If there is one true religion...

[Wyote]

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.

AMEN.

 

[Ren]

AMEN.

Amen.

Just as an anecdote, Russell was quite harsh with Aquinas on the basis of a similar bias—although we would all agree that Aquinas is no lightweight, and in fact does go to amazing lengths defending the philosophical soundness of Christianity. Here's what Russell says:

"There is little of the true philosophic spirit in Aquinas. He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead. He is not engaged in an inquiry, the result of which it is impossible to know in advance. Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better; if he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading. I cannot, therefore, feel that he deserves to be put on a level with the best philosophers either of Greece or of modern times." (History of Western Philosophy)

 

[Wyote]

I cannot, therefore, feel that he deserves to be put on a level with the best philosophers either of Greece or of modern times." (History of Western Philosophy)

Who does Russell feel is deserving? Lol
I don't know if Aquinas considered himself more of a theologian than a philosopher, but Russell sounds pretty judgey! Hah!

 

[Yusuf]

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.

Are those changed words exposed later as the words of god or they are attributed to people directly?
does not this prove that the scriptures can be wrong and so attributing these wrong claims to Jesus make him sound confused about what he thought was right?
neither our book is scientific, but it does not contradict with logic.

 

[Ren]

Who does Russell feel is deserving? Lol
I don't know if Aquinas considered himself more of a theologian than a philosopher, but Russell sounds pretty judgey! Hah!

He is very judgey, which is actually great because it demystifies philosophers and philosophy in general. Of course, he himself is not exempt from that.

From what I can tell, the philosophers he held in the highest esteem were Plato, Spinoza, Descartes, Leibniz, Dewey, Frege, and Wittgenstein (by chronological order).

Here are some other funny (read: scathing) things he said about the great philosophers.

"The Platonic Socrates was a pattern to subsequent philosophers for many ages. What are we to think of him ethically? (I am concerned only with the man as Plato portrays him.) His merits are obvious. He is indifferent to worldly success, so devoid of fear that he remains calm and urbane and humourous to the last moment, caring more for what he believes to be truth than for anything else whatever. He has, however, some very grave defects. He is dishonest and sophistical in argument, and in his private thinking he uses intellect to prove conclusions that are to him agreeable, rather than in a disinterested search for knowledge. There is something smug and unctuous about him, which reminds one of a bad type of cleric. His courage in the face of death would have been more remarkable if he had not believed that he was going to enjoy eternal bliss in the company of the gods. Unlike some of his predecessors, he was not scientific in his thinking, but was determined to prove the universe agreeable to his ethical standards. This is treachery to truth, and the worst of philosophic sins. As a man, we may believe him admitted to the communion of saints; but as a philosopher he needs a long residence in a scientific purgatory."

"Nor is the doctrine sincere, if we may judge by Schopenhauer's life. He habitually dined well, at a good restaurant; he had many trivial love-affairs, which were sensual but not passionate; he was exceedingly quarrelsome and unusually avaricious. On one occasion he was annoyed by an elderly seamstress who was talking to a friend outside the door of his apartment. He threw her downstairs, causing her permanent injury (...) It is hard to find in his life evidences of any virtue except kindness to animals, which he carried to the point of objecting to vivisection in the interests of science. In all other respects he was completely selfish. It is difficult to believe that a man who was profoundly convinced of the virtue of asceticism and resignation would never have made any attempt to embody his convictions in his practice."

 

[Yusuf]

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.

in the last clip i showed a way quran can be disproved the same way i was supporting that it can not be disproved, it says if those conditions are fulfilled it can be a logical fallacy and so we can neglect it from the shelf of holybooks, if they are fulfilled, and they are not fulfilled yet.

 

[Wyote]

This is treachery

It is difficult to believe that a man who was profoundly convinced of the virtue of asceticism and resignation would never have made any attempt to embody his convictions in his practice.

lmao humans: getting triggered since the beginning of time

 

[Ren]

lmao humans: getting triggered since the beginning of time

Schopenhauer: basically proof INFJs can be assholes

 

[Milktoast Bandit]

does not this prove that the scriptures can be wrong and so attributing these wrong claims to Jesus make him sound confused about what he thought was right?

I do not know what you are talking about making Jesus sound confused. Scripture can be wrong if you look for that which is wrong. Still though this argument is faulty in that you are attempting to use human logic to understand something that is beyond logic. In any case, The Bible is meant to be read within the Church where it has already been interpreted and taught for over 2000 yrs. It is not intended for people to have their own interpretations and understandings. This is how Christianity has divided into thousands each with its own interpretations and each claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit. If that were true, surely every Christianity would share the same beliefs, yes?

Are those changed words exposed later as the words of god or they are attributed to people directly?

What you currently have within the whole of Christianity is incorrect translations of words. There are words in Greek and Hebrew that don't have an equivalent in any other language. You can see how this could lead to problems. Also, there's the whole is of the Protestant Reformation where words were added or omitted to advance the agenda against Catholicism at the time. "Christianity" as it is today is not perfect by any means, but the actual history of Christianity from before the Great Schism remains intact and is available for research. When the Bible is taken out of the context of the liturgical life of the Church, problems arise. Misunderstandings and misinterpretations are all too common by other Christians, atheists and agnostics alike for this very reason. If the Bible is removed from the Church, it's Tradition, teachings and history it will not hold up against scrutiny. It is like removing a head from the body. If it remains, then the Bible is interpreted and understood 'correctly' through the lens of Christ. The Old Testament is understood through the lens of the New Testament and what appears to be an angry God and an all loving God are reconciled and it all makes sense. Holy Tradition is the life of Christianity and Scripture is the language. Remove one from the other and neither make a whole lot of sense. The Bible is not a book of logic or science. It is a way for us humans to understand where we were, where we've been and where we are going, spiritually.

*PS I realize I said some things that may offend some of my Protestant friends. Nothing I said was intended as a personal attack or a dismissal of belief. Ta-ta

 

[Pin]

Schopenhauer: basically proof INFJs can be assholes

I've been saying this for years: ENTJs the nicest type of all.

 

[Pin]

Anyway, the correct religion is Catholicism.

 

[David54]

trying to find truth in things religious is a fools journey . .faith and truth are not the same thing. .belief is not truth . . it is belief.

 

[Yusuf]

I do not know what you are talking about making Jesus sound confused. Scripture can be wrong if you look for that which is wrong. Still though this argument is faulty in that you are attempting to use human logic to understand something that is beyond logic. In any case, The Bible is meant to be read within the Church where it has already been interpreted and taught for over 2000 yrs. It is not intended for people to have their own interpretations and understandings. This is how Christianity has divided into thousands each with its own interpretations and each claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit. If that were true, surely every Christianity would share the same beliefs, yes?

What you currently have within the whole of Christianity is incorrect translations of words. There are words in Greek and Hebrew that don't have an equivalent in any other language. You can see how this could lead to problems. Also, there's the whole is of the Protestant Reformation where words were added or omitted to advance the agenda against Catholicism at the time. "Christianity" as it is today is not perfect by any means, but the actual history of Christianity from before the Great Schism remains intact and is available for research. When the Bible is taken out of the context of the liturgical life of the Church, problems arise. Misunderstandings and misinterpretations are all too common by other Christians, atheists and agnostics alike for this very reason. If the Bible is removed from the Church, it's Tradition, teachings and history it will not hold up against scrutiny. It is like removing a head from the body. If it remains, then the Bible is interpreted and understood 'correctly' through the lens of Christ. The Old Testament is understood through the lens of the New Testament and what appears to be an angry God and an all loving God are reconciled and it all makes sense. Holy Tradition is the life of Christianity and Scripture is the language. Remove one from the other and neither make a whole lot of sense. The Bible is not a book of logic or science. It is a way for us humans to understand where we were, where we've been and where we are going, spiritually.

*PS I realize I said some things that may offend some of my Protestant friends. Nothing I said was intended as a personal attack or a dismissal of belief. Ta-ta

thanks for being clear, now if you admit that there are wrong scriptures in the bible how can we determine the pure from the impure?
do not consider these questions as personal attacks like some of the fellas do.
Do you follow what Jesus says or do you follow what the church says ? because they have different teachings? enlighten me

 

[Gnostic Christian]

It's my belief that everything is connected, As above, so below. As within so without.

Do you thing the law in heaven can be the same as the laws on earth?

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian]

The one true religion should be universal and my strong case against religions we know is that they arent universal.

Some are. Mine is, so if I go by your standard, mine is true and the mainstream religions are not.

I am a Gnostic Christian.

You mentioned being bitten by a snake. You have been blessed as I am now here to bite you.

And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.
Numbers 21:8

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian]

Hey, i completely agree with your idea that there must be one true religon or belief that all people will be witnessing its truth after death.
But to comment on what you mean that it is wrong that some 10% or 30% of people will follow the true religon and go to heaven while all who is left will be casted to hell, don't you think that there is very critical concept which is The environment/the media/the way we were raised , all have effects on the way we think of diffrent things, religon itself is one of them, our parents may be telling us that their religon is the one right religion, and when we become unable to find the meaning in them it gives us a concept that all religions are same and they are used to make our living in the world easier.

As an agnostic you have questions in your mind, why somethings are the way we are ? why somethings are not the way they should be ? And at end when you don't find answers for those questions you choose to serve the questions and use them as basis of your belief. I don't blame you for thinking so, i don't blame if whatever the religon you followed or thought of following couldn't answer your "whys?" .

It is improper to judge what other religions think and believe when we don't actually have knowledge of what other religons are like and what they lead to.
Mostly religons present their idea by faith
"Have faith in the words" ,
but faith itself is just a claim if not supported by Answers and evidences.
For me iam muslim, and i find that my religon has filled the holes of my doubts and didn't leave a blank space for them.
You can search in the internet that Islam is the only religon which supports its "faith" by logical and scientific proves of its truth.
It doesn't stop on that, yet, it in the "holly quran" it challenges the unbelievers to disprove it and no one could disprove a single verse from it until this very day.
If i can give you an advice , study the religons and compare them yourself, then atleast you will find out which believe gives the best answers for your questions.

Scriptures say that Yahweh's will is that all be saved.

Do you not think Yahweh to be able to do his will?

That would make him a lot less than all powerful.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian]

I think the idea of a 'true religion' is a bit of a contradiction.

Faith explores what lies beyond the possibility of scientific certainty.

True, but it is all speculative nonsense as anything gleaned is not transferable to the real world where religions are practiced.

Or has you speculation given you some insight that is applicable in the real world?

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian]

i said that there are scientific evidences mentioned in the quran,

Careful with the Qur'an. It also speaks of talking frogs.

That is way to close to the talking serpent and donkey in the bible.

Holy books should not be read literally. When people do, they often lose the message that is trying to be conveyed.

Regards
DL

 

[Ren]

Or has you speculation given you some insight that is applicable in the real world?

Ethical speculation yes, but religious speculation not really.

I'm not very well-versed in theology.

 

[Ren]

Holy books should not be read literally. When people do, they often lose the message that is trying to be conveyed.

It's interesting that you seem quite rational/skeptical yet still identify as a Christian, albeit Gnostic. Would you mind telling us about your own interpretive approach to holy books? And what makes you a believer?