Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Knowledge to be derived from religion is Limitless? How can history be limitless, it is unchanging?
How many more answers is religion going to provide mankind?
How many more answers is scientific inquiry yet to discover?
How many of those are going to be prevaricated as an accomplishment of god?
Did i say history is limitless? Why do you interpret something from what i said? It And changing what I stated so you could argue with something, I didn't say, demonstrates a glaring lack of comprehension or of honesty....you know since you are tossing snarky silliness.
Did I say spirituality (I.e. personal experiences)? No, I did not. Just how many religious texts are getting regular updates from their god? None. Nearly all are records of the religion's origin story. To say otherwise shows a glaring lack understanding of religious texts. And changing what I stated so you could argue with something, I didn't say, demonstrates a glaring lack of comprehension or of honesty....you know since you are tossing snarky silliness.
Are you truly so resistant to an honest dialog? Let me explain in terms that may be easier to understand
Religious texts are written by people. The realization of a higher power is behind the inspiration that spurs the writing. It will not be perfect, or accurate, or even easily comprehensible because words are inadequate to describe the experience. This is why ancient texts are often esoteric - they convey a meaning that is understood by those who are equally inclined.
The “updates” to religious texts are also done by humans, who are similarly inspired. It does require a deep and abiding interest to delve into these texts and get the full import. It is a life’s work.
I dont know what your source is for your opinions about these texts. I presume you only know the Bible. Christians have also “updated” these texts, and practice the religion in a variety of ways. That is the update.
Are you truly so resistant to an honest dialog? Let me explain in terms that may be easier to understand
Religious texts are written by people. The realization of a higher power is behind the inspiration that spurs the writing. It will not be perfect, or accurate, or even easily comprehensible because words are inadequate to describe the experience. This is why ancient texts are often esoteric - they convey a meaning that is understood by those who are equally inclined.
The “updates” to religious texts are also done by humans, who are similarly inspired. It does require a deep and abiding interest to delve into these texts and get the full import. It is a life’s work.
I dont know what your source is for your opinions about these texts. I presume you only know the Bible. Christians have also “updated” these texts, and practice the religion in a variety of ways. That is the update.
Finally, I applaud you for attempting a genuine answer. I am not resistant to an honest dialog, but I am resistant to strawman answers, when the question or statement being responded to is stated clearly, and questions and deriding the person your are responding to on the grounds they don't agree with you. I had to respond with snarkiness in kind to get you to provide this genuine attempt at an honest answer, so I am giving you full credit for doing so, and often when I've seen you do it previously, I hit the quick reputation button.
Finally, I applaud you for attempting a genuine answer. I am not resistant to an honest dialog, but I am resistant to strawman answers, when the question or statement being responded to is stated clearly, and questions and deriding the person your are responding to on the grounds they don't agree with you. I had to respond with snarkiness in kind to get you to provide this genuine attempt at an honest answer, so I am giving you full credit for doing so, and often when I've seen you do it previously, I hit the quick reputation button.
LOL . You are ridiculous. First you insult and twist words and deliberately misinterpret. Several times in this one thread. WHEN Pointed out what you do clearly and accuse others of doing, you claim you are the judge of normal honest posts. This forum behavior is so typical of many atheists posters here it has become the norm. It is pitiful and my sympathies because what else have you got.
Are you truly so resistant to an honest dialog? Let me explain in terms that may be easier to understand
Religious texts are written by people. The realization of a higher power is behind the inspiration that spurs the writing. It will not be perfect, or accurate, or even easily comprehensible because words are inadequate to describe the experience. This is why ancient texts are often esoteric - they convey a meaning that is understood by those who are equally inclined.
The “updates” to religious texts are also done by humans, who are similarly inspired. It does require a deep and abiding interest to delve into these texts and get the full import. It is a life’s work.
I don't know what your source is for your opinions about these texts. I presume you only know the Bible. Christians have also “updated” these texts, and practice the religion in a variety of ways. That is the update.
The issue seldom is a lack of honest dialogue as much as it is different perceptual states of mind. This is why I resist as bogus the use of the word supernatural. The perceptual differences between people who proceed from a supernatural state of mind (what I have often referred to as magical thinking) and those whose perceptual state of mind is more natural or pragmatic can be very great. It can be virtually impossible to bridge the differences. It is that perceptual difference that poses the greatest obstacles to discourse about these issues.
LOL . You are ridiculous. First you insult and twist words and deliberately misinterpret. Several times in this one thread. WHEN Pointed out what you do clearly and accuse others of doing, you claim you are the judge of normal honest posts. This forum behavior is so typical of many atheists posters here it has become the norm. It is pitiful and my sympathies because what else have you got.
You are fourth on the list of those who should not accuse others of being dishonest.
Did i say history is limitless? Why do you interpret something from what i said? It And changing what I stated so you could argue with something, I didn't say, demonstrates a glaring lack of comprehension or of honesty....you know since you are tossing snarky silliness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
If religion is not supported, adopted, practiced, its texts preserved, it will eventually be destroyed. There will be nothing to extract from. The knowledge derived from it is limitless.
No, I concede you DID NOT use the word 'history', you described the texts (almost always historical) that need to be preserved and therefore I classified them as historical. Are there non-historical religious texts I am unaware of, that you are referencing?
If not, and all are historical, and since history doesn't change, eventually all that can be extracted and interpreted from those static texts will be reached. It has nothing to do with the value of the texts, nor how much creativity can be applied, but eventually little if any more knowledge can can be derived. Which is why calling the knowledge that can be derived limitless, seemed a leap.
LOL . You are ridiculous. First you insult and twist words and deliberately misinterpret. Several times in this one thread. WHEN Pointed out what you do clearly and accuse others of doing, you claim you are the judge of normal honest posts. This forum behavior is so typical of many atheists posters here it has become the norm. It is pitiful and my sympathies because what else have you got.
So now I've claimed I "am the judge of normal honest posts". Please provide that quote.
You are fourth on the list of those who should not accuse others of being dishonest.
I have to keep reminding myself that cb has openly stated she intends to derail. So attempting cogent conversation is analogous grabbing a handful of mercury.
Finally, I applaud you for attempting a genuine answer. I am not resistant to an honest dialog, but I am resistant to strawman answers, when the question or statement being responded to is stated clearly, and questions and deriding the person your are responding to on the grounds they don't agree with you. I had to respond with snarkiness in kind to get you to provide this genuine attempt at an honest answer, so I am giving you full credit for doing so, and often when I've seen you do it previously, I hit the quick reputation button.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyno
So now I've claimed I "am the judge of normal honest posts". Please provide that quote.
Your post above judges CB's prior posts as dishonest or strawman and judges the post you are responding to as honest and genuine. That IS presuming you are the judge of such content.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. You are ridiculous. First you insult and twist words and deliberately misinterpret. Several times in this one thread. WHEN Pointed out what you do clearly and accuse others of doing, you claim you are the judge of normal honest posts. This forum behavior is so typical of many atheists posters here it has become the norm. It is pitiful and my sympathies because what else have you got.
