My point of view

[Dexter Sinister]

OK ~ Let's all agree to treat all religions with equal respect.

And what exactly does that mean? I'll never buy the idea that religions deserve automatic respect just because they have the label "religion" on them, any claim has to stand or fall on its own merits, religion doesn't get a pass on that. There are those who seem to think that any challenge to a religious claim is bashing, when all it is is a request to justify the claim, and that's perfectly legitimate, even essential if we're ever going to arrive at an understanding of what's true and what's not. It's simply not good enough to say, as the apologist William Lane Craig does, that you know something is true because when you ask yourself the question you feel god in your heart telling you it's true. I've seen many of the YouTube videos of Craig debating Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins and Christopher HItchens, and that's consistently the core of his argument, that he knows Christianity is the one true religion because he knows Christianity is the one true religion, god's in his heart telling him so. That, as Sam Harris pointed out in the video I linked to earlier, is a failure to reason honestly, and faith-based claims can't be allowed to get away with that, it's just begging the question. If that's disrespect, well... too bad, that's the way reasoned argument works.

 

[Cliffy]

I like to discuss religion in terms the religious use so they can understand the ideas. For example, if god exists and it created all there is (and you can't create anything out of nothing) and before creation there there was only god, then everything in existence is part of god. In other words, the Universe and everything in it is part of and made of god (thus the search for the god particle). Since god is the Universe, then the universe is god and nothing in it can be separate from it. If you cut off your finger, it will not live because it separated from your body. So it stands to reason then, that if you believe god created the universe and you, then you could not exist or live separate from god (just like your finger). So, how can we be searated from god so that we need to be reunited with god by accepting Jesus into our hearts? It just doesn't make sense because if we were separated from god for even a few hows, we would die. If we are dead, we would not have a functioning heart to accept Jesus into. The belief in this dogma is beyond ridiculous.

If you believe in god and that god created you, then you are part of god and therefor made up of god particles. Those particles are charged with the same creative power. You should be able to use that creative energy to create your own personal life and experiences. So if you are not, if you are at the mercy of external forces (of good or evil) then you are not using your god given power. Why do you think that is? Could it be that religion's real purpose is to dis-empower you? If you have been told that you are a sinner and you believe it, you are dis-empowered. You give your power over to your priest or minister who acts as an authority over you. That, to me, is spiritual enslavement.

If you don't believe in god, you are still part of the creative force that animates all life whether you accept it or not. I doubt the god cares what we think or believe.

 

[oceandeep]

and there are priests who uses church for their let's say personal interest.....there was once a priest who sollicits from the community to build a house for him and his mother.......and church damage by whatever calamity was finance by the government for their reconstruction....good thing there is on -going talks in the senate to impose taxes for church's commercial activities property.

 

[CDNBear]

...good thing there is on -going talks in the senate to impose taxes for church's commercial activities property.

I actually support taxing the various Churches.

 

[gopher]

And what exactly does that mean? I'll never buy the idea that religions deserve automatic respect just because they have the label "religion" on them, any claim has to stand or fall on its own merits, religion doesn't get a pass on that. There are those who seem to think that any challenge to a religious claim is bashing, when all it is is a request to justify the claim, and that's perfectly legitimate, even essential if we're ever going to arrive at an understanding of what's true and what's not. It's simply not good enough to say, as the apologist William Lane Craig does, that you know something is true because when you ask yourself the question you feel god in your heart telling you it's true. I've seen many of the YouTube videos of Craig debating Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins and Christopher HItchens, and that's consistently the core of his argument, that he knows Christianity is the one true religion because he knows Christianity is the one true religion, god's in his heart telling him so. That, as Sam Harris pointed out in the video I linked to earlier, is a failure to reason honestly, and faith-based claims can't be allowed to get away with that, it's just begging the question. If that's disrespect, well... too bad, that's the way reasoned argument works.

I do like your reasoning. But let's be honest here - if someone posts anything that questions Christianity, all too often that person is criticized as attacking Christianity. By contrast we have had multiple dozen threads here attacking Islam, accusing them of every manner of terrorism and subversion, often the critics confuse Shiia with Sunni denominations, they even attacked the Sufis who tried to build a mosque in down town Manhattan when the Sufis are the Quakers or pacifists of their religion.

Recall when I wrote earlier, would you blame Quakers or other pacifist Christians for the actions of a Hitler? Nobody touched that one. Similarly, why would anyone attack Sufis for the actions of Sunni fanatics????

Look, I personally hate cults such as Scientology or that Kansas hate cult whose name escapes me at the moment. But you would be less than honest if you said there has not been a double standard on this forum. Let's all agree to respect ALL religions. True ones, not cults. Hate the sin of the few, not the beliefs of the innocent majority. NO DOUBLE STANDARDS UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. Agree ?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Let's all agree to respect ALL religions. True ones, not cults. Hate the sin of the few, not the beliefs of the innocent majority. NO DOUBLE STANDARDS UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. Agree ?

I'll agree with the sentence in upper case, sure, but it's far from clear where to draw the line between a true religion (I presume you're using true in the sense of real there) and a cult. Look up religion and cult in a dictionary and you'll find it offers no clear distinction between them. Most people seem to make the distinction based mostly on longevity and number of adherents, not on the claims they make, which to me is not a distinction of any substance. Age and size are no guarantee of a belief system's truth content.

At best only one of them can be correct in its foundational claims. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity share a great deal, but Jews and Muslims, for instance, don't accept Christianity's claims about Jesus, Jews and Christians don't accept Islam's claims about Mohammed, and Christians and Muslims don't accept Judaism's claim to be the chosen people. And Hindus have a completely different take on all of it. And so it goes. It seems far more likely to me that none of them are correct, and to the extent that their claims converge--they all have some form of the Golden Rule, for example--their claims come from outside the belief system. So no, I will not agree to respect ALL religions, or even ANY religions. I'm convinced they are all wrong, and that's not a workable basis for respect.

 

[damngrumpy]

Oh for Gods sake the Catholic Church is a spiritual center, it is also a giant political machine,
a transnational corporation in the Jesus business. There are you happy? No here is something
else I am what I call a retired Catholic, however attack the bloody church and I will side with
Gerry sometimes, especially when it is an attack for the sake of attacking the church.
There are other churches out there that don't collect as much as the Catholics and most of the
time they are jealous. They are also in many cases crooked as hell with false promises.
Stealing is an art form for the televangelists and sooner or later they all get caught.
The real problem is I don't have a problem with God just the church people who claim they
represent them.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Oh for Gods sake the Catholic Church is a spiritual center, it is also a giant political machine,
a transnational corporation in the Jesus business. There are you happy?

No I'm not, I think it's peddling nonsense in both those roles, some of it quite harmful, like trying to prevent the dissemination of information about modern contraception in the Third World.

 

[gerryh]

No I'm not, I think it's peddling nonsense in both those roles, some of it quite harmful, like trying to prevent the dissemination of information about modern contraception in the Third World.

Yup, the churches solution is just horrible...I mean really, not giving the multi national corps a profit? How dare they even suggest that pharma's contraceptives aren't needed to prevent pregnancy OR disease.

 

[Spade]

Do stones up a camel's yingyang really prevent cavities, er, pregnancies!?

 

[gerryh]

Do stones up a camel's yingyang really prevent cavities, er, pregnancies!?

I have no idea, why don't you give it a try and let us know how you make out.

 

[Liberalman]

For God so love the world, why did he allow the continuous power growth of the vatican and left majority of the people suffer?

It's like playing the video games one can't get to the next level until the present level is completed and each level gives you more stuff so God is just waiting the world to grow up.

 

[oceandeep]

and each constitution in the realm of teaching is diversed....or maybe i'm wrong.

 

[Spade]

I have no idea, why don't you give it a try and let us know how you make out.

Sorry, no camel.

and each constitution in the realm of teaching is diversed....or maybe i'm wrong.

Maybe?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Yup, the churches solution is just horrible...I mean really, not giving the multi national corps a profit? How dare they even suggest that pharma's contraceptives aren't needed to prevent pregnancy OR disease.

Strictly speaking that's true, abstinence works, but so do condoms. Any realistic assessment of human nature ought to tell you which is likely to be more effective.

 

[Spade]

So does castration.
Dutch Roman Catholic Church 'castrated at least 10 boys' - Telegraph

 

[MHz]

God was finished with Israel, the cross was the completion of all prophecy and literal events associated with the bruise to the heel. That also defined death as being the bruise. Death for a 2nd born being, as are all Angelic beings and zero humans alive today, death for them is the fiery lake. Luke:21:20 is the destruction of the Temple which fulfills some prophecy from Daniel 8 and 9, it also fulfils the one below although this would seem to be Apostle like Jews rather than the 'blind Jews' that are defined in Matthew 23.

De:4:26-31:
I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go over Jordan to possess it;
ye shall not prolong your days upon it,
but shall utterly be destroyed.
And the LORD shall scatter you among the nations,
and ye shall be left few in number among the heathen,
whither the LORD shall lead you.
And there ye shall serve gods,
the work of men's hands, wood and stone,
which neither see,
nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.
But if from thence thou shalt seek the LORD thy God,
thou shalt find him,
if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.
When thou art in tribulation,
and all these things are come upon thee,
even in the latter days,
if thou turn to the LORD thy God,
and shalt be obedient unto his voice;
(For the LORD thy God is a merciful God
he will not forsake thee,
neither destroy thee,
nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them.

Shortly after that Revelation was published and that was the end of 'enlightened men' being on any part of the earth. The period between then and the end was a period on non-intervention by God otherwise He would not be able to return in the future as interacting with mankind would have meant the return had already happened. The very first sign that is a 'for sure' that He has returned is on the day that happens many dead people come out of the grave. Sinners won't see that as they will have all dies and entered their time of punishment which just happens to be over moments before it is eternally too late to save anybody else. God isn't making anybody intentionally making anybody suffer, if He was to relieve it for one He would have to do it for all. That is the way things are already planed and written in the Bible. You seem to want Him to break what He has declared already, God doesn't work like that, sinners do.

Strictly speaking that's true, abstinence works, but so do condoms. Any realistic assessment of human nature ought to tell you which is likely to be more effective.

If the Vatican was doing it's job it would be the world's bank and all personal loans would be interest free, that would give consumers the money they needed for such things and the 'bank' doesn't offer opinions on a person's relationship with God, they should be strictly concerned about their own salvation.

 

[Cliffy]

Lewis Black - The Old Testament - YouTube

 

[MHz]

No I'm not, I think it's peddling nonsense in both those roles, some of it quite harmful, like trying to prevent the dissemination of information about modern contraception in the Third World.

Modern conveniences like TV and the phone and electricity are more effective than a pill. Marrierd people who have nothing to do at night are going to have sex. I'm not really convinced that parents who are dirt-poor and under persecution think that having a bunch of kids is going to fix their situation.

I like the way LB can't keep a straight face. Nor is it lost on me that most of his income comes from the Gentile side of fans.

Do stones up a camel's yingyang really prevent cavities, er, pregnancies!?

I'll wager a loonie that the person(s) given the task of putting the stones up there is now unable to have kids, male or female the camel won't be fussy. I'll even allow the 100% of the 'group' to be included lol

 

[gopher]

Dexter,

''Jews and Muslims, for instance, don't accept Christianity's claims about Jesus, Jews and Christians don't accept Islam's claims about Mohammed, and Christians and Muslims don't accept Judaism's claim to be the chosen people''

There are some Messianic Jews. Moreover, I have quoted from the Koran repeatedly to show that Muslims acknowledge Jesus as Messiah. As for who is ''chosen'' the Bible indicates that all 12 Hebraic tribes (not just one) are heirs to the Promise made to Abraham. In the New Testament, all Christians are now ''fellowheirs''. Since Muslims acknowledge Jesus as Messiah, they, too, are ''chosen''. I have supplied quotes from the Bible to prove these points in the past. Regardless of one's outlook, all religions deserve the same respect.