Replies

If I were inclined to invent a religion and a god, the God of the Bible is the very last God I would ever invent.

If the Bible were the product of solely of men, it would exalt men. The character flaws of Moses, Abraham, Noah, David, etc., would not be recorded. The idea of "sin" would be downplayed or even dismissed. The concept of grace, i.e., unmerited and undeserved favor would be completely absent from its pages. Instead, we would be treated to long discourses on how we might placate the Deity by our own good efforts and by certain ritual observances.

Ahh gee wiz... I can't wait to purposely explode myself (and those around me) with a bomb that I deliberately wrap around myself... 'cus then I will be able to forevermore delight in the sexual services of 72 firm breasted virgins and 12 beautiful young boys. Besides, I will also have all the wine and water I can ever possibly drink.

Wow... what a magnificent paradise for a horny, thirsty, camel jockey like me who lives in the desert !!! ;-))

As far as I'm concerned, religious pluralism is fine for those religions that tolerate dissent. Of all the major religions in the world, only one fails that test. Every religion, except one, is a guide for living. One is a guide for dying.

I have been reading freerepublic for about a month and every single time i read the articles on this website i become insanely frustrated with the ignorance of not only the writers but the readers' responses. First of all you cannot prove or disprove a religion..AT ALL. ALL religions are conceived of by MAN. Even 3000 years ago people were not stupid. A man who wants to create a following must created a belief on the basis of its own ability to become an acceptable reality. Men who create religions are geniuses. They know that no human is stupid enough to believe there is a God or a religion with no consequences or rules involved. So therefore we have the ten commandments. Therefore budhists are vegetarian. Since the brain of humans became coherent we've known there is no good without bad. What intelligent human being would invent a religion where everything was accepted including murder and rape and thievery and expect to get a large following? From what i gather the person that wrote this and the people commenting on it haven't the faintest idea that religion is completely based on the egoism of man and humanity's fear of the unknown. The only way to actually PROVE that religion is TRUE is for the GOD of that religion to come down and just tell us in his or her or its own omnipotent voice.

My sense of humility prevents me from ever criticizing another person's approach to G-d. It is a subject no one understands well enough to make a claim of expertise. Any understanding of the Deity must, by definition, be approximate and inaccurate. Humility is the only position from which to approach the question, IMHO

I call this idea religious stew--taking little bits and pieces of different religions and putting them together in one 'pious porridge,' so to speak--the eclectic view, the religious smorgasbord view, where you go down the line and pick a little here and a little there, and you put it on your plate and call it your religion.

What's wrong with it? It's part and parcel of the history of Christianity.