How do you see it?

[paarsurrey]

Defending all revealed religions in origin in ethical, moral and spiritual matters.
In secular matters supporting Atheists against irrational and mythical thoughts.
Open for discussion to Theists and Atheists alike.
Regards

 

[DawudTalut]

Good idea.

 

[Thief]

You mean to say...defend belief in God while denouncing dogmatic preaching?

 

[LuisDantas]

Defending all revealed religion in origin in ethical, moral and spiritual matters.
In secular matters supporting Atheists against irrational and mythical thoughts.
Open for discussion to Theists and Atheists alike.
Regards

I would like a bit more elaboration and clarification here.

Myth, for instance, is not inherently a bad thing. And I am not sure what you mean exactly in the first phrase. Is "all revealed religion in origin" meant to be the same as "all revealed religions", as in religions that claim to have been gifted by God?

If so, I would agree, with two observations.

1. Such a right is not really any different for revealed religions as opposed to non-revealed.

2. The ethics of each action and strategy should be weighted on their own merits. That the intent is to defend a religion should not make much, if any, difference.

 

[Thief]

not sure....does that mean the belief justifies the action?
or does the action justify the belief?

 

[Desert Snake]

Defending all revealed religion in origin in ethical, moral and spiritual matters.
In secular matters supporting Atheists against irrational and mythical thoughts.
Open for discussion to Theists and Atheists alike.
Regards

Doesn't work. It's already common, btw, as an idea. It's very prevelant in modern religion, new age thought, etc.

 

[LuisDantas]

Am I the only one finding the posts in this thread a bit puzzling, incomplete even?

 

[Thief]

I too, seem to be reaching for direction.

 

[Desert Snake]

I would like a bit more elaboration and clarification here.

Myth, for instance, is not inherently a bad thing. And I am not sure what you mean exactly in the first phrase. Is "all revealed religion in origin" meant to be the same as "all revealed religions", as in religions that claim to have been gifted by God?

If so, I would agree, with two observations.

1. Such a right is not really any different for revealed religions as opposed to non-revealed.

2. The ethics of each action and strategy should be weighted on their own merits. That the intent is to defend a religion should not make much, if any, difference.

--^

Am I the only one finding the posts in this thread a bit puzzling, incomplete even?

Imo you already answered the OP.

 

[leibowde84]

Defending all revealed religion in origin in ethical, moral and spiritual matters.
In secular matters supporting Atheists against irrational and mythical thoughts.
Open for discussion to Theists and Atheists alike.
Regards

Wait ... how do I see what?

 

[YmirGF]

Defending all revealed religion in origin in ethical, moral and spiritual matters.
In secular matters supporting Atheists against irrational and mythical thoughts.
Open for discussion to Theists and Atheists alike.
Regards

Your English is not too bad, Paarsurrey, so please rephrase this in a more coherent manner. What, exactly, are you trying to get at here?

 

[paarsurrey]

Is "all revealed religion in origin" meant to be the same as "all revealed religions"

I have made a correction, instead of "all revealed religion in origin" please read "all revealed religions in the origin".

 

[paarsurrey]

You mean to say...defend belief in God while denouncing dogmatic preaching?

If it is truthful then it is not to be denounced.
It is useful and fruitful if based on truth. Concealing Truth and restricting it to one's own self would be selfish.
Won't it? Please

Regards

 

[leibowde84]

If it is truthful then it is not to be denounced.
It is useful and fruitful if based on truth. Concealing Truth and restricting it to one's own self would be selfish.
Won't it? Please

Regards

How does one determine what is truth and what is not truth when deciding what should be denounced?

 

[paarsurrey]

1. Such a right is not really any different for revealed religions as opposed to non-revealed.

There is a basic difference, the origin of revealed religions rests with G-d, therefore, I would like to defend the creeds of them all if I believe in G-d who has been the same in all times. I won't actively oppose the non-revealed religions and won't defend them as they are man-made.
As for the followers of religions, revealed or non-revealed, their rights are equal in secular matters.

Hope, I have understood your point of view correctly and cleared the point. Did I? Please

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Myth, for instance, is not inherently a bad thing

Myth is not based on any fact/truth and has no compatibility with the truthful religion.
I won't abhor followers of a myth but won't defend the myth.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

not sure....does that mean the belief justifies the action?
or does the action justify the belief?

It is defending with argument, not otherwise.
Please elaborate your viewpoint.

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

There is a basic difference, the origin of revealed religions rests with G-d, therefore,

... they are all inherently less trustworthy than non-revealed ones.

Or, at the very least, they inflict upon themselves the need to support the assertion that God revealed their doctrines.

Doctrines ought to stand or fall on their own merits, not on their mythical origins.

I would like to defend the creeds of them all if I believe in G-d who has been the same in all times. I won't actively oppose the non-revealed religions and won't defend them as they are man-made.

IMO that is just wrong, so very wrong, so deeply misguided. You can't use God to defend the dignity of your beliefs. You should do the exact opposite instead.

As for the followers of religions, revealed or non-revealed, their rights are equal in secular matters.

Hope, I have understood your point of view correctly and cleared the point. Did I? Please

Regards

You did clarify my point, and left me wondering why anyone would expect a supposed divine origin to be an advantage for any religion.

 

[LuisDantas]

Myth is not based on any fact/truth and has no compatibility with the truthful religion.
I won't abhor followers of a myth but won't defend the myth.

Regards

I can only assume you don't have an understanding of what a religion is supposed to be that much resembles my own, then.

 

[columbus]

Myth is not based on any fact/truth and has no compatibility with the truthful religion.
I won't abhor followers of a myth but won't defend the myth.

Regards

Are you including the myth that God delivered the Quraan to Muhammad in a cave?
Tom