Originally posted by no1marauder The "Christians" here want everything tied up in a neat little package with a big bow and a label saying "Just for You and the Other 1% of the Special People". Plus they want to pretend that only they can understand what is in the package, even though it's transparent for all to see.
Other spiritual belief systems acknowledge that there ma ...[text shortened]... ence. The first is a recognization of Man's limited nature, the second is hubris and arrogance.
Originally posted by no1marauder Other spiritual belief systems acknowledge that there may be things that Man, at least in his present state, cannot understand though perhaps in other stages of being you will be able to understand them . That is entirely different and far more rational ...
"Other stages of being" as far more rational? LOL
Besides - it's incorrect to say that 99% of the world's population does not experience God - a good number of that population are explicitly theist.
Originally posted by lucifershammer "Other stages of being" as far more rational? LOL
Besides - it's incorrect to say that 99% of the world's population does not experience God - a good number of that population are explicitly theist.
Are you being deliberately thick? Yes, it's more rational to believe there might be other stages of being than there can only be one answer provided in writings supplied to us by semi-savages from ancient times.
I wasn't referring to theism; read my post and Halitose's. I was referring to those who believe in what we have been calling the "Secret Decoder Ring" theory. Please actually try to understand what someone is saying before responding wiith your usual snotnosery.
EDIT: You do understand what the word "perhaps" before "other stages of being" means, don't you?
Originally posted by no1marauder Are you being deliberately thick? Yes, it's more rational to believe their might be other stages of being than there can only be one answer provided in writings supplied to us by semi-savages from ancient times.
It's more rational because it's the preferred theory of Stargate SG-1?
Just because you have a personal gripe with Christianity does not make it any less rational than "other spiritual traditions".
If there is an answer, then it is far more rational to believe that there is only one correct answer than it is to believe that every intellect has its own correct answer. And if there is one correct answer, then there is no reason why "semi-savages from ancient times" should not have discovered it. After all, the Oriental religions that seem to be soo popular these days did not exactly originate in cultures that were using supercomputers and space shuttles.
If the liberal West has an inferiority complex about its Christian past, then that is its problem - not Christianity's.
Originally posted by lucifershammer Just because you have a personal gripe with Christianity does not make it any less rational than "other spiritual traditions".
This shows that you missed the point.
As to your other point--one answer--to what question?
Originally posted by lucifershammer It's more rational because it's the preferred theory of Stargate SG-1?
Just because you have a personal gripe with Christianity does not make it any less rational than "other spiritual traditions".
If there is an answer, then it is far more rational to believe that there is only one correct answer than it is to believe that every inte ...[text shortened]... an inferiority complex about its Christian past, then that is its problem - not Christianity's.
I guess you have something on your computer that blocks the word "perhaps". It is more rational to believe that human beings don't have all the ultimate answers than it is to believe they do.
I see you are adopting the "personalizing" strategy of your mentor, Ivanhoe. If one presents an opinion contrary to some theist, they have a "personal" problem with religion. Grow up.
Originally posted by no1marauder I guess you have something on your computer that blocks the word "perhaps". It is more rational to believe that human beings don't have all the ultimate answers than it is to believe they do.
I see you are adopting the "personalizing" strategy of your mentor, Ivanhoe. If one presents an opinion contrary to some theist, they have a "personal" problem with religion. Grow up.
I see you are adopting the "personalizing" strategy of your mentor, Ivanhoe. If one presents an opinion contrary to some theist, they have a "personal" problem with religion. Grow up.
Is this a denial that you don't have a gripe with Christianity in particular?
Originally posted by Halitose Is this a denial that you don't have a gripe with Christianity in particular?
That memory of yours. I think the gripes are with Paul, not Christ.
As far as I'm concerned, a body can get where it needs to via Christ. Other options exist, though. It's the exclusivity of some Christian thinking that doesn't wash. That's all.
Originally posted by Halitose [b]I see you are adopting the "personalizing" strategy of your mentor, Ivanhoe. If one presents an opinion contrary to some theist, they have a "personal" problem with religion. Grow up.
Is this a denial that you don't have a gripe with Christianity in particular?[/b]
I'm not bothering to respond to these types of petty claims. I'm going to stick to the issues presented and I suggest others do the same.
Originally posted by no1marauder I'm not bothering to respond to these types of petty claims. I'm going to stick to the issues presented and I suggest others do the same.
I made no claim; it was a simple question. If you do not wish to answer it, then don't bother, but don't degrade it to a level of pettiness – its anyway a relative term on these forums.
Originally posted by Halitose I made no claim; it was a simple question. If you do not wish to answer it, then don't bother, but don't degrade it to a level of pettiness – its anyway a relative term on these forums.
Actually, it was a multiple question with built in assumptions not a "simple" one. It was also an attempt to continue LH's Ivanhovian strategy to divert the discussion from the substantive issues (if any) to my personal supposed "gripes". Either LH and you can refute my point or you cannot; LH is advancing an Ad Hominem argument (i.e. "you have a gripe against Christianity therefore your argument must be of little weight"😉; such arguments are logical fallacies.
BTW, my original post put "Christians" in quotes for a reason; I'm unaware that most Christians subscribe to the Magic Decoder Ring theory espoused by some "Christians" here.
Originally posted by no1marauder Actually, it was a multiple question with built in assumptions not a "simple" one. It was also an attempt to continue LH's Ivanhovian strategy to divert the discussion from the substantive issues (if any) to my personal supposed "gripes". Either LH and you can refute my point or you cannot; LH is advancing an Ad Hominem argument (i.e. "you have a g ...[text shortened]... most Christians subscribe to the Magic Decoder Ring theory espoused by some "Christians" here.
Knowledge and Knowledge
13 Dec '05 17:08
Back to Top