Which religion is the superior one?

None, they all have varying degrees of truth.

It's very hard to say.

And if it is God you seek, don't worry about which one you choose. There is not ONE way to an omnipotent being.

Christianity is the only true religion, thus it far superior to all the falsies. Just read the bible and the truth shall be upon you.

The false notion that any one religion--or nation, race, gender, sexual orientation and so forth--is superior to any other has caused much of the distress in the world--rape, wars, jihad, and so on.

At the highest level, we are all one. No one is better or worse than anyone else.

Different, sure--better, no.

There is only one religion, THAT OF THE GREAT OLD ONES!!

With their consummate high priest CTHULHU!!!!

ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

The false notion that any one religion--or nation, race, gender, sexual orientation and so forth--is superior to any other has caused much of the distress in the world--rape, wars, jihad, and so on.

At the highest level, we are all one. No one is better or worse than anyone else.

Different, sure--better, no.

mind me asking you to explain con men? You or I are not in some way acknowledged to a higher degree?

All religions are equally full of shit and completely false.

Have a nice day.

IMO each religion is suitable for different people depending on their spiritual progress.

No one is better or worse than anyone else.

Different, sure--better, no.

Quality, which is only possible because some things are better than others, is one of our most defining perceptions as human beings. Without quality we would scarecly qualify as little more than soulless robots. Quality includes human beings. Gandhi is not of the same quality as humans.

Asking us to give up our judgment of the evil of others is asking us to stop functioning as thinking human beings. I ask of others that they judge themselves according to the same criterion by which they judge others.

Christianity is the only true religion, thus it far superior to all the falsies. Just read the bible and the truth shall be upon you.

This. :)

Any religion which allows it's followers to:

1- question the integrity of its dogma without fear of persecution.

2- use the religion to form a responsible and spiritually rewarding moral code for themselves.

unfortunately, most religions are concerned with controlling and manipulating people, when really it should be the other way around.

Christianity is the only true religion, thus it far superior to all the falsies. Just read the bible and the truth shall be upon you.

I lol'd.

[Insert Religion here] is the only true religion, thus it far superior to all the falsies. Just read the [holy book] and the truth shall be upon you.

Fix'd

All religions are equally full of shit and completely false.

Have a nice day.

Well, all but Christianity. It is the religion ordained by god, so it must be true.

Well, all but Christianity. It is the religion ordained by god, so it must be true.

http://www.kevininscoe.com/pub/lol.jpg

Since we all know the answer, for the purpose of legitimate conversation, I will now redefine "superior" to mean "more devout followers". Argue away.

Asking us to give up our judgment of the evil of others is asking us to stop functioning as thinking human beings. I ask of others that they judge themselves according to the same criterion by which they judge others.

In this Highest Reality, there is no such thing as good and evil. These are merely labels we place on things to denote our approval or disapproval.

When you presume to judge others--and this is mightily presumptuous, for even God does not judge--your spiritual development comes to a screeching halt. You make unity consciousness impossible, and perpetrate the illusion of separation.

When you presume to judge others--and this is mightily presumptuous, for even God does not judge--your spiritual development comes to a screeching halt. You make unity consciousness impossible, and perpetrate the illusion of separation.

Do you find it difficult to sit in judgement of others?

Does this conflict with your spiritual devolpment, grinding it to a halt?

Please tell me, you do not judge as a Moderator...

Hypocrisy smells AWFUL.

Yeah, I wouldn't know how to answer the above either.

http://www.kevininscoe.com/pub/lol.jpg

Please...don't belittle god and HIS religion. Read THE bible and you'll see what god has to offer....the truth.

Please...don't belittle god and HIS religion. Read THE bible and you'll see what god has to offer....the truth.

The following is a link to goatse with the hole being used as the 'O' in the word LOL. If you are offended, fuck off.

http://i30.tinypic.com/6ygw78.jpg

Could you believe nobody had done it yet? Neither could I.

Now Arms, you closed my thread SUPPOSEDLY b/c I called Hare a faggot, (not b/c I suggested you do not possess magical powers).

Here we have a picture of a gaping asshole.....

I will expect you to close this thread very soon. At the very least show up and flex your mod muscles for us.

I will however not hold my breath.

In this Highest Reality, there is no such thing as good and evil. These are merely labels we place on things to denote our approval or disapproval.

By making a value judgment that proclaims all value judgments obsolete, you are disproving your own claim, or at least making it invalid. Without value and judgment, there is no humanity.

When you presume to judge others--and this is mightily presumptuous, for even God does not judge--your spiritual development comes to a screeching halt.

Don't know what ridiculous god you are talking about, but every theist religion I can think of involves divine judgment at one point or another.

Further, at this point you are spouting pure hypocrisy. By judging me and saying my spiritual development comes to a halt, you are making a value judgment of another human being as well as making the value judgment that spiritual development is a good thing and thus of more value than something else, which in our language would probably be known as evil. Even if you fail to call it that, it's pretty damn obvious you are just as caught up in a good and evil dichotomy as everyone else.

Arms Merchant possesses magical powers, don't you know that?

Here we have a picture of a gaping asshole.....

lawl where?

Yeah, I wouldn't know how to answer the above either.

There is a big difference between judgement and observation. Arms made a whole thread on the matter.

http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2111633&highlight=judge

What is the difference between judgement and observation?

Today, I confronted an individual in P:LRC on the Iraq war. In this particular thread I called the OP "ignorant". Now, I wasn't saying that overall he is an ignorant person and that I am better than him in every way. I was merely pointing out the fact that he was ignorant to the facts of the Iraq war :).

By making a value judgment that proclaims all value judgments obsolete, you are disproving your own claim, or at least making it invalid. Without value and judgment, there is no humanity.

But, that is exactly what the Soul is. It is neither good nor bad. I hesitate to even say the Soul just is, because it also is not.

Don't know what ridiculous god you are talking about, but every theist religion I can think of involves divine judgment at one point or another.

Well then my friend you need to expand your knowledge of theist religions. Me, you and God are all Soul. To judge God is un-beneficial to yourself and for God to judge you is unbeneficial to itself.

Further, at this point you are spouting pure hypocrisy. By judging me and saying my spiritual development comes to a halt, you are making a value judgment of another human being as well as making the value judgment that spiritual development is a good thing and thus of more value than something else, which in our language would probably be known as evil. Even if you fail to call it that, it's pretty damn obvious you are just as caught up in a good and evil dichotomy as everyone else.

By saying your "spiritual development comes to a halt" he is not judging you. He is merely saying by making the choices you are making you are growing spiritually at a very slow rate. Most people feel a need to learn the critical questions in life. To not do so is neither good nor bad. You don't have to do anything in this life. You don't have to be "good" and you don't have to believe in God.

There is a big difference between judgement and observation.

What is the difference between judgement and observation?


You tell us, kurdt... :confused: If you can!

Now, I wasn't saying that overall he is an ignorant person and that I am better than him in every way. I was merely pointing out the fact that he was ignorant to the facts of the Iraq war

Thus judging his intelligence on political affairs. Anyone could call their judgment a mere observation, if it suits them. What you 'merely pointed out' was the flaw you saw in his reasoning. If that's not a judgment call, I don't know what is. How else could you decide without first judging his position if he was well-versed on the Iraq war?

It seems like any declaration of our observations would have to be considered a judgment call. After all, to judge is to form an opinion, right?

By saying your "spiritual development comes to a halt" he is not judging you. He is merely saying by making the choices you are making you are growing spiritually at a very slow rate.

Hate to go off like a broken record, but -

judgment:

1. an act or instance of judging.
2. the ability to judge, make a decision, or form an opinion objectively, authoritatively, and wisely, esp. in matters affecting action; good sense; discretion: a man of sound judgment.
3. the demonstration or exercise of such ability or capacity: The major was decorated for the judgment he showed under fire.
4. the forming of an opinion, estimate, notion, or conclusion, as from circumstances presented to the mind: Our judgment as to the cause of his failure must rest on the evidence.

It is his opinion that he is growing spiritually at a slow rate. His opinion is his judgment call, based on what he read that Byss offered up in text.

You tell us, kurdt... :confused: If you can!

You quoted my explanation of the differences between judgement and observation below, so I assume you know what my thoughts are on that topic.

Thus judging his intelligence on political affairs. Anyone could call their judgment a mere observation, if it suits them. What you 'merely pointed out' was the flaw you saw in his reasoning. If that's not a judgment call, I don't know what is. How else could you decide without first judging his position if he was well-versed on the Iraq war?

I'm going to take a wild guess and say you and I disagree on what a 'judgement' is. In my post on the Iraq war I merely pointed out what I perceived to be the truth. I'm not saying he is wrong and can't believe in what he wants, just merely pointing out the differences in our beliefs. Deja vu :).

It seems like any declaration of our observations would have to be considered a judgment call. After all, to judge is to form an opinion, right?

I would disagree with this statement only because I view judgement as adding value to an opinon/situation/etc. I wouldn't consider my opinion to be good and your opinion to be bad, I would just consider them a difference.

Hate to go off like a broken record, but -

judgment:

1. an act or instance of judging.
2. the ability to judge, make a decision, or form an opinion objectively, authoritatively, and wisely, esp. in matters affecting action; good sense; discretion: a man of sound judgment.
3. the demonstration or exercise of such ability or capacity: The major was decorated for the judgment he showed under fire.
4. the forming of an opinion, estimate, notion, or conclusion, as from circumstances presented to the mind: Our judgment as to the cause of his failure must rest on the evidence.

It is his opinion that he is growing spiritually at a slow rate. His opinion is his judgment call, based on what he read that Byss offered up in text.

Well, I'm going to have to disagree with you and Meriam-Webster on this. I wouldn't consider the simplest act of forming an opinion to be judgement.

This is a prime example of how The Word of God has gone and warped another completely natural human activity. Why does casting judgment have to be viewed in a negative light? The old "Judge not, lest ye be judged" adage never made a lick of sense to me, anyway.

Agreeing to disagree with you here, kurdt :)

This is a prime example of how The Word of God has gone and warped another completely natural human activity. Why does casting judgment have to be viewed in a negative light? The old "Judge not, lest ye be judged" adage never made a lick of sense to me, anyway.

Agreeing to disagree with you here, kurdt :)

I concur. The proper role of a human in judgment ought to be "Judge, and prepare to be judged by the same criterion". So I guess we got down to the basics in your discussion with kurt. That is, he doesn't use English correctly, so any discussion with him is liable to fail.

Hate to go off like a broken record, but -

judgment:

1. an act or instance of judging.
2. the ability to judge, make a decision, or form an opinion objectively, authoritatively, and wisely, esp. in matters affecting action; good sense; discretion: a man of sound judgment.
3. the demonstration or exercise of such ability or capacity: The major was decorated for the judgment he showed under fire.
4. the forming of an opinion, estimate, notion, or conclusion, as from circumstances presented to the mind: Our judgment as to the cause of his failure must rest on the evidence.

*sigh* Can't we all just accept that we each have a different definition for each word, that a dictionary is no objective standard for said word, and that looking up the definition of any semi-crucial word we use is awfully tedious and time consuming. :confused::mad:

*sigh* Can't we all just accept that people are going to bend the definition of words in the English language to fit in with their esoteric musings whenever it suits them?

Fixed.

Yeah, you're right. We should be used to it by now.

looking up the definition of any semi-crucial word we use is awfully tedious and time consuming. :confused::mad:

Open link to dictionary ..... 1.5 seconds
Type in word/page loads .... 4.5 seconds
Cut/Paste into other window.... 1.5 seconds

Far from tedious and time consuming, unless you are mentally slow or type with one finger. 7 seconds of my time is a small sacrifice, for the sake of conversation.

Fixed.

Yeah, you're right. We should be used to it by now.

I didn't say we could make up whatever definition we wanted. In fact, of the 4 definitions 3 of them suited Arms correctly while you chose one that didn't. It's this "I know intuitively that I have the correct definition but I won't bother to look up every other word in my argument to make sure that I have it down to every perfect word" that I'm arguing for. Was that really to dense for you?

Open link to dictionary ..... 1.5 seconds
Type in word/page loads .... 4.5 seconds
Cut/Paste into other window.... 1.5 seconds

Far from tedious and time consuming, unless you are mentally slow or type with one finger. 7 seconds of my time is a small sacrifice, for the sake of conversation.

7*15=105, which equals quite a bit when you have to travel distances to get online onto a slow-ass connection with a maximum time that you can stay on (as is the case with Arms). And in any case, a full 75% of the dictionary agreed with him.

Since we all know the answer, for the purpose of legitimate conversation, I will now redefine "superior" to mean "more devout followers". Argue away.

The answer remains Christianity. Only Christians know the true god and their savior, so they are more devout than any believer of a false religion.

It's this "I know intuitively that I have the correct definition but I won't bother to look up every other word in my argument to make sure that I have it down to every perfect word" that I'm arguing for. Was that really to dense for you?

Yes, your argument is truly too dense for me.

7*15=105,

See, that wasn't too time-consuming and tedious, now was it? :p

which equals quite a bit when you have to travel distances to get online onto a slow-ass connection with a maximum time that you can stay on (as is the case with Arms).

First off, I was speaking directly to kurdt. kurdt said Arms was not placing judgment by remarking on the progress of someones *spiritual development*. I never implied that I felt Arms should post definitions to clarify his meaning, I had a pretty good idea where he was intuitively going with that statement.

And in any case, a full 75% of the dictionary agreed with him.

In what way?

When you presume to judge others--and this is mightily presumptuous, for even God does not judge--your spiritual development comes to a screeching halt. You make unity consciousness impossible, and perpetrate the illusion of separation.

Arms is painting judgments to be spiritually unhealthy here. I was stating that human beings are naturally inclined to make judgments (much like Arms did regarding someone else's stagnating spiritual development) - else how else would we pick our preferences and our positions?

Yes, your argument is truly too dense for me.
I'll be taking that as a compliment. :cool:

First off, I was speaking directly to kurdt. kurdt said Arms was not placing judgment by remarking on the progress of someones *spiritual development*. I never implied that I felt Arms should post definitions to clarify his meaning, I had a pretty good idea where he was intuitively going with that statement.
Then why was it necessary to bring up the dictionary to contradict that? Your opinion (if I'm reading this correctly) was that Arms is placing judgment on somebody, and though you knew which definition he was using, you felt the need to bring up another.


In what way?
In that you had to trudge through 3 other definitions to get to the one that suited you. Thus 3 out of 4 is a majority. :cool:


Arms is painting judgments to be spiritually unhealthy here. I was stating that human beings are naturally inclined to make judgments (much like Arms did regarding someone else's stagnating spiritual development) - else how else would we pick our preferences and our positions?

As has been noted, there are different definitions of judgment and you were clearly not using the one Arms was using; even though you had a good idea of what he meant. This seems awfully pedantic from my perspective.

(if I'm reading this correctly)

You're not.

Arms is placing judgment on somebody, and though you knew which definition he was using, you felt the need to bring up another.

The point here, Magellan - is that both kurdt and Arms were making a distinction between judgment and observation, both denying that their observations (which resulted in a judgment) could be considered as them placing judgment on someone/something. I used the definitions posted to show that there really wasn't much difference, and that judgment wasn't something to avoid in order to feel more highly *evolved*, as they put it.

you had to trudge through 3 other definitions to get to the one that suited you. Thus 3 out of 4 is a majority. :cool:

Any of them would have supported my position. That I bolded one out of the 4 doesn't prove anything, only that it was more thorough and fit the current discussion. If it were as you are implying, that I am picking and choosing the last, most obscure definition to suit my position - then why would I have posted each and every one of them?

As has been noted, there are different definitions of judgment and you were clearly not using the one Arms was using; even though you had a good idea of what he meant.

They were denying it was judgmental at all! Thus, the point of the definitions, which happened to fit perfectly with the scenario at hand. Sure, I had a good idea of what they meant, which was why I posted the definitions in the first place - to show that the word *judgment* applied to their watery meanings. They were just refusing to call it *judgment*, because they seem to think it's unhealthy and unproductive to cast judgment.

Interesting.

I made this post with a deliberatly provocative title to draw out the debaters, eventhough I risked being flamed pitch black.

It has come down to the very meaning of religion. Judging things/people. It is all how we define how things should be and how they are now and what the difference between this is. Religion works like a guide to this. In some cases even a troubleshoot if one gets constricted be tween morals. Its all up to the individual to choose wether he/she is more content with one set of morals or the other, as defined by different religions.

Sadly it is the case that morals are thougth and don't come from the individual itself. This means that if the envirement says "Religion A" the individual will mostly choose Religion A and percieve that one as the "Superior Religion". However in some cases this individual rebels and chooses to become atheist or choose another religion. This is purely done out of contempt of his/her envirement and education of morals. It is not uncommon for a muslim raised person to start eating pork or a catholic to marry a protestant simply because the first person likes pork and doesn't think that other people can intreprit the word of God to forbid him of eating something and the catholic and protestant persons think that their religion is about love, not about form.

Judgement is exactly the topic I was searching for when I posted this. In its essence the Superior Religion in practice does not exist. Someone said something like: "Don't judge unless you are ready to be judged." This comes from the Bible but is one of the most atheist of phrases one can think off. Not to judge means not to apply your moral understanding, not to use taught moral understandings and thus not using your religion to judge. Which is impossible.

The Superior Religion as an idea does exist however. It is a religion that does not judge, is not judged, does not teach morals, is not affected by morals of others. It can only exist in our minds on a simple basic since when we try to eleborate, we can't help adding our own morals and teachings on how it should be applied and the real meaning of the Superior Religion vanishes.

How can a religion that does not judge, is not judged, does not teach morals nor is tainted by our own morals exist? It cannot. Because a practicing religion requires human intervention and that is what corrupts the idea at the same time and renders the religion invalid. Besides the religion would be useless in practice since it has no rules and states no rules to conduct your life, judge things and people or give awnser' to dilemmas.

The best correlation I can give you is to compare it to physics and the law of nature. Only that what is, is. Ony that what is true, is, even if it is a lie.

Please, debate further.

Asking us to give up our judgment of the evil of others is asking us to stop functioning as thinking human beings. I ask of others that they judge themselves according to the same criterion by which they judge others.

No, asking you to stop making value judgements means asking you to stop sabotaging your spiritual progress. Thinking you are better than someone else is the cheapest way there is to feel good about yourself.

There is no valid need or reason to make judgements about anyone, especially yourself. It is far more important to forgive others for being where they are, and to forgive yourself for being where you are. In any case, we are all on the road to sainthood--so what does it matter if you are at mile 49 and someone else is at mile 23 and someone else is at mile 99.

For any religion to exalt itself and say they are the only way is not the religion of God but the demiurge himself. Since it was the demiurge who boasted saying: "I am God and their is no one else before me!" This is the exact tone of the ignorant fundamentalist who says "My Way or No Way!"

Since the formal and popular forms of western religions do this than they have been bound and held in bondage by the weight of their own dogmatic views which lead to conflict.

Matthew 7:13-14)
“Go in through the narrow gate; because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it; 14 whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it.

This is a prime example of how The Word of God has gone and warped another completely natural human activity. Why does casting judgment have to be viewed in a negative light? The old "Judge not, lest ye be judged" adage never made a lick of sense to me, anyway.



"This is a prime example of how The Word of God" is "warped" by human interpretation. Read the verse in context of the subject being discussed in Matthew Chapter 7 and it reads as a warning. The warning being obvious in the verse immediately following the one you have quoted.

For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.


Context! The removing of verses from context is the hallmark of those who wish to 'use' the 'Word of God' for their own nefarious purposes. Is it not obvious from a contextual reading what that teaching is about?

3Why do you [a]stare from without at the very small particle that is in your brother's eye but do not become aware of and consider the beam [c]of timber that is in your own eye?

4Or how can you say to your brother, Let me get the tiny particle out of your eye, when there is the beam [d]of timber in your own eye?

5You hypocrite, first get the beam of timber out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the tiny particle out of your brother's eye.



IOW: Examine yourself for often you will find the minor things that trouble you about others are indicative of major issues for oneself. Modern psychology calls it 'reflecting', that is seeing in others reflections of one's own troubling behaviours/issues. To make a righteous judgement then requires honest self evaluation, a process that is often very confronting and surely this is what the context is about. Not making judgements on others but what doing that says about oneself.

__________________________


To the OP. Superior religion is defined in the bible, amongst other sources, however rarely it is practiced:

New Living Translation (NLT)
[B]Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you.
James 1:26-27 (in Context) James 1 (Whole Chapter)


Cheers:)

I'd define superior as being able to convert easily, maintain high birth rates, having a decent cover story, and being taken seriously by other competing religions.

Catholicism has always been able to convert members of other religions and atheists to it's teaching easier than any other religion apart from Protestantism, both by violent and non-violent means. Islam shares this adeptness somewhat, but the point has to go to the Christians.

It encourages high birth rates, although since humanae vitae it has failed somewhat.

The Christian cover story arouses strong emotions, involving as it does the noble self-sacrifice of the the best person ever to live for our imperfection. Compare this to Islam, where some animals run around the desert hacking people to death, and you'll see a major competitive advantage here. Christianity also is strongly eschatological in focus, a major advantage in times of crisis.

However it is necessary to reform the basic formation of the churches faith by merging all gospels into one core gospel. Certain elements of the old testament should be excised from church teachings. Post-Jesus and Apocryphal sources of doctrine need to reassessed to remove ambiguity.

The churches' rulers or "hierarchy" have always been a bench of inveterate liars, schizophrenics and dullards. However other religions take their bulls, encyclicals and latin buffoonery seriously, and the Pope is probably the most valuable job in religion. No other religious leader is taken as seriously in so many countries as the pope.


Advantages of Catholicism:
Long history creates illusion that they know what they are doing.
Core of technologically sophisticated, wealthy followers.
Expanding population in 3rd world demographics.
Established financial system.

Disadvantages of Catholicism are:
Ossified organisational structure largely resistant to strategic change.
Erosion of faith in key demographics as in Europe.
Lack of religious adherents for monastic and conversion missions.
Lack of leadership, perhaps due to poor incentives for recruitment.
Certain areas of dogma uncertain or unclear.
Certain teachings incompatible with reality.
Perception of Church as overly "wealthy".
Adherents ashamed to take supernatural seriously.


The challenge in the 21st century will be to re-energise the church by:
Expanding recruitment into church hierarchy.
Reconciling or eliminating Eastern and Protestant Christian strains.
Killing most muslims or inciting hatred against Islam.
Expanding into East Asian markets.
Increasing quality of leadership in core competencies of church.
Enabling faithful to give donations to church electronically.

I believe that competently managed, the Catholic Church could become the best of all one-true churches.

"This is a prime example of how The Word of God" is "warped" by human interpretation. Read the verse in context of the subject being discussed in Matthew Chapter 7 and it reads as a warning. The warning being obvious in the verse immediately following the one you have quoted.

We weren't discussing Matthew, Chapter 7. We were discussing kurdt's and Arm's distaste of "casting judgement". Therefore, I wasn't interpreting "Judge not, lest ye be judged" in the context of the book of Matthew - I was drawing a parallel between kurdt's and Arm's (non-Christian) view of *judgement* in a negative light with the vast majority of people who are indeed Christian, who may view judging others in a negative light, but who rarely practice what they preach.


Context! The removing of verses from context is the hallmark of those who wish to 'use' the 'Word of God' for their own nefarious purposes. Is it not obvious from a contextual reading what that teaching is about?

Context, yes! And thanks for lending your own to the discussion:

IOW: Examine yourself for often you will find the minor things that trouble you about others are indicative of major issues for oneself. Modern psychology calls it 'reflecting', that is seeing in others reflections of one's own troubling behaviours/issues. To make a righteous judgement then requires honest self evaluation, a process that is often very confronting and surely this is what the context is about. Not making judgements on others but what doing that says about oneself.

Perhaps judging others (a.k.a. "reflecting") is, for some people, a valuable tool that inadvertently leads to deeper self-discovery and, like you said, shines light on our own inconsistencies as human beings. So I maintain:

What's so unhealthy about judging others? Perhaps it will lead to the tending of getting tiny particles out of your own eye; perhaps it will lead to greater self-discovery.

My point is, the context we were speaking in DOES pertain to making judgments about others. Regardless of the scope of self-reflection people may or may not take away from judging others, the verse itself - even in the biblical context - is being warped, and not by my own "nefarious purposes" alone.

There is no valid need or reason to make judgements about anyone, especially yourself..

You have the choice of leaving your daughter with a nun or a convicted child molester.

Which do you choose?

You can make ALL the observations in the world, but the SECOND you choose one, you have judged them both.

Make no mistake that by choosing one over the other you have made a judgement as to their value OVER the other one.

If you flipped a coin, I would be willing to believe that you are truly non-judgemental and well on your way to spiritual enlightenment, but I would immediately contact CPS so they can make a value judgement on how fit you are to be a parent.

Not to mention that even though you were on your way to spiritual enlightenment, your daughter who by this time has been through some traumatic shit, would find her own enlightenment a bit harder to obtain.

There are plenty of valid reasons to judge people.

If you believe there are not, or that you do not, or that society is possible without it...

You are living in delusion.

We weren't discussing Matthew, Chapter 7. We were discussing kurdt's and Arm's distaste of "casting judgement". Therefore, I wasn't interpreting "Judge not, lest ye be judged" in the context of the book of Matthew - I was drawing a parallel between kurdt's and Arm's (non-Christian) view of *judgement* in a negative light with the vast majority of people who are indeed Christian, who may view judging others in a negative light, but who rarely practice what they preach.

It was a response to your statement: "The old "Judge not, lest ye be judged" adage never made a lick of sense to me, anyway." My point being:) that all too often the words of the bible are taken out of context and used to assert things that are not apparent in a contextual reading.


Context, yes! And thanks for lending your own to the discussion:

Whatever that means???

Perhaps judging others (a.k.a. "reflecting") is, for some people, a valuable tool that inadvertently leads to deeper self-discovery and, like you said, shines light on our own inconsistencies as human beings. So I maintain:

What's so unhealthy about judging others? Perhaps it will lead to the tending of getting tiny particles out of your own eye; perhaps it will lead to greater self-discovery.

My point is, the context we were speaking in DOES pertain to making judgments about others. Regardless of the scope of self-reflection people may or may not take away from judging others, the verse itself - even in the biblical context - is being warped, and not by my own "nefarious purposes" alone.
Agreed! "What's so unhealthy about judging others?" It seems we must do this! For example discussing this with a friend, their take was as suggested by only considering the one verse in isolation, however we then applied the principle to a hypothetical dangerous situation, ... let's say a female alone in a train carriage late at night with a very suss looking male. Of course one would make a judgement!

My point is yes "the context we were speaking in DOES pertain to making judgments about others" HOWEVER, the verse has been taken out of context and used in a way that is very different to the subject of Matthew 7. The OP makes a very good point about judgement and religion, thing is this is exactly what 'religion' majors in. Taking biblical statements out of context and using them to support nonsense for their(not yours) "nefarious purposes".

The way I see it, sure, in a sense their is no definition of "right" or "wrong", in a very abstract concept. A very crude example for instance, when animals kill each other in the wild as a necessity for survival and instinct. There is no remorseful feelings behind certain acts of survival. However, we are humans that in both ways created, and were given naturally the ability to perceive morality.

Atheist or not using this concept in my opinion is a cope out for taking responsibility of respecting other peoples lives.

While some may disagree, I think it is hard to use this arguement for disapproving god's existence. If people are going to reject religion at least resort to science instead of concepts that have no relevance to theology.

"This is a prime example of how The Word of God" is "warped" by human interpretation. Read the verse in context of the subject being discussed in Matthew Chapter 7 and it reads as a warning. The warning being obvious in the verse immediately following the one you have quoted.

The context of Matthew "judge not" is that you should get the timber out of your own eye (purify yourself in Christ) and THEN you get to judge to your heart's content.

The following verse will back me up on this one....

Corinthians 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

Basically, Judge not, lest your a good christian. A personal note real quick...Fuck that idea.

Following what the "get the timber out of the eye" context you posted, is this little tidbit.

Matthew 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Ah the old "Pearls before Swine" argument. Fun stuff. JW use this to justify actively decieving those who are not JW's.

I can see why you would leave the VERY NEXT verse of context out, as it is controversial, and that makes you a hypocrite.

Clearly judge not, does not make a lick of sense to a lot of people (myself included), not just AngryFemme.

To the OP. Superior religion is defined in the bible, amongst other sources, however rarely it is practiced.

Superior in what way?
Is it more right than others? Nope.
Has it propagated itself better? Yes, through violence and fear.
Is the world a better place for having it exist? Nope.

The bible is obviously cluttered with cryptic riddles, condradictions, and over generalized statments which have spawned a myraid of different denominations, and that is not indictive of a superior belief structure.

Idealy a superior belief structure would be one that many people understand, embrace, and makes the world and our place in it better.

The bible is not such a belief structure.

The bible is only a collection of books, not a belief structure. Creating a belief structure from the bible involves heavy editing and creation of new material. I think that if approached carefully this could be profitable though.

Matthew 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Ah the old "Pearls before Swine" argument. Fun stuff. JW use this to justify actively decieving those who are not JW's.
Interesting claim re the JW's. Do you have any proof of this?

I can see why you would leave the VERY NEXT verse of context out, as it is controversial, and that makes you a hypocrite.
No idea what your point is here, aside from an opportunity to flame;)

Clearly judge not, does not make a lick of sense to a lot of people (myself included), not just AngryFemme.

Apparently you do not comprehend. I have agreed that taken out of context the verse is nonsense.

Superior in what way?
Is it more right than others? Nope.
Has it propagated itself better? Yes, through violence and fear.
Is the world a better place for having it exist? Nope.

How is the above relevant to caring for widows and orphans in their distress? Your answer makes no sense. How can the caring for those less fortunate be in any way connected to "violence and fear"? Is it not obvious that if religions did put the care of widows and orphans as the highest duty the world would indeed be a better place?

The bible is obviously cluttered with cryptic riddles, condradictions, and over generalized statments which have spawned a myraid of different denominations, and that is not indictive of a superior belief structure.
Agreed.

Idealy a superior belief structure would be one that many people understand, embrace, and makes the world and our place in it better.

The bible is not such a belief structure.
Agreed. The bible is not a belief structure! However it is a good resource for attempting to understand our world and where we have derived common beliefs.

Cheers:D

Interesting claim re the JW's. Do you have any proof of this?

http://www.freeminds.org/psych/whylie.htm

More exists of course, google it yourself. It is not a claim, it is a fact.

No idea what your point is here, aside from an opportunity to flame;)

The point that you did not offer the whole context, whilst scolding another for not doing the same thing. Either you are incapable of understanding that or feigning ignorance for the sake of a quickly vanishing argument. Either way I deem you a cunt for it.

Apparently you do not comprehend. I have agreed that taken out of context the verse is nonsense.

You do not comprehend. It is nonsense in context.

The full context of the chapter leads JW to lie to non-JW. The corinthians verse offers a little more insight into "Pearls before Swine".

IN CONTEXT it can still serve the purpose of whosoever reads it. How can it do this?

It is nonsense.

How is the above relevant to caring for widows and orphans in their distress? Your answer makes no sense. How can the caring for those less fortunate be in any way connected to "violence and fear"? Is it not obvious that if religions did put the care of widows and orphans as the highest duty the world would indeed be a better place?.

Agreed. The bible is not a belief structure! However it is a good resource for attempting to understand our world and where we have derived common beliefs.

Let be more clear for a semanticist cunt like yourself...

Not a single religion has been spawned from the bible that in any way reflects whatever superior qualities you believe may lie in it's pages. I believe it is not possible, b/c the book itself is fundamentally flawed in terrible and numerous ways.

Looking forward to your deflective tangent ridden quips and either your feigned ignorance or actual ignorance that has become synonomous with your name and cuntish catch phrase...

Cheers :)

Christianity is the only true religion, thus it far superior to all the falsies. Just read the bible and the truth shall be upon you.


Want to give some supporting evidence?

http://www.freeminds.org/psych/whylie.htm

...I deem you a cunt for it.



et be more clear for a semanticist cunt like yourself...

...
Looking forward to your deflective tangent ridden quips and either your feigned ignorance or actual ignorance that has become synonomous with your name and cuntish catch phrase...

Cheers :)

Ad hominems makes your point how?

Ad hominems makes your point how?

Beats me. Numneropus people have commented/complained about BPs seeming inability to maintain civil discourse.

Broke Prophet, please do us the courtesy of cleaning up your act--OR SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Do I make myself clear?

Ad hominems makes your point how?

My points speak for themselves and have obviously ended your bullshit talk of "in context the bible is a guide for the most superior religion ever".

I can re-post without the naughty language if you like. Then perhaps you could address the points I did make about your hypocrisy.

Or you can whine about naughty language, pretend to be offended, and avoid having to debate my comments.

In short, nice deflection red.

----------

Beats me. Numneropus people have commented/complained about BPs seeming inability to maintain civil discourse.

Broke Prophet, please do us the courtesy of cleaning up your act--OR SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Do I make myself clear?

What made you feel like being a bit of an asshole right there?

I do think it is the naughty language that offends your tender sensiblities. When you yourself speak down your nose at someone in a very polite and condesending manner (beleive me you do) you believe it is less offensive than low brow gutter speak....how exactly?

You think telling or hinting to someone they are less spiritually enlightened than you is not ego driven and insulting?

When redzed closes with cheers, it is meant as a bit of a fuck you. It is like a cop who gave you a ticket saying "have a nice day".

And just so you both are very well aware of this.....

The discussion in the thread was anything but civil for many pages now.

In short, I believe there are numerous, more insidious, and more creative ways to be an asshole than just being simply crude. I think of say, a super-polite but highly insulting, old English noblemen, who could at a party be insulting under the protection of etiquette to his heart's content and still reserve the right to be offended at the first utterance of a profane word.

^---not a fan of this horseshit, not gonna be party to it, end of mother fucking story. Now gasp at the profane language...and try to say something dickish politely.

Being offended is subjective. Why is my being offended by Arms, or Redzeds, polite prim and proper english noblemen's assholery any less substantial than his being offended of my profane and crude behavior?

*adjusts monocle*

When redzed closes with cheers, it is meant as a bit of a fuck you. It is like a cop who gave you a ticket saying "have a nice day".
.........
Being offended is subjective. Why is my being offended by Arms, or Redzeds, polite prim and proper english noblemen's assholery any less substantial than his being offended of my profane and crude behavior?

How egotistical of you. Cheers is a common salutation meant to lighten things up a bit, to keep things in perspective. This is the internet, there is no visible body language, which is normally counted as being responsible for 70% of communication so a simple cheery signature and a smiley is a friendly not the "assholery" your apparent paranoia has created. You are claiming offence where none is intended whereas, your language, if used in a public forum in this state, would render you liable to criminal charges. You accuse others of what you are doing yourself, except you seem to be intentionally using personal attacks to somehow support your agenda which seems to be more about creating conflict than contribution.

Your actions seem consistent with those of a troll or a baiter, and it's so interesting that you should choose to accuse of taking that particular verse out of context as it is in fact referring to persons who use similar tactics to yours.
Matt 7:6"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." --- Marginal reference --- Proverbs 9:

"Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult;
whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse.

8 Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you;
rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

9 Instruct a wise man and he will be wiser still;
teach a righteous man and he will add to his learning.

10 "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom,
and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

11 For through me your days will be many,
and years will be added to your life.

12 If you are wise, your wisdom will reward you;
if you are a mocker, you alone will suffer."


Namaste:)

Awwww c'mon sport.

Being offended is subjective. I personally believe that on several occasions you mean cheers as a "fuck you" SAME WAY a cop really means "fuck you" when he says have a nice day. Just my personal subjective opinion of what you are doing that offends me.

Understand now, buddy? (when I say buddy I use it in hopes that we are truly buds or perhaps could be. It is not meant to be degrading or insulting in any way)

Give me a fucking break.

------

I have an agenda to create conflict? No my friend, the conflict is already present, as is prone to happen when people HAVE CONFLICTING FUCKING BELIEFS. For me to have an agenda to create something that already exists would be rather pointless.

I don't contribute?

I contributed some points to the argument, which happen to conflict with your idea, to which you still have chosen not to respond. Does not mean I did not contribute. Means you chose not to partcipate. I can only guess to the reasononing of your decision not to, but methinks it was b/c you had nothing to broker further argument with.

My points speak for themselves and have obviously ended your bullshit talk of "in context the bible is a guide for the most superior religion ever".

We were discussing how in context "Judge not...", has been misinterpreted and abused by various religions, going back to the main point that it is nonsense and of little value to humanity.

Using the scripture to judge or attack me...does what to my aforementioned argument, exactly?

Are you going to contribute to the argument, or continue to make accusations as to my agenda?

My points speak for themselves and have obviously ended your bullshit talk of "in context the bible is a guide for the most superior religion ever".



What I said to the OP was that the bible does identify a superior religion. Meaning a superior religion to those most prevalent in my part of the world. That religion is to care for "widows and orphans in their distress" and if you do not see that as superior to the religions you are so critical of then you'er either willfully ignorant or ... maybe you're trolling for a bite;) Baiting your hook so to speak:D???

What I said to the OP was that the bible does identify a superior religion. Meaning a superior religion to those most prevalent in my part of the world. That religion is to care for "widows and orphans in their distress" and if you do not see that as superior to the religions you are so critical of then you'er either willfully ignorant or ... maybe you're trolling for a bite;) Baiting your hook so to speak:D???

Your comments calling me a troll, are not ad hominem, how exactly? Surely you must not see them as such, considering you deem me a troll for ad hominem attacks.

This reeks of hypocrisy.

------

I say that even though taking care of widows and orphans may be a good thing (may not be), you have not demonstrated how that would be superior to other belief structures. You have said YOU THINK it is.

But I MUST be either willfully ignorant or a troll to not see the point you have yet to demonstrate beyond opinion, right? This amounts to you saying "I like the color red, and if you don't agree with that...your a stupid troll face".

------

Even though you have yet to demonstrate your argument, I will indulge it.

Why should we take care of widows? Orphans, perhaps, but why widows? Are they unable to get a job? Can they not apply for benefits such as welfare and foodstamps, get free healthcare for their children, and other such things from our government?

They can. These things did not come from the bible, but came from a political party in a secular nation, who are oft times at odds with the bible thumpers.

These policies, by the way: welfare, free-healthcare, foodstamps, are not supported by the religious right-wing republican party (who pride themselves on judeo-christian values and morals). Perhaps they did not read that part in the bible, or ignored it, or interpreted it differently etc.

This brings me to my final point...

Because much of the bible is left to such personal interpretation, whatever good that is in the bible depends entirely upon the person reading it. Since it depends upon the person...is the bible even needed? Could it be replaced with any other over generalized work? Yes, and it has, and this is not indictive that a superior belief structure can be found soley in the bible.

Have a nice day:)

Your comments calling me a troll, are not ad hominem, how exactly? Surely you must not see them as such, considering you deem me a troll for ad hominem attacks.

This reeks of hypocrisy.

------

I say that even though taking care of widows and orphans may be a good thing (may not be), you have not demonstrated how that would be superior to other belief structures. You have said YOU THINK it is.


Have a nice day:)

I've not called you a troll, but if the cap fits ... BTW nice dodge and weave on the widows and orphans, informative ... your fence sitting act:)

I've not called you a troll, but if the cap fits ... BTW nice dodge and weave on the widows and orphans, informative ... your fence sitting act:)

LoL.

Whatever you need to say to start looking less foolish, I say do it. If looking less foolish means not commenting on the points I just made (clearly from one particular side of the fence), have at it.

Tell yourself whatever you like. Tell yourself you "won" this little debate, and did so without ever presenting your argument. Have fun.

LoL.

LoL.

Whatever you need to say to start looking less foolish, I say do it. If looking less foolish means not commenting on the points I just made (clearly from one particular side of the fence), have at it.

Tell yourself whatever you like. Tell yourself you "won" this little debate, and did so without ever presenting your argument. Have fun.

LoL.

More ad hominems? In debate, like soccer, it's regarded as correct to attack the ball not the player!

More ad hominems? In debate, like soccer, it's regarded as correct to attack the ball not the player!

But your not even on the fucking soccer field. You took your ball and went home about a page ago. You refuse to back up anything you have suggested. You stopped debating some time ago.

If this isn't true....please show me where your argument is b/c I can't seem to find it.

------

Also, I would like to know the difference YOU SEE between your ad hominem attacks and mine. Just curious to find out how you can even begin to justify such a foolish sounding notion.

All religion is fail, no ifs and's or but's, it's just fail.

Islam FTW
Allah rocks, if you can get people to blow themselves up in your name then you truly are the most powerful.

For the record I'm an athiest.

.... the bible does identify a superior religion. Meaning a superior religion to those most prevalent in my part of the world. That religion is to care for "widows and orphans in their distress"

Here's a relevant reference to caring for "widows and orphans" found in ancient Egyptian teachings showing that a "Superior Religion" has been around a while. This is from a translation of the hieroglyphics and is titled 'The Journey of Ra':
The third hour is the hour that the evil man fears; for by his own actions is he condemned as his heart sinks lower and lower until it provides food for the monster Amemet the Devourer. Then is the soul of the evil man cast out to dwell with the abominable serpent Apep and to fall at last into the everlasting pits of fire. But those who have lived in the just ways of maat, who have hurt no one by fraud or violence, who have helped the widow and the orphan, who have clothed the shipwrecked mariner, who have given food to the hungry and charity to the crippled, who have not caused the shedding of tears nor stirred up strife: for these souls the heart rises up to Thoth the wise, who places it again within the breast of the man and leads him to the fertile field of reeds where he may dwell in happiness for evermore. from "Chronicles of Ancient Egypt" by Jonathon Dee.

Cheers:)