the right religion

[1robin]

Hinduism is perceived to be polytheistic by outsiders because of the misunderstanding of what the gods actually are.

That is a valid response but I think I have already shown in many ways to which you have agreed that many many Hindus believe more than one God exists. However this issue I thought was concluded so I will drop it.

Ok you keep claiming that "more Biblical scholars by far believe the passages are about Christ than any non-Christ messiah" but you've yet to produce any evidence for it. My basis for claiming to know that Jesus is not the Messiah is because he did not fulfill the Messianic requirements. We are clearly not going to get anywhere on this issue.

That is not what I claimed. I went way out of my way to only claim what is valid and requires no sophisticated evidence. In fact here is the statement again:

The issue is anything but settled and in fact I would say many more Biblical scholars by far believe the passages are about Christ than any non-Christ messiah but that is hard to prove.

I put the bolded word in specifically to indicate that it is my opinion and that it is very hard to prove for the sole reason that no evidence was provided. It was only intended to indicate how lopsided I thought the issue was. Not to mention it was not the primary point I made. I have no problem with you claiming that Jesus did not fulfill some prophecies. That is a valid argument even though I believe it wrong. I did however say that assuming Jesus is not the messiah simply because you presuppose he isn't is not an argument nor is claiming that a verse about a reign of peace proves that he was no the messiah because those verses have been interpreted by many scholars to concern his second coming. It is valid to claim he was not the messiah however your arguments to bear that out are not valid.

Of course you as a Christian will think Jewish scholarship is flawed and biased when it rejects Jesus as the Messiah.

Actually that is not what drives my conclusions. I mainly derive them from only a few things.

1. The first is basically a mathematical probalistic argument. To avoid useless contention I will be very generous and simply say that only approx. 60% of the prophecies can be applied to Christ without distortion. I do not actually believe it but let's say the other 40% is in a grey area where Christ is no better a fit than the nation of Israel or some ambiguous future Jewish messiah. There is virtually no chance a human being would be a good fit for 60% of 351 messianic prophecies and not be the messiah. A nation being far longer lived and far more complex can easily be assigned prophecies that do not belong but one man's 3 year career can't. The other option some nebulas future messiah is an argument from silence and not an argument in this context.

2. Man of the prophecies have such a unique and perfect fit to Christ that no other potion is left open. Details like given gall to drink hung on a tree certainly are not dealing with a nation.

3. Christ himself claimed these verses were about him and if true his resurrection validated al that he claimed. God in effect stamped "approved" on his message. If you wish to argue about testimony reliability then your claims come from less reliable texts than mine do.

None of this is derived from or springs from my personal faith.

It is an argument. What the Jewish people think is the most important thing considering it is their religion after all. You would think the Jews would be the most knowledgeable about their own religion.

Not in a Christians view. In fact they have an unbroken record of getting in wrong in their own scripture. The OT is no less a text as important to Christians as Jews. I would say they know it better "if all other facts being equal" than any non Abrahamic faith but there exists no argument they know it better than Christians nor even Islamists in theory anyway.

*Yawn* another "Christianity is the one true religion post".

I suppose that was improper for a "right religion" thread. What I said is based on a valid concept in testimony reliability determination and is called the principle of embarrassment. A Yawn says more about your understanding of the standards by which these issues are evaluated in, than my claim.

Christianity is not the only religion that "God attempts to reach man and the spiritual is primary and mandatory". Other religion can make and have made that same exact claim. The apostles have a story for which there's no evidence for. Where's the evidence of Jesus resurrecting from the dead? Some Christians so interpret his resurrection as a spiritual one rather than a physical one.

I am not going into the testimony reliability if you did not understand the very simplistic point I have already made and until you post an equivalent scripture that even potentially offers the same spiritual access to God then my claims stand.

 

[Ingledsva]

I half way agree with you. If you had not said Catholicism but instead Christianity I could have let it slide but Catholicism as it has existed in Papal decree, indulgences, excommunication, conquests, and inquests is indefensible. Where is agrees with scripture I agree it is right. However It Popes even when in infallible mode have made mutually exclusive "infallible claims" their history is one long sad tale of the doctrines of man being preferred over the doctrine of God. While there are many good Catholic practices I regard their influence as the most destructive to true Christianity, bar none in history. The worst most black events of Christian history were presided over by Catholicism.

Though I agree with you on a lot of this, I also think most other religions fall under the same errors.

However, what I really wanted to say, is that I find it funny when other Christian denominations get all uppity on the Catholic practices - often calling them false, Pagan, grandiose, etc.

A lot of these vey practices come from the Hebrew practices.

Grandiose? The Hebrew were told to bring precious metals and the finest of materials for the Temple and the priests. The Bible tells us of tables covered in hammered precious metals, solid gold candelabra, and the fine material and precious stones the Priests wore.

Praying to saints, Mary, etc? The Hebrew prayed to both their close dead relatives and their patriarchs (saints) for intercession, or help. Biblical Archaeology had a very good article on this practice.

Excommunication? The Hebrew Priest excommunicated people, and also ordered their deaths for leaving their religion.

Conquests? The whole OT is full of their warring, murdering, etc.

Inquests? Read the writing of the Priests/Rabbi. You will find they searched out so-called "heretics," and tortured and murdered them in different ways.

"The worst most black events of Christian history were presided over by Catholicism."

May I suggest you read about the different groups breaking off from the Catholic Church and the thousands they tortured and murdered in setting up their new Christian denominations.

Do I agree with what the Catholic Church did? Absolutely not! And the same goes for all of the proselytizing, murdering, religions.

*

 

[Philomath]

That is a valid response but I think I have already shown in many ways to which you have agreed that many many Hindus believe more than one God exists. However this issue I thought was concluded so I will drop it.

And I've explained to you several times what these gods actually are, and I even provided you a link about it.

That is not what I claimed. I went way out of my way to only claim what is valid and requires no sophisticated evidence. In fact here is the statement again: I put the bolded word in specifically to indicate that it is my opinion and that it is very hard to prove for the sole reason that no evidence was provided. It was only intended to indicate how lopsided I thought the issue was. Not to mention it was not the primary point I made. I have no problem with you claiming that Jesus did not fulfill some prophecies. That is a valid argument even though I believe it wrong. I did however say that assuming Jesus is not the messiah simply because you presuppose he isn't is not an argument nor is claiming that a verse about a reign of peace proves that he was no the messiah because those verses have been interpreted by many scholars to concern his second coming. It is valid to claim he was not the messiah however your arguments to bear that out are not valid.

Jesus did not fulfill the Messianic requirements therefor he is not the Messiah. How is this "presupposing" anything? Where are these "many scholars" that agree with you?

Actually that is not what drives my conclusions. I mainly derive them from only a few things.

1. The first is basically a mathematical probalistic argument. To avoid useless contention I will be very generous and simply say that only approx. 60% of the prophecies can be applied to Christ without distortion. I do not actually believe it but let's say the other 40% is in a grey area where Christ is no better a fit than the nation of Israel or some ambiguous future Jewish messiah. There is virtually no chance a human being would be a good fit for 60% of 351 messianic prophecies and not be the messiah. A nation being far longer lived and far more complex can easily be assigned prophecies that do not belong but one man's 3 year career can't. The other option some nebulas future messiah is an argument from silence and not an argument in this context.

2. Man of the prophecies have such a unique and perfect fit to Christ that no other potion is left open. Details like given gall to drink hung on a tree certainly are not dealing with a nation.

3. Christ himself claimed these verses were about him and if true his resurrection validated al that he claimed. God in effect stamped "approved" on his message. If you wish to argue about testimony reliability then your claims come from less reliable texts than mine do.

None of this is derived from or springs from my personal faith.

1. Jesus doesn't fit 60% of the Messianic requirements though. The fact alone that he was was supposedly God or the son of God eliminates him from even being the Messiah.

2.They are in fact referring to a nation, that's just your personal interpretation of the text.

3. We don't know what Jesus claimed because Jesus himself did not write down anything. We only have claims about claims that Jesus supposedly made. Idk what "texts" your referring to because I place no belief in any text in the same way that you do with the bible.

Not in a Christians view. In fact they have an unbroken record of getting in wrong in their own scripture. The OT is no less a text as important to Christians as Jews. I would say they know it better "if all other facts being equal" than any non Abrahamic faith but there exists no argument they know it better than Christians nor even Islamists in theory anyway.

This is the type of arrogance I was talking about in my is "Christianity Arrogant" thread. What have the Jews gotten wrong about their own scripture, excluding the supposed Messiah Jesus?

I suppose that was improper for a "right religion" thread. What I said is based on a valid concept in testimony reliability determination and is called the principle of embarrassment. A Yawn says more about your understanding of the standards by which these issues are evaluated in, than my claim.

I yawned because your not saying anything new to me at all. You've presented the same argument I've heard from Christians several times. You think your religion is only true one because of X,Y,Z. Which is nothing new to me at all.

I am not going into the testimony reliability if you did not understand the very simplistic point I have already made and until you post an equivalent scripture that even potentially offers the same spiritual access to God then my claims stand.

Reliable testimony from who? The only people who claimed to have seen Jesus resurrected were his followers. Why is there no mention of it outside of the bible? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The thing is though I don't believe any text offers spiritual access to God, all religious scripture is just mans attempt to speak for God.

 

[Me Myself]

If a lot of gods cant be one god and thus monotheistic in concept then three gods cannot be one god thus polytheistic in concept.

You call Jesus god, you call the father god and you call the holy spirit god. You pray to Jesus sometimes, sometimes you pray to the Father, yet you say you only pray to one god.

Okay then, I pray to Ganesh, Shiva, Krishna and Jesus. I also pray to one single God.

Problem?

 

[1robin]

Though I agree with you on a lot of this, I also think most other religions fall under the same errors.

However, what I really wanted to say, is that I find it funny when other Christian denominations get all uppity on the Catholic practices - often calling them false, Pagan, grandiose, etc.

It would be hard to quantify. That is why I did not use the corruption factor of Catholicism in comparison with the corruption factor of other religions. However I do maintain Catholicism has damaged Christianity more than any other group but they do have areas where they exceed all others. However the damage done is incomprehensible.

A lot of these vey practices come from the Hebrew practices.

Grandiose? The Hebrew were told to bring precious metals and the finest of materials for the Temple and the priests. The Bible tells us of tables covered in hammered precious metals, solid gold candelabra, and the fine material and precious stones the Priests wore.

Praying to saints, Mary, etc? The Hebrew prayed to both their close dead relatives and their patriarchs (saints) for intercession, or help. Biblical Archaeology had a very good article on this practice.

Excommunication? The Hebrew Priest excommunicated people, and also ordered their deaths for leaving their religion.

Conquests? The whole OT is full of their warring, murdering, etc.

Inquests? Read the writing of the Priests/Rabbi. You will find they searched out so-called "heretics," and tortured and murdered them in different ways.

I have no reason to challenge the Jewish roots of some of Catholicism's failures. They have had thousands of years of repeatedly getting it wrong in the OT and paying a heavy price for that. No religion is perfect but I regard Protestantism as much closer to right that Judaism or Catholicism.

"The worst most black events of Christian history were presided over by Catholicism."

May I suggest you read about the different groups breaking off from the Catholic Church and the thousands they tortured and murdered in setting up their new Christian denominations.

How in the world do you start denominations by torturing other people? I have no doubt protestants have had their dark moments but there is no comparison. Can you give links to these tortures in the name of new denominations? It is the same as saying both Republicans and liberals are wrong but Liberal are wrong on a scale that is quickly destroying the greatest nation in history to a point that is unrecoverable and probably already has.

Do I agree with what the Catholic Church did? Absolutely not! And the same goes for all of the proselytizing, murdering, religions.
*

I disagree with all murdering in the name of religion, but my point was a little different. However if you want to see true mass genocidal philosophically based regimes then the atheistic utopias have every one beat by a large margin. The atheistic Stalin alone killed far more people than all the Christian religious wars, inquisitions, purges, burnings, and witch hunts put together.

 

[1robin]

And I've explained to you several times what these gods actually are, and I even provided you a link about it.

No, you have only established what you believe about these "God's". In fact I gave this statement:
No, you have only established what you believe about these "God's" In fact I gave this statement:

Many Hindu's claim far more than one God exist.
Within Hinduism a large number of personal gods (Ishvaras) are worshipped as murtis. These beings are significantly powerful entities known as devas. The exact nature of belief in regards to each deity varies between differing Hindu denominations and philosophies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_deities

To which you agreed.

That is true and depending on what denomination of Hinduism you follow the Devas can be a multitude of things.

You have agreed with what I have been claiming. Why are you backtracking now? I gave you a reasonable way out. You could have said that you do not think but one God exists in "true" Hinduism despite what others claim. You for some reason instead resolved to claiming that only one God exists within all facets of Hinduism despite agreeing that is not the case above.

Jesus did not fulfill the Messianic requirements therefor he is not the Messiah. How is this "presupposing" anything? Where are these "many scholars" that agree with you?

In my view he did. Can you not see that this is not an argument. It is a presupposition.

1. Jesus doesn't fit 60% of the Messianic requirements though. The fact alone that he was was supposedly God or the son of God eliminates him from even being the Messiah.

I believe he fulfilled virtually all of them. How is his being the Son of God a disqualification for messiah?

2.They are in fact referring to a nation, that's just your personal interpretation of the text.

Let's say for a moment it was simply my interpretation. That is exactly what you are claiming for your self concerning his not meeting the requirements for messiah. However I did not give what I said as an argument for Jesus being the messiah but you did give your opinion as an argument for his not being so. Do you see the flaw here? I gave "my opinion" as an explanation of what I found my understandings on not whether they are true. You can't use a statement I made for one purpose for a completely independent purpose and then say it failed.

3. We don't know what Jesus claimed because Jesus himself did not write down anything. We only have claims about claims that Jesus supposedly made. Idk what "texts" your referring to because I place no belief in any text in the same way that you do with the bible.

You can't pick and choose what is reliable based on convenience. The NT being newer and written far closer to the printing press "all things being equal" is more reliable than the verses your using. I take them all as reliable beyond known scribal error. My views do not require me to do as you and Jefferson have done and simply cut out those passages you do not agree with. I take them all. I wish you would as consistent as I am. Either reject them all, take them all, or take only the later and better attested. Anything but what your doing would be valid.

This is the type of arrogance I was talking about in my is "Christianity Arrogant" thread. What have the Jews gotten wrong about their own scripture, excluding the supposed Messiah Jesus?

What are you talking about? They recorded their own frequent and long standing failures themselves. A dominant theme of the OT that THEY recorded is their corrupting what God sent, suffering for it, and being restored. Rinse and repeat. Not that what I said could be termed as arrogant even if I had invented it. I have no idea what happened to you here.

I yawned because your not saying anything new to me at all. You've presented the same argument I've heard from Christians several times. You think your religion is only true one because of X,Y,Z. Which is nothing new to me at all. [/font][/color]

Actually that is not even an argument I "official make" that often. It is one that I have recently found more and more profound and one I post simply for entertainment but until you can give me verse from another major religion that promise the same thing it still stands (boring to you or not).

Reliable testimony from who? The only people who claimed to have seen Jesus resurrected were his followers. Why is there no mention of it outside of the bible? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The thing is though I don't believe any text offers spiritual access to God, all religious scripture is just mans attempt to speak for God.

Here we have a prime example of the flaw in your "scholarship'. One that is even common to many of academics reductionists and revisionist scholars. You say you do not believe that any scripture offers access to God. First that is to assume something that you can't possibly know. You can't even know enough to make a reliable guess concerning all religions. It also reveals that you presume certain things based on (preference more than likely) and then look at every thing through that lens. It also makes any discussion about a messiah on your part meaningless. Of what value is something men invented concerning future divine beings. It is not my business what stand you adopt but I do request you act consistent with it.

 

[1robin]

If a lot of gods cant be one god and thus monotheistic in concept then three gods cannot be one god thus polytheistic in concept.

You call Jesus god, you call the father god and you call the holy spirit god. You pray to Jesus sometimes, sometimes you pray to the Father, yet you say you only pray to one god.

Okay then, I pray to Ganesh, Shiva, Krishna and Jesus. I also pray to one single God.

Problem?

Is this an argument against the Trinity, or about modes of being, or in defense of Hinduism? Unlike many I care about the context you gave your claims in and will address them within it, once known.

 

[Philomath]

No, you have only established what you believe about these "God's". In fact I gave this statement:
No, you have only established what you believe about these "God's" In fact I gave this statement:
To which you agreed.

You have agreed with what I have been claiming. Why are you backtracking now? I gave you a reasonable way out. You could have said that you do not think but one God exists in "true" Hinduism despite what others claim. You for some reason instead resolved to claiming that only one God exists within all facets of Hinduism despite agreeing that is not the case above.

First of all I've already said that there is no such thing as true Hinduism, stop putting words in my mouth. I agreed with your statements because in each Hindu denomination these gods roles and actions differ. I did not agree with you that they that there are multiple gods. You skipped over the link I provided which was from a Hindu website explaining the roles of these god. I challenge you to find me one sect of Hinduism that is polytheistic.

In my view he did. Can you not see that this is not an argument. It is a presupposition.

Yes in your view he did. In my view he did not. Jesus did not fulfill the requirements. If Jesus did I would agree with you that he is the Messiah.

I believe he fulfilled virtually all of them. How is his being the Son of God a disqualification for messiah?

Because the Messiah will be a great human leader like King David, not a savior of some sort. The Messiah is supposed to be 100% human.

Let's say for a moment it was simply my interpretation. That is exactly what you are claiming for your self concerning his not meeting the requirements for messiah. However I did not give what I said as an argument for Jesus being the messiah but you did give your opinion as an argument for his not being so. Do you see the flaw here? I gave "my opinion" as an explanation of what I found my understandings on not whether they are true. You can't use a statement I made for one purpose for a completely independent purpose and then say it failed.

My opinion is that Jesus us not the Messiah. He did not fulfill the Messianic requirements. I posted this earlier but I will post this again.

Judaism 101: Mashiach: The Messiah

You can't pick and choose what is reliable based on convenience. The NT being newer and written far closer to the printing press "all things being equal" is more reliable than the verses your using. I take them all as reliable beyond known scribal error. My views do not require me to do as you and Jefferson have done and simply cut out those passages you do not agree with. I take them all. I wish you would as consistent as I am. Either reject them all, take them all, or take only the later and better attested. Anything but what your doing would be valid.

What are you talking about by picking and choosing? The Qur'an is closer to the printing press than the NT. I don't accept things that I don't agree with logic, reason, or science. I can do whatever I want with whatever texts. I don't care if you see it as valid.

What are you talking about? They recorded their own frequent and long standing failures themselves. A dominant theme of the OT that THEY recorded is their corrupting what God sent, suffering for it, and being restored. Rinse and repeat. Not that what I said could be termed as arrogant even if I had invented it. I have no idea what happened to you here.

Yes the Jews recorded their failures as a people and as a nation. I'm asking where are the textual errors that you speak of?

Actually that is not even an argument I "official make" that often. It is one that I have recently found more and more profound and one I post simply for entertainment but until you can give me verse from another major religion that promise the same thing it still stands (boring to you or not).

That promises what to me?

Here we have a prime example of the flaw in your "scholarship'. One that is even common to many of academics reductionists and revisionist scholars. You say you do not believe that any scripture offers access to God. First that is to assume something that you can't possibly know. You can't even know enough to make a reliable guess concerning all religions. It also reveals that you presume certain things based on (preference more than likely) and then look at every thing through that lens. It also makes any discussion about a messiah on your part meaningless. Of what value is something men invented concerning future divine beings. It is not my business what stand you adopt but I do request you act consistent with it.

You totally ignored my previous question. Where is the evidence for these things Jesus is claimed to have done? I say that no scripture offers any access to God because it is a claim that cannot be proven. Where is the proof for it? I'm perfectly fine with disbelieving because there is no evidence for it. I've been consistent this whole time with you. I told you what an Omnist is and what I believe. What lens are you talking about?

 

[llwyd blaidd]

The Hebrew god was one god of many but the only god the Jews were supposed to believe in. Jesus was jewish and his followers were Jewish. It was not until Paul did gentiles start becoming Christians. Paul claimed there was only one god even though he was Jewish. After that Christians started to believe that nobody else should have the right to believe in something else so the campaigned to remove all other religions. Christians were intolerant to differences compared to the pagans around them. But the believed in the Jewish God who was still one of many Gods.

 

[1robin]

First of all I've already said that there is no such thing as true Hinduism, stop putting words in my mouth.

That is exactly what I said that you said. Can I not put your own words in your mouth even when you repeat them. I said I gave you a way out "if you would say that there is only one true Hinduism" to which you refused and instead said what I said you did and you confirmed here.

I agreed with your statements because in each Hindu denomination these gods roles and actions differ.

So you agree that in some versions of Hinduism there exist more than one divine being. That was my only claim and you have alternated between agreement and disagreement.

I did not agree with you that they that there are multiple gods. You skipped over the link I provided which was from a Hindu website explaining the roles of these god. I challenge you to find me one sect of Hinduism that is polytheistic.

You agreed with what I copied from a site that said there are more than one God in some Hindu belief systems. You must have either not read what you agreed to or have changed your mind. Either way it makes little difference. It is simply a matter of fact the many within Hinduism believe in divine beings distinct from a supreme one. All but two of the Hindus I have debated have believed in more than on divine being (God). It does not matter much but it is undeniable. I am hung up with work stuff and will have to look at the rest when I can.

 

[Ingledsva]

...

How in the world do you start denominations by torturing other people? I have no doubt protestants have had their dark moments but there is no comparison. Can you give links to these tortures in the name of new denominations? It is the same as saying both Republicans and liberals are wrong but Liberal are wrong on a scale that is quickly destroying the greatest nation in history to a point that is unrecoverable and probably already has...

Read the history. It says Luther started riots. Kings and Princes changed sides and murdered many Catholics that would not change their religion.

“Pope Pius V then had Elizabeth excommunicated.
This act released Catholics from their allegiance to the queen, but put them in danger of being traitors if they acted upon this. An uneasy tolerance settled over England in the ensuing years and Catholics were subject to monetary fines, imprisonment, and even execution if they showed any objection to the Queen’s secular authority.” Protestant Reformation, Paul A. Bishop

The torture and murder of people on both sides went on for many years. Then there are all the deaths under the reformation by Knox in Scotland, etc.

I mean for cripes sake – this hundred years of fighting ended with the Thirty Years War.

All the religions of Abraham have blood on their hands.

And how did this become connected to political parties?

*

 

[Philomath]

That is exactly what I said that you said. Can I not put your own words in your mouth even when you repeat them. I said I gave you a way out "if you would say that there is only one true Hinduism" to which you refused and instead said what I said you did and you confirmed here.

I would agree with such a statement beacuse I know it is false.There is no such thing as true Hinduism. I've repeated this over and over throughout this thread. There is one God in Hinduism but how he is viewed differs from sect to sect.

So you agree that in some versions of Hinduism there exist more than one divine being. That was my only claim and you have alternated between agreement and disagreement.

I've tried my best to explain what these gods actually are. I've provided links, and I've even asked you to show me a sect of Hinduism which is polytheistic. Which sect of Hinduism says that there's more than one God?

You agreed with what I copied from a site that said there are more than one God in some Hindu belief systems. You must have either not read what you agreed to or have changed your mind. Either way it makes little difference. It is simply a matter of fact the many within Hinduism believe in divine beings distinct from a supreme one. All but two of the Hindus I have debated have believed in more than on divine being (God). It does not matter much but it is undeniable. I am hung up with work stuff and will have to look at the rest when I can.

I did not agree with you that there is more than one God. I agreed with you that there are multiple gods, notice the lower case lettering. There is only 1 supreme God in Hinduism. Idk what these people you debated with spoke about so I cannot speak about it. I see no further point in debating this with you when it's apparent that you've already made a conclusion.

 

[Pagan_Patriot]

Welllllllll, let's get all the Jews to Israel and see if the Antichrist and Jesus come.

If not, then we can cross Evangelicals off the list xD

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I agree that Protestantism is a far cry from perfect but it's failures have no comparison with Catholicism's on any level. The witch trials killed maybe a dozen. The inquisition alone killed thousands. However to get to the truly horrific genocides and mass murders there is no comparison with the atheistic utopias and evolutionary based racial supremacy regimes. There are at least a thousand deaths that derived from Stalin's atheistic driven ideals alone for every one abortion clinic death. Probably ten thousand to one. There are currently more people killed in any given month in more than one atheist utopia than were killed in the entire history of the KKK. Which by the way began as a response to Northern militant aggression in the wake of the civil war and had nothing to do with race. There is only one argument to these claims and it is a very bad one, but I will await it before I point out it's faults. In fact unlike what another person claimed it does not appear that the best religion is no religion. It appears that the worst religion is no religion.

So your argument is "of course we did these horrible things, but we were nicer about it than (insert straw man of choice)". You see the dark side of your religion exposed, and turn it into some sort of ******* contest to tally body counts. That's weak dude... First of all, eradication of religion was not the all-encompassing motivation behind the atrocities committed by Stalin, but a rather small part of the bigger picture, which was all Marxist ideology (not that this fact takes away from what he did). During the Inquisitions, witch trials, crusades, various Islamic jihads, and other mass murders perpetrated by "holy" people, the only motivation behind these senseless attacks was the spread of their respective religions. Also I never mentioned race as a motivation for KKK murders, just the fact that they asserted that God was on their side. Can't we just agree that no group of people following any kind of ideal is better or more pious than another? It's human nature itself that breeds cruelty.

 

[Freelance_Policeman]

Did you ever consider that religion should be found in your heart and not within a "community"? This is how there is more than one true religion, because there is more than one person who chooses to seek the truth within all written doctrine (sciences included) and does not place any Deity before True Knowledge.

I seek true knowledge of God.

 

[Sha'irullah]

For some reason recently it seems virtually impossible to get folks to keep my statement in the same context they were given in. I never said we must choose a religion. In fact God himself in the Bible gives you the freedom to deny all God's and theology as you wish. Not that my statements had anything to do with that. My statement was that the right religion can't possibly be no religion. That is a logical absurdity and had nothing whatever to do with whether we should or could pick no religion. I also never even attempted to prove Christianity was right in what you responded to. This stripping of context and substituting new and inapplicable contexts is getting out of hand. I can explain why Christianity is the most likely to be true of the major theologies but was not doing so. Your claims about fallacy were even less applicable and relevant than the rest of your post if that is possible. There were not even any potential fallacies in what you responded to. If you meant from another post then until you tell me what post the claim is worse than meaningless. My claims are only meant to do what I employ them to. If I gave you a dog for hunting is complaining you can't ride him worth the effort of typing.

It was no less meaningful than the claim "the right religion is no religion" to which I was responding to.

Perhaps that is because you like many others take people's claims out of context as well.
But here Ii am clearly not doing such a thing. You are frustrated that your words are bordering frustrated absurd claims and not reading as witty comebacks.

The religion can indeed be no religion. Doth take note of the OP....

there r many religion in the world, but surly there r only one right religion, but how could we reach the right believe, the right path?

The lack of religion qualifies as a path in this context so I successfully answered the OP while you did not.

I shall take this moment of conceitedness and recommend I be applauded shan't you find another otiose remonstrance perpetuated from your grievances of your lack of argument.

 

[Muffled]

I believe that the only religion which is 100% correct on faith and morals is the Catholic Church. Other religions have part of the truth but not the whole truth.

Welcome to RF.

I believe it is a bit far fetched to make such a blanket statement.

I believe the concept that birth control can't be used has no basis in biblical law and is not supported by the Paraclete (Holy Spirit).

 

[Muffled]

Protestant Christianity is not without it's horrific moment as well. Let's see, there's the Salem witch trials, forced conversion during the African diaspora, calculated bombings of abortion clinics, public outrage against equality for gays, killings perpetrated by the KKK in the name of Jesus, the Laramie incident, the oppression of Northern Ireland, need I go on?

I believe you are saying that the tail wags the dog, that exception prevails over common understanding. Also I believe that faiiings are not due to the founding fathers of Protestism but to those who have diverged although some people have picked on Luther's concepts of racial purity.

However I believe the concept that divergent ideas mean that the source is wrong is incorrect. So within the right religion of Christianity are elements of wrong relgion because they don't come from the source.

 

[RJ50]

There is NO right religion as they are ALL created by humans, imo. Some doctrines are more damaging than others, like the 'you must be 'saved' or burn in hell', unpleasant dogma.

 

[1robin]

Read the history. It says Luther started riots. Kings and Princes changed sides and murdered many Catholics that would not change their religion.

I know his history very well. He in fact stopped riots. His rebellion against the Pope came at a time when the general population rebelled against Rome. This led many leaders of riots to use Luther and what he was doing as an excuse to fight and destroy. Luther condemned their actions. When he was hidden away by his prefect at Wittenberg and working on the German Bible some of his followers used his messages to instigate riots. These to he condemned when he returned. The truth can't be much more opposite than what you claimed. Why am I responsible for anything Luther did what ever it was. I became a Christian not a Lutheran.

Luther remained largely ignorant of the extent to which the unrest permeated the peasantry until he embarked on a tour of Thuringia with Philipp Melanchthon. It was at this time that he was able to observe firsthand the severity of the situation, peasants doing “the devil’s work”.[10] He attempted to prevent further violence by preaching against it, but recognised that this had little, if any impact.
In May 1525, he wrote Against the Rioting Peasants, a title which would be harshened by printers in other cities without Luther’s approval. In this publication, he upbraided the peasants on three charges: that they had violated oaths of loyalty, which makes them subject to secular punishment; they had committed crimes that went against their faith; and that their crimes were committed using Christ’s name which was blasphemy:

The peasants have taken upon themselves the burden of three terrible sins against God and man; by this they have merited death in body and soul... they have sworn to be true and faithful, submissive and obedient, to their rulers... now deliberately and violently breaking this oath... they are starting a rebellion, and are violently robbing and plundering monasteries and castles which are not theirs... they have doubly deserved death in body and soul as highwaymen and murderers... they cloak this terrible and horrible sin with the gospel... thus they become the worst blasphemers of God and slanderers of his holy name”[10]
​

Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“Pope Pius V then had Elizabeth excommunicated.
This act released Catholics from their allegiance to the queen, but put them in danger of being traitors if they acted upon this. An uneasy tolerance settled over England in the ensuing years and Catholics were subject to monetary fines, imprisonment, and even execution if they showed any objection to the Queen’s secular authority.” Protestant Reformation, Paul A. Bishop

The torture and murder of people on both sides went on for many years. Then there are all the deaths under the reformation by Knox in Scotland, etc.

I mean for cripes sake – this hundred years of fighting ended with the Thirty Years War.

In know very well what happened why did you post it. What is it you think this proves. I never made any claim that Protestantism was perfect nor free from misdeeds. There is nothing in this that has anything to do with torturing anyone for the purpose of starting a religion. Find one verse in the NT that preaches this. Luther never tortured anyone. The thirty years war had nothing to do with torturing for the purpose of inventing a denomination. In fact, history shows it had mostly secular causes and was about political power from Rome oppressing German and other peoples. It was about land and power and just happened to be between two religion groups of people (many times they were mixed together in protestants and Catholics against protestants and Catholics). I am a Christian but that does not mean that if I steal something or abuse someone that it has anything to do with my faith. No one can murder and then claim the book that said not to murder is responsible for it.

All the religions of Abraham have blood on their hands.

Agreed, but Catholicism has by far the most.

And how did this become connected to political parties?

As an analogy. You should read up more on Luther. For all his faults he was also a giant of the faith and got it right in more ways and to a greater extent than most. However I am not responsible for every word or deed Luther ever performed because I believe in Christ.