Christianity: Religion of love?

Originally posted by Agerg
Not that I disagree with your post here, but I'd just like to point out, referencing your other thread, that you're perhaps committing the same fallacy(?) as we atheists do when you dismiss the unintelligible claims in his religion in favour of those in yours :]

Perhaps, but in my opinion it is a matter of biblical scholarship. At the very least my faith is based on what is in the word of God rather than what is not. Even an atheist familiar with the Bible ought to contend with obvious misrepresentations thereof, don't you think?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Perhaps, but in my opinion it is a matter of biblical scholarship. At the very least my faith is based on what is in the word of God rather than what is not. Even an atheist familiar with the Bible ought to contend with obvious misrepresentations thereof, don't you think?

But from vishvahetu's perspective, *his* holy books are correct; all other holy books due to the mutual exclusivity of his God must therefore be false.

From his perspective he's not misrepresenting your religion at all; working from the principle that his religion is the one and only correct religion there ever was and ever will be he is forced to acknowledge there are flaws in yours (otherwise Christianity would be 'vishvahetuism'Reveal Hidden Contentin a different name). What he said that prompted your reply are the failings he was forced to find based on his belief that his notion of God is Truth™.

Originally posted by Agerg
But from vishvahetu's perspective, *his* holy books are correct; all other holy books due to the mutual exclusivity of his God must therefore be false.

From his perspective he's not misrepresenting your religion at all; working from the principle that his religion is the one and only correct religion there ever was and ever will be he is forced to acknowled ...[text shortened]... are the failings he was forced to find based on his belief that his notion of God is Truth™.

You are, indeed, quite correct in the acknowledgement of 'indoctrination', and the occurence of that in vishvahetu. It isn't his fault he only sees one perspective, unfortunately.

The majority of people fear spiders. Why? Because they have been indoctrinated with the fear. Babies and young children see mums (& dads included) jump away and at the sight of a spider. It induces fear. The child takes recognition of the adult's fear and responds accordingly from then on, in a similar situation.

vishvahetu has inherited the fear that his religion, if approached and questioned, needs an immediate attack upon the poser of question. If another religion has similies, no matter how close and yet has a different name, then his response has to re-inact in the way he was indoctrinated and saw his elders act, in that the now sudden 'opposition' has to be spewed against and the cohorts annihilated, in order to defend his only possible position. The sadness in this is that his religion is blind in acceptance of other possibilities. The majority of religions accept that there are other possible acceptable beliefs, but that their own is the 'one' as it is powerful enough not to be overcome. We don't hear Catholics, Christians, Buddhists, Judaists etc attacking other religions. We kindly acknowledge their existence, and accept the believers within their own 'right'. Vishiviwhiphead on the other hand wants to kill all other religions. I wonder if he is a terrorist? 😀😀😀

(It started good, but in the end I couldn't be bothered talking to a brickwall!) 😉

p.s. I love spiders, please don't kill them in your unnecessary moment of indoctrinated fear. 😕

-m.

Originally posted by mikelom
You are, indeed, quite correct in the acknowledgement of 'indoctrination', and the occurence of that in vishvahetu. It isn't his fault he only sees one perspective, unfortunately.

The majority of people fear spiders. Why? Because they have been indoctrinated with the fear. Babies and young children see mums (& dads included) jump away and at the si ...[text shortened]... please don't kill them in your unnecessary moment of indoctrinated fear. 😕

-m.

Gosh I hope he aint a terrorist, he lives in my city.

As right you may be with Vishvas bent, at least he sticks to his philosophy and tries to explain his doctrines.
(I hope you dont take that as me defending Vishva)

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Gosh I hope he aint a terrorist, he lives in my city.

As right you may be with Vishvas bent, at least he sticks to his philosophy and tries to explain his doctrines.
(I hope you dont take that as me defending Vishva)

Not kicking off an argument with you here, far from it. But Vishis views are not philosophical. They are, in truth, a religious bent. Religions are doctrines, yes. Most religions don't have the capacity to be likened to philosophical views, IMO.

Buddhism is not a religion, for example. It has never declared to be one, either. It is a philosophy of developing one's own mental state of cleanliness. There is no god, YET, in Buddhism until it is proven through almost scientific data. Buddhism awaits a god, if one needs one - but for the time being one works upon one's own wealth of clean thought.

Having said that, I am far from being a monk.... so visha's attitude can go do one, for him and all his crap he dishes out may return to himself one day. Perish the thought. 😳

😀

-m.

Originally posted by Suzianne
So, based on your post, would I be correct in assuming that you feel the exact same way towards politics and politicians? They are guilty of some of the same acts you profess to hate. Yet I assume you vote for some of them.

A lot of politics is just as you said. But if you don't vote, you get what you pay for. Exactly as in religion. I guess they go hand in hand, especially with the right wing religious party dudes. If you don't think so, take a look at Sarah Palin. Her twitter post seems to have led to the shootings in Tucson yesterday, an incredibly cowardly act killing a federal judge, a 9 yo girl and 4 others and shooting congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford. Religion in action.

Originally posted by mikelom
Not kicking off an argument with you here, far from it. But Vishis views are not philosophical. They are, in truth, a religious bent. Religions are doctrines, yes. Most religions don't have the capacity to be likened to philosophical views, IMO.

Buddhism is not a religion, for example. It has never declared to be one, either. It is a philosophy of develop ...[text shortened]... ll his crap he dishes out may return to himself one day. Perish the thought. 😳

😀

-m.

Indeed.

I see Bhuddism as a complete system of psycology first and foremost, but you cant deny that there is a religous aspect to bhuddism, as not all bhuddists are the same.
Some are into devotion to Amitaba(how you spell this?) Bhudda, and think that chanting his name repeatedly will get them to Nirvana. Sounds incredibly similar to the Hare Krsnas who chant 'hare krsna '.

Originally posted by mikelom
You are, indeed, quite correct in the acknowledgement of 'indoctrination', and the occurence of that in vishvahetu. It isn't his fault he only sees one perspective, unfortunately.

The majority of people fear spiders. Why? Because they have been indoctrinated with the fear. Babies and young children see mums (& dads included) jump away and at the si ...[text shortened]... please don't kill them in your unnecessary moment of indoctrinated fear. 😕

-m.

I've found the roaches the hardest not to kill. Those little bastards!!
As long as they dont become rouge and stay out of my sight , I'm cool with them.

As far as spiders go, I love them.
All animals are connected to us.

Originally posted by Agerg
But from vishvahetu's perspective, *his* holy books are correct; all other holy books due to the mutual exclusivity of his God must therefore be false.

From his perspective he's not misrepresenting your religion at all; working from the principle that his religion is the one and only correct religion there ever was and ever will be he is forced to acknowled ...[text shortened]... are the failings he was forced to find based on his belief that his notion of God is Truth™.

But from vishvahetu's perspective, *his* holy books are correct; all other holy books due to the mutual exclusivity of his God must therefore be false.

To be clearer, vishvahetu is really only forced to reject as false those interpretations of Scripture which are incompatible with his. When there appears a tension with his holy books, he may contend, and in fact has, that the interpretation is erroneous, not the actual book itself.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]But from vishvahetu's perspective, *his* holy books are correct; all other holy books due to the mutual exclusivity of his God must therefore be false.

To be clearer, vishvahetu is really only forced to reject as false those interpretations of Scripture which are incompatible with his. When there appears a tension with his holy books, he may contend, and in fact has, that the interpretation is erroneous, not the actual book itself.[/b]

I disagree, though that may be true (in part) when considering some disagreements [1] in most cases, vishva's notion of god is so distinct from any of the Abrahamic gods that any feasible interpretation of those holy books would still result in a god that clashes with his. Thus unless we're willing to suppose some theist can home in on vishva's god with an unreasonably poor interpretation of their holy book; vishva would evaluate said holy book as false.




-------------------------------------------------------------
1) For example if someone asserts the Earth is only 6000 years old contrary to vishva's claim (I think) that it's a few trillion years old.. Vishvahetu has the potentialReveal Hidden Content to engage in some linguistic acrobatics and argue this discrepancy comes about because a god year isn't the same a human year. Reveal Hidden Content