KAG, Nappychick and Boss (maybe Riversboy?) i got sumtin 4 y'll

[Nwashigi]

u guys r self proclaimed atheists rite? well, i was discussin w. a friend of mine yesterday and we have this ?tion 4 peeps like u cos y'll r in a better position to give an objective view w/o being bias.


Of all the religions, which one makes more sense? and why?



thks. plz take ya time w. this ?tion abeg.

[Wendydoks]

oh yeah, when i said "makes sense", i dnt mean like their practice or beliefs rather, how it came about until now. u kno, how each religions claim they originated and all the stories it tells about their origination.

[Boss]

1) I'm not an atheist...I'm not religious. I'm spiritual...i.e I do beleive in the existence of a supreme being but I do not agree with the way human beings worship/portray it.


2) I hate to say ur question is dumb, but in all honesty, it really is...there are SO many religions in this world that it'd be very illogical to come up and say "my best one is..."

Personally I was raised in one religion. And that is Christianity. Personally I do not like Christianity as a practice. In theory there are some things I agree with Christian theory..i.e the teachings of Jesus Christ (IMO the Old Testament is Bullshit and the teachings of Paul and them others although might be good to ponder as you'd ponder a T.D Jakes book since Paul and them others were mere human beings like u and me, shouldn't be necessarily a guiding law).

And of all the teachings of Jesus Christ, there was one teaching that somehow fits into the blocks of some of the other religions that I know of i.e Judaism and Islam...this law is simple "Do unto others what you want done to you"

That has been my guiding light, my mantra, my "religion"...and that somehow is a humanistic way of living.The reason why there's so much evil is this world is because people are sinning against that one principle that puts the humane in humanity...

of course, there are the ones who want to be treated bad so they can treat others bad as well, but they are isolated cases for another discussion for another day

Well, that's all I have to say for now. Sorry it was a bit long but I hope that answers ur question from my end

[minglemoon]

Bias is definitely inexorable.Every one preaches his/her religion sensibly ,constructively and logically defends his belief.RELIGIOUS issues are simply games of belief.
i think i have to rephrase the question.. Is there any sure way of knowing ur belief takes u to the REAL eldoraldo(HEAVEN)?
Wat makes u feel ur on the right track?
How do u know ur not wasting ur time?

[RetiredEgo]

Originally Posted by Boss

.....this law is simple "Do unto others what you want done to you"

....

Ermmm, correction.

Islam and Christ (who was/is a Muslim= every submitter to the 1 creator)
Do not propose or subscribe to that 'law' to any significant complete, more than comical degree.

'Do unto others' is a very myopic, limited statement, it was not Jesus' full statement.

What if u like your neighbor fucking your wife, will it not be right and argue-able according to that so called law to fuck his wife?

No, in all these 3(yet actually 1) monotheistic faith(s) we harmoniously give the commandments, and not that statement all credence.

Thank you.

[eby187]

@retiredego,
You know what he meant or at least what he was trying to say. U just like orishiri discussion and of course, you had to make a comment abt. Islam. I give up on you.

[Nwashigi]

Originally Posted by minglemoon

Bias is definitely inexorable.Every one preaches his/her religion sensibly ,constructively and logically defends his belief.RELIGIOUS issues are simply games of belief.
i think i have to rephrase the question.. Is there any sure way of knowing ur belief takes u to the REAL eldoraldo(HEAVEN)?
Wat makes u feel ur on the right track?
How do u know ur not wasting ur time?

i dnt want y'll to misunderstand/misinterprete my ?tion. i did not ask if the whole practice makes sense. rather, HOW IT BEGAN. wat each religion says about how dey came to be and wat dey claim to be the facts that architected their religion. example.....

in the isamic religion, dey claim. or shud i say Mohammed claimed dat one day he was walkin in the wilderness meditatin when an angel of God came to him and started voicing (which his disciples wrote down afetr he passed away) wat he thot to pple. he claims he did not make them up. He also claimed that he was the last person sent by God of the 24? something...(1 4got wat dey r called).


Today, religious forensics and reserchers have proven some of the things most religions claim to be true(or rather to have taken place). Now by lookin @ those facts and their claims, wat makes the most sense to u or which one u think is the most plausible. that is my ?tion. i am not askin whether it will lead u to wherever ya religion believes to be their goal.

@Boss, am about to read ya post...

[Nwashigi]

Originally Posted by Boss

1) I'm not an atheist...I'm not religious. I'm spiritual...i.e I do beleive in the existence of a supreme being but I do not agree with the way human beings worship/portray it.


2) I hate to say ur question is dumb, but in all honesty, it really is...there are SO many religions in this world that it'd be very illogical to come up and say "my best one is..."
Personally I was raised in one religion. And that is Christianity. Personally I do not like Christianity as a practice. In theory there are some things I agree with Christian theory..i.e the teachings of Jesus Christ (IMO the Old Testament is Bullshit and the teachings of Paul and them others although might be good to ponder as you'd ponder a T.D Jakes book since Paul and them others were mere human beings like u and me, shouldn't be necessarily a guiding law).

And of all the teachings of Jesus Christ, there was one teaching that somehow fits into the blocks of some of the other religions that I know of i.e Judaism and Islam...this law is simple "Do unto others what you want done to you"

That has been my guiding light, my mantra, my "religion"...and that somehow is a humanistic way of living.The reason why there's so much evil is this world is because people are sinning against that one principle that puts the humane in humanity...

of course, there are the ones who want to be treated bad so they can treat others bad as well, but they are isolated cases for another discussion for another day

Well, that's all I have to say for now. Sorry it was a bit long but I hope that answers ur question from my end

the reason why u find it dumb is becos u jes dint understand the ?tion. everything u ans. did not ans. my ?tion at all. i will wait on someoneelse.





i got this ?tion from somewhere. i jes think that an atheist will be in a better position to ans. it correctly w/o going another direction which is wat u did. but thx anywez.

[Nwashigi]

Originally Posted by RetiredEgo

Ermmm, correction.

Islam and Christ (who was/is a Muslim= every submitter to the 1 creator)
Do not propose or subscribe to that 'law' to any significant complete, more than comical degree.

'Do unto others' is a very myopic, limited statement, it was not Jesus' full statement.

What if u like your neighbor fucking your wife, will it not be right and argue-able according to that so called law to fuck his wife?

No, in all these 3(yet actually 1) monotheistic faith(s) we harmoniously give the commandments, and not that statement all credence.

Thank you.

hia!

[KAG]

Originally Posted by Nwashigi

u guys r self proclaimed atheists rite? well, i was discussin w. a friend of mine yesterday and we have this ?tion 4 peeps like u cos y'll r in a better position to give an objective view w/o being bias.


Of all the religions, which one makes more sense? and why?



thks. plz take ya time w. this ?tion abeg.

For me it's a toss up between Taoism and Buddhism. Actually, on second thoughts, Taoism. Why? Because the somewhat pantheistic yet coherent Dao seems the most reasonable in a world like ours and in a vast, vast Universe with innumerable galaxies. Etc., ec.

[Wendydoks]

Originally Posted by KAG

For me it's a toss up between Taoism and Buddhism. Actually, on second thoughts, Taoism. Why? Because the somewhat pantheistic yet coherent Dao seems the most reasonable in a world like ours and in a vast, vast Universe with innumerable galaxies. Etc., ec.

oh lawd! i give up. i will jes have to call the pesin back. no luck on nr...

[BlueBeauty]

Originally Posted by Wendydoks

oh lawd! i give up. i will jes have to call the pesin back. no luck on nr...

'Cause you want him to say Catholicism, that is the only answer that would seem right to you. What you fail to acknowledge is, that religion 's got historical issues to the ying-yang.

Don't get me wrong i practice christianity (somewhat), basically cause i was raised by parents who practiced it and even with other studies that I've done its easier for me to just stay practicing that way, the goal is to acknowledged the creator and give respect to the one its due. As for the "how it began theory" the history of Catholicism is full of....simply put questionable issues.

Not trying to insult anyone's faith o, JMHO.

[King_Solomon]

[Quote Superego]

Intelligent criteria to determine and compare a faiths true origin and origin based eligibility.

1 The Alpha Criteria.
For a faith to qualify reason, it must have been available to the first man. It must have been from the beginning, because faith is fair. Hence for instance Taoism is easily a non/weak-faith, because its origin was sometime 4 BCE. Many of the monotheistic faiths embracing Adam, and claiming availability of their faith based redemption to him/from him and his time, as the first prophet easily surmount this hurdle. Judism for instance doesnt start with Moses or David but accepts Adam, the first man, who science too now recognizes, and accepts him under the faith umbrella. There must not be an origin or significant re-origin of a faith not made available from day 1 of mankinds history.

2. The Omega criteria.
Does the faith end.? Is its end clear and consistent. Judism does not (yet) pass this criteria, the Judist still awaits the end and even the middle of their faith. They were promised a messiah and a last great Prophet. (Joh 1:21 - And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. ) This repeated severally in the Bible. Judism 101 . The Jew rejected Jesus because he wasn't the warrior they expected to defeat their enemies and liberate them, and they also rejected Prophet Mohammed for being Arab. They challenged God that He must discriminate and not choose an Arab even though he is of their bretheren, the sons of Abraham. The Jew still marks Yum Kippur every year tipping their cup in a toast awaiting the Messiah and the Last Prophet.

Christianity knew Christ as the continuation, the promised messiah and Christians wonder why Jews do not understand and recognize this obvious fact that Christ was indeed a liberator, in a more unique way then the Jews limited their expectations of him to be, and some other stuff, the Christians and Christianity came not as a beginning, like Taoism, but as a continuation or end of a/the 1 faith from day 1. To portray this, Jesus always said in answer to questions on how to be saved- 'What do you know already, how do you have it in your books?', this to show that he was only a rejuvenator of a principle that had always been available to man, and not an originator or re-originator.

The Muslim is confused as is the Christian, why the Christian even though pondering and laughing at the Jew not recognizing their obvious continuation, likewise doesn't recognize Prophet Mohammed as a same continuation and the reasonable finale of the monotheistic faith of Adam, Noah, Abraham, David, Jesus, Mohammed and all the 20+ thousand Prophets, Anointed, Messiahs and Messengers{4 messengers= those who brought gospels/Books} of the one Creator/God.

The Muslim says to the Christian and Jews as the Christian says to the Jew…'look forward damnit'.

Other Criteria.
Population.
A faith of the all powerful force must pass the population test. It must have the capability to spread and have its doctrine made available to all mankind, like a wild fire. Because what is not known of can not be used to prosecute. Hence some other faiths like the Mormon faith or other later day faiths, which claims too to be an end/continuation do not pass this criteria, because they for one thing do not embrace the chain of faith from Adam, I showed above, nor do they process the capability to spread through Earths billions. A faith of God must Grow rapidly and must be well spread. Faiths like Mormonism too fail stability tests as they are continuously revised and re-revised.

Nomenclature
A/the ultimate faith must have good stable nomenclature.
Most faiths based on their origin story fail this test , which is the test that trully would show distinguish ability if these faiths were to be distinguished/separated from any other.
My point is that if it wasn't just meant to be one faith for man, then there would actually be names or new names for the faiths.

Judism, was not a new thing, because it didn't come with a new name. The name 'Judist' just comes as a nickname that was maybe erroneously accorded to seclude a people who lived in the valley of Judah. So Judism lacks unique nomenclature and must be an old schools thing.

Christianity, like wise was not a new thing because it had no new name which God/the Creating force would have given it if it were to be a segragation. The name 'Christ or Christianity was used since the Eyptian times years b4 Jesus in reference to Seraphis Christus (Ref…Onyiboy) Christians were referred to as Christians first in years AD by unbelievers as a nickname that stuck in Antioch.

Hinduism, like wise was a nickname for those in the Indu river.

Budhism, a nickname not given by the faiths teacher, but a nickname people used to refer to those they thought followed Budha, a man who was actually teaching the way to someone else.
Etc
Etc

Only Islam/Salam/Peace, not really a new name was fully and officially given a name, and this name an all encompassing name which fulfils and is suitable for all the other faith(s). Islam, meaning, Submitter to the one God and peace, is a name which fulfils Judism, Christianity and all others needed nomenclature, because technically speaking, Budha, Jesus, Moses all were submitters to the one creating force/God(s).

Worship style, described by the faith- Read here all faiths actually worship the same way-
http://understandingchrist.com/waytoworship.html

Gods name, in all faiths is actually the same-
http://understandingchrist.com/godsname.html

Common sense
A faith must have this. Hinduism, another of the worlds largest faiths doesnt satisfy this because according to their origin story, their number one God, the leader of the pack is the Phallus/Penis, sitting in a pussy. This is supposedly their source of creation and that is a no no

Hindu creator#1 Lingam(Penis) in Yoni(Pussy/female)



To be continued……

[BlueBeauty]

okay RetiredEgo, i guess you skipped the post where she said she's got a problem with reading. You need to make it brief.

[KAG]

Originally Posted by King_Solomon

[Quote Superego]

Intelligent criteria to determine and compare a faiths true origin and origin based eligibility.

Ha ha, okay.

1 The Alpha Criteria.
For a faith to qualify reason, it must have been available to the first man. It must have been from the beginning, because faith is fair. Hence for instance Taoism is easily a non/weak-faith, because its origin was sometime 4 BCE. Many of the monotheistic faiths embracing Adam, and claiming availability of their faith based redemption to him/from him and his time, as the first prophet easily surmount this hurdle. Judism for instance doesnt start with Moses or David but accepts Adam, the first man, who science too now recognizes, and accepts him under the faith umbrella. There must not be an origin or significant re-origin of a faith not made available from day 1 of mankinds history.

Off to a bad start already. First, if we were to ignore the fallacy of arbitrarily claiming a religion is only true if it originated with the mythical first Judeo-Adam, the tenets and ideas behind Taoism can be found in religions preceding its "official formation" (so to speak).

Second, Adam, as portrayed in Tanakh, was not the first human - that in itself renders your poorly reasoned argument moot.

Finally, no, Judaism didn't start with the mythical Adam; science doesn't recognise Genesis' Adam as the original progenator of the human species; and there are many religions that precede Judaism.

Other Criteria.
Population.
A faith of the all powerful force must pass the population test. It must have the capability to spread and have its doctrine made available to all mankind, like a wild fire. Because what is not known of can not be used to prosecute.[all of that]

Or persecute. In any case, fallacies do not an argument make.