100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Recovering from religious extremism - Religiosity | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
How can '... WHAT IS PERCEIVED AND ACCEPTED AS TRUE FOR ONE...' which is a legitimate human experience, wouldn't any human experience be legitmate ...what would constitute a fake human experience It could have been made clearer perhaps, but taking only part of the sentence as you do, loses it all together. What the whole sentence implies, is that it is perfectly illegitimate to suggest that what is true for oneself, is THE TRUTH FOR ALL. Illegitimate here, as in : not rightly deduced or inferred, ILLOGICAL. While certain individuals' personal faith and beliefs can very well bring them to hold certain pieces of christian dogma as what is true for them, it is 'illegitimate' for those same people to derive that 'what is true for them' is THE TRUTH for all. Eljay wrote earlier: God did not write the bible - it is "inspired of god". Men wrote the bible as they were moved by the Holy spirit. 'Inspired of god' and 'men moved by the holy spirit', is by no means true or 'THE TRUTH' as it seems to be implied above. It is strictly what 'some' hold as true for themselves through faith and a certain system of beliefs. In reality, those statements belongs to myths, religious doctrine and BELIEFS, and religious dogma. None of it has ever been validated, nor should it be!!! To keep insisting that 'INSPIRED OF GOD' has to be true, so that it can conveniently make 'THE WORD' of the bible infallibly 'THE WORD OF ALL WORDS, THE TRUTH OF ALL TRUTHS', is self-serving and grossly ILLEGITIMATE. Statements from Eljay's previous post: What is incorrect to assume from this - is that the bible is fallable, because men are fallable, for that contradicts the fact that the men who wrote the bible were inspired by God. So - therefore, the fallacy of men is trumped by the infallibility of God, because it defies logic to assume that an omnicient God would not know a mistake would be written by an author writing one of the books of scripture, and by his very nature - could not allow that to happen, so would inspire that author to only account that which He (God) wanted accounted. Illegitimate. Trickery!!! IMHO. You can't discuss faith as though it were fact! We'll end-up with 'creationists' operating on brain tumors with psalms and hymns! Some can't pretend a factual 'god', with infallible words, who inspired certain men to write a 'book', simply to satisfy their insatiable need for certainty!!! Stop confusing faith and fact. Leave faith in the 'personal faith' domain. Don't illegitimately carry it to the PUBLIC domain of fact and logic. Ultimately, simply don't take faith 'litterally', and everything will be fine and dandy!!! Sorry Voile - but you're the magician my friend. Let us point out what is fact here. What is fact is what the bible claims within it's writing - Dear Eljay, if you sincerely suggest that your comment above is 'FACT', I rest my case in the matter of confusing fact and faith. And you win the title of Master Prestigitator!!! The only facts about your comment above, is that there is this 'book', which some people a while back called the 'bible', which contains a bunch of words, over which words people have a lot of heated and diverging opinions. That's about it on the fact front. YES! Right. Exactly. Bingo. On the nose. That IS the point I was making. I wasn't "suggesting" anything, just saying exactly what you just wrote. With respect to the 'claims' the 'book' has been making for some 1700 odd years, well they're just that: CLAIMS!!! And all rational people can tell the difference between a claim and a fact. The meaning(s) or the the claim(s) of the 'book' are not 'magically' factual, just because the material form of the 'book' is!!! That is prestidigitation my friend!!! Besides the fact that the 'book' of a bunch of words exists, the other fact I would agree with, is that you Eljay, - have interpreted some of the claims made in the 'book', and through faith, and exclusively for YOURSELF, - have elevated those claims to the special and personal domain of BELIEFS: that which constitutes something to be TRUE FOR YOU. Up until this point of the post - this has never been in doubt for me. In my personal walk of life - these "beliefs" as you say, only hold a measure of "absolute truth" for me based on my experience, and perceptions. We all see the "evidence", but how it is interpreted has nothing to do with "facts" in the overall scheme of what is or isn't absolute truth. And in the grand scheme of things, I hold no claims to quantity when it comes to my belief of the world view in which I hold - to anyone elses. What I do hold claim to is responding to the claims and accusations of my world view by those who can't even begin to define it. To that - I researve the right to quantify. To jump the line and call the claims of the 'book' 'FACTUAL', implying that it should be accepted as 'FACT' by all, is seriously illegitimate, as I pointed out in an earlier post. No need to go much further at this point. Back to you my master magician friend. :) Quite correct. It is only factual that the book says what is written - though what most modern day Christians rely on is an "Englified" version if you'll pardon my murdering the King's english. What is "meant" by what is written is often what is in debate. However that doesn't stop people from making claims that aren't substanciated by anything written - or by taking what is written out of context and using it to support claims of it's meaning. something that runs rampant through this entire thread. So - all of this being said, I'm not disagreeing with what you have said, unless I've taken liberties with what you intended. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How can '... WHAT IS PERCEIVED AND ACCEPTED AS TRUE FOR ONE...' which is a legitimate human experience, wouldn't any human experience be legitmate ...what would constitute a fake human experience It could have been made clearer perhaps, but taking only part of the sentence as you do, loses it all together. What the whole sentence implies, is that it is perfectly illegitimate to suggest that what is true for oneself, is THE TRUTH FOR ALL. Illegitimate here, as in : not rightly deduced or inferred, ILLOGICAL. While certain individuals' personal faith and beliefs can very well bring them to hold certain pieces of christian dogma as what is true for them, it is 'illegitimate' for those same people to derive that 'what is true for them' is THE TRUTH for all. Eljay wrote earlier: God did not write the bible - it is "inspired of god". Men wrote the bible as they were moved by the Holy spirit. 'Inspired of god' and 'men moved by the holy spirit', is by no means true or 'THE TRUTH' as it seems to be implied above. It is strictly what 'some' hold as true for themselves through faith and a certain system of beliefs. In reality, those statements belongs to myths, religious doctrine and BELIEFS, and religious dogma. None of it has ever been validated, nor should it be!!! To keep insisting that 'INSPIRED OF GOD' has to be true, so that it can conveniently make 'THE WORD' of the bible infallibly 'THE WORD OF ALL WORDS, THE TRUTH OF ALL TRUTHS', is self-serving and grossly ILLEGITIMATE. Statements from Eljay's previous post: What is incorrect to assume from this - is that the bible is fallable, because men are fallable, for that contradicts the fact that the men who wrote the bible were inspired by God. So - therefore, the fallacy of men is trumped by the infallibility of God, because it defies logic to assume that an omnicient God would not know a mistake would be written by an author writing one of the books of scripture, and by his very nature - could not allow that to happen, so would inspire that author to only account that which He (God) wanted accounted. Illegitimate. Trickery!!! IMHO. You can't discuss faith as though it were fact! We'll end-up with 'creationists' operating on brain tumors with psalms and hymns! Some can't pretend a factual 'god', with infallible words, who inspired certain men to write a 'book', simply to satisfy their insatiable need for certainty!!! Stop confusing faith and fact. Leave faith in the 'personal faith' domain. Don't illegitimately carry it to the PUBLIC domain of fact and logic. Ultimately, simply don't take faith 'litterally', and everything will be fine and dandy!!! Sorry Voile - but you're the magician my friend. Let us point out what is fact here. What is fact is what the bible claims within it's writing - Dear Eljay, if you sincerely suggest that your comment above is 'FACT', I rest my case in the matter of confusing fact and faith. And you win the title of Master Prestigitator!!! The only facts about your comment above, is that there is this 'book', which some people a while back called the 'bible', which contains a bunch of words, over which words people have a lot of heated and diverging opinions. That's about it on the fact front. YES! Right. Exactly. Bingo. On the nose. That IS the point I was making. I wasn't "suggesting" anything, just saying exactly what you just wrote. With respect to the 'claims' the 'book' has been making for some 1700 odd years, well they're just that: CLAIMS!!! And all rational people can tell the difference between a claim and a fact. The meaning(s) or the the claim(s) of the 'book' are not 'magically' factual, just because the material form of the 'book' is!!! That is prestidigitation my friend!!! Besides the fact that the 'book' of a bunch of words exists, the other fact I would agree with, is that you Eljay, - have interpreted some of the claims made in the 'book', and through faith, and exclusively for YOURSELF, - have elevated those claims to the special and personal domain of BELIEFS: that which constitutes something to be TRUE FOR YOU. Up until this point of the post - this has never been in doubt for me. In my personal walk of life - these "beliefs" as you say, only hold a measure of "absolute truth" for me based on my experience, and perceptions. We all see the "evidence", but how it is interpreted has nothing to do with "facts" in the overall scheme of what is or isn't absolute truth. And in the grand scheme of things, I hold no claims to quantity when it comes to my belief of the world view in which I hold - to anyone elses. What I do hold claim to is responding to the claims and accusations of my world view by those who can't even begin to define it. To that - I researve the right to quantify. To jump the line and call the claims of the 'book' 'FACTUAL', implying that it should be accepted as 'FACT' by all, is seriously illegitimate, as I pointed out in an earlier post. No need to go much further at this point. Back to you my master magician friend. :) Quite correct. It is only factual that the book says what is written - though what most modern day Christians rely on is an "Englified" version if you'll pardon my murdering the King's english. What is "meant" by what is written is often what is in debate. However that doesn't stop people from making claims that aren't substanciated by anything written - or by taking what is written out of context and using it to support claims of it's meaning. something that runs rampant through this entire thread. So - all of this being said, I'm not disagreeing with what you have said, unless I've taken liberties with what you intended. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Atheists don't need a group, they stand alone. Atheist do not need to make others believe because they already have logic on their side. Atheists don't inherently need a group, but there is still a bell curve of 'insecurity' amongst atheists, as there is for any group. Thus there will be some atheist who feel compelled to band together with other atheists, and even participate in shameful and embarrassing group dynamics which many would normally associate with Christians. Of course atheism is not a belief, but "strong atheism" does require at least one belief, and humanism is a whole family of beliefs; there are other families of beliefs which are held by subsets of atheists...and there is a subset of atheists who seek to propagate the families of atheist-friendly (though not inherent to atheism) beliefs that they have. A great way to see evidence for the above is to argue devils advocates against atheists. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
also , i didnt imply it NEEDED a label , I asked what label might motivate people to come and share instead of belittle MsHarmony....that label would be "The Christian Singles Forum" I think that implies it is JUST for christians. What about those who follow Islam or Buddha or even Ghandi? A forum for people from all faiths to share information about their faith and what it entails would be interesting, I think. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas,
I just want to say: I love your posts! Yours are often my favorite posts in any thread, they often bring an ironic smile to my face. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MiddleEarthling
on
Wed 01/06/10 06:07 PM
|
|
MORE GOOD STUFF:
"Ever notice how a person seems to go through a personality change when they start talking about their religion? Here are some comments by viewers who have noticed this as well: I'm a ex-fundamentalist. I remember experiencing the "transformation" that you refer to regarding your evangelist friend. When the opportunity to "witness for Christ" arose (when I would have some poor guy cornered) I would feel an excitement and rush of emotion. I attributed the feelings as "an anointing of the Holy Spirit"... I now compare it to the feeling that a used car salesman gets when he knows that he has set the hook.... My friend is a Catholic. I remember such transformation when he started talking about his religious experiences. That was really strange for me. He was of course not selling me this stuff but I had the impression that he was just unconsciously copying priests and the (trained) intonation of their voice." http://www.recoveringreligionists.com/Resources.html BONUS VIDEO! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UifxeFy2qIY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MORE GOOD STUFF: "Ever notice how a person seems to go through a personality change when they start talking about their religion? Here are some comments by viewers who have noticed this as well: I'm a ex-fundamentalist. I remember experiencing the "transformation" that you refer to regarding your evangelist friend. When the opportunity to "witness for Christ" arose (when I would have some poor guy cornered) I would feel an excitement and rush of emotion. I attributed the feelings as "an anointing of the Holy Spirit"... I now compare it to the feeling that a used car salesman gets when he knows that he has set the hook.... My friend is a Catholic. I remember such transformation when he started talking about his religious experiences. That was really strange for me. He was of course not selling me this stuff but I had the impression that he was just unconsciously copying priests and the (trained) intonation of their voice." http://www.recoveringreligionists.com/Resources.html BONUS VIDEO! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UifxeFy2qIY It can be a good or bad experience. I think it is a bad experience if the speaker is trying to 'corner' someone. I think it is a good experience when the speaker feels he has 'touched' or 'reached' or taught someone,,,similar to seeing a kid learn to ride a bike or say his first words,,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MORE GOOD STUFF:
"Ever notice how a person seems to go through a personality change when they start talking about their religion? Here are some comments by viewers who have noticed this as well: I'm a ex-fundamentalist. I remember experiencing the "transformation" that you refer to regarding your evangelist friend. When the opportunity to "witness for Christ" arose (when I would have some poor guy cornered) I would feel an excitement and rush of emotion. I attributed the feelings as "an anointing of the Holy Spirit"... I now compare it to the feeling that a used car salesman gets when he knows that he has set the hook.... My friend is a Catholic. I remember such transformation when he started talking about his religious experiences. That was really strange for me. He was of course not selling me this stuff but I had the impression that he was just unconsciously copying priests and the (trained) intonation of their voice." http://www.recoveringreligionists.com/Resources.html BONUS VIDEO! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UifxeFy2qIY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
voileazur
on
Wed 01/06/10 10:12 PM
|
|
How can '... WHAT IS PERCEIVED AND ACCEPTED AS TRUE FOR ONE...' which is a legitimate human experience, wouldn't any human experience be legitmate ...what would constitute a fake human experience It could have been made clearer perhaps, but taking only part of the sentence as you do, loses it all together. What the whole sentence implies, is that it is perfectly illegitimate to suggest that what is true for oneself, is THE TRUTH FOR ALL. Illegitimate here, as in : not rightly deduced or inferred, ILLOGICAL. While certain individuals' personal faith and beliefs can very well bring them to hold certain pieces of christian dogma as what is true for them, it is 'illegitimate' for those same people to derive that 'what is true for them' is THE TRUTH for all. Eljay wrote earlier: God did not write the bible - it is "inspired of god". Men wrote the bible as they were moved by the Holy spirit. 'Inspired of god' and 'men moved by the holy spirit', is by no means true or 'THE TRUTH' as it seems to be implied above. It is strictly what 'some' hold as true for themselves through faith and a certain system of beliefs. In reality, those statements belongs to myths, religious doctrine and BELIEFS, and religious dogma. None of it has ever been validated, nor should it be!!! To keep insisting that 'INSPIRED OF GOD' has to be true, so that it can conveniently make 'THE WORD' of the bible infallibly 'THE WORD OF ALL WORDS, THE TRUTH OF ALL TRUTHS', is self-serving and grossly ILLEGITIMATE. Statements from Eljay's previous post: What is incorrect to assume from this - is that the bible is fallable, because men are fallable, for that contradicts the fact that the men who wrote the bible were inspired by God. So - therefore, the fallacy of men is trumped by the infallibility of God, because it defies logic to assume that an omnicient God would not know a mistake would be written by an author writing one of the books of scripture, and by his very nature - could not allow that to happen, so would inspire that author to only account that which He (God) wanted accounted. Illegitimate. Trickery!!! IMHO. You can't discuss faith as though it were fact! We'll end-up with 'creationists' operating on brain tumors with psalms and hymns! Some can't pretend a factual 'god', with infallible words, who inspired certain men to write a 'book', simply to satisfy their insatiable need for certainty!!! Stop confusing faith and fact. Leave faith in the 'personal faith' domain. Don't illegitimately carry it to the PUBLIC domain of fact and logic. Ultimately, simply don't take faith 'litterally', and everything will be fine and dandy!!! Sorry Voile - but you're the magician my friend. Let us point out what is fact here. What is fact is what the bible claims within it's writing - Dear Eljay, if you sincerely suggest that your comment above is 'FACT', I rest my case in the matter of confusing fact and faith. And you win the title of Master Prestigitator!!! The only facts about your comment above, is that there is this 'book', which some people a while back called the 'bible', which contains a bunch of words, over which words people have a lot of heated and diverging opinions. That's about it on the fact front. YES! Right. Exactly. Bingo. On the nose. That IS the point I was making. I wasn't "suggesting" anything, just saying exactly what you just wrote. For 0,5 second straight, I thought you had an epiphany!!! And then my brain kick-in! You are suggesting that that the 'claims' within the writings of the book are facts : '... What is fact is what the bible claims within it's writings...'. I said: '... The only facts about your comment above, is that there is this 'book', which some people a while back called the 'bible', which contains a bunch of words, over which words people have a lot of heated and diverging opinions. That's about it on the fact front...'. Claims are not facts, and 'writings' in a book, do not make 'claims' facts!!! All there is as 'fact', is a 'book' used by a lot of people to base their personal beliefs upon through personal faith. The beliefs are based on faith. The claims are based on faith. And 'one's' interpretation of the writings as the true word of one's god' is again based on faith. The claims are not facts!!! Through faith, YOU Eljay BELIEVE them to be true for YOU!!! And that is just you. When you imply that it is true period, that becomes an illegitimate statement: incorrectly derived, illogical. True for YOU: yes!!! Just plain true as you keep implying: NO!!! So, I'll send this message, close my eyes, and hope that you will have had a real epiphany when I open my eyes and read your reply. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How can '... WHAT IS PERCEIVED AND ACCEPTED AS TRUE FOR ONE...' which is a legitimate human experience, wouldn't any human experience be legitmate ...what would constitute a fake human experience It could have been made clearer perhaps, but taking only part of the sentence as you do, loses it all together. What the whole sentence implies, is that it is perfectly illegitimate to suggest that what is true for oneself, is THE TRUTH FOR ALL. Illegitimate here, as in : not rightly deduced or inferred, ILLOGICAL. While certain individuals' personal faith and beliefs can very well bring them to hold certain pieces of christian dogma as what is true for them, it is 'illegitimate' for those same people to derive that 'what is true for them' is THE TRUTH for all. Voileazur ...are you implying that faith in itself is a fake ...oops I meant an "illegitmate" human experience |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How can '... WHAT IS PERCEIVED AND ACCEPTED AS TRUE FOR ONE...' which is a legitimate human experience, wouldn't any human experience be legitmate ...what would constitute a fake human experience It could have been made clearer perhaps, but taking only part of the sentence as you do, loses it all together. What the whole sentence implies, is that it is perfectly illegitimate to suggest that what is true for oneself, is THE TRUTH FOR ALL. Illegitimate here, as in : not rightly deduced or inferred, ILLOGICAL. While certain individuals' personal faith and beliefs can very well bring them to hold certain pieces of christian dogma as what is true for them, it is 'illegitimate' for those same people to derive that 'what is true for them' is THE TRUTH for all. Voileazur ...are you implying that faith in itself is a fake ...oops I meant an "illegitmate" human experience ... NO!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
also , i didnt imply it NEEDED a label , I asked what label might motivate people to come and share instead of belittle MsHarmony....that label would be "The Christian Singles Forum" I think that implies it is JUST for christians. What about those who follow Islam or Buddha or even Ghandi? A forum for people from all faiths to share information about their faith and what it entails would be interesting, I think. because a religion requires that it believers regard their religion to be the only truth or why would they seek ways to spread the word and a shared belief from another religion suggest that it's not the only truth and automatically blaspheme each other's God and automatically belittles each other's religion this is why "In The Beginning" the omniscient Mingle2 Gods used their omnipotency to create in 6 internet days different forums for different religions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How can '... WHAT IS PERCEIVED AND ACCEPTED AS TRUE FOR ONE...' which is a legitimate human experience, wouldn't any human experience be legitmate ...what would constitute a fake human experience It could have been made clearer perhaps, but taking only part of the sentence as you do, loses it all together. What the whole sentence implies, is that it is perfectly illegitimate to suggest that what is true for oneself, is THE TRUTH FOR ALL. Illegitimate here, as in : not rightly deduced or inferred, ILLOGICAL. While certain individuals' personal faith and beliefs can very well bring them to hold certain pieces of christian dogma as what is true for them, it is 'illegitimate' for those same people to derive that 'what is true for them' is THE TRUTH for all. Voileazur ...are you implying that faith in itself is a fake ...oops I meant an "illegitmate" human experience ... NO!!! .....Si? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How can '... WHAT IS PERCEIVED AND ACCEPTED AS TRUE FOR ONE...' which is a legitimate human experience, wouldn't any human experience be legitmate ...what would constitute a fake human experience It could have been made clearer perhaps, but taking only part of the sentence as you do, loses it all together. What the whole sentence implies, is that it is perfectly illegitimate to suggest that what is true for oneself, is THE TRUTH FOR ALL. Illegitimate here, as in : not rightly deduced or inferred, ILLOGICAL. While certain individuals' personal faith and beliefs can very well bring them to hold certain pieces of christian dogma as what is true for them, it is 'illegitimate' for those same people to derive that 'what is true for them' is THE TRUTH for all. Voileazur ...are you implying that faith in itself is a fake ...oops I meant an "illegitmate" human experience ... NO!!! .....Si? because for one person that supposedly had the legimate human experience to deem it as being truth for all may imply delusion but when others deem an human experience that they haven't experience yet as being truth for all would then require faith that it was indeed truth for all thereby constituting faith as a fake human experience |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How can '... WHAT IS PERCEIVED AND ACCEPTED AS TRUE FOR ONE...' which is a legitimate human experience, wouldn't any human experience be legitmate ...what would constitute a fake human experience It could have been made clearer perhaps, but taking only part of the sentence as you do, loses it all together. What the whole sentence implies, is that it is perfectly illegitimate to suggest that what is true for oneself, is THE TRUTH FOR ALL. Illegitimate here, as in : not rightly deduced or inferred, ILLOGICAL. While certain individuals' personal faith and beliefs can very well bring them to hold certain pieces of christian dogma as what is true for them, it is 'illegitimate' for those same people to derive that 'what is true for them' is THE TRUTH for all. Voileazur ...are you implying that faith in itself is a fake ...oops I meant an "illegitmate" human experience ... NO!!! You really seem to be struggling with this one 'funches'! FAITH: belief NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY PROOF; spiritual acceptance of truth or realities NOT CERTIFIED BY REASON; which apply to BELIEF IN 'GOD'; BELIEF IN THE DOCTRINES OR TEACHINGS OF A RELIGION. That's what faith is. That is the consensual understanding we share when it comes to the public accepted meaning of faith. While some may have a different personal interpretation, personal meaning, etc., it is irrelevant outside of the private and personal domains. In the public domain, FAITH IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY PROOF, and NOT CERTIFIED BY REASON. When one comes up with statements such as : '... What is FACT is what the bible claims within it's writings...', ONE THEN ENGAGES IN AN ILLEGITIMATE DISCOURSE! (... not rightly deduced or inferred, ILLOGICAL). So, faith, as it understood in the public domain, is a perfectly legitimate experience. What becomes illegitimate, is suggesting that YOUR faith is substantiated by fact, through 'claims' within 'writings', of a 'book' that is the source of your faith, which, even if it is your faith, it is still part of faith: beliefs unsubstantiated by proof!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
also , i didnt imply it NEEDED a label , I asked what label might motivate people to come and share instead of belittle MsHarmony....that label would be "The Christian Singles Forum" I think that implies it is JUST for christians. What about those who follow Islam or Buddha or even Ghandi? A forum for people from all faiths to share information about their faith and what it entails would be interesting, I think. because a religion requires that it believers regard their religion to be the only truth or why would they seek ways to spread the word and a shared belief from another religion suggest that it's not the only truth and automatically blaspheme each other's God and automatically belittles each other's religion this is why "In The Beginning" the omniscient Mingle2 Gods used their omnipotency to create in 6 internet days different forums for different religions Well, for whatever its worth, regardless of whether I know the truth or not,, it doesnt stop me from listening to others,,,without feeling belittled and without being guilty of blaspheme |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, faith, as it understood in the public domain, is a perfectly legitimate experience. What becomes illegitimate, is suggesting that YOUR faith is substantiated by fact, through 'claims' within 'writings', of a 'book' that is the source of your faith, which, even if it is your faith, it is still part of faith: beliefs unsubstantiated by proof!!! Voileazur...you are once again contradicting yourself ..if you claim that faith is in the public domain then that means that faith can be used anyway one choose to use it and therefore it would still constitute as being a legitimate human experience therefore if one wish to use faith to substantiate writings within a book to be fact and truth for all it would still constitute being an legitimate human experience for them and through them to all others that choose to believe faith can be applied to anything and everything ...so it's either constitute as being a legitimate human experience or it's a fake experience ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
also , i didnt imply it NEEDED a label , I asked what label might motivate people to come and share instead of belittle MsHarmony....that label would be "The Christian Singles Forum" I think that implies it is JUST for christians. What about those who follow Islam or Buddha or even Ghandi? A forum for people from all faiths to share information about their faith and what it entails would be interesting, I think. because a religion requires that it believers regard their religion to be the only truth or why would they seek ways to spread the word and a shared belief from another religion suggest that it's not the only truth and automatically blaspheme each other's God and automatically belittles each other's religion this is why "In The Beginning" the omniscient Mingle2 Gods used their omnipotency to create in 6 internet days different forums for different religions Well, for whatever its worth, regardless of whether I know the truth or not,, it doesnt stop me from listening to others,,,without feeling belittled and without being guilty of blaspheme if that was true then you wouldn't have complained about the thread's capacity to belittle others and if you truely wanted to know about Ghandi and whateverrrrrrrrrrrrr...there is always "Google" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
voileazur
on
Thu 01/07/10 01:08 PM
|
|
Sorry!!! 'premature' posting!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
also , i didnt imply it NEEDED a label , I asked what label might motivate people to come and share instead of belittle MsHarmony....that label would be "The Christian Singles Forum" I think that implies it is JUST for christians. What about those who follow Islam or Buddha or even Ghandi? A forum for people from all faiths to share information about their faith and what it entails would be interesting, I think. because a religion requires that it believers regard their religion to be the only truth or why would they seek ways to spread the word and a shared belief from another religion suggest that it's not the only truth and automatically blaspheme each other's God and automatically belittles each other's religion this is why "In The Beginning" the omniscient Mingle2 Gods used their omnipotency to create in 6 internet days different forums for different religions Well, for whatever its worth, regardless of whether I know the truth or not,, it doesnt stop me from listening to others,,,without feeling belittled and without being guilty of blaspheme if that was true then you wouldn't have complained about the thread's capacity to belittle others and if you truely wanted to know about Ghandi and whateverrrrrrrrrrrrr...there is always "Google" I didnt complain, quite the contrary, I inquired how we could have a discussion about religious beliefs without BELITTLING each other. Example: one person says ' I believe christ died for our sins and noone gets to see the Father but through the son' the next person says "I believe christ was not the son of God but the human son of Mary and Joseph and that he spoke wisely but did not save us from sin. ...so far noone is belittled,,,, the third person says " there is no proof Christ ever existed, those who believe in him must also believe in santa claus' DING DING DING,,, belittling anothers belief |
|
|
|
|
