it may have been a uniting force (and a dividing force, in equal measure) prior to the industrial revolution, but them days are gorrrrn, dear. besides, what was the single common factor in amidst all that uniting and dividing? that's right, humanity.
Racism is, definitionally, bigotry. The collective "we" do not need to be rid of racism; individuals are morally responsible for everything they say and do. Xenophobia, however, has its uses - not all cultures are equal. - - - Updated - - - I don't.
which race would that be? the human race? I don't believe we're bewitched by rationalism (that was for the Victorians) any more, but we have assimilated rationality into our lives more comfortably. it's not the novelty it was 150 years ago.
Humans are the only primates that gladly dump their babies off with strangers. It's an universal trait of all humans.
Actually it's about religion and not god. I won't be having a debate that assumes that god exists; many of my arguments are based on his probable inexistance. Id est, assuming that before we debate means that I've already lost, like you would if we had assumed that god didn't exist. No fun debate in my view.
Sorry to disagree Charles but that book was written by man. All men have sinned and none are perfect.
I'm not questioning the entire bible. Just parts of it. If I can learn something from this debate it will help in my spiritual journey.
That's fine - let's start a "Does God exist?" thread to be more concise; the OP appears to assume that God does exist, though. Debating that here would be a derail.
Agreed! Which is why it is important that the Scriptures are inspired by the Creator Himself. He has removed any egregious errors from the Bible that might could its purpose. I, personally, believe that other books - such as Enoch, which is in the Ethiopian canon - should also be considered "inspired" even though the European canon disagrees. However, the lack of the book of Enoch does not in any way lessen our understanding of the core principles of the Bible; that is, the law that shows us our sin and the gospel that shows us our savior.
It's not a derail, it's a releated topic. The OP says "I'm not saying there is or isn't a god" then goes on to clarify that the real topic is his claim that "religion is bad". So he doesn't assume that god exists at all, but want a discussion is religion is bad or not. But as I said, it's a releated topic and it's allowed to float around releated topics. Besides, there not too much going on in this thread anyways. So.. Since your claim that justice comes from god rests on there being a god, and me not seeking a theological debate based on scrpiture interpretation et cetera, I'll begin by undermining what your whole argument is based on. Namely, the existence of god to begin with. It is you, and other believers, that make a claim here so the burden of proof is upon thee. Me, I'm not saying that god doesn't exist, for I cannot know for certain (though I find it unlikely and thus I'm an agnostic athiest), so I'm not making a claim, but merely disputing yours. Ultimately, I assume you will say that it's faith and that it cannot be explained by science. To that I'll answer that science is the observation of things that can be observed and empirically tested and measured, and that if faith cannot be within science it can also not be the foundation of any serious argumentation.
Many people and probably you included have been inspired by God, but still make mistakes daily. The other thing I have a problem with is the way the bible is interpreted. Some of it is straight forward. Other parts not so much. Different Christian churches interpret it differently. Therefore to get to the truth one must examine all views to find the right interpretation. Or take a little of each and form your own opinion.
That is a really moronic statement. When did a church attain the human capacity of interpreting something?
I think you no what I meant. So that makes you a moron. I'll help you with it. Not the building but the people inside there that hold the services and those who follow them. For instance when people talk about the catholic church they are not talking about the building. Now you just learned something that most people already know. I see your still making insults and playing games with words. Or your a moron.
You may want to look up the Rosicrucians, if you haven't already. The material is... different, but I think you might like it. I never claimed that God-inspired people don't make mistakes - they do, daily. However, the thing which is directly inspired by God cannot be done incorrectly. It's a contradiction in terms, I think. Yes, I agree - some of Scripture takes a little more work to decipher than simply following what your priest, pastor, preacher, or cult leader says. Thus my reference to the Rosicrucians. Some of what they say is clearly incorrect (like the Catholics), but much of it is reasonable and even Biblically and scientifically validated.
So, if I think something about you, then that makes it true and real? How interesting... Now what do I want to think about you today? Whatever it turns out to be it has to be true and real, because myview has declared it so. So, are you now saying that it is the people who constitute the 'church'? Then you would also be saying that it is people who interpret the scripture! Amazing! Are you a member of that group of entities known as 'people'. Do you interpret scripture? Are your interpretations of scripture correct? Are you sure? Have you questioned all of those people who talk about that subject to find out what each of them were referring to? What was it that I learned? Insults? Where? Your interpretive skills still questionable? "games with words"? You never even named a 'game' that I was playing with words. What is the name of the various 'games' that you refer to?
That really is a treasure! You defend yourself from having to back up your assertion by not making an assertion at all! Actually, I would be correct in stating that the existence of God is irrelevant to the topic presented by the OP. This truly does belong in a new thread. Let me know, and I'll be sure to arrive in a timely fashion. Anyway, it should be fairly obvious that the topic you wish to discuss if far too large to discuss as a minor subtopic.
I'm not going to go around and around with you. I'm ok with you taking the word around and playing with it. There is nothing to learn from you unless I need the literal meaning of a word but I have google for that. Have a good day
