A simple question for theists

[Brian37]

---

Of course they are contested, because it is a horribly written book. It is not an instruction manual, it is a gang manual and not only 1 manual but many different versions. 

Having knowledge of a history of religious claims does not make the claims true, it only proves a history of making those claims. It is as much a gang manual as the Koran and Jewish Texts. 

Now again, I don't say that to demand an end to religion, but to explain to you that is because in antiquity humans formed competing rival city states and over centuries the writers would revise them and change them after the fact to suit their own agendas. 

---

Shallow? How, so you think the KJV bible is the only version? Nope, you also have the NIV and Revised Standard and even the Book of Mormon. And again, how dare you falsely accuse me of singling out your religion.

---

Jews don't agree on the interpretations of the Torah and Talmud. Muslims compete over the interpretations of the Koran and Hadiths. Buddhist also have competing subs sects.

How about you instead of having a childish kneejerk reaction try to understand THAT WAS THEN, this is now. There is not one religion, or holy writing in human history that does not suffer the flaw of competing interpretations. Name me one religion in the world that does not have multiple sub sects. YOU CANT. Grow up.

---

I think you should re-read his posts; because he didn't say what anything about singling out his religion.   His post seems to be questioning your logic and conclusion as a principle, and the consistency in which we can apply it.
This really doesn't have anything to do with what he said.

Road, seen this before. He's not concerned about protecting every religion, again, just like fine tuning, just like most people of every religion do, when you call them out it isn't about criticism of all religions, it really is a back handed way of saying don't pick on my religion. 

It is about his religion, when you start saying they are all the same. Just like I say you cant use science to argue one religion over another, it is about his religion, otherwise he would not be here arguing his personal brand.

I am sure he, like you like Mystic think you are being objective. But every time you push a religious person on their logic, this is the type of dodge you get. 

Now if one is willing to concede, as they should and rightfully so, that there are decent people in all religions, then instead of getting mad at me accusing me of hating all religions, which is really a passive aggressive way of saying "don't pick on mine", maybe YOU and he and any other person of any religion, consider that our species morality is in the individual and not being handed down to us.

He is hiding behind the dodge of protecting pluralism because he isn't really concerned about the skepticism of other religions, but he hates the lumping in because that takes away his own special pleading. It should not be about his personal religion. It should be about the reality that WE are the ones as individuals whom are moral.

He wants to sound like he protects everyone equally, but so what? He like you, mistake human rights for being the same as logic. 

This is the same dodge as the "fine tuning"...... 

"Science=my club" to "I am not arguing a specific claim" only to go back to that specific claim.

"I have a personal relationship" to "You hate all religions" only to go back to defending a specific claim.

I really don't care if he or you, or a Muslim or Jew or Hindu or Buddhist are tying to argue an anti collectivist position, part of a official club or simply doing it without belonging to a club, the root of any religion is still rooted in an official past regardless of current trends. 

I am a very strong social liberal when it comes to government protecting human rights. But my objections to both more individualistic liberals and more collective nationalistic sectarians of ALL religions you are still stuck with the same problem. It still causes humans do be divided. 

"I am not like the others" yes, both the compassionate liberal empathetic pluralistic left and the paranoid hyper collectivist right in ANY RELIGION are still falling under the same umbrella labels as competing claims/interpretations. When I point that out I get accused falsely of hating both left and right, when the truth is both left and right don't want to face a challenge to their social norms.

One is an issue of western common law, and I will always value that, but we are talking about the divisions caused in all religions be the individual claims or a group, the downside is that it creates divisions. To ignore that to me is foolish. To not have that debate is foolish.