I don’t think God Exists!!! Do You?
I asked God to stop Acts against me and he ignored me...
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
ArishMell · 70-79, M
{My background - Anglican but liberally not dogmatically so, I have friends who are ordained in the Anglican Church, and a friend who is a Wiccan priestess; I am interested in why people believe as they do, but I am an agnostic.}
===
No, I don't believe in gods and supernatural forces, but I am very well aware that believing in a god, or the same god by one or another religion or sect, does provide comfort for many people.
Let's pass over this sterile, binary notion that you believe in the Ancient Hebrew "God" - capital 'G' or nothing - and consider instead belief or otherwise generally. So any god(s) / goddess /~es; and by any humanly-constructed doctrinal or sectarian system, true to its own followers.
let's instead consider what sincere religious belief does and almost certainly has done since Paleolithic, possibly also Neanderthal, times.
In fact we cannot know when, where and how belief in deities started, though ancient burials are a reasonable indication of some form of spiritual concepts. However, all known religions past and present share vital common threads:-
- Yearning to understand natural features and processes. If you can't understand it, and certainly can't control it but life and death depend on it, then at least credit a god for it. And make sure you keep on that god's right side.
- Yearning to place your life in that god's work. This provides spiritual comfort by a feeling of being part of your god's scheme. It is though hard to see how the Ancient Greek and Roman pantheons could have provided that, and their weakness might have contributed to the simpler and more direct Christianity taking over.
- Lessening the fear of death, though not necessarily of what will kill you; by giving a reason to invent the eternal palimpsest that Christians call the "soul". The after-life concept is so ancient and universal that we can gain an insight into ancient societies' daily lives from their grave-goods. NB: we cannot know their religious beliefs from those alone; only be reasonably certain they held such beliefs by the evidence of funerary rites.
- Providing what we could call "bereavement counselling". The loss would have felt by the Palaeolithic or late-Neanderthal family as much as by today's; so giving the deceased a good send-off to the "after-life" as part of comforting the bereaved, would have been as important as it is to we modern Christian, Muslims, Hindhus, Humanists, Wiccans, agnostics, etc., etc. The concept of a funeral being a "celebration and thanksgiving" of the life gone, might be modern, but still in line with that primal, possibly instinctive, need.
- Re-inforcing social frameworks. The Ten Commandments are a neat example of that, even if you don't follow the Abrahamic,or any, faiths. You don't need believe in a god to know it's wrong to steal thy neighbour's oxen or spouse, but to a society like the Ancient Hebrews, thinking "Because God says so" would have strongly re-inforced rules for social cohesion and mutual good. Jesus took that a step further by adding basic humanity, and essentially saying "Because God says so", too.
- Humility. Sadly religion has long been, and remains, a powerful force for arrogance and control by using its deities as ready-made scapegoats for those human weaknesses. Yet blaming one's god for being a bully by pretending to be acting for it, upturns the fundamental spiritual need to place we mere humans within a far greater entirety. A result of a god's work we might be - the pinnacle of that work; oh, no, we are not!
+++
So when you ask whether anyone else believes in the capital-'G' "God" because he appears to ignore your demands, I am afraid you miss two points:
- Firstly, whilst no-one can prove the existence or non-existence of any deity / deities; spiritual beliefs are a primeval, almost instinctive, human need that answers similarly innate human needs at a deep level.
- Secondly, it overlooks the basis of religious belief beyond artificial boundaries of faiths, sects, dogmas and deity-names. That basis beyond puts its deities in charge of humans, not vice-versa; but hands human behaviour to the charge of humans.
'
So whilst prayer may comfort in times of distress, religious faith is not a conduit for what amount to requests for Hogwarts-esque intervention in day-to-day life.
'
[Edited to correct misplaced word.]
===
No, I don't believe in gods and supernatural forces, but I am very well aware that believing in a god, or the same god by one or another religion or sect, does provide comfort for many people.
Let's pass over this sterile, binary notion that you believe in the Ancient Hebrew "God" - capital 'G' or nothing - and consider instead belief or otherwise generally. So any god(s) / goddess /~es; and by any humanly-constructed doctrinal or sectarian system, true to its own followers.
let's instead consider what sincere religious belief does and almost certainly has done since Paleolithic, possibly also Neanderthal, times.
In fact we cannot know when, where and how belief in deities started, though ancient burials are a reasonable indication of some form of spiritual concepts. However, all known religions past and present share vital common threads:-
- Yearning to understand natural features and processes. If you can't understand it, and certainly can't control it but life and death depend on it, then at least credit a god for it. And make sure you keep on that god's right side.
- Yearning to place your life in that god's work. This provides spiritual comfort by a feeling of being part of your god's scheme. It is though hard to see how the Ancient Greek and Roman pantheons could have provided that, and their weakness might have contributed to the simpler and more direct Christianity taking over.
- Lessening the fear of death, though not necessarily of what will kill you; by giving a reason to invent the eternal palimpsest that Christians call the "soul". The after-life concept is so ancient and universal that we can gain an insight into ancient societies' daily lives from their grave-goods. NB: we cannot know their religious beliefs from those alone; only be reasonably certain they held such beliefs by the evidence of funerary rites.
- Providing what we could call "bereavement counselling". The loss would have felt by the Palaeolithic or late-Neanderthal family as much as by today's; so giving the deceased a good send-off to the "after-life" as part of comforting the bereaved, would have been as important as it is to we modern Christian, Muslims, Hindhus, Humanists, Wiccans, agnostics, etc., etc. The concept of a funeral being a "celebration and thanksgiving" of the life gone, might be modern, but still in line with that primal, possibly instinctive, need.
- Re-inforcing social frameworks. The Ten Commandments are a neat example of that, even if you don't follow the Abrahamic,or any, faiths. You don't need believe in a god to know it's wrong to steal thy neighbour's oxen or spouse, but to a society like the Ancient Hebrews, thinking "Because God says so" would have strongly re-inforced rules for social cohesion and mutual good. Jesus took that a step further by adding basic humanity, and essentially saying "Because God says so", too.
- Humility. Sadly religion has long been, and remains, a powerful force for arrogance and control by using its deities as ready-made scapegoats for those human weaknesses. Yet blaming one's god for being a bully by pretending to be acting for it, upturns the fundamental spiritual need to place we mere humans within a far greater entirety. A result of a god's work we might be - the pinnacle of that work; oh, no, we are not!
+++
So when you ask whether anyone else believes in the capital-'G' "God" because he appears to ignore your demands, I am afraid you miss two points:
- Firstly, whilst no-one can prove the existence or non-existence of any deity / deities; spiritual beliefs are a primeval, almost instinctive, human need that answers similarly innate human needs at a deep level.
- Secondly, it overlooks the basis of religious belief beyond artificial boundaries of faiths, sects, dogmas and deity-names. That basis beyond puts its deities in charge of humans, not vice-versa; but hands human behaviour to the charge of humans.
'
So whilst prayer may comfort in times of distress, religious faith is not a conduit for what amount to requests for Hogwarts-esque intervention in day-to-day life.
'
[Edited to correct misplaced word.]
1-25 of 34
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Speedyman Please read posts properly.
The sterile and binary notion is NOT that of being a Christian / non-Christian because that is not a binary choice. You can be of any faith or none.
What is binary so sterile, is basing everything on a specified faith / nothing. The world does not work like that.
So I called for looking at [i]religion[/i], not [b][i]a[/i][/b] religion, and I am aware some find other religions' mere existence uncomfortable.
[i]I highlighted the common nature of religion and its motives[/i] - NOT a single doctrine!
Ill-informed? Am I? Are you any wiser?
I open my mind to try to learn the basics of others' beliefs so I can understand their motives, without having to share those beliefs.
I respect the fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity over Jesus' status; and I understand the difference is also shared by one American, Abrahamic sect. Do you?
I respect the difference between atheism and agnosticism. Do you?
I know all manner of religions existed before and alongside the Abrahamic ones. One or two still do. Do you?
I know and celebrate that many established Christian congregations reach out hands of friendship not only to their fellows of other Christian sects; but also to Moslems, Jews and others, even occasionally to the extent of shared devotions. Does yours?
Has any religion of any consequence has developed since Islam, the third of those three ex-Hebrew faiths? (Christianity and Islam started as divergences from the Abrahamic, Judaic traditions. However, I mean genuinely innovative, significant spiritual faiths rather than new sects like Shia and Sunni, or Catholic and varied Protestant, in existing faiths. I discount quasi-religious power-cults like Scientology.)
Does not that variety even before we consider Hindhu, Sikh, Buddhist, etc., tell you and I something very important?
I recognise and respect the multiplicity of past and present faiths and disbeliefs, not least because it shows none can monopolise thought and belief. (Though some certainly imagine they can, and I oppose any attempts to enforce such monopoly.)
Do you recognise and respect religious and philosophical diversity and freedom; or like the hard-line faith-monopolists, fear and despise them?
The sterile and binary notion is NOT that of being a Christian / non-Christian because that is not a binary choice. You can be of any faith or none.
What is binary so sterile, is basing everything on a specified faith / nothing. The world does not work like that.
So I called for looking at [i]religion[/i], not [b][i]a[/i][/b] religion, and I am aware some find other religions' mere existence uncomfortable.
[i]I highlighted the common nature of religion and its motives[/i] - NOT a single doctrine!
Ill-informed? Am I? Are you any wiser?
I open my mind to try to learn the basics of others' beliefs so I can understand their motives, without having to share those beliefs.
I respect the fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity over Jesus' status; and I understand the difference is also shared by one American, Abrahamic sect. Do you?
I respect the difference between atheism and agnosticism. Do you?
I know all manner of religions existed before and alongside the Abrahamic ones. One or two still do. Do you?
I know and celebrate that many established Christian congregations reach out hands of friendship not only to their fellows of other Christian sects; but also to Moslems, Jews and others, even occasionally to the extent of shared devotions. Does yours?
Has any religion of any consequence has developed since Islam, the third of those three ex-Hebrew faiths? (Christianity and Islam started as divergences from the Abrahamic, Judaic traditions. However, I mean genuinely innovative, significant spiritual faiths rather than new sects like Shia and Sunni, or Catholic and varied Protestant, in existing faiths. I discount quasi-religious power-cults like Scientology.)
Does not that variety even before we consider Hindhu, Sikh, Buddhist, etc., tell you and I something very important?
I recognise and respect the multiplicity of past and present faiths and disbeliefs, not least because it shows none can monopolise thought and belief. (Though some certainly imagine they can, and I oppose any attempts to enforce such monopoly.)
Do you recognise and respect religious and philosophical diversity and freedom; or like the hard-line faith-monopolists, fear and despise them?
Speedyman · 70-79, M
Might be believing the truth is not sterile. Truth is truth whether people like you believe it or not. 1+1 = 2 no matter how many diversity people disagree. What twaddle is taught by diversity attempts which trade facts for fiction. Reaching out a hand of friendship certainly doesn’t mean to say we believe what other people believe. Because I reach a hand of friendship to an atheist does not believe that I become an atheist and embrace their beliefs. @ArishMell
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Speedyman you have more or less agreed with me there, that understanding others' beliefs - and that is all that religions are, beliefs - does not mean necessarily sharing them.
A Christian invited to a Moslem or Judaic service, or vice-versa, is not likely to convert though they are at least worshipping the same God.
I don't k now the "diversity" you mean. The "diversity" I know is not "twaddle" but a recognition that there is more than one answer, or "truth" if you like because they'd all say that, wouldn't they.
And from that recognition, an acceptance that more than one faith as well as agnosticism and atheism ([i]not[/i] synonyms!) can co-exist when people have the moral courage and religious understanding to allow it. Failure to have that courage and understanding leads only conflict as we have seen around the world over the ages.
I would not expect you to become the atheist of your example nor to convert him, but you seem to find it hard to accept your religious belief is [i]not[/i] the only religious belief; and hard to accept that all those others are equally "true" to their own followers but not necessarily true to others.
If that were not so everyone would be following just one sect of one faith. Only, they don't. There are very many faiths, sects and shades of belief, as well as shades of doubt and denial.
It does work the other way of course, but not so aggressively nor personally, probably by athiests, not agnostics. They tend simply to insult religion as "fairy stories" and base their arguments on highlighting scriptural myths rather than looking beyond those at what really matters. [i]Both[/i] sides show the same lack of theological thinking.
A true agnostic is more likely to analyse both arguments, see what it is that attracts the faithful, and concede both have their points. he or she would also admit to being no more able to prove the non-existence of a deity than the believer can prove the opposite.
That impossibility of a standard, defined "one-faith-one-truth-fits-all" reality is what makes the Me-Religious/You-Athiest claim so binary and meaningless, though I have seen both claimed by quite a number of would-be crusaders for their own beliefs, on SW!
Religious faith, and people, are just not like that. Theocracies apart perhaps, they never were and never will be as long as people take up, follow or abandon any religion, doubt or none.
'
You also missed my main point, that religion (not any individual faith) is not a panacea for everyday problems as the OP seems to ask; but works on a higher, mystical level. It brings comfort to its followers, but not practical solutions to their daily lives.
A Christian invited to a Moslem or Judaic service, or vice-versa, is not likely to convert though they are at least worshipping the same God.
I don't k now the "diversity" you mean. The "diversity" I know is not "twaddle" but a recognition that there is more than one answer, or "truth" if you like because they'd all say that, wouldn't they.
And from that recognition, an acceptance that more than one faith as well as agnosticism and atheism ([i]not[/i] synonyms!) can co-exist when people have the moral courage and religious understanding to allow it. Failure to have that courage and understanding leads only conflict as we have seen around the world over the ages.
I would not expect you to become the atheist of your example nor to convert him, but you seem to find it hard to accept your religious belief is [i]not[/i] the only religious belief; and hard to accept that all those others are equally "true" to their own followers but not necessarily true to others.
If that were not so everyone would be following just one sect of one faith. Only, they don't. There are very many faiths, sects and shades of belief, as well as shades of doubt and denial.
It does work the other way of course, but not so aggressively nor personally, probably by athiests, not agnostics. They tend simply to insult religion as "fairy stories" and base their arguments on highlighting scriptural myths rather than looking beyond those at what really matters. [i]Both[/i] sides show the same lack of theological thinking.
A true agnostic is more likely to analyse both arguments, see what it is that attracts the faithful, and concede both have their points. he or she would also admit to being no more able to prove the non-existence of a deity than the believer can prove the opposite.
That impossibility of a standard, defined "one-faith-one-truth-fits-all" reality is what makes the Me-Religious/You-Athiest claim so binary and meaningless, though I have seen both claimed by quite a number of would-be crusaders for their own beliefs, on SW!
Religious faith, and people, are just not like that. Theocracies apart perhaps, they never were and never will be as long as people take up, follow or abandon any religion, doubt or none.
'
You also missed my main point, that religion (not any individual faith) is not a panacea for everyday problems as the OP seems to ask; but works on a higher, mystical level. It brings comfort to its followers, but not practical solutions to their daily lives.
Speedyman · 70-79, M
Of course they are not worshipping the same God. The Christian believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the Messiah. A Muslim does not believe that. The Christian believes in one God and the Hindu believes in 300 million gods. Your diversity is absolute twaddle in that it doesn’t make sense. I cannot believe that one and one equals two and one and one equals five. You cannot have a pick and mix on truth. Something is either true or it’s not@ArishMell
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Speedyman You have now, in your usual polite and civilised manner, indirectly explained just what "diversity" of religion does mean.
I will though remind you of the thread's theme, later.
'
I know that Muslims respect Jesus as a wise teacher but consider he has no divine properties. To them, it would deny the essential uniqueness and mystery of God. Their Allah is the same God as worshipped by Christians and Jews, but without the Trinity addition.
I gather the Plymouth Brethren hold a similar view, but I am not sure.
Of course the one-God Abrahamic-based and Islamic monotheisms, Holy Trinity approach of Christianity and the [i]tri-theist [/i] Hindu religion are all different; but they are all equally-valid religions of their own, with very different histories - which I took the trouble to look up (Wikipedia).
Hindus worship just three gods (not "millions"!). Theirs and Judaism are the world's oldest surviving religions. Hindu is also the world's third largest by numbers of followers, behind Christianity and Islam.
Hinduism - approaching 4000 years old
Judaism, if dated from Abraham, 3500 - 4000 years, so slightly younger. It could well have absorbed threads from older regional religions though.
Confuscionism - about 2500 years old. (It is more a philosophy than a religion, but with broader social and moral aspects similar to those of many religions)
Christianity - well, about 2000 years although of course Jesus and his contemporary followers were all Jews! The schism arose later when the fledgling faith started to admit gentiles. Of two eras - the Apostolic, starting in the Apostles' lives, and the Ante-Nicene, ours now. That originated when the First Council of Nicea (325 CE) settled previous arguments over Jesus' divinity, in favour of the Holy Trinity doctrine.
Buddhism - about 2500 years old.
Islam - a mere 1300 (early 7C CE).
Since then? No new faiths but a good many sects and doctrinal interpretations of existing faiths, particularly among Christians.
It is very difficult to count accurately any religion's population due very much to the very complex mixture of cultures, faiths, sects and backgrounds of individuals, across so many very diverse nations. Some secular democracies are highly-diverse internally too. Others, particularly the more hard-line Islamic theocracies and the officially-atheist Communist states, suppress diversity, as in China's oppression of the Uyghurs' religion and culture.
'
I don't what you mean by "pick and mix" on what you regard in a rather Orwellian way, as "truth". NO-ONE does that. You can't pick and mix faiths with each other; but where allowed, you can follow any one or none of many faiths, and humanity has always done exactly that.
Any individual faith is "true" to its followers, so they must all be "true". Indeed they all share the fundamental concept of religion I outlined above but which you merely sneered at. Yes, yours is "true" to you and others of the same persuasion - but not to everyone even if they are as fervently religious as you.
Claiming one's own as uniquely but universally "true" calls everyone else, whether religious, agnostic or atheist, totally wrong if not downright liars. That would be absurd, arrogant and deeply offensive to all those others.
[i]Diversity [/i]means [i]variety[/i] and[i] differences[/i], and whilst I accept you dislike diversity (hence personal freedom?), surely you must know and accept that the world is as diverse in religion as in so many other aspects of society and culture.
We should celebrate diversity of religion and right of religious belief (including doubt and denial). Oppressing it might make you happy, but leads ultimately only to the sterile, mindless and cowardly fascism of the hard-line theocrat.
###
In any case all that my-faith-is-more-true-than-yours misses both the original question and my response to that.
[i]So I will remind you[/i].
Alexasmilez asked whether God exists because she feels he is not answering her prayers.
I responded by first lifting the question above any one faith and explaining the essentials of religious belief, [b]not[/b] the essentials of any specific faith. Hence, showed that religion's purpose is not to solve everyday problems, as Alexa seemed to think it should, but to answer questions and bring comfort on a higher spiritual level.
I will though remind you of the thread's theme, later.
'
I know that Muslims respect Jesus as a wise teacher but consider he has no divine properties. To them, it would deny the essential uniqueness and mystery of God. Their Allah is the same God as worshipped by Christians and Jews, but without the Trinity addition.
I gather the Plymouth Brethren hold a similar view, but I am not sure.
Of course the one-God Abrahamic-based and Islamic monotheisms, Holy Trinity approach of Christianity and the [i]tri-theist [/i] Hindu religion are all different; but they are all equally-valid religions of their own, with very different histories - which I took the trouble to look up (Wikipedia).
Hindus worship just three gods (not "millions"!). Theirs and Judaism are the world's oldest surviving religions. Hindu is also the world's third largest by numbers of followers, behind Christianity and Islam.
Hinduism - approaching 4000 years old
Judaism, if dated from Abraham, 3500 - 4000 years, so slightly younger. It could well have absorbed threads from older regional religions though.
Confuscionism - about 2500 years old. (It is more a philosophy than a religion, but with broader social and moral aspects similar to those of many religions)
Christianity - well, about 2000 years although of course Jesus and his contemporary followers were all Jews! The schism arose later when the fledgling faith started to admit gentiles. Of two eras - the Apostolic, starting in the Apostles' lives, and the Ante-Nicene, ours now. That originated when the First Council of Nicea (325 CE) settled previous arguments over Jesus' divinity, in favour of the Holy Trinity doctrine.
Buddhism - about 2500 years old.
Islam - a mere 1300 (early 7C CE).
Since then? No new faiths but a good many sects and doctrinal interpretations of existing faiths, particularly among Christians.
It is very difficult to count accurately any religion's population due very much to the very complex mixture of cultures, faiths, sects and backgrounds of individuals, across so many very diverse nations. Some secular democracies are highly-diverse internally too. Others, particularly the more hard-line Islamic theocracies and the officially-atheist Communist states, suppress diversity, as in China's oppression of the Uyghurs' religion and culture.
'
I don't what you mean by "pick and mix" on what you regard in a rather Orwellian way, as "truth". NO-ONE does that. You can't pick and mix faiths with each other; but where allowed, you can follow any one or none of many faiths, and humanity has always done exactly that.
Any individual faith is "true" to its followers, so they must all be "true". Indeed they all share the fundamental concept of religion I outlined above but which you merely sneered at. Yes, yours is "true" to you and others of the same persuasion - but not to everyone even if they are as fervently religious as you.
Claiming one's own as uniquely but universally "true" calls everyone else, whether religious, agnostic or atheist, totally wrong if not downright liars. That would be absurd, arrogant and deeply offensive to all those others.
[i]Diversity [/i]means [i]variety[/i] and[i] differences[/i], and whilst I accept you dislike diversity (hence personal freedom?), surely you must know and accept that the world is as diverse in religion as in so many other aspects of society and culture.
We should celebrate diversity of religion and right of religious belief (including doubt and denial). Oppressing it might make you happy, but leads ultimately only to the sterile, mindless and cowardly fascism of the hard-line theocrat.
###
In any case all that my-faith-is-more-true-than-yours misses both the original question and my response to that.
[i]So I will remind you[/i].
Alexasmilez asked whether God exists because she feels he is not answering her prayers.
I responded by first lifting the question above any one faith and explaining the essentials of religious belief, [b]not[/b] the essentials of any specific faith. Hence, showed that religion's purpose is not to solve everyday problems, as Alexa seemed to think it should, but to answer questions and bring comfort on a higher spiritual level.
Speedyman · 70-79, M
No you are wrong about the Plymouth Brethren . Funny in my travels across India they all tell me they worship 300 million gods. I can assure you in the number of shrines I’ve seen there are vastly more than three gods. Have you been there? My religion is not to bring me spiritual comfort but to bring me the truth. I believe it because it is true not because it is some wishy-washy mess of spiritual comfort. Of course we should not celebrate diversity of religion any more than we should celebrate diversity of unbelief. Do you think we should celebrate Hitler and Stalin because they had a diversity of opinion of how humanity should be treated? There is diversity for you. Who is to say right is right and wrong is wrong if there is no truth like you say there is no truth?@ArishMell
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Speedyman Thank you for the correction about the Plymouth Brethren. it came to me via a friend whose trade customers include a local congregation of them; but it's possible those ones have some interpretation for their own I suppose.
Hinduism has three primary gods. Sikhi is monotheist. I can see that some your contacts might worship many other beings, but "millions"? Sure they weren't teasing you?
I did say your faith is true to you, but nowhere did I ever call religion a "wishy-wash mess of spiritual comfort". That is your accusation, not mine; and spiritual comfort is one of religion's most important values, shown particularly by its presence in the respective funerary rites of all faiths.
Hinduism has three primary gods. Sikhi is monotheist. I can see that some your contacts might worship many other beings, but "millions"? Sure they weren't teasing you?
I did say your faith is true to you, but nowhere did I ever call religion a "wishy-wash mess of spiritual comfort". That is your accusation, not mine; and spiritual comfort is one of religion's most important values, shown particularly by its presence in the respective funerary rites of all faiths.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Speedyman Believe it or not I am quite capable of adding single-digits numbers, but we are talking about people, mystic concepts and spiritual support; not simple numbers as in counting apples.
I accept you have discovered more about India than the basic facts I unearthed. Yet you still do not explain [i]why[/i] you cannot accept the concept of a diverse range of religious [i]beliefs[/i] that are each sincerely held by their[i] own [/i]followers, and may differ considerably from each other, but all answer the same fundamental human needs.
You appear to suggest supporting religious diversity means individuals holding vague mixtures of spiritual ideas or beliefs. No it does not. They would simply be individual expressions of personal faith. Instead it means having your own faith but accepting and tolerating, even welcoming, those of others.
Hiding behind "it's true" won't wash - that merely states your stance on your own [i]belief[/i] but neither explains nor excuses you despising others'[i]beliefs [/i] and diversity of beliefs. You might think you don't but that how it comes across.
Your belief is clearly as absolute and rigid to you as your 1+1 = 2 example, but you also say you travelled widely in a country where most of the population would also say 1+1=2 but worships gods very different from yours.
Those faiths are just as true and valuable to their devotees as yours is to you, so stop denigrating them.
I accept you have discovered more about India than the basic facts I unearthed. Yet you still do not explain [i]why[/i] you cannot accept the concept of a diverse range of religious [i]beliefs[/i] that are each sincerely held by their[i] own [/i]followers, and may differ considerably from each other, but all answer the same fundamental human needs.
You appear to suggest supporting religious diversity means individuals holding vague mixtures of spiritual ideas or beliefs. No it does not. They would simply be individual expressions of personal faith. Instead it means having your own faith but accepting and tolerating, even welcoming, those of others.
Hiding behind "it's true" won't wash - that merely states your stance on your own [i]belief[/i] but neither explains nor excuses you despising others'[i]beliefs [/i] and diversity of beliefs. You might think you don't but that how it comes across.
Your belief is clearly as absolute and rigid to you as your 1+1 = 2 example, but you also say you travelled widely in a country where most of the population would also say 1+1=2 but worships gods very different from yours.
Those faiths are just as true and valuable to their devotees as yours is to you, so stop denigrating them.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Speedyman I do not know what is "a post-modern" - I have never known it used as a noun. I have heard it as a style adjective favoured by art-critics, but the cliché is pretentious and does not even make sense. Something is either past, modern (current) or forecast future.
No-ONE is making 1+1 = 5!
I [i]do not[/i] mind what religious belief anyone else holds; nor whether it is true or not; but I know [i]and respect[/i] it being true to them.
What I [i]do[/i] mind is that all genuine religious beliefs including doubt or denial, and their followers, are treated fairly and evenly.
That wish for fairness is why I also oppose enforced conversion or suppression in the name of any religious or political dogma; be that at family or national level.
'
You have chosen to follow [i]a [/i]specific faith and probably specific sect, out of quite a number of extant mainstream faiths and their sects, and you believe it true to you.
That IS fair.
Unfortunately, you refuse to understand and accept that other faiths and their sects are as true to their own followers as yours is to you. You have no reason to do so.
That is NOT fair.
'
You have your own reasons for your choosing your faith, but you and I are lucky to live in countries where we have that choice by right.
Sadly though, you fear, despise and dismiss as lies, any faith not your own; and by extension the same freedom to choose.
No-ONE is making 1+1 = 5!
I [i]do not[/i] mind what religious belief anyone else holds; nor whether it is true or not; but I know [i]and respect[/i] it being true to them.
What I [i]do[/i] mind is that all genuine religious beliefs including doubt or denial, and their followers, are treated fairly and evenly.
That wish for fairness is why I also oppose enforced conversion or suppression in the name of any religious or political dogma; be that at family or national level.
'
You have chosen to follow [i]a [/i]specific faith and probably specific sect, out of quite a number of extant mainstream faiths and their sects, and you believe it true to you.
That IS fair.
Unfortunately, you refuse to understand and accept that other faiths and their sects are as true to their own followers as yours is to you. You have no reason to do so.
That is NOT fair.
'
You have your own reasons for your choosing your faith, but you and I are lucky to live in countries where we have that choice by right.
Sadly though, you fear, despise and dismiss as lies, any faith not your own; and by extension the same freedom to choose.
Speedyman · 70-79, M
You seem to think that any religious belief someone that holds is okay whether it is true or not. Perhaps you think the same about science? Perhaps you fear despise and dismiss as lies any science which you do not care to believe in? Perhaps you don’t believe in the law of gravity? We believe in truth. I’m afraid your pick and mix as you like type of religion does not work. It is Marx’s opiate of the people @ArishMell
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Speedyman YOU cannot or will not understand [i]religion.
[/i]
Your [i]own faith [/i]yes - I am sure you know that literally chapter and verse.
Religion as a whole no. And why?
Because you cannot stomach yours being NOT the only faith, and that others find their faiths find their own just as true to them, as you find yours to you.
[quote]Perhaps you fear despise and dismiss as lies any science which you do not care to believe in?[/quote]
NO - Of course I do not fear etc. science, nor religion come to that. That is because I seek to question and understand, be that in science or in religious beliefs. Of course I believe in gravity!
'
[quote]’m afraid your pick and mix as you like type of religion does not work[/quote]
NO-ONE follows a "pick-&-mix" religion! They follow one or another sect of one faith; but unfortunately for you, some do lapse, take up or convert from sect or faith to another. By choice, too!
Many religious people, and not just leading clerics and theologians, do understand [i]religion[/i] beyond their own [i]faiths[/i]. They take the trouble to understand and accept others; and they welcome the diversity you despise, of religious thought and expression.
They can do that because at heart, all the main religions do essentially the same thing even if their detail beliefs and liturgies differ so widely. They may be Christian, Jewish, Moslem, Hindhu or Sikh but are still men and women of Faith; and in the first three at least, of God! You do not like that - to you all others are mistaken or liars - so will not admit it.
YOU invented the "pick-&-mix" concept by [i]deliberately [/i]twisting my words because you don't like anyone questioning or disagreeing with you.
You simply make yourself out to be very bitter, narrow-minded and intolerant of any religious faith and sect other than your own.
Poor God...
[/i]
Your [i]own faith [/i]yes - I am sure you know that literally chapter and verse.
Religion as a whole no. And why?
Because you cannot stomach yours being NOT the only faith, and that others find their faiths find their own just as true to them, as you find yours to you.
[quote]Perhaps you fear despise and dismiss as lies any science which you do not care to believe in?[/quote]
NO - Of course I do not fear etc. science, nor religion come to that. That is because I seek to question and understand, be that in science or in religious beliefs. Of course I believe in gravity!
'
[quote]’m afraid your pick and mix as you like type of religion does not work[/quote]
NO-ONE follows a "pick-&-mix" religion! They follow one or another sect of one faith; but unfortunately for you, some do lapse, take up or convert from sect or faith to another. By choice, too!
Many religious people, and not just leading clerics and theologians, do understand [i]religion[/i] beyond their own [i]faiths[/i]. They take the trouble to understand and accept others; and they welcome the diversity you despise, of religious thought and expression.
They can do that because at heart, all the main religions do essentially the same thing even if their detail beliefs and liturgies differ so widely. They may be Christian, Jewish, Moslem, Hindhu or Sikh but are still men and women of Faith; and in the first three at least, of God! You do not like that - to you all others are mistaken or liars - so will not admit it.
YOU invented the "pick-&-mix" concept by [i]deliberately [/i]twisting my words because you don't like anyone questioning or disagreeing with you.
You simply make yourself out to be very bitter, narrow-minded and intolerant of any religious faith and sect other than your own.
Poor God...
Speedyman · 70-79, M
I understand religion perfectly well in that it’s man’s attempt to find God. But I do understand that God reveals himself to men and that he has revealed himself to mankind through Jesus Christ who is the way the truth and the life. If Jesus is the truth what do I need more than Jesus? Your problem is that your tolerance compromises truth all the way down the line. Maybe you believe in the flat Earth as well just so that you keep a few flat Earthers happy@ArishMell
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Speedyman You have now stated in detail what I said: you understand your own faith and you think its doctrine is true.
You have at last also confessed, rather obliquely, that you are deeply [i]in[/i]tolerant, in religion at least.
Of course I do not believe in a flat Earth. Don't be silly!
You still refuse to accept that other faiths are true to their own followers.
That is why I accuse of you understanding [b][i]a [/i][/b]faith out of several mainstream faiths, but not the principles of[i] religion [/i]generally. Or you do understand those principles but refuse to accept differences that are really only doctrinal, one faith v. another.
I will re-iterate the principle of religion rather than [i]a[/i] religion.
Religion is a cohesive set of beliefs in a supernatural power that provides a:-
- mystical creator and guide for everything natural including ourselves, spherical planets and gravity.
- support during emotional distress or physical danger, as the OP here sought,
- moral compass for life and society,
- promised spiritual after-life that lessens the fear of death and comforts the bereaved.
To differing extents this is the essence of most known religions past and present, though some had very selfish deities needing constant appeasement, and the Ancient Greek and Roman panthae were little more than divine soap-operas.
Ancient grave-goods attest to the after-life desire well before Abraham's time, and grave-goods and ancestor-worship is still a strong tradition in China, with lingering traces in Western societies' Christian and Humanist last rites.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam are strong on those humanity concepts, sharing a deity that cares as much about individual humans as much as gigantic cosmic processes.
"Islam" means approximately "I surrender" [to Allah] as a way of life more than simply a faith within life. That probably encouraged the flowering the science, mathematics and medicine in its early place and times; a contrast to its contemporary, notionally-Christian, Mediaeval Europe where shallow religiosity suppressed learning and mounted armed attacks on the Middle East. (They feared Europe becoming Islamic.)
Of course you cannot mix faiths as you allege, even if they share the same deity and inter-faith services do take place, but those four principles still apply.
The assumed nature of the deity, its acts, specific rules, etc., are the what define [i a[/i] faith within the entirety of religion; and are specific to that one faith, according only to that one faith's founders' own, though sincere, beliefs.
(I differentiate faith from religion, and use the indefinite article, to clarify the point.)
Religion does offer a fifth quality; an air of certainty especially in troubled times. E.g., the Christian liturgical phrase "in sure and certain knowledge", especially of an after-life. It is though too easy and lazy to take "certainty" too far, leading to that binary monopoly of own above all other beliefs.
Oh yes, the faiths' founders all said "It's God's Word" or similar, but as you refuse to see, those shared principles of [i]religion[/i] mean that whilst any specific [i]faith[i/] is naturally true to its sincere followers, sincere followers with an open mind also understand other faiths of broadly similar nature, are equally true to theirs.
You have at last also confessed, rather obliquely, that you are deeply [i]in[/i]tolerant, in religion at least.
Of course I do not believe in a flat Earth. Don't be silly!
You still refuse to accept that other faiths are true to their own followers.
That is why I accuse of you understanding [b][i]a [/i][/b]faith out of several mainstream faiths, but not the principles of[i] religion [/i]generally. Or you do understand those principles but refuse to accept differences that are really only doctrinal, one faith v. another.
I will re-iterate the principle of religion rather than [i]a[/i] religion.
Religion is a cohesive set of beliefs in a supernatural power that provides a:-
- mystical creator and guide for everything natural including ourselves, spherical planets and gravity.
- support during emotional distress or physical danger, as the OP here sought,
- moral compass for life and society,
- promised spiritual after-life that lessens the fear of death and comforts the bereaved.
To differing extents this is the essence of most known religions past and present, though some had very selfish deities needing constant appeasement, and the Ancient Greek and Roman panthae were little more than divine soap-operas.
Ancient grave-goods attest to the after-life desire well before Abraham's time, and grave-goods and ancestor-worship is still a strong tradition in China, with lingering traces in Western societies' Christian and Humanist last rites.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam are strong on those humanity concepts, sharing a deity that cares as much about individual humans as much as gigantic cosmic processes.
"Islam" means approximately "I surrender" [to Allah] as a way of life more than simply a faith within life. That probably encouraged the flowering the science, mathematics and medicine in its early place and times; a contrast to its contemporary, notionally-Christian, Mediaeval Europe where shallow religiosity suppressed learning and mounted armed attacks on the Middle East. (They feared Europe becoming Islamic.)
Of course you cannot mix faiths as you allege, even if they share the same deity and inter-faith services do take place, but those four principles still apply.
The assumed nature of the deity, its acts, specific rules, etc., are the what define [i a[/i] faith within the entirety of religion; and are specific to that one faith, according only to that one faith's founders' own, though sincere, beliefs.
(I differentiate faith from religion, and use the indefinite article, to clarify the point.)
Religion does offer a fifth quality; an air of certainty especially in troubled times. E.g., the Christian liturgical phrase "in sure and certain knowledge", especially of an after-life. It is though too easy and lazy to take "certainty" too far, leading to that binary monopoly of own above all other beliefs.
Oh yes, the faiths' founders all said "It's God's Word" or similar, but as you refuse to see, those shared principles of [i]religion[/i] mean that whilst any specific [i]faith[i/] is naturally true to its sincere followers, sincere followers with an open mind also understand other faiths of broadly similar nature, are equally true to theirs.
Speedyman · 70-79, M
You are one of these people who sees truth as intolerance. I am sorry but I do not follow your logic. You are saying that truth is intolerance. Of course the differences are doctrinal. Of course if you believe that Jesus is the Son of God and rose from the dead at a time in history it makes a difference. You are one of these people who believes that people who are sincere however sincerely wrong they are are okay. It is absolutely ridiculous. You mean that the people who sacrificed their children to idols are very sincere therefore they are okay in what they do? You mean the practice of throwing widows on the bonfires to immolate them with their dead husbands was ok because it was sincerely done?By the way Islam means submission not surrender. There is a difference@ArishMell
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Speedyman LOL! You do like to twist things!
Truth is NOT the same as intolerance and you know that.
You use what you see as your truth to justify your bitter religious intolerance.
For the umpteenth time....
Your faith is "true" to you. I accept that as your belief.
To you, therefore no other faith can possibly be "true". I accept that is also your belief.
In the real world, any faith is true to its followers. You know that.
Intolerance comes from refusing to accept that simple fact. You might know that but would rather not.
Your asking if I support cruelty merely because cruel people can use their gods to justify their actions, is deliberately both stupid and offensive.
Yes, those practices were once "traditional" to their adherents but that does not make them humane or moral by any standards. I think the ancient Hebrew prophets were among the first recorded trying to stamp out human sacrifices and call murder wrong, though it didn't save Jesus from a baying mob of his own people and their frightened Roman colonial governor.
Accepting differing faiths does not mean accepting cruelty in the names of those faiths, [i]whether past or present[/i]; and you know that.
Anyway such acts are problems of real, Earthly human power struggles rather than vague mysticism, certainly nowadays. God is just used as an excuse, whether by the likes of ISIS or for domestic "controlling and coercive behaviour". (That legal term is of course, by no means confined to religion as motive.)
If you read my listed broad principles of religion properly you would know that at no point do they advocate oppression and cruelty. Just the opposite, if anything.
I have seen "Islam" defined as "surrender" and "submission", separately, but whilst I agree those can differ, it seems to depend very much on who says it. It's perhaps a matter of individual interpretation of the Q'ran by Moslems themselves, with at least two main sects and no central arbiters or moderators of doctrine.
Poor old God.....
Truth is NOT the same as intolerance and you know that.
You use what you see as your truth to justify your bitter religious intolerance.
For the umpteenth time....
Your faith is "true" to you. I accept that as your belief.
To you, therefore no other faith can possibly be "true". I accept that is also your belief.
In the real world, any faith is true to its followers. You know that.
Intolerance comes from refusing to accept that simple fact. You might know that but would rather not.
Your asking if I support cruelty merely because cruel people can use their gods to justify their actions, is deliberately both stupid and offensive.
Yes, those practices were once "traditional" to their adherents but that does not make them humane or moral by any standards. I think the ancient Hebrew prophets were among the first recorded trying to stamp out human sacrifices and call murder wrong, though it didn't save Jesus from a baying mob of his own people and their frightened Roman colonial governor.
Accepting differing faiths does not mean accepting cruelty in the names of those faiths, [i]whether past or present[/i]; and you know that.
Anyway such acts are problems of real, Earthly human power struggles rather than vague mysticism, certainly nowadays. God is just used as an excuse, whether by the likes of ISIS or for domestic "controlling and coercive behaviour". (That legal term is of course, by no means confined to religion as motive.)
If you read my listed broad principles of religion properly you would know that at no point do they advocate oppression and cruelty. Just the opposite, if anything.
I have seen "Islam" defined as "surrender" and "submission", separately, but whilst I agree those can differ, it seems to depend very much on who says it. It's perhaps a matter of individual interpretation of the Q'ran by Moslems themselves, with at least two main sects and no central arbiters or moderators of doctrine.
Poor old God.....
Speedyman · 70-79, M
Sorry truth is pretty intolerant. 1+1 = 2.
Islam means submission pure and simple.
I am not a Christian because it is true to me but because it is true. You can’t seem to get that into your head that something can be right. Maybe Isis was right because it was true to them? Maybe Hitler and Stalin were right because their type of atheism was true to them.
I am a Christian because I believe that Jesus rose from the dead and that Christianity is true. That there is one God and Jesus is the way the truth and the life that God. It is not dependent on who said it but whether it’s true@ArishMell
Islam means submission pure and simple.
I am not a Christian because it is true to me but because it is true. You can’t seem to get that into your head that something can be right. Maybe Isis was right because it was true to them? Maybe Hitler and Stalin were right because their type of atheism was true to them.
I am a Christian because I believe that Jesus rose from the dead and that Christianity is true. That there is one God and Jesus is the way the truth and the life that God. It is not dependent on who said it but whether it’s true@ArishMell
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Speedyman I am not sure if you meant it that way but you've hit a very large nail right on the head there by asking if religious and political fanatics justify themselves by claiming their dogmas to be "true". Yes, they do, no matter how obviously they are lying.
Essentially there is no philosophical difference between Stalin's Communists, the Nazis, Hitler, the Khmer Rouge, the Catholic Church in the times of the Inquisition, and ISIS. The excuses and methods are very different, but most religious and political dictators and groups throughout time have been tiny-minded, desperately intolerant, desperately insecure but power-hungry men claiming their own dogmas as "truth" even though patently very untrue.
Truth is simply a matter of facts. 1+1 = 2
Intolerance is the refusal to accept not only both facts and opinions that do not match your own opinions; but also the people who know or believe thus.
Two-thirds of the globe is covered by the sea? Fact. True. Undeniable.
The Earth is flat? Not a fact. Untrue - except to hard-line Flat-Earthers to whom facts and truth are anathema.
Your religion is true to you by being your sincere belief, [i]as I have told you I accept[/i], but it is YOU who is intolerant because you hate anyone holding differing beliefs true to them no matter how sincere they are.
1+1=2 for you, me, President Xi, bishops and ayatollahs; but the existence, nature, intentions and wishes of any god are a matter of our personal opinions "true" only as a synonym for sincerity of belief.
[i]You refuse to admit that fundamental point that any sincerely-held religious faith is as true to its followers as yours is to you.[/i]
Frankly we are going round in circles because you reply by merely repeating your claim that your personal religious [i]opinion[/i] is as true as the sea, and all others are either wrong or a lie. Your attempt to compare other religious beliefs with evil dictatorships is fatuous; though religion has often been one or another dictator's excuse.
I do not know why you participate in discussion groups.
You are incapable of rational debate, especially on religions and faiths, because you are so embittered, arrogant, and so religiously intolerant.
You cannot see or accept respondents trying to look beyond immediate opinions to wider backgrounds and contexts; and to understand them.
You hate being questioned or disagreed with.
You refuse to see or accept the others' points of view, and try to denigrate and undermine them by twisting their words.
Yet you call yourself Christian?
#
Your poor God! Perhaps He has a sort of eternal "social distancing" in Heaven for people like you - if He lets such people in at all! :-)
Essentially there is no philosophical difference between Stalin's Communists, the Nazis, Hitler, the Khmer Rouge, the Catholic Church in the times of the Inquisition, and ISIS. The excuses and methods are very different, but most religious and political dictators and groups throughout time have been tiny-minded, desperately intolerant, desperately insecure but power-hungry men claiming their own dogmas as "truth" even though patently very untrue.
Truth is simply a matter of facts. 1+1 = 2
Intolerance is the refusal to accept not only both facts and opinions that do not match your own opinions; but also the people who know or believe thus.
Two-thirds of the globe is covered by the sea? Fact. True. Undeniable.
The Earth is flat? Not a fact. Untrue - except to hard-line Flat-Earthers to whom facts and truth are anathema.
Your religion is true to you by being your sincere belief, [i]as I have told you I accept[/i], but it is YOU who is intolerant because you hate anyone holding differing beliefs true to them no matter how sincere they are.
1+1=2 for you, me, President Xi, bishops and ayatollahs; but the existence, nature, intentions and wishes of any god are a matter of our personal opinions "true" only as a synonym for sincerity of belief.
[i]You refuse to admit that fundamental point that any sincerely-held religious faith is as true to its followers as yours is to you.[/i]
Frankly we are going round in circles because you reply by merely repeating your claim that your personal religious [i]opinion[/i] is as true as the sea, and all others are either wrong or a lie. Your attempt to compare other religious beliefs with evil dictatorships is fatuous; though religion has often been one or another dictator's excuse.
I do not know why you participate in discussion groups.
You are incapable of rational debate, especially on religions and faiths, because you are so embittered, arrogant, and so religiously intolerant.
You cannot see or accept respondents trying to look beyond immediate opinions to wider backgrounds and contexts; and to understand them.
You hate being questioned or disagreed with.
You refuse to see or accept the others' points of view, and try to denigrate and undermine them by twisting their words.
Yet you call yourself Christian?
#
Your poor God! Perhaps He has a sort of eternal "social distancing" in Heaven for people like you - if He lets such people in at all! :-)
Speedyman · 70-79, M
I don’t know whether you realise but it is God who makes the rules are not men. You appear to think that it is men who make the rules and they can pick and choose what they believe about God. Yours is the pathetic God who is at the beck and call of what men believe about him. Of course anyone who believes in truth in your eyes is unreasonable. Either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn’t. It is either a fact in history or it isn’t. You have some funny ideas that God allows himself to be manipulated by men’s beliefs. Your poor God@ArishMell
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Speedyman You get dafter with each statement.
Nowhere did I say God does what men tell him! I have never thought that at all.
Nowhere did I say believing a religious doctrine to be true is unreasonable, provided it is a sincere belief. Your faith is as true to you as an equally sincere Jew's or Moslem's is to him or her; and that is a perfectly reasonable and logical, as well as courteous, stance.
Like I say, you love to twist others' words. Not a barrister by trade, are you? :-)
'
I do not know if Jesus rose from the dead or not. I know the gist of the Bible story, but that's not the same as being certain.
Even the early Christians argued Jesus' mystical attributes. It took about 3 centuries until the doctrine we know now was settled by the First Council of Nicea, 325CE.
It would be interesting to know what was actually said in the meeting, rather than announced afterwards but I have no idea if any Minutes or transcriptions were made or survive!
'
Everyone who believes in God - Christian, Jew or Moslem, of any sect - has his or her own way to Him and to spiritual salvation and after-life support, but it is ridiculous to assert as you do that that puts God at human beck and call. They still know God is boss!
You may not like them doing so, but so what if they do? [i]So what?[/i]
It matters nothing to me that they hold different religious views, but I respect their right to do so provided they respect others' beliefs.
It should not matter to you either, but it does and it seems to frighten or hurt you, so whatever your reason, you don't respect that right.
Nowhere did I say God does what men tell him! I have never thought that at all.
Nowhere did I say believing a religious doctrine to be true is unreasonable, provided it is a sincere belief. Your faith is as true to you as an equally sincere Jew's or Moslem's is to him or her; and that is a perfectly reasonable and logical, as well as courteous, stance.
Like I say, you love to twist others' words. Not a barrister by trade, are you? :-)
'
I do not know if Jesus rose from the dead or not. I know the gist of the Bible story, but that's not the same as being certain.
Even the early Christians argued Jesus' mystical attributes. It took about 3 centuries until the doctrine we know now was settled by the First Council of Nicea, 325CE.
It would be interesting to know what was actually said in the meeting, rather than announced afterwards but I have no idea if any Minutes or transcriptions were made or survive!
'
Everyone who believes in God - Christian, Jew or Moslem, of any sect - has his or her own way to Him and to spiritual salvation and after-life support, but it is ridiculous to assert as you do that that puts God at human beck and call. They still know God is boss!
You may not like them doing so, but so what if they do? [i]So what?[/i]
It matters nothing to me that they hold different religious views, but I respect their right to do so provided they respect others' beliefs.
It should not matter to you either, but it does and it seems to frighten or hurt you, so whatever your reason, you don't respect that right.
Speedyman · 70-79, M
So saying truth is truth is daft now? You are the one twisting truth to suit yourself. You of course are completely wrong about the early church. The Council of Nicea was to affirm what was already believed. You’ve been reading too much Dan Brown! If people hold different views it is not likely that everyone is right as you suppose. Never mind @ArishMell]
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Speedyman No!
You've done it again - twisted what I said.
Religious belief is literally that - belief - but if sincere is "true" to the believer. I have always said that and I hold to that principle.
I accept your belief is true to you, but it is very sad that you seem unable to show the same courtesy to others even of equal sincerity.
What I called daft were statements clearly based on twisting my words and re-defining words to try to make me look stupid - an trick that is both poor debating skill and very rude.
You've done it again - twisted what I said.
Religious belief is literally that - belief - but if sincere is "true" to the believer. I have always said that and I hold to that principle.
I accept your belief is true to you, but it is very sad that you seem unable to show the same courtesy to others even of equal sincerity.
What I called daft were statements clearly based on twisting my words and re-defining words to try to make me look stupid - an trick that is both poor debating skill and very rude.
Speedyman · 70-79, M
No you are completely wrong of course. The Christian belief is founded on facts and truth. Just saying people are rude when they speak the truth is no argument. No post modern is like yourself like to believe there is no truth but I’m afraid that 1+1 = 2. Being since doesn’t mean to say you’re right@ArishMell
1-25 of 34