the right religion

[1robin]

All religions are man-made. In your case, you made a decision about which prophets you would accept as legitimate, which words you will consider holy, and how you will interpret those words as you go along. Sometimes you read a bit of verse as literal, for example, and sometimes you decide to read it metaphorically. Sometimes you accept what your preacher says about the scripture; sometimes you decide to reject his opinion and form your own.

Your worse that Uncle Remus's tar baby. His did not seek brer rabbit out. Just kidding of course. Since you have declared no truth to exist then everything you claim is by definition false. How do you propose to argue from that position? Even if truth exists, and even if it is what you claim, you have absolutely no way to know this (as usual). Tell me the truth, are you simply killing time with no regard to the quality of argumentation used?

Only we genuine prophets of God can claim to transcend man-made philosophies. We just open our ears and let God tell us what is true. It's true revelation. I wish I could teach everyone how to listen so carefully for the voice of God. Then they wouldn't have to make up their own religions!

I see my final suspicion above is confirmed here. IT IS QUITE IMPOSSIBLE THAT A PERSON CAN CONTRADICT THEMSELVES THIS OFTEN WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT EFFORT AND EVEN PLANNING. Nor is it possible that a human can claim a greater capacity based on less evidence and for less reason than you have. If the Bible verse that we will all give an account for every idle word is true, you are going to be busy for a while.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Since you have declared no truth to exist then everything you claim is by definition false.

Nah. Falsity doesn't exist. So how could my claims be false?

How do you propose to argue from that position?

With my usual inimitable flair, of course, tossing into the ring an irrefutable bit of evidence and logic now and again just to keep the cheap seats happy.

Even if truth exists, and even if it is what you claim, you have absolutely no way to know this (as usual).

Of course not. Only the foolish have ways to know stuff. I'm not so foolish as that.

Tell me the truth, are you simply killing time with no regard to the quality of argumentation used?

I am a professional cyclist sitting atop a 15-speed racing bike. Beside me, young 1robin grinds along on his big brother's rusty old bike. I take my bike out of gear and only push along with a foot now and again. It's only because I'm so polite, plus loving you so much, that I abide with you this way.

I see my final suspicion above is confirmed here. IT IS QUITE IMPOSSIBLE THAT A PERSON CAN CONTRADICT THEMSELVES THIS OFTEN WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT EFFORT AND EVEN PLANNING.

See, that's what I'm talking about. I've explained to you in tedious detail the nature of contradiction -- how contradiction cannot exist merely within language -- but you don't listen to me. I'm sure that twenty years from now, you'll still be compaining that I contradict myself, even though I've long since proven the impossibility of that.

One day you will begin to listen, I think. I have confidence in you.

 

[1robin]

Nah. Falsity doesn't exist. So how could my claims be false?

Does anything actually exist in ambiguous Ville?

With my usual inimitable flair, of course, tossing into the ring an irrefutable bit of evidence and logic now and again just to keep the cheap seats happy.

What does inimitable mean?

Of course not. Only the foolish have ways to know stuff. I'm not so foolish as that.

Then what and why are you typing anything?

I am a professional cyclist sitting atop a 15-speed racing bike. Beside me, young 1robin grinds along on his big brother's rusty old bike. I take my bike out of gear and only push along with a foot now and again. It's only because I'm so polite, plus loving you so much, that I abide with you this way.

That's silly but I will give you a good one. When the last secular scientist climbs the last peak of knowledge on the mountain of truth he will find a bunch of Biblical theologians who have been sitting there for thousands of years.

See, that's what I'm talking about. I've explained to you in tedious detail the nature of contradiction -- how contradiction cannot exist merely within language -- but you don't listen to me. I'm sure that twenty years from now, you'll still be complaining that I contradict myself, even though I've long since proven the impossibility of that.

When your argumentation merits attention it will be given. maybe you can tell me when that will occur and I can tune in at that point?

One day you will begin to listen, I think. I have confidence in you.

How did you fit in another contradiction? You think you have confidence is number 100,000 I think.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

What does inimitable mean?

It means I'm like coke. Nothing else tastes like a coke and no one else argues with the flair of AmbiguousGuy. Yep, I'm concocted from an actual secret recipe.

Then what and why are you typing anything?

To try and help you orient yourself. It's just the kind of guy I am.

That's silly but I will give you a good one. When the last secular scientist climbs the last peak of knowledge on the mountain of truth he will find a bunch of Biblical theologians who have been sitting there for thousands of years.

Secular scientists vs. Biblical theologians. Yeah, that's a part of the conservative Christian mindset. You may get over that one day and begin to see the world as a place where everyone wears grey wrestling tights rather than black ones or white ones.

When your argumentation merits attention it will be given. maybe you can tell me when that will occur and I can tune in at that point?

I once tried to make a mule drink water but didn't have much luck. He was standing in a desert dyng of thirst, and I stood with him for four days and three nights spraying him with a garden hose. But it never did occur to him to open his mouth. He died of ignorance.

I am glad you and I are not mules.

 

[camanintx]

Let me clarify then. My comments were only concerning a belief system based on revelation. I have little use for man made philosophies even if called religions.

Because we know how reliable that can be.

Edgar Cayce - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hal Lindsey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Harold Camping - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[1robin]

Because we know how reliable that can be.

What? The comments you selected were made to someone else in a completely different context that you used them in. I originally was clarify that my previous claims applied to revealed religion not man made philosophies. How you turned that into my being required to defend or take responsibility for all religions claimed to be revealed is beyond me. I have spent tens of thousands of words claiming and demonstrating that most religions and claims are false. How did I get responsible for every nut that claims to hear from God and what happened to what we were actually talking about? As for these links.

Edgar Cayce - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do not know nor defend Cayce's source's but he did in fact have knowledge he should not have had. I make no claim he was getting it from God but his history is worth investigating.

Hal Lindsey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hal Lindsey is primarily a self-proclaimed prophecy expert. If he claims to have spoken with God I would not believe him. However he does have meaningful insight on scripture but he like all self proclaimed prophecy experts goes way beyond his bounds and appears to oscillate between nut job and theologian.

Harold Camping - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Never heard of this guy.

The Bible says that people will claim to speak for him until the last day but only those who's predictions are accurate are from him. So I do not think there is much that is meaningful or persuasive about giving a few names of people who God predicted would do exactly what they did, but apparently you think it evidence for you side? However the Prophecies in the Bible are a whole other animal and have withstood the most absurd and withering attacks to date. Every single year a group as large as the population of Nevada is added to people convinced of the truth of Biblical prophecies made thousands of years ago. There is no comparison between that and what you posted and no reason for what you posted in the first place given our discussion.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I never would have imagined Hal Lindsey being mentioned right after the day I was looking at him.
I grew up watching Hal Lindsey and he is truly one of the weirdest nutcases in existence. His insight on the Bible not only goes beyond his bounds but beyond theological reason. It is truly nothing more but politicized hate speeches and fear mongering but his show was on TBN so what else am I to expect from such an organization.
I do admit I enjoy all 3 of his claims that the world was ending. I am sure he has been cancelled by now

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I do admit I enjoy all 3 of his claims that the world was ending. I am sure he has been cancelled by now

Don't be so sure. If Popoff can make a (wee-hour) television comeback, anyone can.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Don't be so sure. If Popoff can make a (wee-hour) television comeback, anyone can.

Oh Damn low budget broadcasting!

 

[1robin]

It means I'm like coke. Nothing else tastes like a coke and no one else argues with the flair of AmbiguousGuy. Yep, I'm concocted from an actual secret recipe.

Like coke it is probably phosphoric acid and does the same thing to our brains that coke does to out digestive system. Like coke your logic should require a hazardous materials license to transport. Did you know coke can be used to clean engine blocks?

To try and help you orient yourself. It's just the kind of guy I am.

I feel as if I am aiding and abetting something I shouldn't.

Secular scientists vs. Biblical theologians. Yeah, that's a part of the conservative Christian mindset. You may get over that one day and begin to see the world as a place where everyone wears grey wrestling tights rather than black ones or white ones.

Actually that quote came from an astronaut and Nasa scientist so you lose all around.

I once tried to make a mule drink water but didn't have much luck. He was standing in a desert dying of thirst, and I stood with him for four days and three nights spraying him with a garden hose. But it never did occur to him to open his mouth. He died of ignorance.

That probably says more about the quality of your "water" than the mule's reasoning.

I am glad you and I are not mules.

I bet mules do not pay taxes that is until they elect a liberal mule president anyway. We almost have one as our president. A Jack*** anyway. I wonder if the white house has tapped my computer like they did the press core's.

 

[4YAH80]

I do not believe there is such a thing as "the right religion" I believe that religion is man made, they may have arisen from one source but the fact that there are so many leads me to believe that none of them have the whole truth or the right path, and so I choose to go to the source, The holy scriptures.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I do not believe there is such a thing as "the right religion" I believe that religion is man made, they may have arisen from one source but the fact that there are so many leads me to believe that none of them have the whole truth or the right path, and so I choose to go to the source, The holy scriptures.

Which holy scriptures do you use?

And may I ask why you assume that God speaks to us through physical words, usually written in an ancient foreign language?

 

[McBell]

I do not believe there is such a thing as "the right religion" I believe that religion is man made, they may have arisen from one source but the fact that there are so many leads me to believe that none of them have the whole truth or the right path, and so I choose to go to the source, The holy scriptures.

What are the holy scriptures a source of?
Would not God be "The" source?

 

[Philomath]

The "right" religion is the religion that is "right"

 

[Muffled]

What you overlook is that we consider the Baha'i scriptures fully as relevant and applicable as the Bible--indeed, even more so given that the Bible has been at least slightly altered over the millenia, whereas we have the original manuscript of every one of our 200 volumes of Baha'i scripture! (And anything for which we don't have the original isn't Baha'i scripture no matter how "inspirational" it may be!)

Peace,

Bruce

I believe that what you consider and the truth two different things.

A bar of gold is worth more with a chip out of it than a bar of silver without a dent.

 

[Muffled]

from a spiritual POV, isn't God the ultimate reality?

Yes and I would not call God religion.

 

[Muffled]

The "right" religion is the one that does the most good for the practitioner.

I believe that would not be Christianity. However I don't see that as a good definition of right religion.

 

[Ingledsva]

Just because something is right temporaneously does not mean that it is right eternally. Therefore temporal religion isn't really right religion. For instance temporily divorce is right but eternally it is not. I would not extoll divorce as right religion.

That is the whole issue. Written religion is temporaneous but religion given instantly by Jesus is contemporaneous and if He wills eternal.

Except that you see it that way because you think Jesus is God.

To me (if he existed,) he would just be another prophet.

 

[Ingledsva]

I believe that what you consider and the truth two different things.

A bar of gold is worth more with a chip out of it than a bar of silver without a dent.

The point you seem to be missing is that - YOU - see it as a bar of gold. There is no proof of such to those of us outside the religions of Abraham.

 

[Ingledsva]

That is simply impossible. Two or more exclusive claims to absolute truth can't possibly all be right. In fact only one or less can be true unless you butcher their claims into an unrecognizable form in an effort to reconcile what can't and should never be reconciled.

1. Christianity says Jesus was the son of God and was crucified for our sins and was resurrected as proof. He is our messiah and greatest prophet.
2. Islam says he was not the son of God and was not crucified nor was he resurrected. He is only a type of messiah and Muhammad is the greatest prophet.
3. Judaism says Christ was guilty of blasphemy and that there is a future messiah but Muhammad is not him nor any kind of true prophet.

By what mechanism of logic can more than one of these possibly be true?
BTW did you notice only one offers potential evidence to establish its claims?

What proof?

*