• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Most Agreeable Religion

danieldemol

danieldemol

Veteran Member
Premium Member
firedragon said:
Dont put words into other peoples mouths to create a strawman, attack it and feel good.

I didnt say I "dont favour Islam". I never brought Islam up in this thread.
Click to expand...
It is not a strawman if you believe it to be true.

If you believe Islam is the most agreeable religion then it's not a strawman whether you stated your belief or left it unstated.

To successfully refute it as a strawman you would have to show how it does not accurately represent your beliefs - stated or otherwise.

In my opinion.
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
danieldemol said:
It is not a strawman if you believe it to be true.
Click to expand...

Nah. Its a strawman when the discussion is not on that.

Just because you have some kind inherent need to put out certain things in any thread, avoiding answering your own propositions, that does not mean you can bring some insults to another persons religion and expect them to respond to your strawman points.

You should try and address your own proposition and provide data that validates them.
 
Trailblazer

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Heyo said:
I don't know enough about the Baha'i Faith but I question this statement with ignorance.
You really think that all the gods of Hinduism, paganism, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic Faiths and the Flying Spaghetti Monster exist? (And at the same time that there is only one god? You see the contradiction?)
Click to expand...
No, I do not believe that all those Gods exist because I believe that there is only one true God, the God that was revealed by all the Manifestations of God (who are also Messengers of God) throughout history. The fact that some people believe certain things about God or believe that there are many gods does not mean that such a God or gods exist. I believe that what they are actually believing in is the one true God, even though they do not realize it.

“Our purpose in revealing these words is to show that the one true God hath, in His all-highest and transcendent station, ever been, and will everlastingly continue to be, exalted above the praise and conception of all else but Him. His creation hath ever existed, and the Manifestations of His Divine glory and the Day Springs of eternal holiness have been sent down from time immemorial, and been commissioned to summon mankind to the one true God. That the names of some of them are forgotten and the records of their lives lost is to be attributed to the disturbances and changes that have overtaken the world.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 174
 
Twilight Hue

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Heyo said:
The world has to unite. There can only be one religion. You are locked in with religious people from all faiths and denominations and you're not allowed to leave before you agreed on The One Religion™.
(Well, you can leave early if you agree to accept the result the others will settle on.)

What religion do you favour?

What do you think, which religion will make it?
Click to expand...
None.

All religions are doomed to extinction.
 
Mock Turtle

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Heyo said:
The world has to unite. There can only be one religion. You are locked in with religious people from all faiths and denominations and you're not allowed to leave before you agreed on The One Religion™.
(Well, you can leave early if you agree to accept the result the others will settle on.)

What religion do you favour?

What do you think, which religion will make it?
Click to expand...
Well, the survivors - hoping of course that the most militant factions just kill each other off - might just align on some human rights issues as well as recognising that we need to take into account the welfare of all other life and the health of the planet, so I would think some give and take might get some sensible people to compromise, and especially with ridding themselves of much useless dogma and doctrine from their own faiths. Hence, we might see some equalities essentially agreed, and as to rights, with responsibilities too to be taken into consideration. All the rest, as to worship, well who cares. :rolleyes:

If not, we won't see any survivors so hard luck all! :oops:

I name this new religion - LIFE. :D
 
Heyo

Heyo

Veteran Member
Lain said:
I put in my bid again for Roman Catholicism.
Click to expand...
I recognized your bid (that's why I tagged you) but do you also have arguments why RC is the most agreeable?
It was so not agreeable in the 11th and the 16th century that that lead to the great schismata.
 
Trailblazer

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Heyo said:
Sounds a bit arrogant to tell people what they really believe. Do you think that makes them agree?
Click to expand...
I said "I believe that what they are actually believing in is the one true God" and that was just my personal opinion.
I was not telling them anything.
I am not trying to get anyone to agree, I was just stating my personal opinion.
 
L

Lain

Well-Known Member
Heyo said:
I recognized your bid (that's why I tagged you) but do you also have arguments why RC is the most agreeable?
It was so not agreeable in the 11th and the 16th century that that lead to the great schismata.
Click to expand...

I meant that I was putting it in again at the new tag.

Perhaps I have the wrong idea of all these religions being in a room but (I think of it like a Hunger Games) but I think Roman Catholicism would win primarily through conversions in the room (of the Old Catholics, Anglo-Catholics, some sympathetic Protestants of other varieties, the Oriental Orthodox who would be able to be argued out of their Christology and who often think that the Pope's power is a natural result of Chalcedon, so if they can be [and they would be] shown that they are wrong they would be easy converts, possibly the Eastern Orthodox depending on their knowledge) to increase our numbers. Then one just can out-last everyone as it is more likely that we'd do so having more people than we started with, or if it gets more violent than that we'd have more people.

Basically, to certain other religions we'd be agreeable enough to have more of us to either out-last or out-fight everyone else, simply due to the numeric amount of versions Christianity has, and assuming one representative for each sect then we'd be more likely to win. But then there is the amount of Hindu variants (including other Dharmic religions) that'd be most concerning to me, but on average I think we're more willing for violence than they are (perhaps this is said in ignorance) so maybe that'd be fine also.
 
Heyo

Heyo

Veteran Member
Lain said:
Perhaps I have the wrong idea of all these religions being in a room but (I think of it like a Hunger Games) but I think Roman Catholicism would win primarily through conversions in the room (of the Old Catholics, Anglo-Catholics, some sympathetic Protestants of other varieties,
Click to expand...
You've been killing each other for 500 years now. Do you really think that they are willing to come back to the RCC?
And when it comes to numbers, the evangelicals have the most distinct sects, so that may also not go in your favour.
 
danieldemol

danieldemol

Veteran Member
Premium Member
firedragon said:
Nah. Its a strawman when the discussion is not on that.
Click to expand...
You appear to be redefining "strawman" semantically to suit your agenda to bash the opinions of others without answering obvious questions about your own opinions.

You may see that as crafty but I think most people can see through it.

Besides as the author of the OP reminded you it is on topic.

Just because you have some kind inherent need to put out certain things in any thread, avoiding answering your own propositions, that does not mean you can bring some insults to another persons religion and expect them to respond to your strawman points.

You should try and address your own proposition and provide data that validates them.
Click to expand...
Well my propositions were
1. I have some experience with the followers of Unitarian Universalism, Buddhism and Secular humanism, and my experience has been that they are less anticompetitive than Muslims in general.

Although one cannot provide data to validate personal experience, in a way your tirade of ad-hominem and accusations of hate in an attempt to silence me validate my personal experience as you are a Muslim attempting to silence my dissenting opinion.

My other proposition was that
2. Unitarian Universalism, secular humanism and certain sects of Buddhism contain less dogma than Islam and I provided solid data on that as far back as post #56.

In my opinion.
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
danieldemol said:
You appear to be redefining "strawman" semantically to suit your agenda to bash the opinions of others without answering obvious questions about your own opinions.

You may see that as crafty but I think most people can see through it.

Besides as the author of the OP reminded you it is on topic.


Well my propositions were
1. I have some experience with the followers of Unitarian Universalism, Buddhism and Secular humanism, and my experience has been that they are less anticompetitive than Muslims in general.

Although one cannot provide data to validate personal experience, in a way your tirade of ad-hominem and accusations of hate in an attempt to silence me validate my personal experience as you are a Muslim attempting to silence my dissenting opinion.

My other proposition was that
2. Unitarian Universalism, secular humanism and certain sects of Buddhism contain less dogma than Islam and I provided solid data on that as far back as post #56.

In my opinion.
Click to expand...

Tsk.
 
shunyadragon

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
firedragon said:
You never did. Maybe you are hoping for something. You were trying to save someone else and demonise Islam. Irrelevant.

I am still waiting for statistics of Buddhists in history.
Click to expand...

eplied with citations. No response on your part relevant to the subject of the thread. Youe stonewalling.

If you are not willing to contribute anything nor references to relevant topic of the thread why are responding at all?
 
shunyadragon

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
firedragon said:
No.
Click to expand...

Replied with citations. No response on your part relevant to the subject of the thread. Youe stonewalling.

If you are not willing to contribute anything nor references to relevant topic of the thread why are responding at all?

Stonewalling without presenting anything relevant to the thread gets you nowhere.

Still waiting . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top