Revelation
Offline All religions can be reduced in essence to revelation, that is to say, one person communing with ‘god’ or his agents to gain knowledge. A religion may be based on a singular revelation, or on a series of revelations from a string of ‘prophets’. Revelation is then passed down as oral tradition, which becomes written tradition, or, as in more ‘modern’ situations, passed directly to written tradition.
My question would be, is revelation a valid source of knowledge?
Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.
- Login to post comments
Offline blacklight915 wrote:I'm curious FurryCatHerder and Lion IRC, why do accept theism and reject atheism? I'm really interested in what you have to say. You both seem to have this vendetta against atheism and atheists and, if this is true, I am very curious as to why.
Theism and atheism are both optional.
I cannot force atheists into anything by vendetta or crow bar or machine gun or bible.
Great, now whatever fan club you belong to, would you PRETTY PLEASE, tell those under your same label to STOP using our planet as a giant game of capture the flag? Is that too much considering all of us only have one planet to live on?
But, as great as I think that attitude would be, the books all three of you use ARE weapons which is why even with what you say, others who believe do read that same book and use it to justify violence, even if you don't yourself. If all of humanity were like you, I could live with your absurd claims and comic books.
The OT and even parts of the NT and Revelations and the Koran are chalk full of words people read and turn around and use to infect politics and education and also use it to justify violence. EVEN IF you yourself say you would not use force. Get the world's population to that point and I wouldn't care at all what holy book you read or what god you believe in.
But since that ain't going to happen, I am going to do my best to marginalize and demonize and make fun of any moron, defending blind faith, be it of a state or a god.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline "...tough questions..."*cough*
Dont flatter yourself.
Why? You certainly haven't come close to a convincing answer.
If it were, religion would be a complete non-starter. "Revelation" supplements reality.
Wrong. ALL religion begins with revelation. It is the basic component. There is NO direct observation of god to be had. No direct way that such a being communicates its wishes. Everything you believe is true arose from the fertile imagination of another human being.
So tell me... who observed and reported the events of say... Genesis?
The thing about revelation which energizes theism is when two or more people have similar revelations.
This corroborates the God Conclusion even when similar revelations are - not surprisingly -interpreted differently by different humans.
BTW - Evidence can be detected by the senses in many different forms - sound, sight, taste, touch. And those senses are not empirically calibrated.
But these ARE empirical senses. And they are subject to error, and misinterpretation.
Dogs can "detect" sounds which the human ear cannot.
And sharks can detect electrical signals, eagles can spot a mouse from 500 yards away ...so what?
And many so-called scientific discoveries, far from being accidental, are the result of a moment of inspiration for which the human finds it hard to account.
Can you name one that depended entirely on revelation Lee??? Just one. I mean, if it's accepted as science it requires empirical verification experimentation and replication... saying that someone has an idea doesn't even hint at a supernatural origin.
If God put a thought (inspiration) into someones head that leads to a discovery we dont discount that discovery we simply accept it.
No, but we can dismiss that a god had anything to do with it because there's no reason to assume something so asinine.
Christopher Columbus' motivation to explore the New World was based in part on his interpretation of prophecy in 2 Esdras.
Christopher Columbus, genocidal maniac, would be conqueror was motivated by greed, nothing more.
LC >;-}>
Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.
Drugs.
Are you really asking this question?
Come on guys, theists, I want to see BOTH Jews and Christians in this thread attempting to answer this. It is easy to blame us godless heathens for your lack of evidence. But please since you both think there is a magic man to appeal to who favors you over all others, please tell us all. Heck, lets make it a tri-fecta, Muslims jump in too if you read this.
How did you manage to get it right "insert deity here". If it is written, then it can only be seen as flawed because of the time it was written, if it is "revealed" then that is even worse because it makes the naked assertion that "somehow" this magic man whispered in someone's ear.
Maybe I am simply not wearing the right tin foil hat to communicate with this alleged being "insert deity here".
And also to these three, keep in mind if you are unwilling to buy your own arguments when other people of other labels use those same arguments, then maybe the real truth is that it is merely all in your head.
But in any case, feel free to give it a shot at answering Luis's question.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Yes. The theist has no other source of information, I want one or more of them to defend it.
Revelation is the ONLY source of religious 'knowledge'. Everything else is apologetics.
LC >;-}>
Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.
No problem. I myself enjoy reading their responses.
It boils down to "I am special".
What you are asking anyone or all of them is HOW, not who said what, not what book, but by what means this "revelation" was shown to them. That is what I read into your question, you can correct me if I am wrong.
There responses should be entertaining.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I'm not expecting a stampede of theistic explanations... they tend to avoid the tough questions.
LC >:-}>
Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.
The validity of a "revelation" is determined by its agreement with observed reality (can't contradict OBSERVED reality) as well as the accuracy of any future claims ( "prophecy" ). I would argue that a set of "revelations" ( call it a "Holy Book" ) should also advance a sustainable society, otherwise we're all kinda screwed and the entity providing the "revelation" is just doodling ...
If you can accept that as a basis for a conversation, we can move on. If not, I'd ask that you provide some kind of "test" of your own and we can discuss terms of engagement.
(Edited because the stupid software thinks '"' followed by ')' is some kind of smiley.)
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
Ok, I knew Furry would chime in. Now we have some Christians here. Even if you agree with her in definition WHY would her definitions above lead to the NT God and not hers? And to you Furry, they could make the same argument you did and they do, maybe in other words, but same motif. How is it you got it right and they got it wrong? EVEN if I were to agree with your definitions.
Now how about you Lee, or Caposkia. Where did she go wrong that lead her away from your "truth" that Jesus is the son of the one true god?
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
If theists were pro dodge ball players at the level of the Super Bowl they'd win. Well, not because they play by the rules, but because the rules change when it isn't convenient to stick to them.
But I am always interested to see their attempts.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I'm still trying to figure out this "Lee" person and how he's trying to prove the virgin birth using thermodynamics. The only thing a "virgin birth" involving a non-corporeal deity results in is a female child.
Now, it could be that Jesus was really a girl with a facial hair problem, but the entire bit about him being circumcised rules that one out.
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
Furry, I love it when you point at others and say "Yea that's absurd", but wont look in the mirror yourself.
Baal, Asurha(sp) Yahweh, El and Elohim are all characters pulled out of the Canaanite pantheon that the Hebrews ended up using.
But I AM distracting you from Luis's question which is HOW this "truth" gets into your head regardless of you ignoring that your monotheism stems from prior polytheism.
So what does it take to get this "revelation" besides making quotes from your text? What is the medium used outside making quotes from your holy book? Prayer? Meditation? Tin foil hat?
Keep in mind no science class a person can take requires being Jewish, so if you are right there has to be a universal way to demonstrate the credibility of the claim outside of "My Jewish god is the only true god".
My money is on tin foil hat. I am sure you beg to differ.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Jesus was Jewish. (Monotheism is rational. There's only One God. ETC ETC)
Saul of Tarsus (also Jewish) rightly states that the argument isnt among believers. There's a bigger picture.
And atheists who want to strain at gnats in the form of denominational differences between catholics, protestants, muslims, Jehovahs Witnesses, Jews, etc. are kind of missing the point...deliberately perhaps.
"...tough questions..."
*cough*
Dont flatter yourself.
Spritual Revelation (sensus divinatis) is not the only basis of theistic thought.
If it were, religion would be a complete non-starter. "Revelation" supplements reality.
The thing about revelation which energizes theism is when two or more people have similar revelations.
This corroborates the God Conclusion even when similar revelations are - not surprisingly -interpreted differently by different humans.
BTW - Evidence can be detected by the senses in many different forms - sound, sight, taste, touch. And those senses are not empirically calibrated. Dogs can "detect" sounds which the human ear cannot. And many so-called scientific discoveries, far from being accidental, are the result of a moment of inspiration for which the human finds it hard to account. If God put a thought (inspiration) into someones head that leads to a discovery we dont discount that discovery we simply accept it. Christopher Columbus' motivation to explore the New World was based in part on his interpretation of prophecy in 2 Esdras.
Monotheism is rational? As in , one source of magic is more rational than none?
Paul was Jewish? Only if you accept the atheism of the Pope.
And damn those atheist who strain at "gnats" like the Bible not being consistent from one part to the next...
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Since no two people have had similar revelations (including the Bible's authors) are you saying that theism is not energized?
Or is there another source of power? Like, say, controlling the gullible and making money?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
No no no no, that doesn't cut it. If being Jewish was good enough for Jesus, then why would there be any need to have the Christian religion?
If you are both from the same literary bloodline, AND YOU ARE, only in the sense that your literature stems from the same sources, then there is no reason to be a Christian. Furry was first so why isn't she a Christian?
You think Jews got it wrong and you got it right. So what. She thinks you got it wrong and she has it right.
Now, here is where Furry does one of two things with you.
She stands her ground and says, no, you got it wrong and Christianity is not the one right religion. Or she pawns it of as "well Jesus did exist but he wasn't the son of the Christian God". So either way, you can pretend to be buddy buddy, but the truth is if the religions are so interchangeable then it should not matter to either of you which god you believe in.
So the only reality there can be is that neither of you has evidence for their particular books being the right one exclusively and have no choice but to admit that it is merely a preference.
They are only related because of common names, characters and motifs. But they are by no means interchangeable.
If you are Christian, then you defend the Jesus story as being the real god. If you are Jewish then you defend the Hebrew God Yahweh as the one true god.
Jesus was a Jew is a cop out and a dodge.
How about this. Back then even prior to the Hebrews all the polytheistic cultures competed to sell their super heros. Modern monotheism cherry picked the parts they liked, created a new cult, and both Hebrews and Christianity came about, not because of any real god existing, not either one, but because of mere successful marketing of the super heros they wanted to have save them BACK THEN.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Kindly butt the f*ck out.
Seriously. I like you, but you've taken a carbide grinding wheel to my last nerve.
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
Judaism isnt a static religion. There is eschatology. There is Messianic hope. And there are/were righteous Jews before and after Jesus' advent. Christianity (acceptance of Jesus as Messiah) gives me NO RIGHT to walk into a synagogue and denounce anyone I choose.
You're right, there is neither Jew nor Gentile in the garden of Eden nor in the Kingdom of God.
pretend? She's my neighbor. I love her.
You're conflating our qualitative argument about the nature of God with a quantitative argument. Polytheists assert multiple gods. Monotheists assert One God. Atheists assert zero gods. Accept or reject the existence of God but please dont fall for the irrational, illogical counter-apologetic that...
1. People disagree about the (complex) nature of God...
2. Therefore, no God.
And if you disagree, then try using that approach with the mistakes and disagreements seen in (supposedly empirical) science.
"...the only reality"
Listen to yourself preaching about "the only" reality in the post-modern year 2011. It's funny because science (physics) is the very thing making "reality" a blur. Science is dragging us further and further away from a unified theory of everything - its all but given up hope. Dogmatic scientism is so last century. Modern cosmology and quantum physics looks more and more like "woo" than any theology I ever read.
Yadda Yadda. You're doing exactly what you accuse and assert as mandatory for me and Furry - you're sitting around splitting hairs and straining at gnats and making petty criticism of someone elses religious denomination. Divide and conquer...yeah, yeah I get it. Nothing subtle about this. Or original.
You forget that Jewish people argue theology among themselves with as much conviction as they would argue over the doctrines of other faiths. Christians are equally passionate about their internal doctrinal disputes.
God MATTERS A LOT!
Atheists who want to get involved in debates about theist doctrines / theology make me smile?
Jesus, assuming he existed at all (my bet is that "Jesus" is a mash-up of people who did exist, and the martyrdom of the Apostle James in 55CE) may well have been a Jew, but he certainly wasn't the Messiah, and he absolutely certainly wasn't a god-man.
If the various stories about Jesus are even remotely true, Christianity is completely false. If the stories about Jesus aren't true, Christianity is false anyway. There's simply no =rational= way to go from Judaism to Christianity, nor is there any =rational= way to start with Matthew 1:1 and wind up with Christianity.
Islam has its own set of problems, but Christianity has far more.
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
I think Brian37 was warned, or else did the warning, that I enjoy slicing and dicing Christianity about as much as I do Atheism. It won't be "Divide and Conquer". It will be more like me and the Atheists against you, followed by me against the Atheists.
It things get bad enough, I'll probably suggest you become a Muslim. At least they are monotheists.
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
If you DIDNT think Jewish doctrines were rationally superior, why else would you hold to them?
l like free thought and free speech FurryCatHerder
Knock yourself out.
At least we can agree there will only be ONE winner when all is said and done and it wont be atheism.
If this were a one on one thread, which it is not, I am being more than fair to you. I am sorry, but you don't seem to understand that I am "working your last nerve" deliberately to take you outside your comfort zone. It is easy to hid behind something and retreat to your own turf. Ugly? To you, but learning never happens in a comfort zone.
Now BOTH of you would be lying to me if you try to claim "it's all the same". To make that claim logically consistent then it should not matter which religion you follow or Lee follows. Since we both know you both have reasons for your specific positions Luis is trying, and I am trying to demonstrate to you WHY "revelation" cannot work as a logical standard.
Which is why I invited you and Lee and any other theist into this thread to answer his questions.
So bottom line you cannot cop out to "it is all the same". It is not otherwise you have no reason to hold the position you do. Jews and Christians are not the same and cannot be considered the same, other than having the same literary sources. Sharing literature is not the same as sharing the same God. You do not share the same "one true god" and cannot when both of you claim "the one true god".
Your position is the Jewish God is the one true god, and Lee's position is that the NT God is the one true god.
WHAT Luis is asking outside your respective books is HOW do you demonstrate this to others other than merely claiming it and quoting your respective books?
That is the question you have dodged and Lee has dodged,
HOW not who. HOW, be it the God of Yahweh or the God of Jesus? Or even the reveled "nervana" of Buddhism or the reveled "Karma" of Hinduism.
Makes no difference to me which god you like.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Which atheists? LOL. You just invited one of them them to butt out.
How bad does it need to get for a Jewish person to side with atheists and promote Islam?
Thats some raw nerve you got there.
Here. Have a band-aid. We wouldn't want it to get infected now would we?
"My daddy is going to kick your ass" Yea yea yea. Get in line Muslims threaten atheists with Allah and their hell.
Yea, get that from everyone.
Ok fine, I'm going to get my ass handed to me. Fine. So what. If the "prize" is getting to suck up to a guy whose only goal is to get us to suck up to him, no thanks. I like my reason with a little more meat on it than "Just obey me and I wont hurt you".
Sorry, when I die, that is it. When you die, that is it. When Furry dies, that is it. When a Muslim dies, that is it. And when our species goes extinct, and it will eventually, all the human invented myths will die with our species because there wont be any future generation to sell our myths to. And our planet will die too none of us will be remembered by anyone or anything. The universe will continue without us.
I am quite confident ESPECIALLY with claims made in ancient times, that neither of you got it right and merely worship these books and fictional gods because someone sold you these claims.
So "atheists got it wrong" would not prove to Furry that the God of Jesus is the one true god. Nor would "atheists" got it wrong would prove to you that Jewish god of Yahweh and only the OT texts apply to the one true Jewish god.
So both of you are still stuck. But please, skip the veiled threats. They are just as hollow to me as threatening me with Allah or Thor.
You are both still stuck with the inability to demonstrate outside your respective books, to each other, much less me "how" this revelation is "true" to each of you.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
That's a lot of text in reply to one single sentence - which didnt "threaten" anyone.
You got a raw nerve too?
300 word reply to "veiled threats". Gimme a break. You're being paranoid.
I got the whole armour of God.
Nothing threatens me.
This will be (b'li neder) my last response to you, but only because you raise a ton of very common misconceptions that need to be aired.
Excellent point, and there absolutely wasn't any need for it, except for the Romans.
Judaism is not conducive to kissing the asses of any ruler, save G-d. Rome didn't much like that, and couldn't figure out why we weren't perfectly content to worship their pantheon of gods, and had a pretty rough time dealing with us. Saul, who was a Hellenized ("Greek-ified"
Jew, saw an opportunity to fabricate a religion that was less hostile to Roman authority. The key items that had to be tossed was everything that made us unique (cultural practices) and everything that made us offensive to Romans (refusing to recognize Caesar as king, male circumcision). By sometime around 50CE, he'd invented a sort of universalist version of very watered-down Judaism. How he latched on to "the Jesus Movement", which was more "political rebellion" oriented than the "Let's go live in the desert" Essenes, is a mystery, but enough Jews hated Roman occupation that someone who wanted to kick Roman butt was likely.
Thus, the need for Christianity wasn't theological, it was purely political -- a way to make nice with Rome =and= fool as many Jews as possible. In the First Jewish War (when the Temple was destroyed) the Romans did a pretty good job of breaking up Judaism as a religion, but Judaism had survived several other efforts, and we refused to just go away. By 135CE, and the Bar Kochbah Rebellion, Rome was well and properly fed up and destroyed as much of Judea as possible, murdered a million or so Jews, took however many of us they could take away into slavery, and figured they were done. By this time Christianity had legs and survived, eventually becoming the state religion of the Roman Empire. Which was then rewarded with crumbling into non-existence.
Christianity is based on Judaism the same way a vacuum cleaner is based on a potato peeler -- they both likely have metal parts and may or may not fit in ones hand.
Heh.
Playing "buddy buddy" with Christians is nice when it comes time to try and get the world headed in a better direction, but I'm not a polytheist.
Jesus was a Jew is an excuse to co-opt Judaism and try to justify gross mistranslations of Hebrew. On the basis of Jewish Law, not only is Christianity impossible, but Christianity doesn't even meet the requirements to be "true" if it =were= possible. By which I mean, that if there was some possibility (which there isn't) for a man-god to be the savior of Humanity, Jesus doesn't fill the requirements for being that man-god. AT ALL.
The problem with your arguments is one that Muslims often encounter when they run into Christians who insist that "Allah" is the Moon God or some other such silliness. If you understood Semetic languages, you'd immediately recognize what "Allah" is, and it isn't some moon god. All your talk about "El" and "Yahweh" and "Ba'al" is fueled by ignorance -- many words that are part of language =today= as "names" were words before they were names. John Smith isn't some guy with a last name of "Smith", he's likely some guy who's father's-father's-...-father was a "smith" of some sort. These things aren't a mystery to me, and I don't think the Baal Shem Tov was some guy who engaged in Ba'al worship. "Baal" is just a word.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baal_Shem_Tov
The other problem you have is that many of the things you accept as facts aren't facts, they are conjecture. How the Documentary Wild Guess has survived is truly a mystery -- there are people who recognize my style of writing in =this= sort of space, who can't recognize my writing in others. This the fatal flaw of the Documentary Wild Guess and all textual criticisms which are based on it.
Finally, Judaism is booby-trapped as a religion and has been booby-trapped as far back as anyone has managed to find portions of manuscripts, which is pushing 2,700 years right about now. That, by the way, puts the "start" of when texts can be compared to before the date set for the Documentary Wild Guess.
When the Torah is compared between texts from groups of Jews that were separated from Israel and Judea, not only are the texts the same, with an extremely small number of deviations (none of which matter), but the =differences= in practices and whatnot are consistent with the time at which the populations were separated.
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
Brian needs to stay out of this because he doesn't have the slightest idea what Judaism or Christianity =are= and his approach to advancing Atheism borders on the rabid.
Don't get me wrong -- I like Brian a lot. He seems genuinely concerned about the state of Humanity, and that's a major plus in a person. I just think he'd do well to stay out of this one.
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
No, "RABID" is what some of even your own Jews did in defacing an ice cream shop because sticking tongues out has a sexual connotation your REALLY rabid Jews do. "Rabid" is tearing down a poster because a woman's bear sholders were exposed. And if you guessed it was Israel where it happened and Jews who did it, right again.
"Rabid" is slamming planes into buildings. "Rabid" is what the Church did to Galileo. "Rabid" is what the Dark Ages were to non Christians. Thats "Rabid".
Don't confuse passion for debate and bluntness and blasphemy for being "rabid".
And as far as not knowing anything about Christianity, I was raised Catholic. And have read the same OT and bibles you have. And you can even post whatever links to whatever texts you want here. So how inviting you to try to make a case is "rabid" is silly.
Now since you don't trust me because you think I am "Rabid" which is silly, but fine, we also have an ex minister here as well who is even much more of a historian than I am.
I am not calling for your arrest, not even calling for you to be booted off this site. So please, stop calling me "rabid". It is silly and exposes your thin skin.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
So making stuff up is also a good defense mechanism ? Weird.
Now I did make one possible mistake. I want to clear this up, but if the case, even better.
IRC, are you a Christian or a Muslim? If I got the wrong one stuck in my head please clear that up.
But I'd love to see all three participating in this thread in any case.
Now all three read this and picture Monty Burns from the Simpsons tapping his fingers saying "EXCELLENT" and you've got me down pat. In a silly way, not a serious way.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Wow, for someone even before they get to their texts who defaults to the MOTHER OF all "conjecture" being the naked assertion of "My god is the one true god". That's rich.
Muslims and Christians claim that too.
WHICH IS WHY Luis wanted to avoid all your books and try to get you to find some way to translate what is in your head to others outside your head beyond the words you read or repeat. Something that, if could be done, would cut through all the crap and division that would make it clear to all, beyond "my god is the one true god".
"My book says" all of you claim. "My god is the one true god" all of you claim. What none of you have is a way to DEMONSTRATE how this "truth" was "reveled" to you. You don't have that and they don't either.
I may have made a mistake by interjecting because you haven't nor has LEE focused on his question. But even he admitted that it most likely would not produce anything fruitful other than what we've seen so far, which quite predictably you have lived up to.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I'm curious FurryCatHerder and Lion IRC, why do accept theism and reject atheism? I'm really interested in what you have to say. You both seem to have this vendetta against atheism and atheists and, if this is true, I am very curious as to why.
Atheism is attended by...disbelief in God, rejection of God, hatred of God, mockery of God, putting God to the proof...etc etc.
Your scriptures may guide you (or not) about how God views such attitudes. You make of them what you will - mostly good people, fairly good people, really good people. You're entitled to your own opinions.
OK if you insist. Lets take a look at that sig.
I'm firstly struck by your unusual claim that the existence of God is a truth you hold with EQUAL force as the certainty with which believe in FurryCatHerder's pronouncements about who God will and will not DEFINITELY be judging as righteous or otherwise.
Being "equally convinced" about the existence of God as you are about your own insight about what's in the hearts of atheists and Christians at the final judgement of their "good lives" strikes me as a bit pretentious.
I'm also interested to know if you deliberately or inadvertently omitted the disposition of God towards Jews...
... "who've treated people like dirt".
Or is this an area where you are "equally convinced" but less willing to write about your own certainty of God.
Theism and atheism are both optional.
I cannot force atheists into anything by vendetta or crow bar or machine gun or bible.
Lion IRC
Why? I can't think of a rational reason why if you accept the existence of one invisible, intangible sentient being with magical powers it precludes the existence of others. I could argue that a number of beings, dividing power and responsibility makes more sense than a singular superbeing.
Very ecumenical of you... but I don't see it.
Are you really going to try and claim that all believers are the same? That there is no very real difference between Catholics and Jews? Baptists and Muslims? Mormons and human beings? Really?
While you might want to sell an image of all god believers sitting around the camp fire singing kumbaya, it doesn't fit the reality of world history.
I can argue that all beliefs are equally silly, and all are concurrently wrong, for you to argue that you are all on the same page or even in the same book is absurd.
LC >;-}>
Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.