Is transgender something to get upset about?

[Harbal]

Not exactly a deep thinker, are you?

What do you mean by "exactly"?

[Londoner]

Not exactly a deep thinker, are you?

What do you mean by "exactly"?

I think I get how this school of philosophy works. I'm supposed to respond: 'You are a nut-job'.

[Immanuel Can]

If that were the case there would be only one type...

Non-sequitur. It does not follow that if there is a singular truth everyone has equal knowledge of it or access to it, or equal grasp of it at the same time.

For example, in the history of science, there have been many answers to "What is the world made of?" Some have been closer to right, and some have been completely wrong. None of that suggests there's no "real world."

[Immanuel Can]

I Cant's claim implies that Humanists, Muslims, and Jews don't participate in the same set of ethical precepts as do Christians.

Well, it depends on what you mean by "participate." If you mean "believe in and practice," then the answer us that you're clearly mistaken if you think they do. That's easy to verify; all you have to do is actually know the facts, history and precepts of the religions in question.

But if by "participate" you mean "are inherently morally obligated to follow" or "have intuition of through conscience," I would say that your claim was justified: we're all obligated to objective morality, whether we want to know that or not; and we all have a deep sense of conscience that frequently reminds us when we're violating objective morality. So that much I would concede.

But that all of the religions you mentioned are ethically the same, or even similar? Nope. That's empirically untrue.

The defining creed of a Christian is the Resurrection event, not a set of moral precepts.

True...but not "creed": event. It's a historical fact upon which we stand, not a merely a "creed."

However, your statement presupposes that the Resurrection is in conflict with morality -- which is incorrect. It's a category error. To say "a historical event happened, therefore there are no rules" is like saying, "Napoleon crossed the Alps, therefore chocolate tastes great."

Do you not know, Immanuel Cant , that only if you accept the Resurrection event will Christ save you, and if you do acccept the Resurrection event Christ will save you no matter how sinful you are? The other ethical stances certainly do not include that.

You're actually quite right about that. But it contradicts your previous claim that all these different religions teach the same basic ethics (if that's what you intended to imply).

Islam has no answer for sin.
Humanism has no answer for sin.
Judaism, fully understood, does, by way of Messiah: but understood as merely a culture or tradition, does not.

If one is a sinner (and everyone is, of course, as Romans 3 says) then only the Resurrection has any hope. Because only the Resurrection tells you God is ready to forgive and receive the one who gives up on pleading his or her own goodness, repents and forsakes his or her own way, and instead trusts God to forgive and heal.

From whence does Islam "heal"? Where is the "healing" for sin in Humanism? Islam says you pay for what you have done. Humanism denies you have done anything wrong at all. So if a person has a bad conscience, or has done things he or she is not proud of, those two religions (Humanism and Islam) offer only these answers: pretend you never did anything bad at all, even though you know you did (Humanism), or know you have done evil and get ready to suffer the consequences (Islam).

Not great "healing," that.

In Christian theology, the resurrection of Jesus is a foundation of the Christian faith.[1 Cor 15:12–20] [1 Pet 1:3] Christians, through faith in the working of God[Col 2:12] are spiritually resurrected with Jesus, and are redeemed so that they may walk in a new way of life.[Rom 6:4] As Paul the Apostle stated: "If Christ was not raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your trust in God is useless".[1 Cor 15:14]

Absolutely. But I'm not yet sure of what point you want me to draw from that, beyond what it literally says. Did you have an implication?

[Harbal]

is like saying, "Napoleon crossed the Alps, therefore chocolate tastes great."

Can you prove these two things are not connected? I suspect not.

Humanism has no answer for sin.

Surely one of the benefits of Humanism is the absence of that ridiculous concept; sin.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

If one is a sinner (and everyone is, of course, as Romans 3 says) then only the Resurrection has any hope. Because only the Resurrection tells you God is ready to forgive and receive the one who gives up on pleading his or her own goodness, repents and forsakes his or her own way, and instead trusts God to forgive and heal.

From whence does Islam "heal"? Where is the "healing" for sin in Humanism? Islam says you pay for what you have done. Humanism denies you have done anything wrong at all.

Sure. Some attributes are common to Islam, Humanism, Christianity, and Judaism. There is one attribute that is unique to, and therefore definitive of, Christianity. That attribute is belief in the Resurrection event.

[Hobbes' Choice]

If that were the case there would be only one type...

Non-sequitur. It does not follow that if there is a singular truth everyone has equal knowledge of it or access to it, or equal grasp of it at the same time.

For example, in the history of science, there have been many answers to "What is the world made of?" Some have been closer to right, and some have been completely wrong. None of that suggests there's no "real world."

Fallacy of false comparison. Science evolves replacing old ideas.
Religion remains a dustbin of confused belief.
And my sequitur was perfect.

[Immanuel Can]

And my sequitur was perfect.

Non.

[Immanuel Can]

Sure. Some attributes are common to Islam, Humanism, Christianity, and Judaism.

Trivially true.

They only disagree on little matters like sin, death, judgment, salvation, truth, morality, worship, destiny Heaven and Hell. Other than that, they're exactly the same.

There is one attribute that is unique to, and therefore definitive of, Christianity. That attribute is belief in the Resurrection event.

It is of unique importance, it's true, and central to salvation; but it's hardly the only difference or unique feature of Christianity, or of any of these belief systems. Each has features and beliefs the others do not have: that is why they are not each other.

I don't think you need to take my word for that. Just go and look, and you'll see I'm telling you the truth there.

[Harbal]

I don't think you need to take my word for that. Just go and look, and you'll see I'm telling you the truth there.

Somebody go and check this out, quick! It's a matter of crucial importance.

[TSBU]

In the next thread people should choose one at the begining and end with them:

[Harbal]

In the next thread people should choose one at the begining and end with them:

My wits are sharper than any of these, TSBU, and I shall continue to use them to cut through all the stupidity and whatnot that I find blocking my way. Stand aside, TSBU, I'm coming through.

[TSBU]

[Greta]

Sure. Some attributes are common to Islam, Humanism, Christianity, and Judaism.

Trivially true.

They only disagree on little matters like sin, death, judgment, salvation, truth, morality, worship, destiny Heaven and Hell. Other than that, they're exactly the same.

As far as I can tell, all religions are basically worshipping the same kind of entity, regardless of deity taxonomy. Basically a big thing that is beyond the ken of we little things. Any presumption as to the preferences of "the big thing" are obviously and necessarily guesswork and BS.

The things you mentioned, IC, aside from death and, arguably, morality, are all human inventions, social games based on dominance, control and competitiveness. They are part of the political game that emerges in any large institution, and the church plays political games with its own mythology.

I think Belinda is referring to the original germ of the religions before the political human edifices corrupted them - inspiration and peak experiences, which were interpreted (rightly or wrongly) as communion with God. Aside from cargo cults and entrepreneurial religions, ecstatic and highly absorbed experiences are what religions are founded upon. This communion with a deity is common to all religions (and even available to heathens like me), because ecstatic states are simply part of the human condition.

[Immanuel Can]

As far as I can tell, all religions are basically worshipping the same kind of entity, regardless of deity taxonomy.

You should read something like the Gita, then. You'd never think that again.

Basically a big thing that is beyond the ken of we little things. Any presumption as to the preferences of "the big thing" are obviously and necessarily guesswork and BS.

That would be reasonable, if all that's going on here is people trying to figure out God on their own steam. But the game changer is this: has God spoken? For it's one thing to admit that none of us is really in a better position to know by guessing what God wants than anybody else -- but quite another to consider how easy it would be for the Supreme Being (presuming such exists) to communicate to us, should He desire to do so.

So the only question is, "Has God spoken?"

The things you mentioned, IC, aside from death and, arguably, morality, are all human inventions, social games based on dominance, control and competitiveness. They are part of the political game that emerges in any large institution, and the church plays political games with its own mythology.

In some cases, this has also been true. But not in all. I would suggest that, rightly understood, faith is not "political" at all, and has no interest in power games.

I think Belinda is referring to the original germ of the religions before the political human edifices corrupted them - inspiration and peak experiences, which were interpreted (rightly or wrongly) as communion with God.

Now, there's mythical history for you.

Aside from cargo cults and entrepreneurial religions, ecstatic and highly absorbed experiences are what religions are founded upon.

This is true of what are called "mystical" religions. It's not what some religions are founded on. Modern Judaism is founded on culture, genetics and tradition. Islam is founded upon submission and axioms allegedly from Muhammed, but does not require -- or approve, even -- mystical experiences of its members...perhaps Sufism being an exception to that. Christianity is founded upon the historical Christ.

This communion with a deity is common to all religions (and even available to heathens like me), because ecstatic states are simply part of the human condition.

Well, if that's right, then "communion with a deity" would be a synonym for "ecstatic experience," i.e. mysticism. That may be your own frame of reference -- I don't doubt you if you say it is -- but it is not the frame of reference for all religions, or even most of them.

However, it is true that there is some mystical element in all religions -- just some put little or no weight on it when it happens, and others rest everything on it.