The "True" Religion?

Originally posted by CliffLandin
A discussion would be if you were actually talking to someone, by the amount of time that you spend on the forums, I doubt that that happens very often. And if you were actually to speak to someone face to face they would probably kick the $hit out of you . This is a message post, not a discussion board. You post a message, you don't have a discussion. So post your message and be on your way.

fo·rum ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fôrm, fr-)
n. pl. fo·rums, also fo·ra (fôr, fr)

1. The public square or marketplace of an ancient Roman city that was the assembly place for judicial activity and public business.
2. A public meeting place for open discussion.
3. A medium of open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper or a radio or television program.

I'm afraid that none of those definitions support your stance that a thread should ever contain only one's thoughts unless explicitly demanded by management.

Originally posted by Darfius
fo·rum ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fôrm, fr-)
n. pl. fo·rums, also fo·ra (fôr, fr)

1. The public square or marketplace of an ancient Roman city that was the assembly place for judicial activity and public business.
2. A public meeting place for open discussion.
3. A medium of open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper or a radio or t ...[text shortened]... that a thread should ever contain only one's thoughts unless explicitly demanded by management.

Hey nice definition, however this is only a forum in name. In actuality it is a bulletin board, should I post the definition of this or do you want to look it up yourself. Do you program? If so, have you ever written a program for a forum or found a program that is a forum? No. Well that is because these things are considered to be bulletin boards. I'm sure that you don't have very much human interaction, but I'll bet you can figure out the difference between an actual forum or discussion and a bulletin board or message board.

Originally posted by Darfius
Yes I do. But I also see that agnostics who reject God are taking a stance. "I don't know" is a stance. And if they assumed the Creator loved us, Christianity would follow logically. So they must assume that He either hates us or is indifferent.

I am an agnostic.

I do not reject God, nor do I dispute the possibility of his or her existence.

I do eschew adherence to the dominant creeds of my society. I claim, in contrast to the religious folks in my midst, that I do not know the nature of the Creator.

But it is not so simple, for I am an agnostic that strongly suspects the existence of a Creator. Although I do not know for certain, I find belief in his or her existence comforting. Although I am fairly certain that fundamentalist xtians ar wrong (it is a matter of how they read--something about which I claim a fair bit of expertise), I do not know whether the Creator's interventions in human affairs have been accurately noted in the Qur'an, the Torah, the New Testament, and other religious texts. I strongly suspect there is some truth in all these texts.

I can say from my reading of the Qur'an that Islam would seem to be the logical conclusion if we assume that the Creator is magnificent, just, and loving.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
I am an agnostic.

I do not reject God, nor do I dispute the possibility of his or her existence.

I do eschew adherence to the dominant creeds of my society. I claim, in contrast to the religious folks in my midst, that I do not know the nature of the Creator.

But it is not so simple, for I am an agnostic that strongly suspects the existence of a Cre ...[text shortened]... eem to be the logical conclusion if we assume that the Creator is magnificent, just, and loving.

Thank you, that was exactly what I was looking for.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
I am an agnostic.

I do not reject God, nor do I dispute the possibility of his or her existence.

I do eschew adherence to the dominant creeds of my society. I claim, in contrast to the religious folks in my midst, that I do not know the nature of the Creator.

But it is not so simple, for I am an agnostic that strongly suspects the existence of a Cre ...[text shortened]... eem to be the logical conclusion if we assume that the Creator is magnificent, just, and loving.

I find your post refreshing. It does make sense for there to be a creator.

However, if you believe it would likely be the god of Islam, I would ask how you reconcile the tendency for terror to originate in Muslim countries with their supposedly loving god. I would also ask how you reconcile explicit ways of dealing with unbelievers with a supposedly loving god.

Originally posted by Darfius
I find your post refreshing. It does make sense for there to be a creator.

However, if you believe it would likely be the god of Islam, I would ask how you reconcile the tendency for terror to originate in Muslim countries with their su ...[text shortened]... t ways of dealing with unbelievers with a supposedly loving god.

I am an historian. Although events over the past few years have cast Islam in a bad light, I can assure you that if we judged religions by their tendencies to produce acts of terrorism, we would reject Christianity long before we would reject Islam.

Consider the Requerimiento (1510), a text that was hastily read in Spanish just before the Conquistadors lay waste to Native villages. After outlining the superiority of the Catholic Church, and the authority of the Spanish monarchs, it is declared that the Natives will be given the opportunity to accept this authority, then concludes:

"If you do so, you will do well, and that which you are obliged to do to their Highnesses, and we in their name shall receive you in all love and charity, and shall leave you, your wives, and your children, and your lands, free without servitude, that you may do with them and with yourselves freely that which you like and think best, and they shall not compel you to turn Christians, unless you yourselves, when informed of the truth, should wish to be converted to our Holy Catholic Faith, as almost all the inhabitants of the rest of the islands have done. And, besides this, their Highnesses award you many privileges and exemptions and will grant you many benefits.

But, if you do not do this, and maliciously make delay in it, I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter into your country, and shall make war against you in all ways and manners that we can, and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church and of their Highnesses; we shall take you and your wives and your children, and shall make slaves of them, and as such shall sell and dispose of them as their Highnesses may command; and we shall take away your goods, and shall do you all the mischief and damage that we can, as to vassals who do not obey, and refuse to receive their lord, and resist and contradict him; and we protest that the deaths and losses which shall accrue from this are your fault, and not that of their Highnesses, or ours, nor of these cavaliers who come with us. And that we have said this to you and made this Requisition, we request the notary here present to give us his testimony in writing, and we ask the rest who are present that they should be witnesses of this Requisition."

Originally posted by Darfius
However, if you believe it would likely be the god of Islam, I would ask how you reconcile the tendency for terror to originate in Muslim countries with their supposedly loving god. I would also ask how you reconcile explicit ways of dealing with unbelievers with a supposedly loving god.

The history of Christianity is riddled with horrors. I would argue that
any Moslem who advocates terror is not a Moslem at all, just as
any Christian who advocates terror is not a Christian at all.

There are violent scenes advocated by God in the OT, remember.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Wulebgr
I am an historian. Although events over the past few years have cast Islam in a bad light, I can assure you that if we judged religions by their tendencies to produce acts of terrorism, we would reject Christianity long before we would reject Islam.

Consider the Requerimiento (1510), a text that was hastily read in Spanish just before the Conquistadors la ...[text shortened]... riting, and we ask the rest who are present that they should be witnesses of this Requisition."

It's just too bad that the Catholics are as much of a cult as Mormons are.

Originally posted by Nemesio
The history of Christianity is riddled with horrors. I would argue that
any Moslem who advocates terror is not a Moslem at all, just as
any Christian who advocates terror is not a Christian at all.

There are violent scenes advocated by God in the OT, remember.

Nemesio

You're correct, advocated by God (therefore for a good reason), not advocated by Muhammed.

Originally posted by Darfius
You're correct, advocated by God (therefore for a good reason), not advocated by Muhammed.

The stories in the Hebrew Scriptures are said, by the Hebrews,
to be advocated by God.

The words in the Koran are said, by Moslems, to be advocated by
God through Mohammed.

Who is correct is a matter of opinion, not fact.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
The stories in the Hebrew Scriptures are said, by the Hebrews,
to be advocated by God.

The words in the Koran are said, by Moslems, to be advocated by
God through Mohammed.

Who is correct is a matter of opinion, not fact.

Nemesio

Yes, but the opinion is whether or not one should believe a man over God Himself.

Originally posted by Darfius
It's just too bad that the Catholics are as much of a cult as Mormons are.

This is an interesting statement. You think Catholics are largely a cult? What is it that draws you to this conclusion?

Originally posted by Darfius
Yes, but the opinion is whether or not one should believe a man over God Himself.

So you an RBHill say that you follow the teachings of Jesus. You claim that he was the earthly manifestation of God. Everyone else will say that he was just a man with a good plan. It is really just a question of opinion. You follow the teachings of a man named Jesus, Muslims follow the teachings of a man name Muhammed. What is the difference? (Rhetorical question: I already know what your answer will be)

Originally posted by Darfius
Yes, but the opinion is whether or not one should believe a man over God Himself.

What you mean is:

...whether or not one should believe a man who claims he is God's
prophet and a man who claims he is God's Son.

Again, opinion, not fact.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Darfius
It's just too bad that the Catholics are as much of a cult as Mormons are.

Okay. Here's a Protestant source from when the Pilgrims praised God for bringing measles or smallpox to the Indians, wiping out their villages, but leaving behind their corn:

"After this, the shallop being got ready, they set out again for the better discovery of this place, and the master of the ship desired to go himself. So there went some thirty men but found it to be no harbor for ships but only for boats. There was also found two of their houses covered with mats, and sundry of their implements in them, but the people were run away and could not be seen. Also there was found more of their corn and of their beans of various colors; the corn and beans they brought away, purposing to give them full satisfaction when they should meet with any of them as, about some six months afterward they did, to their good content.

And here is to be noted a special providence of God, and a great mercy to this poor people, that here they got seed to plant them corn the next year, or else they might have starved, for they had none nor any likelihood to get any till the season had been past, as the sequel did manifest. Neither is it likely they had had this, if the first voyage had not been made, for the ground was now all covered with snow and hard frozen; but the Lord is never wanting unto His in their greatest needs; let His holy name have all the praise. . . . "

William Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1650bradford.html