All Religions are flawed, and similar.....

[Byfaithalone1]

What I find ironic is the "intent" on coming together while we are divisive...

In light of this statement I would point out that, even though Stormy's original post referenced something that I had written, I didn't view his comments as being "divisive." Rather, I commend Stormy for being willing to pursue an understanding of perspectives that differ from his own, not for the purpose of either reconciliation or argument, but rather for the purpose of understanding why other people believe, say and write the things that they do. Hopefully, we can all accomplish that once in a while in this forum, not because we wish to win someone over to our own way of thinking, but for the sake of better understanding those who view things differently.

BFA

 

[bellanegra1]

In light of this statement I would point out that, even though Stormy's original post referenced something that I had written, I didn't view his comments as being "divisive."

Just for the sake of responding.... I did not say that to say you are implying.... IF you feel the need to make a point.. go ahead.... Not sure why you would feel the need to make it to that tune.....

Rather, I commend Stormy for being willing to pursue an understanding of perspectives that differ from his own, not for the purpose of either reconciliation or argument, but rather for the purpose of understanding why other people believe, say and write the things that they do.

Oh that we would have that as our true intent.... To that end I commend you... We should spread that around... I second that motion.....

Hopefully, we can all accomplish that once in a while in this forum, not because we wish to win someone over to our own way of thinking, but for the sake of better understanding those who view things differently.

Exactly!!!

 

[JonMiller]

BFA asked in another thread:
I believe all religions are flawed to a certain degree and all have some elements in common..... thoughts?

Not really, if you read about the ancient religions you find that they have very little in common with most major current religions.

Christianity/Islam/etc are really a paradigm shift from the standard religions of the BC era. That is a lot of the reason why they were so successful in competition with them.

You are quoting a description of Roman Catholicism and Seventh-day Adventism. These are the same religion, so how does it provide any backing for your statement?

Hinduism and Buddhism are really the only two religions that aren't part of the Judaism revolution which have had any success in competition. These are both very different types of religion though, and aren't nearly as successful.

JM

 

[Kerwin]

I believe all religions are flawed to a certain degree and all have some elements in common..... thoughts?

There is a logically flaw is the statement “all religions are flawed” as no one as far as I know has ever tested all religions. Of course one believes it even if it is unproven.

It contradicts belief that Jesus is the Messiah since his religion is by definition not flawed since if his religion is flawed he is not the Messiah.

 

[StormyOne]

There is a logically flaw is the statement “all religions are flawed” as no one as far as I know has ever tested all religions. Of course one believes it even if it is unproven.

It contradicts belief that Jesus is the Messiah since his religion is by definition not flawed since if his religion is flawed he is not the Messiah.

Jesus did not establish a "religion" did he?

 

[sentipente]

Jesus did not establish a "religion" did he?

To avoid a lie being spoken I will jump in here and say "No."

 

[bellanegra1]

To avoid a lie being spoken I will jump in here and say "No."

Though that does not change the minds of those who believe such a thing....

And thus seek to sell such a load to others.........

 

[JohnT]

in the other thread I may....however since all .orgs are flawed in one way or another, it doesn't surprise me that they are also similar given that they evolved from the RCC, so in a sense to me its moot....

Please cite any credible reference for making such a universal statement, or else it is balderdash.

It may be that you hate the RCC, but your feelings about the RCC ought to conform with objective facts.

 

[StormyOne]

Please cite any credible reference for making such a universal statement, or else it is balderdash.

It may be that you hate the RCC, but your feelings about the RCC ought to conform with objective facts.

I do not hate the RCC, however there are many denominations that have a similar organizational structure... that was my point.... as for me citing credible references, you enjoy logic and research, find it yourself.... I don't have to conform to anything, especially anything that you believe to be facts....

 

[AzA]

Ah well. Context's important.

Stormy and a few others use ".org" as shorthand for "denomination," and in the Adventist context all denominations flow from Antioch > Rome > Reformation > Present-Day Western Chaos. Next time your preachers even acknowledge the Great Schism or the EO, you let me know. It doesn't help the eschatology.

As far as Adventists are concerned (though they forget at convenience), the Romans administered the early church, and the rest of us emerged from that .org. It is not at all surprising that we can trace comparisons since things that are related are usually similar in some way.

Whether human systems are perfect or flawed, or similar or different is a much larger issue.

 

[Avonia]

Please cite any credible reference for making such a universal statement, or else it is balderdash.

While I recognize the legitimate point you are making, it is subject to a significant conceptual error.

Which is . . .

That a "credible reference" is shareable. This may be true for the references you are used to, but it is not true for the vast majority of information. This majority is accessible, and threshholded (sort of a made-up word), via the consciousness of the seeker.

Not written down.

 

[JohnT]

I do not hate the RCC, however there are many denominations that have a similar organizational structure... that was my point.... as for me citing credible references, you enjoy logic and research, find it yourself.... I don't have to conform to anything, especially anything that you believe to be facts....

Debate does not work that way, Stormy, and I am surprised that you think that I would fall for that.

[aside] I must change my avatar if Stormy thinks I am THAT dumb! [/aside]

Really do you expect the rest of us to believe something (and it is a big stretch to say the least) just because StormyOne says so?

And just because some denominations have a similar structure as the RCC they are therefore bad? That is faulty reasoning: guilt by appearance.

Please note that I said "You MAY hate..." I did not accuse you of hating the RCC.

Nevertheless because you have cited NOTHING to back up the assertions you make THEY ARE THEREFORE ALL BALDERDASH.

 

[JohnT]

While I recognize the legitimate point you are making, it is subject to a significant conceptual error.

Which is . . .

That a "credible reference" is shareable. This may be true for the references you are used to, but it is not true for the vast majority of information. This majority is accessible, and threshholded (sort of a made-up word), via the consciousness of the seeker.

Not written down.

IF IT IS NOT WRITTEN DOWN IT IS NEITHER DEBATABLE NOR CREDIBLE.

Your position seems to be that knowledge is something ethereal; it is concrete.

 

[Kerwin]

Jesus did not establish a "religion" did he?

And what does that have to do with my point? My point is either that the religion Jesus practiced and which prophesized his life is true or else it is all a lie and he is not the Messiah.

If you want to open up a new line of reasoning I would say no, Jesus did not establish the Jewish religion as it was established by God. I have no idea when the starting date was but a couple of important dates were when the law came to the Hebrew people and when messianic prophecy was fulfilled by the conception, life, death, resurrection, and enthroning of Jesus.

 

[StormyOne]

Debate does not work that way, Stormy, and I am surprised that you think that I would fall for that.

[aside] I must change my avatar if Stormy thinks I am THAT dumb! [/aside]

Really do you expect the rest of us to believe something (and it is a big stretch to say the least) just because StormyOne says so?

And just because some denominations have a similar structure as the RCC they are therefore bad? That is faulty reasoning: guilt by appearance.

Please note that I said "You MAY hate..." I did not accuse you of hating the RCC.

Nevertheless because you have cited NOTHING to back up the assertions you make THEY ARE THEREFORE ALL BALDERDASH.

discussion is not debate.... while you seem to be stuck in that mode, most here are not debating, we are discussing... this is not CARM, nothing to prove..... so if debate is what you seek, you know where to go.....if you want to discuss, that's a different issue..... no one suggested similar .org structures are inherently bad, they are what the are.... some seem to work better than others but that probably has more to do with personnel than structure.....

As for your other points, whatever, you have accused me before of being irrational, non-systematic etc, so I don't expect any meaningful communication to take place between us....

 

[Avonia]

IF IT IS NOT WRITTEN DOWN IT IS NEITHER DEBATABLE NOR CREDIBLE.

That's a little like saying Einstein's writings are credible, but talking directly to Einstein is not. As I understand the word "credible" it has more to do with plausibility than provability.

This is an important conversation for those who believe the Bible is inspired by God. How did the knowledge get from God to the page? At what point is it credible?

Reading about being in love is different than the knowledge of being in love.

But alas, you are getting at an important point, which has to do with the transmission of knowledge.

 

[Joe67]

Wisdom cannot be written down, but you can drink it.

Joe