Posted on 06/23/2008 3:05:46 PM PDT by betty boop
I had heard that some do not regard Unitarians and Quakers as Christians. Well, how do Unitarians and Quakers regard themselves?
Let’s see: What was the original proposition again? That Muslims are just as likely to be right as the Jews and Christians. It seems you have no opinion about that (at least none you’ve expressed). The only opinion you’ve expressed is that Christians (and Jews?) are wicked, blood-thirsty wholesale murderers. Moslems would agree with you on that proposition. It must be, then, that you side with the Moslems. So, it looks to be the case that you roam the halls of FR looking for a fight with Christians (and Jews?).
And it does, in fact, appear that you must misrepresent what I say in order to promote a fight.
I didn't start the discussion of slavery, and I didn't start the discussion of how wicked the adherents of a religion can be.
I merely point out the the wickedness of religious adherents is proportional to the amount of worldly power they wield. You implied Christianity confers some special worldly moral force, and I point out this is nonsense.
Quakers, historically, are Christian. Unitarians, so far as historic trinitarianism is concerned, cannot be Christian.
So...if you've read it, what did you think of it?
I'm just hoping some of the evo's on this thread actually click on the link -- the reviews I have read on the book excited me very much, and I couldn't find any obvious flaws in his definitions.
Someday when I'm rich (and therefore have time?) I'll read the dang thing.
Cheers!
I just watched a video of a man holding a shotgun in his right hand and eight clay pigeon targets in his left. He then proceeded to toss the targets into the air -- and then break them all with eight individual shots (no "doubles") before they reached the ground! We are, indeed, "fearfully and wonderfully made"!!!
Thank you oh so very much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
My point wasn't that they were morally equivalent, simply that without empirical evidence, people are just guessing which one is the "true" religion. It is irrefutable that a persons fait is highly dependent on where that person was born and what the faith of his/her parents were. Jews and Muslims are just as sure of their faith as Christians are. Christianity is 1/3 of the worlds religious. Flipping a coin would be better than relying on faith that Christianity is true.
They were making an argument against my suggestion. You are right, they say that they know that their religion is superior because it is kinder.
By this reasoning however, Jainism is the one true religion. Their highest belief is: "Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being."
For instance, many religions have creation beliefs but the greatest number and loudest arguments are made against Christians. The Jews and Muslims are pretty much ignored along with all the others.
And often, despite what a Christian might say about the age of the universe, the anti-Christian raises a canned "belief" like a boxing bag, pounds at the inanimate thing a few times and declares himself victorious. Whoop-de-do, some battle that was.
Likewise in the above Noah Flood sidebar, the presumption has been made not once, not twice, but three times that my beliefs are what the correspondents say they are, not what I say. Again with the boxing bag instead of the live correspondent - and no attempt to argue against Jewish beliefs or flood myths in other cultures.
Nope, all the angst is directed squarely at Christianity per se - or perhaps, the anti-Christian's concept of Christianity.
Bottom line, such debates are rarely about the actual issues but a posturing between spirits pro-Christ and anti-Christ.
Perhaps the boxing bag is because we have the upper hand? After all, the words of God are spirit and life. The words of men are neither spirit nor life.
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. - John 6:63
MUCH AGREE.
Bombast and the religion of scientism to counter TRUTH EVERLASTING.
Why?
Because TRUTH EVERLASTING !REQUIRES! a personal decision to reject HIM . . .
OR
SUBMIT TO HIM IN ADORATION, WORSHIP, COMPLIANCE . . . and thereby BECOME the best us we were designed to be . . . experiencing the most fulfillment, joy, wholeness, adventure, . . .
However, the arrogant WILL NOT have any such and demand to be their own standard of reality, their own god, their own criteria of proof . . . their own construction on all that is.
And . . . in a sense . . . they shall have that . . . and that in abundance . . . in starkly horrific unending deadness and the painful realization of what they willfully rejected.
. . . and Who . . .
they willfully rejected.
More specifically, I think it was argued that the superior moral behavior of Christians is a demonstration of the truth of the religion.
yes
Your distinction between “Adamic” men and “non-Adamic” men is unorthodox and extrabiblical. It is a distinction that the Bible does not make. The word neshamah is used in the Old Testament to refer to any member of the human species (including pagan civilizations such as the Hittites and Canaanites, Deut. 20:16-17) and expanded upon in the Flood account to include any other air-breathing creature. Any other interpretation is simply not in the text. The biblical account does not give any room for such flights of fancy.
The human species has gone through various bottlenecks, but not down to 8 individuals, and not within the last 4000 years. Such a bottleneck would be glaringly unmistakable due to the immense reduction in genetic diversity that would be required. Our species has a much greater range of genetic diversity than the Flood would allow for. An important piece of evidence is the Y chromosome—only one Y chromosome would have survived the Flood, Noah’s. With the variation in Y chromsomes in the human population today, that is simply impossible.
Wild guess, but this could be due to the fact that Christianity has much greater influence politically in the US than Judaism and Islam. Judaism is also less likely to take the anti-scientific positions of evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity. How about you convert to Islam and try to argue against the theory of evolution and I'll take you up on that as well.
And I see you have the "obliquely insult others" Religion Forum shtick down pat.
What would be gained from discussing the biblical text??? Shocking! :-D
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.