What (dis)qualifies a person as being an actual member of a religious group?

Author: RationalMadman

Posts

Total: 45
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
When horrific acts are done by people who claimed, carried out traditions and see/saw themselves as members of a religion, often what is done by the politically correct media is to sympathise with the religious group and encourage peace by denouncing those people away from being considered genuine members of the religious group.

This goes for literally any incident or scandal you can think of, I am not just talking about the horrific acts that make the headlines.

The reason this strikes me as somewhat worrying is that while this is done, it then begins to highlight a hypocrisy when we see that people can define themselves, readily and happily, as members of religions we sometimes really resent those who do actually do it just to be part of the group. What I am saying is that let's say you're a person who wants to blend in with your very Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist etc family, if not friendship circle as well, you'd probably just say you're a member of that religion right? As long as you didn't do anything too scandalous or let's say you weren't caught, you'd be deemed a genuine member of that religion and anyone who would say 'wait no, that's just a poser' would instead get the backlash. What, then, actually qualifies someone as a genuine member of the religion?

To make it very clear what I am saying and the contradiction happening, I will explain it as an either/or statement.

Either
The evil people who know their holy scriptures off by heart and understand their religion's history very well are incorrectly being denounced as 'fake Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus etc'
Or
The not-so-evil posers who use religion to either blend in or get some kind of societal privilege are not actually posers, since the only real disqualifying factor appears to be how troublesome it would be to admit you're an adhering member of that religion.

The further thing to ask is whether it's morally correct and appropriate for people to 'raise their child into a religion' when we don't know which religion is the actual true one, right?

The very fact that entire families are commonly all of the same faith, if they're not atheist, isn't a coincidence and it is a reflection on religion being nothing more than a social construct. Even more disturbing is the fact that things like circumcision and animal abuse involved with many Islamic, Satanic and Wiccan sacrificial festivals are actually completely contradictory since we should be disqualifying them as they're justifying mutilation in the name of their religion. We actually did this with Muslims who endorsed (and a select minority still endorse) female circumcision, as well as many other examples such as what Christians used to do to suspected 'witches'. Similarly, Saudi Arabia has recently begun to cave into international pressure to move away from the strictly sexist elements of its Sharia Law, legalising women to drive and compete in the Olympics. Women are made to be pure subjects of men in the Qur'an, although it's true to say that in Islamic history there have been fierce female empresses and in Pakistan and Afghanistan in particular there have been female politicians who actively have been in charge of taming and handling negotiations with the Taliban.

The problem is that I am not exactly saying that it would be politically wise to be honest when a member of a religion does a very evil act. It's a very appropriate lie to suddenly say 'no they are nothing like what our religion stands for and are 100% fake' but that person probably knew more about the religion and lived more devout in terms of the traditions and lifestyle than most posers who call themselves 'casual followers' or 'modern, progressive' variants of their religion. The thing is, at what stage is religion nothing more than a fancy name to associate your 'group' or 'clique' with? What truly qualifies or disqualifies a genuine Muslim for example? It can't just be whether they're evil or not.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,185
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
@RatMan.

Clubs is clubs.

And bigots are as bigots do.

"And power corrupts....And absolute power corrupts absolutely". (J.E.E. Dalberg-Acton)


One can always join another club or start one's own.....Which is what happened back in the Old Middle East, a few thousand years ago.
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 854
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
A US citizen who murders is still a US citizen. A criminal might lose some rights as a citizen, he retains that identity and some of the perks that go with it.

In Judaism, one who is properly Jewish doesn't lose that label. He might commit certain acts which have him lose some of the communal rights of being Jewish, but identity is identity. If he acts in a way which is improper and claims that he is representing his religion by doing it, odds are that he will be denounced by some segments as not representing the whole (though in Judaism, there is no unified "whole", sadly, so there will be some who denounce and some who defend).
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@rosends
Judaism is actually the single most hypocritical in terms of this, they are using a literal same word for racial ethnicity and theological religion the former you can't help, nor can you convert into, the latter should be completely independent.
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 854
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@RationalMadman
I'm not sure what you think of as being hypocritical. Judaism is a genetic ethnicity to some degree and a theological construct to some degree. That's its nature. The "same word" is used because it is the technical term for something larger than you want to think it is. If you think that a complex system must have discrete terms for its constituent elements then so be it, but then break down the term "American" so it doesn't refer both to someone born in the US and someone who is naturalized later in life.
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Jews and Muslims sacrifice more than Satanist who tend to be atheist. No one in Wicca is sacrificing anything. Serving food is no different than you cooking a burgher. That said you can call out morons in a religion and still be in that religion. And there's no way to tell if someone is faithfully or cultural religion wise. It's an honor system. I know I get irritated with cosplay in paganism. If Christians dressed like Jesus to go to church we would laugh at them. Put on armor to worship Odin it's cool. Then you have to figure things out who's pagan and who just likes watching Vikings.  
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@RationalMadman
I don't know if you actually read my posts but if you ask something I will answer according to what I know, and some things just take time to fully answer. I know people don't like to read through large posts but some questions need a bit of clarification and elaboration. Hopefully you find something useful with my responses.

The reason this strikes me as somewhat worrying is that while this is done, it then begins to highlight a hypocrisy when we see that people can define themselves, readily and happily, as members of religions we sometimes really resent those who do actually do it just to be part of the group. What I am saying is that let's say you're a person who wants to blend in with your very Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist etc family, if not friendship circle as well, you'd probably just say you're a member of that religion right? As long as you didn't do anything too scandalous or let's say you weren't caught, you'd be deemed a genuine member of that religion and anyone who would say 'wait no, that's just a poser' would instead get the backlash. What, then, actually qualifies someone as a genuine member of the religion?

Really what it comes down to is whether or not they are adherents to that particular religion. Once someone initiates themselves into a religion, whether through choice or by their Karma they will qualify for both that religions benefits but also that religions punishments based on that persons actions, which then will dictate what they receive. It's not just one way, if there is an imposter or a poser they will inherit that systems judgement which usually extends to the afterlife.
If you think of religions in terms of Kingdoms or societies that have locations or domains in different parts of the universe and extend to the afterlife then each participant will be subject to that Kingdom, whether it's good or bad. They may get away with all kinds of atrocities while they are here, but not when they cross over, that's when they will reap everything they sowed. It's not as easy to get away with crap once you cross over (death) as it is on earth, because there are gatekeepers and not-so-stupid rulers that they must face.
So basically it doesn't really matter what people here think, because no one here will be responsible for any souls judgement. They may face persecution, be ridiculed or shunned in this life but their true accountability awaits them in the afterlife.
There's many dynamics that take place once the soul leaves the physical body and is present within the astral plane. But to keep this as short as possible each soul basically faces a type of judgement when they leave this world, and that will determine where they go next. If they qualify ("if"), they may get to inherit that religions paradise located in the astral plane on an actual planet. That will be their residence for quite some time as they learn many things and take on many responsibilities. They may also be sent to an astral prison for some time (hell) if they committed horrible crimes, or may be forced to come back to the earth (reincarnation) where they may get another chance to "get it right". There's many other options as well.

Either
The evil people who know their holy scriptures off by heart and understand their religion's history very well are incorrectly being denounced as 'fake Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus etc'
Or
The not-so-evil posers who use religion to either blend in or get some kind of societal privilege are not actually posers, since the only real disqualifying factor appears to be how troublesome it would be to admit you're an adhering member of that religion.

This applies to what I wrote above. You should remember that nothing is hidden in the afterlife, all things will be known and will be recorded so whatever happens here is not the total factor, not even close. A soul gets away with a lot here because they are given much grace and time to really make their choices before they face reality in the afterlife. So in other words, there may be fake Christians here, evil Muslims, dishonoring Hindus ect ect but not in the afterlife where these Kingdoms have their domains. The earth is much more like a middle grounds or a testing grounds to see what takes place when they leave, see where people really stand. You may see hypocrisy on this planet, but if you were to visit the Christian Kingdom of Heaven you wouldn't find it, because it can't exist there. No one is permitted to inherit that Kingdom who did not legitimately earn it, and who are not genuine inhabitants.

The further thing to ask is whether it's morally correct and appropriate for people to 'raise their child into a religion' when we don't know which religion is the actual true one, right?

If you've payed any attention to what I have wrote before, there is no "true" religion, they all have their place within various locations in the afterworlds. Now, this is where it gets very interesting....there may not be a one true religion, but there are religions that are more advanced than others and possess greater qualities. Just like if you were to look at all the different countries, cultures, Kingdoms, tribes and regimes on earth and notice how some are much more powerful than others, perhaps more technologically advanced, possessed superior morals, had greater wealth, achieved greater things, ruled different areas of the world ect ect so are all the same factors involved with various religions located in the afterworlds.
I know it may seem like it's all the parents faults who was indoctrinated into which religion but honestly it wouldn't matter, they are just there as a means to support what was already decided, the parents are really just pawns in the grand scheme of things. You see, there's many dynamics involved with where a soul is sent to experience this world. There's more than one factor involved pertaining to which soul gets placed into which part of the world and what religion they will be subject to. Much of it pertains to a souls Karma, where they fit in and where they will learn the most from either group or part of the world.
However, Native Americans for example are souls that are very patriotic and have a lot of ancestral pride and love of their spirituality, and they carry that with them into the afterlife. This of course keeps their Kingdom alive, and their ancestral lineage strong and continuous. For those who think that their culture has perished because of what happened here have no idea, they still posses their lands in the afterlife and they know it. This truth shines through in their beliefs and the passion of their heritage. They too have their own place in the afterlife, and there is where they join their ancestors who were with them all along in spirit. They really lost nothing but their place on earth but there society extends well beyond this world.
So a soul may "want" to continue to exist along with the place they feel most attracted to and where they desire to be, other souls though may be subject to a particular religion as a punishment or a way to learn something. There are religions that have a lower level of awareness than other religion, and someone of a lower level of consciousness or experience may not be suited for a higher level conscious religion. Hopefully you see where I'm going with this.

The very fact that entire families are commonly all of the same faith, if they're not atheist, isn't a coincidence and it is a reflection on religion being nothing more than a social construct.

Correct, but what I want you to see mostly is that these social constructs extend to the afterlife, where souls are recycled, perpetuated and or advanced. Like I said above, our earthly families have little relevance to these societies that exist beyond the physical world. They are however, used to perpetuate such kingdoms to ensure they have relevance on this planet.

The problem is that I am not exactly saying that it would be politically wise to be honest when a member of a religion does a very evil act. It's a very appropriate lie to suddenly say 'no they are nothing like what our religion stands for and are 100% fake' but that person probably knew more about the religion and lived more devout in terms of the traditions and lifestyle than most posers who call themselves 'casual followers' or 'modern, progressive' variants of their religion. The thing is, at what stage is religion nothing more than a fancy name to associate your 'group' or 'clique' with? What truly qualifies or disqualifies a genuine Muslim for example? It can't just be whether they're evil or not.

These are all great questions, though difficult to explain due to the dynamics involved so hopefully you read through my responses thoroughly because I can make sense of it for you. All religions exist within one massive, layered system (cosmos) and they all exist somewhere on a scale between "negative and positive" in a dualistic environment we call creation, just because they are a "religion" does not mean they abide totally on the positive side of that scale. If you study their teachings and their principles it's easy to observe where they fall within that scale. And mostly, the souls that gravitate to either part of that scale will be placed within a system that they mostly resonate with, where their level of awareness associates with most.
There can be religions or regimes (gods or rulers) that primarily operate within a negative force, some with the positive force and everything in between. This is due to the very nature of man and souls because each soul reflects a different part of that scale, and so religions likewise operate within that same frequency. If you step all the way back, at some point it was an individual person, spiritual being, or some entity that originated each religious system. And that entity resides somewhere on a scale between positive and negative, and everything that follows...including its teachings, followers and regulations reflects exactly where they stand on that scale.
So while an adherent could be very well just following their religious institutions principles and laws, they could be operating on a negative side of the scale but deemed righteous followers of their religion....according to that religions level of consciousness. But until that soul advances, perhaps desires to reach a more elevated side of the scale they will be stuck within that religious Kingdom doomed to continue the cycle of that sources advancements. Ever heard of the wheel of 84? you should get yourself familiar with that.
Religions aren't the only things that perpetuate creations experiences, they are just a part of it. There's endless places within creation and the multiverses where souls can have various experiences. Religions aren't always the best part of our journeys, but they are there for many reasons. So in effect, it may be a good thing if a soul is disqualified from being a member of religion. It may be their time to advance from that cycle, or perhaps they just don't feel as if they belong anymore. Like I said there's so many factors involved in all of this, just keep in mind that there are many societies that extend beyond this planet into the afterworlds. They have their own place within creation.

FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,801
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@EtrnlVw
The low intellect genetic debris mind of  EtrnlVW, can't rationalize that there is no soul. This is proven by the fact that a human has to learn a language to think.
If there really was a soul, everyone would know the same language. When your brain dies, you die.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,801
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
In sharp contrast to popular opinion, the current scientific consensus rejects any notion of soul or spirit as separate from the activity of the brain. This is what Francis Crick, codiscoverer of the structure of DNA, called “The Astonishing Hypothesis.” In Crick’s words, “You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal iden­tity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.” Reflecting on what he calls the scientific image of persons, the philosopher Owen Flanagan stressed that we “need to demythologize persons by rooting out certain unfounded ideas from the perennial philosophy. Letting go of the belief in souls is a minimal requirement. In fact, desouling is the primary operation of the scientific image.” The weight of the scientific consensus is distributed over many dis­ciplines and includes, as we would expect, the sciences of the mind (psy­chology, neuroscience, cognitive science).


EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@FLRW
The low intellect genetic debris mind of  EtrnlVW, can't rationalize that there is no soul. This is proven by the fact that a human has to learn a language to think.
If there really was a soul, everyone would know the same language. When your brain dies, you die.

Wow, see what happens folks when you have very limited intellect and you allow others to control your output? ultimately you have no ability to rationalize outside of what you've been conditioned to believe. 
What you wrote makes absolutely no sense, your physical body is the vehicle you use to navigate this world, to interact with it. All your perceptions will be confined by the components and senses of your physical body, this is so that your experience here appear to you as a genuine, one of a kind experience. You weren't meant to come here and have a universal experience dum dum...you were meant to have a HUMAN experience on planet earth, and so they are unique to this one planet.
To interact with this world, you must learn its languages, use the human bodies senses to be immersed within it, be restricted to the confines of the human brain to keep you confined within this world. This world was meant to be unique from other experiences, just like other places you visit will speak different languages, have different ways of communicating, have different places to see and observe.
Your soul is the universal tool that inhabits various places to exist, this means that no matter where you go you have a different experience.....though your soul never changes, and is always the universal observer. But in order that your soul inhabit a world, you must have a physical form or body that correlates with that environment and you learn how to communicate with the members of that environment how they created it. Your body that you inhabited will eventually perish, the soul moves forward and you exist elsewhere. The afterlife though, language is a universal event, because thoughts are produced/generated as words and other souls understand/comprehend what you think, so there is no barrier of communication. But every time you inhabit a world, you must learn their ways of communicating.
So...you don't learn a language to "think" lol, you learn it to communicate between other inhabitants. 

FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,801
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
The award-winning author Jared Diamond once remarked that science is responsible for dramatic changes to our smug self-image. Astronomy has taught us that our planet is not the navel of the universe. We learned from biology that we were not created by God but evolved alongside millions of other species. This comment is about another seismic change in our self-image. Most people today believe that we have the bodies of beasts and the souls of angels. Science tells us otherwise. In future comments, I will take you on a tour of history, philosophy, and science to show you that the soul, like geo­centricism and creationism, is a figment of our imagination, and I will try to explain to you what gives rise to the illusion. Modern astronomy and the theory of evolution did not precipitate the end of the world. They are unmis­takable signs of progress. Likewise, I will show you that in spite of repeated claims to the contrary, we lose nothing by letting go of our soul beliefs and—better—that we even have something to gain. It is this empowering conclusion that I want to leave you with.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@RationalMadman
If you are not in the church that was founded by Christ Himself, passed through His apostles, and guarded after by the bishops that succeeded them, that is, The Orthodox Catholic Church, you aren't properly Christian.

Though in the church, if you do not live a Christian life, abiding in sound doctrine, you already know that you are in need of confessing your sins and repenting.


Protestantism and it's many splintering offshoots make an exceptional gift to the evil one, as its many conflicting voices obscure what is truly orthodox. A blessing to the anti-Christs, and a stumbling block for the enquirer. 

RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Mopac
Spoken like a true fundamentalist zealot.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Mopac
A year ago you told me the Crusades were evil but Orthodox Christianity is fine because Catholics did them, now you say the Protestants are the evil ones and the Orthodox and Catholics both aren't. Do you know what Orthodox+Catholic Priests have done to underage altar boys? That's not even the half of it.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@RationalMadman
Roman Catholoc =/= Orthodox Catholic
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Mopac
Sure, whatever propaganda floats your boat. If I ask you what Orthodox Catholicism means and stands for you'll sidestep all the homophobia, racism, arrogance and other vile aspects of it by saying something to suit you. Protestantism is the most openminded and modern branch/subset of Christianity, of the three. You have no idea what you're trying to spread.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@RationalMadman
Spoken like a true fundamentalist zealot.
It's common sense. If you were kicked out of our club, neither you nor the ones who followed after you get to say they are part of that club.

The church is the Christian club. People who get kicked out of the church don't get to call their club the Christian club. The people who joined the fake Christian club are not in the club, they are part of a counterfeit club.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Mopac
Yes and those in your club have done horrible things and are much more cultlike than Protestantism.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Mopac
How are Protestants fake Christians?
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@RationalMadman
Protestantism isn't a religion, it's a  catch all term to describe thousands of different groups who don't even believe the same things.

God is not the author of confusion. Protestantism is not Christianity, rather it confuses what Christianity is.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@RationalMadman
...those in your club have done horrible things...
You could say that about any group. But when a Christian does something bad, to blame Christianity for it is a type of ad hominem attack that is fallacious. For if this man's deviancy from orthodoxy is where his sin is, why point at him as an attack against orthodoxy?


The easiest way to spot a counterfeit is to study the real thing. Orthodox Christianity is the real thing. Knowing the real thing, it is easy to spot the counterfeits. You, not having familiarity with the real thing cannot reasonably be expected to discern between orthodoxy and heterodoxy.

And this is the shame of protestant descended Christianity and all its splinter groups. The voice of orthodoxy is drowned out by the madness of the heretics. The mind of the average person is oversaturated with Christ, no longer able to endure hearing another thing, having their fill of the counterfeits.


RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Mopac
You like to type propaganda. So let me reverse it on you.

What is Orthodox? Greek? Norse? What is the real Orthodox? What is the real Catholicism? Roman? Spanish? Indian? Irish? American? What? You tell me.

Your party is the divided one, not a single iota less so than Protestants are but they tend to agree on adapting to the times.

ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,075
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@FLRW
All biologics are a soul of synergistic processes.

Naught is created nor lost, only transformed. 

The biologic/soul is transformed to less complex and less synergistic set of relationships/associations as death and decay become prevalent over synergy.

What disqualifies us from our religion, is the individuals loss of a set of  specified practice/behavior, that, are the synergistic glue of systemic, and, structural integrity for that specified religion.


LINK to 'Philosophy for Happiness'  by 17 year old with rare disease of Progeria. When two or more of us come together we have communion ergo the basis for all religions ergo church begins with twoness. OO

Twoness of the more complex bilateral souls/biologics begins with two hemi-spheres and bilateral [ two ] set  of 31 spinal nerves.

..................................left.............( * ) i ( * )..........right...............................

Spirituality begins with finding our identity.  Who am I?  Who are we? Who are they?
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7

There is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

An historical reality. 

We orthodox share the same doctrine. Every heresy can find it's home among the hetetodox.

"Adapting to the times" is another way of saying "tell people what they want to hear". I don't want my church to adapt to the times. There are plenty of counterfeit churches compromising truth for the sake of that.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,185
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mopac
@RatMan

Same Godhead different ritualism....Judaism, Islam, Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Christianity...And all such schismatics and manifestations....Derived from the same Middle Eastern folklore.....And all trying to out do each other....And all united by their inability to prove the existence of the one GOD....And no amount of fancy chanting and mumbling and incense swinging will make one iota of difference to the fact.

But hey...What else you going to do on a Sunday.....Religious club, cycling club, rambling club etc etc etc.....All brings Monday.
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,242
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
A foreskin. 
But you mentioned that. 

Nice post Man. 


Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@zedvictor4
It's all the same to you.

Choosing to doubt the existence of ultimate reality is not a rational position, no matter the pretense of the fool demanding proof.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,185
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mopac
An ultimate reality/GOD principle is a logical hypothesis....Assuming that the answer to an ultimate reality lies in Middle Eastern folklore is more of a long shot.

And assuming that one associate religious club is better than another, is simply club bias relative to conditioning.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@zedvictor4
You say what you say because it is all the same to you. The only one who is assuming is you.

Can't tell shit from shinola.
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Mopac


Mopac,

Your biography states herewith: "Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.  Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all."  To not look to ignorant of the Bible, you might want to give the passage that represents this Bible statement, which I will do for you, otherwise it is hearsay on your part, understood?  Yeah, you do. It is Matthew 15:24.  You can thank me later.

Mopac, you are correct in accepting that Jesus is the King of the Jews (Matthew 27:37), and came to earth for the Jews ONLY (Matthew 15:24)!  Therefore, I have to ask you in what branch of Judaism of today do you follow? Reform, Orthodox or Conservative, or one of the many sects?   Remember, a Christian is defined as a follower of Jesus who was Jewish, therefore to continue in following Jesus you have to be a Jew.

Jesus and I are hoping that you can tell shit from Shinola to be able to answer this post in what branch of Judaism you follow, where the membership and I are awaiting a responsible answer this time. Thank you.



.