

 

You attribute my forcefully asking you to stay on topic and not to inflame others into bickering and fighting with dodging the initial question which I was here to discuss. You therefore commit to a strawman argument.

 

Likewise, your accusing me of using a strawman (which had nothing to do with strawman arguments as it neither accused someone of the opposing viewpoint nor was fallacious) is a strawman argument and tactic. Too bad your distaste for religion/the religious clouds your eyes, Turtle.

 

Likewise, here is an earlier post of mine in which I partially answered this question.

 

Additionally by stating that some religions today are not religions at all on this very thread, I identified previously that I did not believe all religions could be true religions and reasons for why I did not believe so. Sorry, buddy, but you didn't illicit any resonse that I had not already given but which you refused to look up.

http://hypography.com/forums/141389-post38.html

[Turtle]

See why I question your ability for logic.

Yes, the love of Jesus is in your heart & on your lips, and you want to kiss and make-up. :singer:

[cwes99_03]

Strawman.

 

Oh wait, I shall show you how.

 

Turtle in no way knows the truth of what I believe as far as my belief in Jesus, his place in my worship, or my association with him. Thus by placing this stance on me, he is setting up a strawman argument by which he is hoping that others who have an equal hatred of those "born again", "Jesus is my savior", type christians to completely ignore anything I have to say.

 

That my friend is a dodge. That is to say, when you have nothing left to say and running crying while slinging mud over your shoulder.

 

Sorry, you can neg rep me for that, as I am being a bit harsh, but sometimes you have to boldly stand up and reveal your opponent for what he is. While I could likewise stoop to the level I see you sitting at Turtle, I will continue to invite you to tread the line, keep on topic, and not overstep forum rules, as I am sure you will continue your reputation attack on me and others who hold different viewpoints than yourself, and continue to assert your "dominance" in the knowledge of all religion and it's "nonsense" viewpoints.

[HydrogenBond]

In my opinion religion is a projection from within. It is a way to map out the inner psyche within humans. One thing that is different are the names of the symbols.

 

A good analogy is an English speaking person saying that my head rests on my neck, while a French speaking person calls it ma tete. Religions sometimes fight over the words as though it represents two different things, never realizing they both are saying the same thing in different ways.

 

The other difference is what each religion is plotted out with respect to the inner psyche. Polytheism isn't centered but focuses on intermediate dynamics between the thalamus (center) and cerebral, i.e, ventrical eddies or personality software. Monotheism, is centered in the thalamus or central region of the brain, i.e, inner self. Christianity uses the center or thalamus but also includes the dynamics between the left, i.e., rational and right, i.e, spatial, hemispheres to get a trinity. Judeo-Christianity, helps keep the process centered at the inner self while also allowing an interaction between the two hemispheres. This seems to be the most advanced pic of the human psyche because it is the basis of the dominant human influences on the earth over the past 230 years, i.e., 1776.

[Freddy]

In my opinion religion is a projection from within. It is a way to map out the inner psyche within humans. One thing that is different are the names of the symbols.

 

A good analogy is an English speaking person saying that my head rests on my neck, while a French speaking person calls it ma tete. Religions sometimes fight over the words as though it represents two different things, never realizing they both are saying the same thing in different ways.

 

The other difference is what each religion is plotted out with respect to the inner psyche. Polytheism isn't centered but focuses on intermediate dynamics between the thalamus (center) and cerebral, i.e, ventrical eddies or personality software. Monotheism, is centered in the thalamus or central region of the brain, i.e, inner self. Christianity uses the center or thalamus but also includes the dynamics between the left, i.e., rational and right, i.e, spatial, hemispheres to get a trinity. Judeo-Christianity, helps keep the process centered at the inner self while also allowing an interaction between the two hemispheres. This seems to be the most advanced pic of the human psyche because it is the basis of the dominant human influences on the earth over the past 230 years, i.e., 1776.

Absolutely not. Here is what Jefferson himself had to say on the subject. From the article:

 

When Jefferson was Vice President, just two months before the election of 1800 in which he would become President, he wrote to his good friend, the physician Benjamin Rush, who started out as an orthodox Christian and ended up, later in his life, a Deist and Unitarian. Here, in a most surprising context, we find the true basis of one of Jefferson's most famous quotes:

 

"DEAR SIR, - ... I promised you a letter on Christianity, which I have not forgotten," Jefferson wrote, noting that he knew to discuss the topic would add fuel to the fires of electoral politics swirling all around him. "I do not know that it would reconcile the genus irritabile vatum [the angry poets] who are all in arms against me. Their hostility is on too interesting ground to be softened.

 

"The delusion ...on the [First Amendment] clause of the Constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists.

 

"The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, and they [the preachers] believe that any portion of power confided to me [such as being elected President], will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough too in their opinion."

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0303-30.htm

[InfiniteNow]

cwes, you claim that others are venturing off point, then spend 3 posts arguing non-thread specifics. You claim to have the only true answer as to the point of the thread, yet you didn't open it. You accuse others of what you are doing yourself, and clearly have let another member enter your subcutaneous realm... If you hang out with pot smokers, people are going to think you're one too. When you associate with a religion, you often get painted with the broader brush which paints others of same faith...

 

That said, :circle: reglions are like ice cream flavors, and there is not a best one or one better than another on anything more than a personal and subjective level... There are no clear metrics making one more ideal than another, and it's all interpretation. If an individual likes green and I like blue, it doesn't mean that one is right and the other is wrong, it just means we like different things which have a degree of semantic overlap...

 

 

Cheers. :circle:

[TheBigDog]

This is not the place to discuss Bible verses, nor is it the place to explain why your religion is much better than the alternatives. There are plenty of forums for that on the web already. Please respect our wishes to maintain a forum which first and foremost concerns the scientific aspects of religion, and not the faith aspects of it.

It seems to me that this thread, like many others in the forum, is set up in such a fashion as to make those of faith the objects of ridicule.

1) How is the existence of varying beliefs reconciled theologically?

2) What are the various benefits and problems associated with resolving these conflicts?

It is fact that many religions around the world profess to be the only truth. And that when examined it is shown that they conflict each other is such fashions that not all of them can be the truth. So people are asked how they reconcile this. Now we will get two types of responses to this. We will get atheist responses that all religion is bullshit. And we will get answers from people who are believers who make an effort to actually explain the faith based logic to the question. The question asks for a faith based answer, an answer that by definition will fall short of scientific scrutiny.

 

I have my own question about this thread and this forum.

This is not a forum for preaching the word of God (regardless of which one you may subscribe to).

Preaching the word of "no God" is the same as preaching the word of God. Statements to the effect that all religion is a blight to humanity and should be wiped out is as big a violation of the preaching rules as coming here and saying that atheism is leading to the fall of humanity.

Which is my ultimate point that every religion is as slippery as snot on a porcelein doorknob, similarly infectuous, and it is justifiable to make every effort to wipe it away.

I counter with this...

Atheism is a virus that infects the human soul killing the natural (God given) sense of morality, and it is justifiable to wipe it away through the preachings of Jesus.

If I or anyone were to come out with such a statement I would be read the riot act in short order. The purpose of this discussion, and this thread, and this forum is not the wholesale elimination of religion, and the harrasment of believers in the attempt to either make them leave or get them to convert. The active purification of mankind from the influence of religion is not tolerated in this forum any more than the wholesale conversion of mankind to any single religion.

 

I will leave with a story...

 

There is a shipwreck. Survivors are in several rafts. There is no sign of land, and could cover that will sustain for months. With no stars or sun to guide by the survivors try to come up with stratagies for rescue. For a while the boats cling together and people argue about what to do. Some want to stay with the wreckage. Others want to row in another direction because they recall that was the direction the ship was going. Others want to row in another direction because that is where they claim the ship came from. Still others want to row perpendicular to the ship's path reasoning that it was running alongside land. Others want to row in the other direction because they think land is on the other side of their path. So after some time the five groups decide to each go in their own direction.

 

There is no better reason for picking any one of these reasons instead of another. Yet every person had an urge to survive, and needed to latch onto some hope through some action. That is the nature of religion. People pick their boat, and they row in hope that it will be better for them in the long run than another. Even those who choose not to row are making a choice. But in the end there is no concrete way of saying that any decision was better than any other. But lack of obvious reasons is not an obstacle for the human mind or the human spirit. And those looking for justification of their own choice will find their answers. And those looking to ridicule the choices of others will find those reasons too.

 

In the end it just doesn't matter which boat you got into or why. Nobody knows for sure who survived. But that is no reason to disrespect those who are in a different boat.

 

Bill