“You are the one who arbitrarily demonizes and consigns my satire to “error” which is merely your opinion as shaped by the teachings of your faith.”
Let’s review the action here…
You posted a reply to a description of the pre-Columbian religion (RE: “Here’s what we’re going to do. We’re going to force you into transvestism, then skin or dismember you, then drown you.”) by talking about “all sacrificial lambs in every culture,” then had an Indio priest saying “…you’ll go to Chac heaven,” and the person to be sacrificed replying “Praise Chac from whom all blessings flow,” thereby fleshing out your “all sacrificial lambs in every culture” remark with a specific link between the human-sacrificing Indios and Christianity.
That is your error, as my first reply to you says: “The problem with your use of Christian phraseology here is that Christianity explicitly rejects not only human, but animal and even botanical sacrifice. I’m sure you wouldn’t like to imply anything about Christianity that wasn’t strictly true.”
This is not “demonizing,” unless you regard any difference of opinion as demonizing. And it does not “consign” your satire to error, it points out that your satire is erroneous as a matter of objective fact, not as any matter of faith, but in equating a human-sacrificing religion with one that has no provisions for such sacrifices.
“You have constructed a tautology that refuses to acknowlege any differences of opinion from your own as possibly valid. And that’s the problem I have with some religious people.”
I have done no such thing. I have pointed out that you are in error when you link or equate a religion that practices human sacrifice with one that does not.
But then, don’t you really think that all religions are equally bad, or almost so? And don’t you really think that all religions are only a matter of faith, and that faith is irrational?
“your satire is erroneous as a matter of objective fact, not as any matter of faith, but in equating a human-sacrificing religion with one that has no provisions for such sacrifices.”
You avoided my response on sacrifice as a principal canon of Christianity, eg. “Isn’t Christianity all about Christ’s self-sacrifice for humanity? The sacrifice of One for the many so to speak.”
Isn’t it a central canon of Christianity that Christ sacrificed his human self on the Cross to bear all our sins? Wasn’t this the ultimate human sacrifice that implicitly obviates all further human sacrifice?
you said: “But then, don’t you really think that all religions are equally bad, or almost so?”
Not at all. Actually I believe that religion fills an important need in humans when they consider their position in the immensity of the universe and look over into the abyss. As such, most relgions are good rather than bad.
“And don’t you really think that all religions are only a matter of faith, and that faith is irrational?”
Considering the above, I think its very rational to have religions although the forms that relgion sometimes takes to fulfill human need are irrational. Those irrational forms and rituals require faith above all, but I don’t fault those who profess them.
I just don’t want them to require me to profess them as well.