Prove to me your religion is wrong

“The Kevlar Underwear could be expensive, though -----”

“Uncliff...want to END WAR?...the only way to do that is to DEFEAT, totally and completely the enemy.

NOTE prior to 1939 Japan and Germany (Prussia etc) had a LONG history of engaging in wars on tehir neighbors....following their total and complete defeat in 1945 we haven't heard a lot from them.”

“When you defeEt your last enemy, you'll find it to be yourself.”

“OH that is SO PATENTLY Liberal....okay now

I'd love to buy the world a Coke..." JEEZE”

“I knew he was a coke head.”

“Uncliff....you do know that Peace does not mean the Absence of WAR right?”

“Mutt I was thinking about you....(LOL)

”

“I don't question the wisdom of the Atheist.”

“LOL. I still remember the quip at a meeting about "religion" when a guy made the statement,"Well I am an athiest."

I looked up and said,"Swear to God?"

He (without thinking) replied,"Oh yeah."”

“The funny thing is, I'm not an Atheist, XL.

There's one thing I know for certain is an immutable fact: no organized religion (including the jesus myth) is Truth. They may have elements of the Truth entertwined with their fiction, but in the end, they're all 98% fiction.

Call me an agnostic, I guess. Not entirely accurate, but good enough.”

“LOL....Mutt don't take this wrong, but whatever anyone's religion is for me is an "ignorance/apathy thing" for me...meaning I don't know and I don't care.

My faith...FAITH that is..is Christian that means it does not reside in an organized or Practiced "proceedure" (heck I grew up Methodist (God's Chosen Frozen) and tried Catholic in College, ended up an Episcopalian until they left me with the Brokeback Bishop thing....

Doing the Lutheran thing now...but I don't really remember Jesus hawking for one certain religion....I just seem to remember he offered a faith as something that would "improve the individual". To me too many "religions" demand that you demean yourself in one way or another "to meet their demands"...sorry thats when I walk out the door.”

“They may have elements of the Truth entertwined with their fiction, but in the end, they're all 98% fiction.

How do you know this?”

“Why would I take that wrong? If more christians had that attitude and quit with the evangelising and their idiot claims of exclusivity, then the world would be a better place.”

“Well Sarge, the word "may" shows I don't know for certain - I'm agnostic, remember? But, there's enough common threads or underlying currents running through the various world religions - including non-theistic systems of belief - to make chance alone unlikely, IMO.”

“Actually you said the "may" have elements of truth entertwined - but put no such disclaimer on the "in the end, they're all 98% fiction" part.

But, there's enough common threads or underlying currents running through the various world religions - including non-theistic systems of belief - to make chance alone unlikely, IMO.

So how does it follow that if there are similar stories to 1 story, that that one is false?
last edited: 10/26/07 6:12:00 AM”

“Cujo, do I evangelize...occasionally, when the offer of "How I deal with something" is asked. And I do proclaim my faith but I also look at my faith a lot like I do many other things I support.

In a grey comparison say 'seat belt usage" I am a big fan of it. But personally it should not be a LAW. Rather if bozo doesn't wear a belt and gets in a wreck we have it established what costs for treatment would have been IF he had been wearing the belt. Once Bozo exceeds the costs...he pays or ...STBY.

We had an elderly lady die in a house fire. The house was loaded to the gills with heaters, and she had all manner of STUFF given to her over time (you name it she had it).....we were standing outside the house when one of the neighbors came up decrying the fact that "we had let her die".

The sad truth was that she had been in an old Shotgun house, using a often repaired Kerosene Heater (Kerosene was found on the floor where the heater was meaning she was refueling it IN THE HOUSE) and with all the CRAP her friends had given her...not one had thought to give her a smoke detector.

My attitude has always been to offer the hand...but if you refuse to take the offer...(to quote the minister in Blazing Saddles)"Son, you're on your own. (."”

“quit with the evangelising and their idiot claims of exclusivity

Why does this bother you? The "idiot claim" is the entire basis of the faith. The whole POINT of Christianity is that you must accept Jesus as Savior to be saved. That is what He taught. It's not OUR claim. It's what is required to be saved. The reason non-Christians don't like that is because they think they can be good enough to deserve Heaven. They curse God on one hand, and then they claim they have a right to be with Him forever in Heaven. Does that make sense to you? THAT is the idiotic claim if you use logic.”

“ but put no such disclaimer on the "in the end, they're all 98% fiction" part. - Sarge

True.

So how does it follow that if there are similar stories to 1 story, that that one is false? - Sarge

You write goodly! You'll need to write in coherent English for me to answer you properly. I'll give it a shot, though:

Religion a: 1+1=2; God is giant rubber ducky.
Religion b: 1+1=2; God sent a zombie son to save mankind

a&b share truth - 1+1=2, but both are encumbered with a silly mythos. Core truth, the rest bunk.
last edited: 10/26/07 6:26:41 AM”

“XL: I don't have any problem with impromptu, personal, 1:1 conversations about religious ideas, when both parties are genuinely interested. It's just that the Believers tend to wrap compulsory evangilizing in sheeps clothing, such as seen in missionary work.”

“Ok, so explain this apparent problem with your logic...

Person a believes: Cujo posts on trailtalk; God does not exist.
Person b believes: Cujo posts on trailtalk; God does exist.

a&b share truth - they both believe you post on trailtalk; but both have different views on God.

(btw, your analogy isn't right. If you're arguing that the 2nd part is the problem, then the 1st part (1+1=2) is irrelevant. Compare this to your original arugment and there is no commonality - But, there's enough common threads or underlying currents running through the various world religions - including non-theistic systems of belief - to make chance alone unlikely, IMO. Is it the commanalities between them, or just that you disagree with the conclusions of each? Make up your mind.)
last edited: 10/26/07 6:38:52 AM”

“LOL...I feel the same way about the PEACE CRAp...er Corps.....”

“The reason non-Christians don't like that is because they think they can be good enough to deserve Heaven. - Sarge

I can't speak for all non-Christians, but the reason is I don't like it is that it is 1) silly, 2) the height of human hubris, 3) creates conflict.

hey curse God on one hand, and then they claim they have a right to be with Him forever in Heaven. Does that make sense to you? - Sarge

It doesn't make sense to me. The concept of an eternal garden-heaven in the presence of an anthropomorphized deity is childish.”

“If you're arguing that the 2nd part is the problem, then the 1st part (1+1=2) is irrelevant. - Sarge

Please explain? I'm talking about concepts inclusive of the religions. 1+1=2 was just an analogy for religious or more specifically religiospiritual truth.”

“It doesn't make sense to me. The concept of an eternal garden-heaven in the presence of an anthropomorphized deity is childish.”
Cujo
6:43:24 AM

Then I remember

Matthew 19:14
Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

SO what the heck...let me be as a child on this (LOL)”

“Yeah that's what it takes.”

“Mutt - regarding your post on "silliness, childishness, etc."-

It's only silly if it's made-up. If you want to make a coherent, non-"childish" argument, then please explain WHY you think it's made up. I agree that IF it were made-up and false, it would be silly, but if it's true, then there is nothing silly about it. Don't you agree that if it is true, that it is not silly? Silly means the idea is absurd, so if it is true, it is not silly. My question is why do you think it is not true. You can't argue logically that it is not true because it is silly, only that it is silly because it is not true.”

“Please explain?

Again, you're putting the cart before the horse, just like above. You can't argue that religions are wrong because they have commonalities PLUS 'silly' differences, when the commanalities, as you admit, are irrelevant. Your initial arugment depended on their commanalities: But, there's enough common threads or underlying currents running through the various world religions - including non-theistic systems of belief - to make chance alone unlikely, IMO.”

“Sarge, don't want to argue on this...but there are some who will believe as the believe. As with most things that take "belief" I have found no one will truly "agree" until they THEMSELVES have come to the conclusion they must believe.

That goes for most things. From as simple as the 'Screw you I ain't wear'in no helmet while riding my motorcycle" to dozens of other things. I guess in the big scheme of things I can't see where I can FORCE them to change. Since learning only exists when there is a change of behavior and there are people who just WILL not Ever Learn...(hence the Darwin Awards).


It may be that after 20 years of my line of work, seeing too damnnn many twits who basically did everything they could to ensure their house would burn and then have the audacity to demand "Whats you gonna do to hep me?" But I have gotten to the point where I take care of what is MY Responsibility, and when they ask I refer them to the agencies who can help.
Other than that...>STBY seems to work.”

“You can't argue that religions are wrong because they have commonalities PLUS 'silly' differences, when the commanalities, as you admit, are irrelevant - Sarge

It's a good thing I'm not doing that and I didn't admit that.

Speaking generally, I'm arguing that religions do share a core of truth. That is not irrelevent. I'm also saying that they're wrong on most other things.

I'm thinking you're not elucidating your point coherently, as you're, what, 0 for 3 now.

You can't argue logically that it is not true because it is silly, only that it is silly because it is not true. - Sarge

Okay, but if you tell me that gravity is caused by invisible cosmic Crazy Glue, I'm going to be pretty damn sure you're full of shyt. That's what I'm saying when I say I'm agnostic.”

“im too tired to enter this debate, so heres a picture of jesus with a puppy

”

“well f u, tripod”

“Fail.”

“As with most things that take "belief" I have found no one will truly "agree" until they THEMSELVES have come to the conclusion they must believe.

XL - I'm about to take a break with a co-worker who recently converted due to our logical discussions. I disagree with your assessment. Plus, God commands us to preach His gospel, so whether or not you're right, (which I know for a fact you are wrong), it isn't up to me to decide to stay out of it.”

“Speaking generally, I'm arguing that religions do share a core of truth. That is not irrelevent. I'm also saying that they're wrong on most other things.

Ok, so stop the suspense, tell me how that IS relevant.”

“First let's agree to what we're measuring relevancy against.”

“crash, he must have been resurrected already and left the picture.”

“Sarge, I may be wrong....or I may be right. I will not argue that fact...since we are arguing faith which is a VERY Personal thing. I do not place my opinions of faith as a topic for argument since I do not claim to have a corner on any other person's faith than MY OWN.

I guess I will conclude that I am an expert on my opinion, and my experience and my history. That is what I base my faith on.

I know you have a very deep personal connection to your faith (and in fact I have defended that on here before) fan-freaking-tastic. I will not debate your faith since that is your personal decision. What I will debate is the desire not to "preach" ones faith but rather to IMPOSE ones faith (which dear readers I have NEVER seen Sarge do or intend to do).

This is my central opposition to either the Atheist or the Agnostic. I note they go fraking ballistic when the term Christianity is mentioned (even in positive terms like assisting the downtrodden) but they seem strangely silent when say a Muslim Haddrasa is set up in New York.”

“Sarge, let me ask you this: do you believe that if an areligious person sat down with a fair, impartial, and reasonably thorough dataset for all religions with the intent of discovering the True Religion, that honest ratiocination will lead him to christianity?”

“Sarge, let me ask you this: do you believe that if an areligious person sat down with a fair, impartial, and reasonably thorough dataset for all religions with the intent of discovering the True Religion, that honest ratiocination will lead him to christianity?

Ok, even though you're ignoring my question, which gets to the heart of your argument, we can change the discussion without you answering it... Just remember you owe me.

To answer your question, "yes, absolutely".”

“XL - the point is, we are commanded to preach the Word. If you disagree with me, you disagree with God. If you think the Bible is false, then so be it - but my understanding his the Bible is the heart of Christianity. You must accept it to be Christian.

If you want versus to support this, I'll gladly provide them.”

“the Atheist or the Agnostic... go fraking ballistic when the term Christianity is mentioned - XL

Persecution complex. All groups have thier idiot loudmouths. But the inroads christians have been making into government and their revisionist history and assaults on science are all LEGITIMATE reasons to "go fraking ballistic".”

“Um I do not believe if he sat down seeking the ULTIMATE ...and this is the word I oppose Religion, he would naturally end up on Christianity...now if you subsituted Faith for Religion....there is no doubt in my mind he would end up with the Christian faith.”

“Have you ever explained why you think that Sarge? If so, can you link to it for me. If not, are you up to explaining it here, today.

By the way, I wasn't trying to ignore your question. I was trying to get you to ask it in a clear and concise manner.”

“Persecution complex. All groups have thier idiot loudmouths. But the inroads christians have been making into government and their revisionist history and assaults on science are all LEGITIMATE reasons to "go fraking ballistic".”
Cujo

I'm sorry but can you point to the last time a senior LEADER (i.e. person on the level of an Imam or Mullah in the Muslim faith) called for the destruction of one particular country (women children and all regardless of who they were specifically for their FAITH?)

Or how about when a Major Chrisitian leader called for celebration of a major destruction of some people. (Okay a couple of the fringe loons have done that with the various disasters but they were immediatly decried by other members of their faith)..


yet in NEW YORK (still part of the US) which still has a HUGE ASS HOLE IN THE GROUND....there is a PUBLIC FUNDED Islamic Indoctrination school that rivals the Saudi or Lebanese Hate Schools.....”

“Go ahead and explain it, then, XL.”

“Religion is a method of passing responsibility to other than the self.”

“I never levied that criticism against christian religious leaders, XL. You don't see Christian leaders calling for the outright physical destruction of a people (muslims *are* scumbags). Christians just call for the outright destruction of culture, values, and belief systems. ;-)”

“One can stroll the lawn for hours and call it what you like, but when you step in it, it is what it is , nomatter the name.”

“WELLLLL...please I am waiting for an example....Heres mine

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23020

Yes it seems in Jolly old New York there is a PUBLICLY FUNDED (thats taxpayer dollars)

and I quote:

In Brooklyn, New York, a public school named the Khalil Gibran International Academy (KGIA) has opened. Its primary purpose -- demonstrated by its advisory board, its apparent curriculum and the lining of school walls with pictures of Arab figures and heroes, is to teach Arabic and Muslim language and culture and to inculcate the children with radical Islamic ideology.

Well well well...and yet not a smidgen of activity from the Left's leaders who went freaking BALLISTIC when Rush Limbaugh was Misquoted.....WOW...can you say Hypocrisy?...Sure I knew you could. ”