the right religion

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

On my side? What side is that?


Ok. Lord of the Rings then. There's a creation story in Silmarillion, I think.


The three major religions in the this world were all promoted with violence and war at some point. At least we haven't seen any Harry Potter wars yet.


Most bought, or most own doesn't always relay most read or most liked.


I haven't read it either, but I think I know why it's so popular.

The Star Trek Wars are well on their way....

 

[Ouroboros]

The Star Trek Wars are well on their way....

LOL! Maybe we need to learn Klingon.

Just give it a few hundred years, right? Our grand-grand-grand children might see a war between Lord-of-ringers and Game-of-throners.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

LOL! Maybe we need to learn Klingon.

Just give it a few hundred years, right? Our grand-grand-grand children might see a war between Lord-of-ringers and Game-of-throners.

Have you watched Futurama? they have an episode about that lol

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

On my side? What side is that?

Anyone who is not 1robin is a member of 'your side.'

Welcome, brother! Ask me later and I'll teach you the secret whistle.

 

[Ouroboros]

Have you watched Futurama? they have an episode about that lol

I haven't had the pleasure of watching all Futurama episodes. I've seen a few here and there with my kids. It's a funny show. Love it. One day I will catch up.

Anyone who is not 1robin is a member of 'your side.'

The enemy of my enemy of my gardener's friend's dog's groomer is a friend of a friend to my aunt's cousin, which makes ... uhm... Not sure what it makes...

Welcome, brother! Ask me later and I'll teach you the secret whistle.

Yay! I'm officially a member of yet another secret club!!!

 

[1robin]

Anyone who is not 1robin is a member of 'your side.'

Welcome, brother! Ask me later and I'll teach you the secret whistle.

It is not even that complicated. This is a forum about God. Some people believe and some don't. The ones who do believe in one God are generally on my side of the isle, since we are a very peaceful bunch, few show up to waste time talking to people who's minds wert made up. That means I am a 1 man show very often. Now your side is composed on very loud discounted types who have no problem telling a stump that up is actually down, so no God exists. No it is usually just (team me) plus at times another one or two versus the perpetually upset, prolific crowd that loves confrontation.

 

[1robin]

The above are beliefs, which is fine for you and some others but, to repeat again, beliefs are not necessarily evidence.

Anyhow, unless you come up with something earth-shaking, it's time for me to move on.

WE ARE DISCUSSING FAITH CLAIMS< WHAT IS MORE RELAVANT THAN BELIEFS!!!!!! It comes down to the same thing in almost every issue. If God exists then x, y, and z occurred or occur. I am talking about what is true of a concept if that concept exists. The same way scientists talk about how dark matter acts and what multiverses mean, without being able to prove they exist. The only question is if God, dark matter, or multiverses exist.

If we are discussing God then I must present things true of that concept. Revelation, creation, faith, salvation and see if they fit the evidence. IOW for the sake of the argument we grant God is possible in order to evaluate what his existence entails. No one outside the worst of liberal German redactionists decide God can't possibly exist and only then examine what that means. Try studying the Quantum without first granting it exists.


In other words to debate X you examine what effects X is claimed to possess and see if they consistently mesh with reality. For example I find the claim Christ rose from the dead the best explanation for the agreement by those who would best be able to know that he existed, was crucified, his tomb found empty, he appeared to friend and enemies after death. I do not have to know God exists for that to be the best explanation. The fact it is the best explanation makes God's existence a little more likely. I have tried to be patient with your hyper-technical objections because I often do not word things in ways that illustrate that I a making propositions that seem like claims to fact. Now that I have explained this at least twice I hope we can move past the objection phase and start actually looking at the evidence instead of technicalities about how the evidence is worded. If I wanted to do what you have been doing here there exists a valid objection that cannot be over come for every claim ever made about anything beyond the claim we think. I think both that one and your objections a waste of time and a distraction technique.

 

[1robin]

From what I've heard Masoretic Jews aren't really Jews but just Christians.

We are both wrong. Masoretic refers to a certain textual type. The Jews who follow Judaism using those texts are Masoretic Jews. It is a method meant to produce accuracy and textual consistency. The term for a Christian Jewish person is messianic Jew. I got them switched up a bit. Regardless of term there are many Jews that have accepted Christ as savior and been born again.

The interesting thing is that there are plenty of versus that would explain why Jews do not accept Jesus. As someone pointed in the thread I have about where the Doctrine of Original Sin comes from, an oversimplication is that Judaism is about the redemption of people while Christianity is focused on individual salvation.

There could be much speculation on why Jews did not accept Christ. The bible says their hearts had become to darkened by ritual and arrogance they did not recognize him for what he was. However what we know for sure if the texts are correct (and much reason exists to think they are) is that the people did accept Jesus but the ruling class of the Sanhedrin and Pharisee leaders did not as they saw their influence weaken as his increased. Now this is just typical stuff. The old guard who have held sway for so long and grown corrupt and arrogant see an upstart show up and they fearing loosing their privileged status do everything they can to incite the people against him. This same thing must have occurred a million times in human history. There existed three general groups in Israel at the moment. The bottom rung hated Rome and the priests but still felt an obligation to the Jewish authorities that had endured for 1500 years, they followed Jesus but could be turned at times by the authorities. The middle class did not like Rome but some from this class and the lower class wanted armed rebellion. This sub group wanted Christ to lead an army not feed the hungry. Some of their actions intended to incite him to attack Rome. Then the always present upper class who would side with anything to retain power. They cooperated with Rome and jealously guarded their power even if it meant harming their own people. This group are the ones that contended with Christ. They did so for selfish reasons alone. They enlisted people from the other groups to help but they drove everything. They convinced the doubtful people he was not only not the messiah but a blasphemer and they perpetuated his death for the sole reasons of guarding their own positions and places. One they had convinced (through bribes and threats) people in other groups to carry out what they had desired they were stuck. When he died they could not back out. I think since then the motivation of not admitting the mistake has driven interpretations ever since. I can really get into why the prophecies and interpretations predict Christ is far more ways than any nation. I do KNOW that interpreting them as for Israel alone appeals to pride and lessens guilt which is a far too common motivation. Over the years this has become institutionalized and to challenge it is to challenge the sacred.

As far as their belief in some universal salvation effort. I have never heard of that. In my studies I find the Jewish salvation model extremely restrictive and tied to practices 95% of the world's population does not follow. There is a movement concerning universal salvation but it is certainly not a Jewish one. As far as the Bible goes it emphatically states over and over again that only through Christ can we reach God.

You seem to have only been setting up a premise. What is your conclusion?

 

[1robin]

Apparently you are totally unaware of the fact that religions, including Judaism and Christianity, evolve. Since you think you actually know the Bible, aren't you aware of the fact that revelation was not a one-step process? Aren't you aware of the fact that Abraham was not given the Law? Aren't you aware of the fact that Jesus and his teachings didn't come until after the Mosaiic Law was given? Aren't you aware of the fact that Paul and the other authors needed to explain teachings because they were not always self-evident? Aren't you aware of the fact that the Christian canon was selected long after Jesus died?

Logic should tell you that it's not so much where you came from but where you ended up that really counts. As snarky as this sounds, maybe you should go back and start reading the Bible that you claim you're "defending" because it seems that you don't even understand the basic concept of "on-going revelation" that permeates the pages.

I've had enough.

Christianity did not evolve. At what date did we adopt salvation through Christ for example? When did the ten commandments change? When did we insert Abraham into stories that already existed? Was Moses at one time named hector and live in Bosnia, was Christ originally a women, was polytheism ever said to be legitimate? There is a term called progressive revelation but it does not mean evolution, it means periodic access to additional information. God, as humanity grows and matures reveals more and more of his plans.

If the OT begins with an emphatic rejection of paganism it certainly does not have pagan roots. Periodic revelation is not evolution. Evolution produces new things by the distortion of old things. Christianity holds that the old things are just as true as the new things and changes nothing.

Your entire argument has been only an insistence that the OT grew out of paganism. This at times was denied and at times confirmed but has always been only an assertion. There was nothing to evaluate. If you have had enough, you gave up without beginning to fight, however I am more that willing to end it here.

 

[1robin]

I never mean to make people react with hysterical ugliness. I really don't.

IMO you have. I could be wrong, but the consistency by which you have done what a person would do if they were trying to find the most sensitive part of another beliefs and condemn them there (for effect) is convincing.

 

[1robin]

On my side? What side is that?

Are you on both sides of all issues? This is a religious debate forum. One side has faith, the other side would lack it. Every Atheist or agnostic I debate eventually compares something with Harry Potter books. Textual comparisons are not extraordinary. Comparisons with the same book consistently are.

Ok. Lord of the Rings then. There's a creation story in Silmarillion, I think.

That is probably because it was written by a man with faith. The guys who wrote chronicles or Narnia (Lewis), ethics of Elf-land (Chesterton), and LOTR (Tolkien) were all men of faith and come up together.

Since all of these added together are not a meaningful fraction of the total sales or importance that the Bible is that even if all were Atheistic writers I do not see any comparison possible. I no longer even know what your point is.

The three major religions in the this world were all promoted with violence and war at some point. At least we haven't seen any Harry Potter wars yet.

1. At least for Christianity the violent promotions have alienated more than they have convinced. If history tells us anything massive casualties almost always strengthen resistance. Look at London in 42-43. Even Japan's military advisers were more wiling to fight to the death after the atomic bombs. Thanks God they had a reasonable emperor. The crusades were about land and wealth, the inquisitions were about church power, Conquests about Gold. These are human motivations not Biblical. I would say Christianity thrives in spite of violence not because of it. Islam is another animal all together.
2. Harry Potter is full of violence. It's violence sells, it's violence promotes.

Most bought, or most own doesn't always relay most read or most liked.

That is true but since the numbers were about 20 - 1 I do not think that is going to help you. I guarantee you also that more people have worn bibles out be reading them that Harry Potter books at 50 - 1. However I have no idea to get reliable stats on them.

I haven't read it either, but I think I know why it's so popular.

I have seen the Potter movies, they are good. I have never heard of nor even know what shades of grey are about but I guarantee they will both be virtually forgotten at some point in the future and the bible will still be as popular as ever. The bible has buried it's undertakers for thousands of years.

How did this popularity contest get started? This is not usually my thing.

 

[Ouroboros]

Are you on both sides of all issues? This is a religious debate forum. One side has faith, the other side would lack it. Every Atheist or agnostic I debate eventually compares something with Harry Potter books. Textual comparisons are not extraordinary. Comparisons with the same book consistently are.

I have belief, just not your belief.myou're making it a black and white, which is a typical fundamentalist and extremist thinking. That's not who I am.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It is not even that complicated. This is a forum about God. Some people believe and some don't.

Trust me when I say that you are the odd man out, making a claim like that. The rest of us are careful, subtle thinkers. Our sin -- in your eyes -- is believing in a different God than you do. That's all.

The ones who do believe in one God are generally on my side of the isle...

Isn't it interesting that not a single person has ever come here and 'taken your side'?

Does that worry you, even a little?

...since we are a very peaceful bunch, few show up to waste time talking to people who's minds wert made up. That means I am a 1 man show very often.

Ah. All the rest of us are dogmatists, holding with an iron grip to our Truth, never giving an inch. But you are sincere. Listening to everyone's argument and willing to turn on a dime, to throw away old truths and embrace new ones?

Yikes. And people give me strange looks when I remark how easily our minds can fool us.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

IMO you have. I could be wrong, but the consistency by which you have done what a person would do if they were trying to find the most sensitive part of another beliefs and condemn them there (for effect) is convincing.

My talent for finding and probing tender spots is not the problem, not in a religious-debate forum. The problem is those who react with ugliness to that.

I am only a humble fitness coach, stressing you so that you might react with more grace the next time you're stressed.

 

[1robin]

Trust me when I say that you are the odd man out, making a claim like that. The rest of us are careful, subtle thinkers. Our sin -- in your eyes -- is believing in a different God than you do. That's all.

That statement was a fact as certain as in ever claimed about anything. Who I consider is in each group would not be, but my statement was pure truth.

Isn't it interesting that not a single person has ever come here and 'taken your side'?

apparently at least a 177 of them have, or at least that many bothered to officially respond in writing to the affirmative. I derive little from them but I have more than you. Christians have always been a remnant and always will be. I imagine the darkness will close out all the light before God comes back. I have little desire for a popularity contest. The more right your are as a Christian historically means the faster you die because a world in rebellion hates truth. My views however are pure orthodox Protestantism. I have a billion others that agree with my faith.

Does that worry you, even a little?

It is actually affirming. The world cannot see God nor wants to, nor apparently truth for that matter. You may prefer it among the herd, I am told to go out amongst the wolves. One ex-PLO terrorist turned Christian said it best. If you have no wolves you may not be a sheep. Since you brought you the personal commentary. I get more negative comments in reference to your posts than any other by maybe twice as much and that is not just among Christians. I however and ending the personal comments at this point.

Ah. All the rest of us are dogmatists, holding with an iron grip to our Truth, never giving an inch. But you are sincere. Listening to everyone's argument and willing to turn on a dime, to throw away old truths and embrace new ones?

Since most of you hold mutually exclusive claims to truth then by default most of your side is wrong. By the way I no of no other person that exactly fits on your unique side at all. In general maybe but specifically your an army of one.

Yikes. And people give me strange looks when I remark how easily our minds can fool us.

Don't know what that means unless your commenting on my grammatical mistake.

 

[1robin]

My talent for finding and probing tender spots is not the problem, not in a religious-debate forum. The problem is those who react with ugliness to that.

I am only a humble fitness coach, stressing you so that you might react with more grace the next time you're stressed.

Making comments based on what you know (or think you do) about what another holds as important and honorable for pure effect are the problem, are always the last refuge of the wrong, and the trade stock of those without the same inconvenient demands of honor. I am done with the personal commentary. Get back to something relevant and meaningful or I am done for now, yet again.

What is the point to this? You always make some terrible case for something among the insincere banter. It fails (nor was it intended to succeed) and you dissolve into a personal commentary machine and if I am so bored I respond in kind, you yell foul. At which point, as in this one, I consider terminating the discussion for the time being. Of what possible value is that to a rational man.

 

[1robin]

I have belief, just not your belief.myou're making it a black and white, which is a typical fundamentalist and extremist thinking. That's not who I am.

That was not a comment on right or wrong. Just the simple fact there are two sides in a biblical debate and each side has tendencies. Mine, except for the professionals and experienced, tends to be too optimistic, not educated enough, and circular... for example. Yours usually uses double standards, technicalities that have nothing to do with truth, and constantly use Harry Potter as the arbiter of all things. No big deal, it was just a humorous consistency I could not account for.

 

[Ouroboros]

Just the simple fact there are two sides in a biblical debate and each side has tendencies.

No. There's not two sides to the biblical debate. Only a person who refuse to open his eyes, ears, and mind have to deny that.

Mine, except for the professionals and experienced, tends to be too optimistic, not educated enough, and circular... for example. Yours usually uses double standards, technicalities that have nothing to do with truth, and constantly use Harry Potter as the arbiter of all things.

So, thanks. That's so nice of you. I use double standards, lies, and use Harry Potter constantly as an arbiter for all things.

You're so nice. You're doing a great job promoting your religion.

No big deal, it was just a humorous consistency I could not account for.

:areyoucra

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That statement was a fact as certain as in ever claimed about anything. Who I consider is in each group would not be, but my statement was pure truth.

I think that 'statements of pure truth' would have to follow basic grammatical rules.

I think that if you are having trouble composing grammatical sentences, it's possible that you are confused about your ability to produce statements of pure truth.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Making comments based on what you know (or think you do) about what another holds as important and honorable for pure effect are the problem, are always the last refuge of the wrong, and the trade stock of those without the same inconvenient demands of honor.

What could you possibly be trying to say to me?

Seriously... have you considered taking more time with the composition of your messages? Maybe edit a bit before you post them?