I associate the Middle Ages with worshiping God. It was the age during which most Christian philosophers began trying to reason for the existence of God. Like St. Augustine, St. Aquinas, Moses Maimonides, St. Anselm, etc.

I Have to agree to quote is easier than to live. I feel society has lost its fundamental morality. God should not be reflected as a thought or concept. I believe in all religions God is something more than ourselves a level of us we should strive to be more like embedded their are common good. The bible is the propaganda used validate belief.

Religion is becoming stronger than ever. For good and bad. Just watch the news. Something is happening among human societies and on a larger scale than ever seen before. There have been religious revivals in the past but never on a worldwide scale. Religions have always been "under attack" but in reality world religion is stronger than ever. Nearly all religions have more followers than ever. Im talking about all of the ancient religions and a lot of new ones too.

Are you a bot ?

When I talk about "The Gods" i am referring to them (The One God, True Name,Karma, etc.) and their messengers Moses,Jesus, Buddha, Prophet Mohhammed, Mahavira, Guru Nanak, etc. Im talking about them all, not just Americhristians.

I think he is.

First off, Judaism and Islam are both based on the same drivel that’s in the bible. The Koran arose from the same folklore. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are basically all the same drivel that fell apart due to irresolvable ambiguities.

Secondly Hinduism, Buddhism, Agnosticism and Atheism don’t go around insulting people who don’t believe the way they do by suggesting that they are lost souls who need to come to their faiths.

Christianity is its own nemesis via it’s insistence on conducing insulting proselytizing campaigns which are often quite underhanded and have been known to be based on lies. For some reason Christians seem to think that it’s ok to lie for the sake of proselytizing Christ.

As long as Christianity continues to proselytize its beliefs onto others by insulting their beliefs and faiths then they will continue to reap what they sow.

You may not see the ‘attack’ on these other religions, but Christian proselytizing is attacking them all the time. Everyday all over the world. It’s an insult to people of other faiths to come up and knock on their door and suggest to them that you are closer to God than they are and that they need to change their faith.

How insulting is that? Christianity is the epitome of arrogance. Any criticism it gets in return is well-earned.

Imagine if all religions were as arrogant as Christianity? We’d have nothing but wars! Pray to God and give thanks that mankind only invented once such hateful religion.

All the other religions are grounded in the concept of love and acceptance of others.

Well, you must be careful. There are some Christians who are pluralists and believe that every religious path you choose will ultimately lead to salvation. (See Fr. Knitter)

Though I sort of agree. And not only becoming missionaries to spread these beliefs, but Christians spent hundreds of years attacking Jews (figuratively and literally) . However, without Judaism, there would be no Christian religion in the first place.

why I waste my time is a good question. I answered because you asked and was in the first page..that's all.
Or you just want to read answers that you like? ;)

No, I love debates ^^

Just if somethings irrelevant to someone, why would they want to answer?

for example, if someone posts a question asking if anyone's dogs have ever bitten someone, I would not answer. It is irrelevant to me because I do not, or have ever owned a dog.

If I have an opinion on it however. Or know someone who has a dog which this hypothetical thread applies to, I will post because it is relevant to me, since it had caused me to think of something specific and I can contribute to.


So its relevant to you.

Well, that’s true. But then again, there are even Pantheistic Christians who believe that Christ was a pantheist. They actually deny the God of Abraham and the entire Old Testament, and simply believe that Jesus was misunderstood.

That’s a ‘Christian belief system’ that’s based on a particular belief in Jesus Christ, without accepting the entire biblical picture.

People can make religions into anything they want them to be. However, to accept the King James version of the Bible with almost any literal interpretation at all, it would be pretty hard to claim that the Bible accepts plurality. I mean, it even starts out with the biblical God proclaiming as the very first commandment that thou shalt not have any other God’s before him. It would be pretty hard to accept pluralism as truly having biblical foundations in the face of that wouldn’t it?

Oh, yes. I'm not saying that pluralism isn't contradictory by any means. How can there be Christians that are practically relativists? lol

I'm just saying they exist. And those Christians I admire, since they're at least trying to give value to everyone's separate beliefs and opinions and give them credit for it as well.

No sweet..I'm just bored.
There is no "debate" with faith (or believers) either you believe or you do not. Either you accept the dogma or you do not..there never has been space for debate in religion.

If you talk about spirituality that's a different story, we can debate that, but the bible has nothing to do with it.

You can definitely argue for the Bible. That's what theologians do, as well as Christian philosophers. Whether you accept their arguments for it or not is another story.

well would you accept to discuss something that makes absolutely no sense to you? To discuss religion and faith you have to accept the bible, and I don't.
That denies the base on wich religion holds itself..."religion is true because religion is true"

where's the space for discussion?

Like creationism...it makes absolutely no sense..yet there's a museum for it, and I'm sure half of the people here believes the grand canyon was created by noah's flood. What kind of discussion you see possible with that kind of mindset?

I'm not talking about using the Bible as a reference. I'm talking about making an argument saying that the Bible is valid. One does not have to accept premises to arguments, which is why people who are good at arguing back up the premises with arguments for the premises until they are widely accepted. I know it isn't enough to say "Well the Bible says this, so it must be true" The person must make an argument about why the Bible is true.

For example, Aquinas uses only reason to argue for the existence of God apart from any reference to the Bible or faith-related presuppositions.

Here is one argument From Aquinas' Summa Theologica:

" I answer that it can be proved in five ways that God exists.

The first and plainest is the method that proceeds from the point of view of motion. It is certain and in accord with experience, that things on earth undergo change. Now, everything that is moved is moved by something; nothing, indeed, is changed, except it is changed to something which it is in potentiality. Moreover, anything moves in accordance with something actually existing; change itself, is nothing else than to bring forth something from potentiality into actuality. Now, nothing can be brought from potentiality to actual existence except through something actually existing: thus heat in action, as fire, makes fire-wood, which is hot in potentiality, to be hot actually, and through this process, changes itself. The same thing cannot at the same time be actually and potentially the same thing, but only in regard to different things. What is actually hot cannot be at the same time potentially hot, but it is possible for it at the same time to be potentially cold. It is impossible, then, that anything should be both mover and the thing moved, in regard to the same thing and in the same way, or that it should move itself. Everything, therefore, is moved by something else. If, then, that by which it is moved, is also moved, this must be moved by something still different, and this, again, by something else. But this process cannot go on to infinity because there would not be any first mover, nor, because of this fact, anything else in motion, as the succeeding things would not move except because of what is moved by the first mover, just as a stick is not moved except through what is moved from the hand. Therefore it is necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by nothing---and this all men know as God. "

Hm to be agnostic as you say...you sound a lot christian / believer to me.

(IMO) the bible is a collection of events, nothing more.
If it's possible to tweak the facts today, with the massive and free access we have to media and information, imagine how easy it was back in those times.
I do not believe in the existence of a superior being as I do not believe in ANY of the religion dogmas, religion was (and is even more today in USA) one of the most effective POLITICAL tools. It is useful to control people's emotions, feelings and ultimately voting preferences.

The answer.." we dont' know..so god must have done it" does not satisfy me...even seeing allegorically god as a creator...following the same logic there has to be a creator for god too.

I'm just a philosopher who appreciates good reasoning and arguing .

And no, there musnt be a creator for God, did you understand the section from Aquinas I included in my last post? He argues just that...

No offense..but you sound more like a preacher...
Well yes he is saying that since he does not knows "god did it"
easy no?
Think one thing, if it's somewhat impopular to doubt the existence of god today, imagine how :popular" was back then and how much a philosopher, or anybody else< would had to be cautious about the subject.
The church has always been very powerful and influencing...I don't think there was much space for dissent, unless you wanted to deal with the inquisition.

I preach good reasoning.

No he is saying that it's illogical to have a never-ending cycle of events. Some one thing must cause another, always, and this cannot have been for infinity, because then there would be nothing. And there must be a cause to all the motion in the world, because nothing can create itself.

The one thing (let it be a ball of light, or gas, or the Christian God) that moves and began creation, who started everything and is uncaused, is "God"