If there is one true religion...
- Thread starter Vendrah
- Start date
not really sister, you can search it on the internet then throw your questions or arguments here and i will try my best.
- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,474
- 247,298
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
This guy is such a dickhead, taunting Jews, Pagans and basically all non Muslims.
He's the kind of person that challenges somebody, and when they rise to that challenge he immediately denies that they have done so, according to him.
He himself is full of falseness, yet he is smug about others.
easy easy, we shall keep discipline here despite our different views
first of all this does not answer my argument
second, you are saying the opposite of his words
third, he has both the courage and knowledge to stand in front of millions and challenge people to prove him wrong, which many religions dont offer.
fourth, no one could ever prove him wrong.
- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,474
- 247,298
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
First - I'm not trying to answer anything, because you won't listen anyway
Second - I'm not saying anything about his words
Third - No challenge is occurring, it's easy to broadcast. He is incapable of absorbing challenges because of his own indoctrination
Fourth - Cool story bro
that kinda feels bad, i will not really have much to do in this quarantine if you think like that.
Am sure he is the same guy that makes open Q&A and debates sessions on TV with people and your scholars.
To @grimm and all others, I think I was "unhappy" on the threads name.
My original point "if there is one true religion" does not imply in lack of freedom, doesnt imply into worshipping any figure at all and I wasnt refering to organized religion, although I didnt noticed that perhaps the religion word imply into something organized and imply into worshipping some entity, and perhaps some might associate my original point with priests, books, etc.. (which wasn't my point at all) but I really lack a proper word for what I had described, it would be a mix of unorganized religion, beliefs, etc... Part of my point was that there is a possibility that the "truth", if it is really the "truth", is already out there and have no requirement to spread and no requirement to have high publicity-visibility (as regular religions instructs their people to spread it and fight for its visibility and to support on its publicity) because it is already out there, and that we "subscribe" to different "aspects" of the truth without realizing it (sorry to being non-specific or vague, but the idea is to not specify what that truth is). It would be, in a metaphorical but not literal way, visible in the horizon without need to further explanation, so literally anyone anywhere can understand it. Something that we, deep down, know what it is and that it is and something that is 'waiting' for us anytime anywhere any context. It started just as an "what if" and perhaps a philosophical thought (since nothing that I said on the first post proves anything at all) that came partially from my thoughts about "What if I was God, what would I do?" (which is more a mental exercise, or perhaps an empathy exercise, rather than an ambition because I have no plans of becoming a God) and me trying to put myself in God shoes, starting to think about what God struggles would be, and etc... But Im really starting believe on this idea (the idea that there is some hidden truth and that the God message is inside us in a deep truth that doesnt need to spread).
My original point "if there is one true religion" does not imply in lack of freedom, doesnt imply into worshipping any figure at all and I wasnt refering to organized religion, although I didnt noticed that perhaps the religion word imply into something organized and imply into worshipping some entity, and perhaps some might associate my original point with priests, books, etc.. (which wasn't my point at all) but I really lack a proper word for what I had described, it would be a mix of unorganized religion, beliefs, etc... Part of my point was that there is a possibility that the "truth", if it is really the "truth", is already out there and have no requirement to spread and no requirement to have high publicity-visibility (as regular religions instructs their people to spread it and fight for its visibility and to support on its publicity) because it is already out there, and that we "subscribe" to different "aspects" of the truth without realizing it (sorry to being non-specific or vague, but the idea is to not specify what that truth is). It would be, in a metaphorical but not literal way, visible in the horizon without need to further explanation, so literally anyone anywhere can understand it. Something that we, deep down, know what it is and that it is and something that is 'waiting' for us anytime anywhere any context. It started just as an "what if" and perhaps a philosophical thought (since nothing that I said on the first post proves anything at all) that came partially from my thoughts about "What if I was God, what would I do?" (which is more a mental exercise, or perhaps an empathy exercise, rather than an ambition because I have no plans of becoming a God) and me trying to put myself in God shoes, starting to think about what God struggles would be, and etc... But Im really starting believe on this idea (the idea that there is some hidden truth and that the God message is inside us in a deep truth that doesnt need to spread).
For the sake of conversation, not conversion...
- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,474
- 247,298
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
It's easy to hold debates when all you do is quote a book as infallible.
I can argue anything and just say it's because the quran, bible or upanishads says so, according to my interpretation.
proving the Quran is fallible is all what the clip was about, but let us just drop it on that for the sake of peace.
- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,474
- 247,298
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
Agreed. I don't want to be caught in a circular logic conversation.
Finally, we agree on something.
The Bible was never meant to be the inerrant, infallible word of God. As I'm sure you know, before Christ, was the Old Testament which is divided into 3 parts, The Torah, writings and prophets. Then there was Christ. Then Christ died. Then came Christianity. The Apostles wrote letters and instruction to newly formed Christian communities over many years. Those letters were passed around the communities. It wasn't until around 300 years after Christ that the letters were organized into what we call the Bible. The believers, the rituals, the prayers, the practice, the liturgy were already in place before the Bible. The errors in the New Testament are a result of different interpretations of the same events. Luke has a different take on Christ's life than Matthew. It's like if you and I were together and witnessed an event then separated and retold the story to different people. Perhaps, I retold the story with only 4 others present and a dreary day, while you retell the event as having 6 others present and the sun breaking through the clouds. Our contradiction does not mean the event did not take place.
The Bible was never ever meant to be the infallible Word of God. The Bible was never ever meant to be a science or history book, though many attempt to make it so. Some even make it so so they can discredit it. It's like saying I'm not a girl because I'm not a girl. The Bible is not scientific because it is not scientific. There is much more to Christianity than the Bible. Christianity does not come from the Bible. The Bible (OT + NT) came from Christianity.
Last edited:
Dammit.
I'm afraid you don't have an argument. If you did, you would be at least open to the possibilty of being proven wrong, which you are not.
Which is why Wyote said that you are 'indoctrinated'. You are not open to dialogue; you are already certain of the truth of what you hold.
Hence, no possible argument.
- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,474
- 247,298
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx