Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DannyTN
Some religions are nothing more than lifestyle rules, Confusiusness and Atlaw's Jack god falls into that category.

So what? Does that invalidate them somehow (other than in your mind)?

They may even offer reasonable rules for living, but they don't provide purpose.

Again, all you are saying is that you disagree with them. So what? What makes you think that is a useful point here?

190 posted on 01/16/2004 7:15:21 AM PST by balrog666 (Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies ]


To: balrog666
"So what? Does that invalidate them somehow (other than in your mind)?"

No it doesn't invalidate them, the rules are not necessarily wrong or false. It's just incomplete. It just doesn't offer purpose for our being here. It's no more invalid or false that Amy Vanderbilt's guide to etiquette, but it doesn't answer the big questions of"why are we here?", "what is our purpose?, "is there life after death?", "if so then what?"

Religions that are nothing more than lifestyle rules don't even attempt to answer those questions. The Eastern Religions do but do so in a way that I find them irrelevant.

191 posted on 01/16/2004 7:27:41 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson