The truth (apart from any religion or belief system) is unknowable. A religion is what it is and to take from it only what you like and agree with is to misunderstand that religion.
Do people still believe in Hell?
- Thread starter Jayson1
- Start date
I said "evolve, incorporate, and amalgamate."
I'm suggesting that Christianity is an example of a religion that evolved from an older religion, i.e. Old Testament, New Testament. Same God, different faiths.
As for whether the Old Testament is an example of amalgamation, there's some evidence to suggest as much. Spontaneous and rapid development of new religions is known to occur, though, and I honestly don't know which it represents.
The new testament is the fulfillment of the prophesies of the old testament (if you believe in Christianity).
A
Amaris
Guest
Your statements are absurd.
Firstly, you state the truth is unknowable.
Then you state that a religion "is what it is," and that it cannot borrow from other religions.
Essentially, you're telling me that no one can know the truth, but that your opinion is authoritative, and commensurate with the truth, because you make an authoritative statement immediately after saying there is no known method of divining that authority. There is a disparity between your statements that cannot be reconciled.
Lol no. By the truth, I meant "The ultimate truth". Like what created us and why we're here. That is unknowable. Even the most popular religions are really just hopeful guesses. This isn't a philosophical debate. There is such a thing as a true statement. Like water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen.
A
Amaris
Guest
Then what business have you telling religions they can't pull from other religions if they believe that will lead them closer to the truth as they know it? You cannot say "truth is unknowable," and then set limitations on how people attempt to approach that "unknowable" truth. Well, you can, but it means you're a hypocrite if you do so.
The evolution of religion. Exactly as I said.
Christianity very likely incorporated earlier traditions as well (Mithraism and Sol Invictus, for example), hence incorporation and amalgamation.
Again, to deny evolution of religion is to deny observable fact. Are you even thinking about what you write before you post it? Because thus far you've only been able to argue in fallacies and bizarrely, your own arguments are contradictory: you've claimed No True Scotsman, but then say that you cannot know what a True Scotsman is, you've made an Appeal to Authority, but then argued that the authority itself is unknowable. Everything is tautology.
Yes, and true statements can apply to religions as well. Not necessarily to what they preach, but to what we can observe about them. Like that they evolve.
No, I'm saying that if you alter a religion, it ceases to be that religion and becomes something else. I'm not saying there is anything "wrong" with thay. For instance, american football without tackling because you don't want anyone to get hurt isn't football. It's football for kids and amateurs.
This, dear readers, is a prime example of the No True Scotsman Logical Fallacy, as delivered to you by JeffinOakland.
(Oh, and now I am being a condescending prick, but dude, come on.)
N
Not sure I follow. I think we're having 2 different conversations. I'm not making any appeal to authority. I'm simply stating an obvious fact. Noone knows what the truth of whether or not god or gods exist. Religions are, in fact, definable. There are many denominations to several religions and even believers argue over the validity of different denominations. However, there are basic, immutable tenants to every religion. Once you deviate from those tenants, then it's not that religion anymore. The subject is far too complex to be coherently discussed in a series of posts. To further muddy the waters, just as an aside, I think that the so-called evolution of a religion can be held as proof that the religion was make believe to begin with.
Last edited:
A
Amaris
Guest
No, no it doesn't. Every religion has incorporated new elements into it over the lifespan of that religion. If you honestly think that the Christianity of 300 A.D. is the Christianity of 1611 A.D., is the Christianity of 2017 A.D., you are sorely mistaken. You are positioning yourself as the ultimate authority on what is and is not truth, which directly contradicts your previous statements that truth is unknowable.
"I have never seen a flixilpatyr, nor has one ever been officially defined, but I know flixilpatyrs, and yours sir, is not a flixilpaytr. Flixilpaytrs do not take parts from other devices. I know this because I know this."
Okay, then I apologize for being a condescending prick in my last post if you're genuinely interested in understanding why your arguments are fundamentally flawed. I'd be happy to explain fallacious logic and how you've been employing it here.
The fact that you disagree with me doesn't make me illogical
You're absolutely right. What makes you illogical is the fact that you are using fallacious logic to support your claims.
That is not even why I disagree with you. I disagreed with you because you were wrong to deny that religions evolve and change. (Indeed, if I claimed your conclusions were wrong just because they were reached by fallacious logic, I'd be employing fallacious reasoning myself -- the Fallacy Fallacy. But that is not what I am doing.)
1. I claimed that religions evolve, amalgamate, and incorporate. This is observable historical fact.
2. You denied this -- I disagreed with you, because you are wrong, it's that simple. As you said, there are such things as true statements. Mine was one.
3. In an attempt to support your denial, you used fallacious reasoning, relying most heavily on two specific logical fallacies, namely: No True Scotsman and Argument from Authority.
Infraction for flaming. Comments to PM.
Yanno, if I was an atheist and I saw a thread like this, I'd just go "Pfft" and move on with my life.
But that's just me.
But that's just me.
A
Amaris
Guest
To each their own. Having been a former minister (I realize I've said this before, I promise I'm not trying to repeat myself), I still find religion fascinating. On top of that, in the United States, Christianity is the dominant religion, and many Christians are in positions of power, and some attempt to legislate their faith into our halls of power, so it behooves me to stay cognizant of their belief systems.Yanno, if I was an atheist and I saw a thread like this, I'd just go "Pfft" and move on with my life.
But that's just me.
If I were a Christian and secure in my faith, I'd just reply yes and not give long rambling responses about how my church was the only church in the history of mankind to get it right.
@Awesome Possum: "Yes" 
@Coloratura: What the heck is a flixilpatyr? That sounds painful and possibly expensive.
srsly, even though I enjoy my church life very much, I certainly can't claim that we're the only ones who "got it right". We're Lutherans, after all. We're not supposed to be assertive!
(Although I believe we do pancake breakfasts better than any other church. However, the Catholics have better spaghetti suppers. Hey, they don't call them the ROMAN Catholic Chuch for nothing... )
@Coloratura: What the heck is a flixilpatyr? That sounds painful and possibly expensive.
srsly, even though I enjoy my church life very much, I certainly can't claim that we're the only ones who "got it right". We're Lutherans, after all. We're not supposed to be assertive!
(Although I believe we do pancake breakfasts better than any other church. However, the Catholics have better spaghetti suppers. Hey, they don't call them the ROMAN Catholic Chuch for nothing...
)
Last edited:
Similar threads
