A Question to the Theists Here

[Almighty FSM]

How can any of you theists say you believe in a god but only certain parts of the Holy Book of your chosen religion? You either accept it all or use logic and reason and reject it all? If one account is questioned or seems more along the lines of an LSD trip (such as the burning bush), then how you can you logically believe any of it is true? You either accept the entire Holy Book for what it is or you reject it. You can not pick and choose what you want to follow and still call yourself a member of whatever religion you follow. If you believe I am wrong in that assumption, please visit the nearest devout priest, rabbi, what have you for you will surely be told you will burn in hell if you don't repent for your sins.

Many people say they believe in religion based on logic. By logic I mean they choose to believe merely because of the massive numbers of followers of a religion. That is not logic. If that is the only logic chosen then I suggest you give Pastafarianism a try. We include irrefutable proof the almighty FSM (may pasta be on his plate) exists and controls all. We even have scientific evidence to support it. Millions, if not thousands, are being converted every year to praise His name and do all that He wishes of us.

If any of you wish to pick apart what I have said, and some surely will, then please respond for I like a good challenge and what is religion but the ultimate challenge for a logical mind.

RAmen

[Violet]

How can any of you theists say you believe in a god but only certain parts of the Holy Book of your chosen religion?

With perfect English?

I don't understand your question...

You either accept it all or use logic and reason and reject it all?

That would be a logical dichotomy... why can there be no middle ground?

If one account is questioned or seems more along the lines of an LSD trip (such as the burning bush), then how you can you logically believe any of it is true?

Some theists believe the burning brush is true, but for the sake of argument: If I disagree with one thing, why must I disagree with the lot of them? Say we have a political party that believes A, B, M, N, and D. Say I agree with A, B, M, and N... but I am vehemently against D. Does my opposition to D preclude my capacity to agree with A, B, M, and N? In the same way one might dissect the Bible (or other religious texts).

You either accept the entire Holy Book for what it is or you reject it.

Unsupported logical dichotomy much...?

You can not pick and choose what you want to follow and still call yourself a member of whatever religion you follow.

Yes you can Religions, as with political parties, social groups, teams, and really any classification can all disagree over trivialities and still be party to a foundation In example... we have the vegetarians, among them is Hitler. While most of the vegetarians are likely to disagree in a large number of circumstances with Hitler: they all remain vegetarians

If you believe I am wrong in that assumption, please visit the nearest devout priest, rabbi, what have you for you will surely be told you will burn in hell if you don't repent for your sins.

I do believe you are wrong in that assumption, for reasons directed above. I would rather prefer to not visit my nearest priests, rabbis, and what have me... I rather expect they would attempt an exorcism upon sighting me

Many people say they believe in religion based on logic.

It can be. : )

By logic I mean they choose to believe merely because of the massive numbers of followers of a religion.

Indeed, argument ad populum.

That is not logic.

Is so. It is fallacious logic : )

If that is the only logic chosen then I suggest you give Pastafarianism a try.

I am a devout eater of spaghetti : ) Other pastas just don't come close...

We include irrefutable proof the almighty FSM (may pasta be on his plate) exists and controls all.

I agree that the FSM exists. I do not agree that the FSM controls all

We even have scientific evidence to support it.

O Rily? Uhuh... right...

Millions, if not thousands, are being converted every year to praise His name and do all that He wishes of us.

So your conversions are reducing in quantity every year, and you are using this as a selling point...?

I honestly doubt your claim that even a single person is a pastafarian (honestly believes there is an FSM).

If any of you wish to pick apart what I have said, and some surely will, then please respond for I like a good challenge and what is religion but the ultimate challenge for a logical mind.

There ya go, Stan

RAmen

You have insulted the IPU for the very last time!

[Minimalist]

How can any of you theists say you believe in a god but only certain parts of the Holy Book of your chosen religion?

Well, Almighty FSM, there are some parts that are too absurd even for believers,

BTW, I like the FSM with shredded parmesan and asiago and a dry red wine from the Tuscan or Piedmont regions.

[Almighty FSM]

With perfect English?

I don't understand your question...

How can one decide to only follow certain aspects of a religion and reject the rest because it doesn't fit their chosen belief system? It's like choosing toppings on a pizza that you like or dislike. Religion doesn't work this way. Either accept it all or reject it all.

That would be a logical dichotomy... why can there be no middle ground?

Because we are talking about religion. There has never been a middle ground on religion. Either repent and accept Jesus or burn in hell. One could give millions to charity every year to help his fellow man but if said person didn't accept Jesus then it's eternal damnation for you.

Some theists believe the burning brush is true, but for the sake of argument: If I disagree with one thing, why must I disagree with the lot of them? Say we have a political party that believes A, B, M, N, and D. Say I agree with A, B, M, and N... but I am vehemently against D. Does my opposition to D preclude my capacity to agree with A, B, M, and N? In the same way one might dissect the Bible (or other religious texts).

We aren't talking about politics. We are talking about religion. Granted both have a sort of blind, ignorant, and arrogant following. Politics were created by man but so was religion so I lose ground on that one. Remember religion, unlike politics, isn't up for debate though. It is absolute truth and God is infallible, right? If one is to question the Holy Book then one is to question the religion itself. Don't believe me? Ask your nearest Fundamentalist Muslim. You can't because it is punishable by death.

Yes you can Religions, as with political parties, social groups, teams, and really any classification can all disagree over trivialities and still be party to a foundation In example... we have the vegetarians, among them is Hitler. While most of the vegetarians are likely to disagree in a large number of circumstances with Hitler: they all remain vegetarians

Hitler was also a Christian. Can you give me a different example?

So your conversions are reducing in quantity every year, and you are using this as a selling point...?

I honestly doubt your claim that even a single person is a pastafarian (honestly believes there is an FSM).

It's called satire. Our chosen religion is just as believable as your chosen religion. Except our religion has never killed anyone in His name. So what if the FSM was not truly discovered until recent years. Can you prove your God isn't the Flying Spaghetti Monster? No you say, then that means He exists. Since we now know He exists because you can't disprove it, what makes you think your God is also not the FSM(pasta be on his plate)?
RAmen

[tavarish]

How can one decide to only follow certain aspects of a religion and reject the rest because it doesn't fit their chosen belief system? It's like choosing toppings on a pizza that you like or dislike. Religion doesn't work this way. Either accept it all or reject it all.

Why not?

Because we are talking about religion. There has never been a middle ground on religion.

A middle ground is one of the ways in which different denominations can be formed.

Either repent and accept Jesus or burn in hell. One could give millions to charity every year to help his fellow man but if said person didn't accept Jesus then it's eternal damnation for you.

That's one view of Christianity, but not necessarily an accurate portrayal of all religion.

I'm against the ideals and actions of most religions personally, but you're going about this the wrong way.

We aren't talking about politics. We are talking about religion. Granted both have a sort of blind, ignorant, and arrogant following. Politics were created by man but so was religion so I lose ground on that one. Remember religion, unlike politics, isn't up for debate though.

What the hell are you talking about? There is always debate within religion. Have you never seen a Muslim debate a Christian?

It is absolute truth and God is infallible, right? If one is to question the Holy Book then one is to question the religion itself. Don't believe me? Ask your nearest Fundamentalist Muslim. You can't because it is punishable by death.

Even if I grant your assertion, does that mean that one religion is representative of all? If I say that Cadillacs are prone to falling apart on the highway, does that mean all cars are unreliable?

Hitler was also a Christian. Can you give me a different example?

RAmen

Actually her example was spot on, and the fact that Hitler was a theist is completely irrelevant to the conversation.

[Violet]

With perfect English?

I don't understand your question...

How can one decide to only follow certain aspects of a religion and reject the rest because it doesn't fit their chosen belief system?

The same way as people identify with A, B, M, N... and not D.

It's like choosing toppings on a pizza that you like or dislike.

Pretty much

Religion doesn't work this way. Either accept it all or reject it all.

Unsupported logical dichotomy.

That would be a logical dichotomy... why can there be no middle ground?

Because we are talking about religion. There has never been a middle ground on religion.

Has, is, and likely will always be a vast multitude of 'middle ground's. Just as there are stages between the most delicious bacon, and the least delicious bacon. You do have your middle of the road bacon. I of course love bacon. Mm, bacon

Either repent and accept Jesus or burn in hell.

Under some interpretations. Hardly the only one though

One could give millions to charity every year to help his fellow man but if said person didn't accept Jesus then it's eternal damnation for you.

Again, only in some interpretations, and these only in some brands of Christianity

Some theists believe the burning brush is true, but for the sake of argument: If I disagree with one thing, why must I disagree with the lot of them? Say we have a political party that believes A, B, M, N, and D. Say I agree with A, B, M, and N... but I am vehemently against D. Does my opposition to D preclude my capacity to agree with A, B, M, and N? In the same way one might dissect the Bible (or other religious texts).

We aren't talking about politics. We are talking about religion.

Does that somehow make a point equivalent in all relevant fields (this primarily being classification) no longer relevant?

Granted both have a sort of blind, ignorant, and arrogant following.

Both also have very observant, knowledgeable, and modest adherents

Politics were created by man but so was religion so I lose ground on that one.

???

Remember religion, unlike politics, isn't up for debate though.

I don't see why this would be true.

It is absolute truth and God is infallible, right?

Under some few interpretations. So no... right only in those cases.

If one is to question the Holy Book then one is to question the religion itself.

Again, only in some interpretations is this considered a bad thing (and in a number of religions, there are no holy books, ie: Budhism).

Don't believe me? Ask your nearest Fundamentalist Muslim. You can't because it is punishable by death.

Been there, done that. Still alive.

Yes you can Religions, as with political parties, social groups, teams, and really any classification can all disagree over trivialities and still be party to a foundation In example... we have the vegetarians, among them is Hitler. While most of the vegetarians are likely to disagree in a large number of circumstances with Hitler: they all remain vegetarians

Hitler was also a Christian. Can you give me a different example?

???

What does it matter if he is a Christian, Martian, or a slug from the moon? He's a vegetarian.

[Almighty FSM]

I'll answer all of the above questions will a question of my own. Why have religions evolved through time and branched off into different denominations? If the original message was clear and concise when it was delivered from God, then why change it? I'll tell you why it was changed because I saw it in a vision from the Almighty FSM. As society progressed, people's views of their religion were not to their liking. They then changed it just a little to suit what they wanted while keeping that there is an almighty God. Each denomination changes it a little and so on. Why then was their chosen religion, if it is absolute truth, changed in the first place? Could it be the religion in question was falling behind the times. It's clever advertising without a doubt. Same thing as a face lift. People don't like this product anymore because it's outdated. Let's change one or two things then market it as something new and improved. Religion has to keep trendy after all. Don't want to risk losing any money to this giant cash cow called religion. It amazes me to no end that people can not understand this. This is also probably why advertising doesn't work on me but does a great job affecting the general masses. It's a tried and true technique for religion. They both advertise you'll be a happier/better/trendier person if you buy/accept the product they're offering. In the end, they both get your money and you get a sense of self-satisfaction until the next version comes out. Don't forget to stay trendy now.


Ok since it is all about interpretation. You do know, given enough time and collective minds, one can interpret anything to mean anything else. Someone could have written in a book 2000 years ago I threw a rock into the heavens. Now someone today could interpret I knew one day man would create rockets to explore outer space. Now another person comes along and interprets something completely different. Something like the prediction of the Burj Khalifa. I knew one day man would try to build a tower to the heavens. Both claims are complete and total bullshit. All I did was throw a rock up into the air because I was bored and some idiot, probably messed up on opium, thought it was a holy prediction of the future. It's all about interpretation. Now apply that same messed up way of thinking to religious texts and, almost like magic, you have your chosen religion.

RAmen

[tavarish]

I'll answer all of the above questions will a question of my own.

Thanks for ignoring the questions, in that case.

Why have religions evolved through time and branched off into different denominations? If the original message was clear and concise when it was delivered from God, then why change it?

Political and social dissent, contrasting moral views and societal values, and failure to reach consensus on key issues within the group. It changed for the same reasons why any group's values change in a societal context.

I'll tell you why it was changed because I saw it in a vision from the Almighty FSM.

Uhhh.. ok.

As society progressed, people's views of their religion were not to their liking.

What people? What views?

They then changed it just a little to suit what they wanted while keeping that there is an almighty God. Each denomination changes it a little and so on.

Who are they? Which society?

Why then was their chosen religion, if it is absolute truth, changed in the first place? Could it be the religion in question was falling behind the times.

No, because you have failed to specify the religion, society, and timeframe in which this all occurred. What the hell are you talking about?

It's clever advertising without a doubt. Same thing as a face lift. People don't like this product anymore because it's outdated. Let's change one or two things then market it as something new and improved. Religion has to keep trendy after all. Don't want to risk losing any money to this giant cash cow called religion.

What a bunch of baseless horseshit.

It amazes me to no end that people can not understand this.

You haven't stated anything.

This is also probably why advertising doesn't work on me but does a great job affecting the general masses.

I'm guessing you've never taken a marketing class and realized that usually, those who claim that they're not susceptible to marketing tactics are the ones more likely to buy a product due to advertising - even if they don't acknowledge it.

It's a tried and true technique for religion. They both advertise you'll be a happier/better/trendier person if you buy/accept the product they're offering. In the end, they both get your money and you get a sense of self-satisfaction until the next version comes out. Don't forget to stay trendy now.

RAmen

You have failed to state your case. You rant vaguely about some baseless claims you have yet to define and demonstrate, and try and make the point that religion is somehow at fault because of your fractally faulty logic.

If you want to go after A religion, go after its SPECIFIC doctrine and its influence on the world. Don't just spout nonsense about people needing to go right or left when there are other options in the intersection. It makes no sense.

[Violet]

Interestingly... the thread title is "A Question to the Theists Here"... and we've yet to see a theist respond to him

*Saerules peers through her safari-oculars, stealthily moving through the forum jungle... always expecting fr0d0-mites to pop out of every tree she sees.*

[Fluké]

You can not pick and choose what you want to follow and still call yourself a member of whatever religion you follow.

Yes you can Religions, as with political parties, social groups, teams, and really any classification can all disagree over trivialities and still be party to a foundation In example... we have the vegetarians, among them is Hitler. While most of the vegetarians are likely to disagree in a large number of circumstances with Hitler: they all remain vegetarians

But surely you agree that religion is VERY different to political parties, social groups, teams.

None of the others proclaim to have truths about the universe (accompanied by no evidence) and our existence that no-one else has, and that we should join them to be saved. They also don’t proclaim to understand our existence and the source of our morality.

Religion isn’t just a social club. It is a whole way of thinking, a manner of living one’s life and bringing up their children etc …

-------------------------------------

Christianity has more than 22,000+ denominations full of people thinking they have the truth about the world, and that they are right!

Isn’t this affirmation that religion is a purely man-made instrument designed to satisfying our desires and wants?