Why is religion correlated with birthplace and birth time?

[A Vestigial Mote]

Yep. You don’t know. So you are making up your own premise for an argument and breaking it. It’s a logical fallacy.

Which logical fallacy might that be? Can you call it by name? Have you discovered and coined a new one perhaps?

Your goofy questions regarding whether or not it made sense for God to communicate personally to everyone on Earth ASSUMED God's existence. As big a faux pas as any. If I had to guess, you are one who goes around speaking as if God's existence is accepted as fact. If not then not. But if so, then so - and unsupportable.

 

[Link]

And do you practice the religion that was taught to you by your parents and exists as the dominant religion (or set of beliefs) in your own culture? I don't know one way or the other, obviously - which is why I am asking.

I was for 5 years a Deist and sort of Neopagan with monotheism central, I know it doesn't make sense, but basically I believed in magic and Angels, but not in a particular form of official religion, and would never call the deities takes as that, as gods, because of monotheistic Islamic roots.

I came back to Mohammad (s) and his family (a), through mental clarity, but the path I follow doesn't resemble that of my parents at all nor do I know anyone personally that follows the same way of approaching Quran and Ahlulbayt (a) as I do.

You can tell I'm of a different understanding when Muslims often and even on this site, calling me out of Islam, and it's true, by the norms and standards of Islam, I'm not inside of it at all.

 

[firedragon]

Which logical fallacy might that be? Can you call it by name? Have you discovered and coined a new one perhaps?

Your goofy questions regarding whether or not it made sense for God to communicate personally to everyone on Earth ASSUMED God's existence. As big a faux pas as any. If I had to guess, you are one who goes around speaking as if God's existence is accepted as fact. If not then not. But if so, then so - and unsupportable.

First, it’s the logical fallacy of false premise.

Now you did a generalization.

 

[sojourner]

How did the Native Americans "stop" God prior to the arrival of Columbus if they had never even heard of Jesus? Why didn't Jesus make himself known to them? Weird that Jesus only communicates through other humans' written and spoken words. It's almost as if he isn't real...

They did know God -- just by a different name. And why would Jesus "make himself known to them?" He was from a completely different culture. Jesus hasn't "made himself known" to anyone outside Judea and Galilee; others introduced him.
Jesus didn't just speak through other humans. Jesus walked and talked among us. These days, with Jesus gone, how is he going to speak to us, except through the passed-down memories of those who knew him? It just seems like a fake set of criteria you want to introduce here.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

They did know God -- just by a different name. And why would Jesus "make himself known to them?" He was from a completely different culture. Jesus hasn't "made himself known" to anyone outside Judea and Galilee; others introduced him.
Jesus didn't just speak through other humans. Jesus walked and talked among us. These days, with Jesus gone, how is he going to speak to us, except through the passed-down memories of those who knew him? It just seems like a fake set of criteria you want to introduce here.

Why was God so wildly active thousands of years ago but hasn't been seen or heard since the invention of video cameras?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

First, it’s the logical fallacy of false premise.

Now you did a generalization.

Okay then. Please show me where I used a logical structure and presented a "false premise." What was my premise?

 

[sojourner]

Why was God so wildly active thousands of years ago but hasn't been seen or heard since the invention of video cameras?

1) Who said God was "wildly active" thousands of years ago? Remember: prophets were special people -- few and far between. Who says God hasn't been "seen or heard since the invention of the video camera?" I heard God just this morning.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

1) Who said God was "wildly active" thousands of years ago? Remember: prophets were special people -- few and far between. Who says God hasn't been "seen or heard since the invention of the video camera?" I heard God just this morning.

He supposedly parted seas, talked through burning bushes, carved commandments into stone, spoke in a loud voice, sent plagues on his enemies, knocked down walls of cities, and took on human form. Is that not active? And why'd he quit doing all that stuff?

And also, what do you mean you heard God this morning? Did he actually talk to you?

 

[sojourner]

He supposedly parted seas, talked through burning bushes, carved commandments into stone, spoke in a loud voice, sent plagues on his enemies, knocked down walls of cities, and took on human form. Is that not active? And why'd he quit doing all that stuff?

And also, what do you mean you heard God this morning? Did he actually talk to you?

You realize, of course, that these stories are all mythic in nature, and many of them simply metaphoric? And, in fact, we still talk about God in metaphor and myth.

God speaks to me all the time.

 

[Gandalf]

Who said all the scriptures must be reconciled though? There is no basis for this.

There is no basis but it is apart of the Perennial conception that for unified ethical or philosophical purposes one should seek to reconcile or get at the basis of religion as a unified element. I adhere to this view strongly but I do not believe in unifying the religions in practice or dogma. That is left for the individual.

 

[Koldo]

There is no basis but it is apart of the Perennial conception that for unified ethical or philosophical purposes one should seek to reconcile or get at the basis of religion as a unified element. I adhere to this view strongly but I do not believe in unifying the religions in practice or dogma. That is left for the individual.

I am completely opposed to perennial philosophy. It is one of the most patronizing perpectives in the world.

 

[Gandalf]

I am completely opposed to perennial philosophy. It is one of the most patronizing perpectives in the world.

That is roughly what I was alluding to before, there is a strong immaturity and devaluation of religions when treated naively. It isnt that their core essense is equal but that all religions survive out of benefit to a society whatever it may be. Perennial outlooks think religions are truly the same and interwoven by merit of being a religion and no other factor.

For some reason it reminds me of Oprah, hmmmm.