Discussion Thread from the Funny Anti-Religious Pictures thread.

[zoltanspawn]

"Major world religion", it says -- singular.

Just like Christianity -- singular.

And I already noted that it doesn't matter if it's singular or plural, because either way there's no objective set of writings, so there's no rational way for it to have any claim to truth; it's a smorgasbord.

You are welcome to believe the article says something it does not.

And we are welcome to wonder why you would believe that.

It seems it's not a respect for truth that matters, but something else.

 

[Kulindahr]

EVERYBODY IS GOING TO HELL.

1. Christianity asserts that your soul goes to Heaven or to Hell in the afterlife. If you do not believe in Christ, and accept Him as your Savior, you won't go to Heaven. Therefore, that means the soul of a non-believer goes to Hell.

This is today's American "evangelical" and fundamentalist take, but it hasn't always been what Christians get from scripture. Rome, of course, says you have to make an oath of obedience to the Pope to get saved, though obviously that isn't in the Bible. Notably C. S. Lewis argued that being saved through Christ does not require any confession of faith even if one has heard the Gospel, since many preachers of the Gospel are corrupt and it is possible to reject them and have a heart that is actually open to the Gospel. May others have argued that God's intent is to save as many as possible, and that Christians will be astounded when they get to heaven at just who is there.

 

[Kulindahr]

As you also tend to insult/belittle members you loose all credibility claiming that others use them to cover up the weakness in their argument.

I do not make insults -- I make objective statements about what others have said. I know that these days it is popular to call any criticism an insult, but that does not make it so.

 

[Kulindahr]

But isn't this exactly what you are refusing to allow us to do; look at The Bible objectively and from the information given rule it out as being divine revelation?

Looking at things objectively is what led me to the Bible. The historical evidence points to the Resurrection of Christ; Christ pointed to the scriptures/Bible as speaking of Him, therefore the Bible is God's message. On an alternative track, of all the alleged revelations which are not disqualified by irrationality, the Bible best matches what we see in the world. Further, of all the claims to revelation, the Bible is the one to achieve which we as a race have the farthest to go.

The images in the FARIP thread to which I objected made no attempt to look at the Bible objectively or non-objectively, because they didn't look at it at all, but addressed only an ignorant caricature -- or were just flat-out slurs. I never objected to images which got the "data" right, regardless of how I felt about them.

 

[Kulindahr]

This is what Britannica has to say

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christianity



Ooo looky there, religion, in the singular.

So all the various strains of Christianity is just one religion? Fred Phelps Westboro Baptist Church is just Catholicism isn't it? Both believe in Jesus, says people are born out of sin, say people will go to hell etc. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.

Fallacious argument -- this is like saying that because steak and potatoes are both food, then steak is potatoes.

Smorgasbord? Stoned any people lately for wearing clothing made of different materials? I hear there are many parents turning their kids out for disobeying them, but the biblical thing to do is to have them killed. How about all those people who aren't observing the sabbath, why isn't there a bloodbath every Sunday? Pick and choose which bits to believe? Smorgasbord?

Stoning people for wearing clothes made of different materials would REQUIRE treating the Bible like a smorgasbord, as would killing rebellious children. The only way to pay any attention to those these days is to ignore what the Bible itself says is its main point.

Again, I use a Sherlock Holmes analogy: your position above would mean, when applied to a Holmes story, that every conclusion along the way, regardless of what Holmes finally realizes is correct, is just as valid as the final answer. That's ludicrous on the face of it, and it's just as ludicrous when applied to the Bible. Atheists and others who treat the Bible as a shopping list, as you do above, are being even more foolish than the most idiotic fundamentalist, as atheists are in essence making the claim that they have considered the proposition and rejected it, whereas fundamentalists start with the Bible and consider nothing at all.


BTW, Sunday is not, and never has been, the Sabbath -- a fair read of the New Testament, specifically the Gospels and the Book of Acts, shows that; the Sabbath is spoken of as the seventh day, whereas Sunday is referred to as the first day of the week.

 

[Kulindahr]

You are welcome to believe the article says something it does not.

And we are welcome to wonder why you would believe that.

It seems it's not a respect for truth that matters, but something else.

You continue to hold to your false assertion about Britannica. It does not use the plural, it calls Hinduism a religion, singular.

Within that religion, it speaks of different philosophies, etc. The only way to get multiple religions from that is to commit the fallacy of changing the definition of a term in the middle of your argument.

So you can hold that Hinduism is a set of religions, and disagree with Britannica, or you can concede that it is one religion, as Britannica says. What you cannot do and claim to be in the least logical is to maintain that Britannica says two different things at the same time.

 

[Kulindahr]

>sigh<

The Bible nowhere speaks of Jesus riding a flying horse.

 

[Kulindahr]

Quite so, except insofar as there are prophecies which came true.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yeah -- if you read it without an open mind, in ignorance, and with the assumption that it was personally written to you.

"Properly read", the Star-Spangled Banner is a song about drug use. "Properly read", Coleridge's Xanadu is about sex.

 

[Kulindahr]

Not quite -- "Abacadabra" (besides being a corruption of a phrase from the ancient Roman Latin Mass liturgy) is supposedly a command to the object t obey the speaker's wishes; "Amen" is a declaration of agreement with what has been said.


In colloquial terms (for science fiction fans), "Abacadabra" is Captain Picard's "Make it so", while "Amen" is Commander Adam's "So say we all".

 

[Kulindahr]

Thomas Paine author of The Age of Reason.

That describes my complaint about a large number of the FARIP cartoons exactly!

 

[Kulindahr]

In other words, we think the Code of Conduct should make an exception for us.

 

[johaninsc]

.... For reasons of upbringing and certain experiences, I find it very difficult to operate on anything but an objective basis (which makes chaos of my ability to relate to others or have a social life, except generally when wonderful people like Swerve drop into my life). Indeed I have spent many, many hours in therapy working to attempt to be able to respond in any way but objective analysis.

hmmmm...interesting

what's the story there?

is it possible that whatever problems you have might contribute to you not being able to see certain kinds of humor?

 

[Kulindahr]

hmmmm...interesting

what's the story there?

is it possible that whatever problems you have might contribute to you not being able to see certain kinds of humor?

You mean humor based on falsehood, caricature, stereotype, and irrationality? Hard to say.

But I was raised that you just don't make fun of other people, you address accurately what they actually believe, so there's another factor. Frak, I almost can't force myself to use words like "pussy" because they're inherently demeaning, reducing people to objects.

 

[dpnice]

I do not make insults -- I make objective statements about what others have said. I know that these days it is popular to call any criticism an insult, but that does not make it so.

I disagree which is why I made the comment I did. But of course we could play "you did, I didn't" all day.

 

[Kulindahr]

I disagree which is why I made the comment I did. But of course we could play "you did, I didn't" all day.

Then you're not reading carefully. Mere use of a negative word does not constitute an insult.

 

[zoltanspawn]

You continue to hold to your false assertion about Britannica. It does not use the plural, it calls Hinduism a religion, singular.

Within that religion, it speaks of different philosophies, etc. The only way to get multiple religions from that is to commit the fallacy of changing the definition of a term in the middle of your argument.

So you can hold that Hinduism is a set of religions, and disagree with Britannica, or you can concede that it is one religion, as Britannica says. What you cannot do and claim to be in the least logical is to maintain that Britannica says two different things at the same time.

I continue to hold the assertion I originally did, at the beginning of this conversation: that there is no single corpus of beliefs to which Hindus adhere.

In post 320 you started talking about whether Hinduism is a single religion or not.

I haven't made any claims about that.

Make up shit all you want, you're quite good at it.

 

[zoltanspawn]

I do not make insults -- I make objective statements about what others have said. I know that these days it is popular to call any criticism an insult, but that does not make it so.

Yes you do. This is just one example.

>sigh<

This would get a D in my remedial reading comprehension class I taught for college freshmen.

 

[HoodedRat]

In other words, we think the Code of Conduct should make an exception for us.

Does the Code of Conduct actually mention any special protection for mere religious beliefs? It would seem somewhat bizarre if it did, especially on a gay forum. Ludicrous belief systems and ridiculous 'holy' books deserve no exemption from being laughed at.

 

[star-warrior]

All comedy is critical. If we applied the Code of Conduct to every percieved slight, then where do we stop so we don't offend your sensitive sensibilities? John Cleese puts it well below.