Your Views of Other Religions (Christians Only Please)

liah

Christians only, because I don't want this to turn into a slinging match between atheists and Christians, and it's only a Christian point of view I am interested in.

I'm particularly interested in the opinions of those who have researched quite a few other religions.

My questions are these, please don't take them the wrong way, they come from me genuinely wanting to learn, not to tear your beliefs apart. I'm not even sure I'll reply after this, just want to read your responses!

1) Why, in your opinion, are other religions incorrect - specifically ones that have one main text like Christianity? Or older religions - e.g. what is your opinion of ancient Greek, Roman and Egyptian religions?

2) What is it that separates Christianity in your mind from any other religion? What do you take as proof that your religion is the correct one over all others?

3) Do you hold the belief that people of other religions are going to Hell? Do you believe people of other religions are, unbeknownst to them, praising your God (e.g. all versions of god(s) are different interpretations of the Christian God)? Do you believe something else entirely about the spirituality of people of other religions? Do you think about it at all?

Again, don't want these to come across the wrong way. It's just, I've never been religious on any level and I wasn't raised around religious people for the most part, so I don't really understand what makes them different - as to me, they all seem very much the same and I don't know how people know they've chosen the right one.

Also sorry if this has been done before! Didn't know what to search for.

Donatello

I believe the ancient religions all, more or less, point towards the Word. That Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Pope Benedict spoke about it in his book, Jesus of Nazareth, Vol. 2.

Judaism found its convincing fulfilment in the Christian faith.

Islam started outside the Catholic Church, taking the basics of the faith.

Hilaire Belloc wrote in The Great Heresies,

"Mohammedanism...began as a heresy, not as a new religion. It was not a pagan contrast with the Church; it was not an alien enemy. It was a perversion of Christian doctrine. It vitality and endurance soon gave it the appearance of a new religion, but those who were contemporary with its rise saw it for what it was not a denial, but an adaptation and a misuse, of the Christian thing. It differed from most (not from all) heresies in this, that it did not arise within the bounds of the Christian Church. The chief heresiarch, Mohammed himself, was not, like most heresiarchs, a man of Catholic birth and doctrine to begin with. He sprang from pagans. But that which he taught was in the main Catholic doctrine, oversimplified. It was the great Catholic world on the frontiers of which he lived, whose influence was all around him and whose territories he had known by travel_which inspired his convictions. He came of, and mixed with, the degraded idolaters of the Arabian wilderness, the conquest of which had never seemed worth the Romans' while.

[...]

But the central point where this new heresy struck home with a mortal blow against Catholic tradition was a full denial of the Incarnation. Mohammed did not merely take the first steps toward that denial, as the Arians and their followers had done; he advanced a clear affirmation, full and complete, against the whole doctrine of an incarnate God. He taught that Our Lord was the greatest of all the prophets, but still only a prophet: a man like other men. He eliminated the Trinity altogether.

See here for more - it's the second entry on this page:
http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/search/label/Islam

Protestantism broke from the Catholic Church and an examination of its teachings and foundations convinces me of the truth of the Catholic faith.

2) What is it that separates Christianity in your mind from any other religion? What do you take as proof that your religion is the correct one over all others?

The Incarnation. Jesus walked the earth. He was either mad, bad, or Who He said He was.

3) Do you hold the belief that people of other religions are going to Hell? Do you believe people of other religions are, unbeknownst to them, praising your God (e.g. all versions of god(s) are different interpretations of the Christian God)? Do you believe something else entirely about the spirituality of people of other religions? Do you think about it at all?

The Holy Spirit teaches us through the Apostle John that, "This is how you can know the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God, and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus does not belong to God. This is the spirit of the Antichrist that, as you heard, is to come, but in fact is already in the world." (1 John 4: 2-3).

Vatican II, in its Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (Nostra Aetate) stated clearly that, "The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in himself, merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth....Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well a peace and freedom." (Nos 2-3).

Can non-Catholics be saved? I suppose it is possible that they might be saved by Jesus. This is interesting.

Now, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, quoting Lumen gentium, makes the following point:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.[1]

—Catechism of the Catholic Church, 847

Note carefully here that it’s one thing to acknowledge that anyone may achieve salvation, and it’s something else entirely whether anyone to whom that narrow door of salvation is open will actually manage to fit through it.

So there’s the possibility. And now let’s look directly at that possibility: Would you want to risk the eternal welfare of your soul on speculation?

Keylem

If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates. My reason for doing this would be, that if Christ is in any one of the churches of the world today, He must still be hated as He was when He was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along with the world. Look for the Church that is hated by the world, as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times, as Our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having learned. Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because He came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because he called Himself the Truth. Look for the Church which amid the confusion of conflicting opinions, its members love as they love Christ, and respect its voice as the very voice of its Founder, and the suspicion will grow, that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly, it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly, it is infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself. ... the Catholic Church is the only Church existing today which goes back to the time of Christ. History is so very clear on this point, it is curious how many miss its obviousness..." Bishop Fulton Sheen.

liah

Keylem wrote: »

If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates. My reason for doing this would be, that if Christ is in any one of the churches of the world today, He must still be hated as He was when He was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along with the world. Look for the Church that is hated by the world, as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times, as Our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having learned. Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because He came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because he called Himself the Truth. Look for the Church which amid the confusion of conflicting opinions, its members love as they love Christ, and respect its voice as the very voice of its Founder, and the suspicion will grow, that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly, it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly, it is infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself. ... the Catholic Church is the only Church existing today which goes back to the time of Christ. History is so very clear on this point, it is curious how many miss its obviousness..." Bishop Fulton Sheen.

If that were true, then surely the Westboro Baptist Church is the true Church?

Don't mean to be disingenuous, I would just find it very hard to believe..

Keylem

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XVyLfdfAo0

The One True Church

The westboro church is heretic

http://releasedorothy.wordpress.com/2011/01/22/heretical-westboro-baptist-church-have-departed-for-utah/

Asry

liah wrote: »

1) Why, in your opinion, are other religions incorrect - specifically ones that have one main text like Christianity? Or older religions - e.g. what is your opinion of ancient Greek, Roman and Egyptian religions?

I don't know if I think other religions are incorrect. I think they're a synthesis of the same thing. Different facets of the human experience.

liah wrote: »

2) What is it that separates Christianity in your mind from any other religion? What do you take as proof that your religion is the correct one over all others?

This will come off as really lame but how could something that fills me with such joy and light be wrong? (:o)

liah wrote: »

3) Do you hold the belief that people of other religions are going to Hell? Do you believe people of other religions are, unbeknownst to them, praising your God (e.g. all versions of god(s) are different interpretations of the Christian God)? Do you believe something else entirely about the spirituality of people of other religions? Do you think about it at all?

Yep, everyone is praising the same God. I think that basically God appears to different peoples in different ways and different guises - in the ways that would make the most sense to them, as regards their culture and society and skin colour and values etc etc etc.

I absolutely in no way believe that someone is going straight to hell just because they're Hindu. Love and compassion and forgiveness are redeeming virtues of the human race....not just 'Christians'.

And how do I know this is right? Because I believe in the Christ.

A lot about religion is man-made. All the bad things, usually People get greedy or want to exert power or whatever. It's been written that God is love...and I'm going to spend my life following the Way, the Truth and the Light to find Him.

I'm sorry to post in your thread, Liah, but I have an addendum to question three that I'd genuinely like to hear opinions on. Like you, I probably won't reply, I'd just like to read peoples' opinions on this question.

Question:
In your opinion, which is "worse": a believer in a false god or prophet (similar to Liah's question No. 3)? Or, an atheist? Is it worse to worship no god at all, as opposed to the wrong god, or vice versa?

Donatello

liah wrote: »

If that were true, then surely the Westboro Baptist Church is the true Church?

Don't mean to be disingenuous, I would just find it very hard to believe..

No, because the true Church has four marks: one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. Westboro does not tick the boxes.

The Catholic Church goes right back to the start when Christ founded His Church. It has Apostolic succession, it is holy, clasping sinners to it bosom, it is one, and it is catholic, meaning it is universal - for all people in all places.

Festus

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I'm sorry to post in your thread, Liah, but I have an addendum to question three that I'd genuinely like to hear opinions on. Like you, I probably won't reply, I'd just like to read peoples' opinions on this question.

Question:
In your opinion, which is "worse": a believer in a false god or prophet (similar to Liah's question No. 3)? Or, an atheist? Is it worse to worship no god at all, as opposed to the wrong god, or vice versa?

Perhaps this would merit a thread of its own. Maybe you want a "Christian only" response?

Given that atheists have a disdain of insurance policies it is an interesting question.

From a Judeo-Christain perspective the questions are answered by the First Commandment.

To ignore the First Commandment or to actively break it as atheists do is to condemn oneself to Hell, if one persists in it until death

Fanny Cradock

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I'm sorry to post in your thread, Liah, but I have an addendum to question three that I'd genuinely like to hear opinions on. Like you, I probably won't reply, I'd just like to read peoples' opinions on this question.

Question:
In your opinion, which is "worse": a believer in a false god or prophet (similar to Liah's question No. 3)? Or, an atheist? Is it worse to worship no god at all, as opposed to the wrong god, or vice versa?

That's a meaningless question, I'm afraid. God, sex, money, power, whatever - from the perspective of Christianity, we all worship something.

philologos

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

In your opinion, which is "worse": a believer in a false god or prophet (similar to Liah's question No. 3)? Or, an atheist? Is it worse to worship no god at all, as opposed to the wrong god, or vice versa?

I don't believe any of those things are worse than the other. I'm no better than anyone else on the face of this earth just because I am a Christian.

The point is that we've all sinned and we've all turned our back on God. God has given us a way so that we can put ourselves right with Him and restore our relationship with Him before the end of all time that is through the death of Jesus on the cross and His resurrection. Our sins die with Him, we come to new life or are 'born again' in Him so that we can start a new relationship with God. Or we can choose to reject God's grace and face what punishment we rightfully deserve.

There is a grey area in so far as I don't know exactly what the implications are for those who have never heard about the Gospel, but I can trust in God's judgement.

Ultimately the same implications exist for all non-believers who have rejected the Gospel.

Asry

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I'm sorry to post in your thread, Liah, but I have an addendum to question three that I'd genuinely like to hear opinions on. Like you, I probably won't reply, I'd just like to read peoples' opinions on this question.

Question:
In your opinion, which is "worse": a believer in a false god or prophet (similar to Liah's question No. 3)? Or, an atheist? Is it worse to worship no god at all, as opposed to the wrong god, or vice versa?

I pretty much just echo the previous reply. I was trying to think of a way to say it in my own words for the sake of originality but I really can't think of any!

antiskeptic

liah wrote: »

I'm particularly interested in the opinions of those who have researched quite a few other religions.

A good number of years ago, I read "The Easy Way To Stop Smoking" by a guy named Allan Carr. His method works by drumming into you the truth about smoking: why it is you started, why people experience it as very hard to quit, why you think you're getting something from it when you're actually not. All the myths, all the mechanics, none of the shock/horror.

Just the truth about the trap called "Smoking". And it's the truth itself, once apprehended, which set's you free. I haven't tried all the other quitting smoking methods (other than the anything-but-easy willpower method). But having seen the truth about smoking I now know that all those other methods are (deliberately or otherwise) based on lies.

- patches tell you that you need help with the nicotine withdrawal symptoms whilst you work to beat the habit. That's a lie - you barely notice nicotine withdrawal symptoms (and they go in a few days)

- the willpower method tells you to muster yourself for the long haul you're about to face into. That's a lie - quitting smoking is the easiest thing in the world.

- e-cigarettes tell you you need to exchange sticking cigarettes into your mouth for a plastic cigarette + you need relief withdrawal pangs whilst you work at quiting. All lies - the e-cigarette is just another way for people to make money from you.


In short. If you have truth. You don't need intimate knowledge of other methods to know already that they are lies.

1) Why, in your opinion, are other religions incorrect - specifically ones that have one main text like Christianity? Or older religions - e.g. what is your opinion of ancient Greek, Roman and Egyptian religions?

Christianity predicts that all world religions (bar Christianity) will share a certain core feature that sets them as being diametrically opposed to Christianity. This doesn't make them false but it makes them alike and Christianity unique. The Christian prediction is fulfilled in religions that came about after (even long after) Christianity

Working

All non-Christian religions demand that you do 'work' in order to to find favour with the god in question. This is especially the case when it comes to you obtaining a favourable afterlike outcome. Judaism, Islam and Roman Catholicism are obvious cases in point - where you need to obey the rules and regs of the religion in order to improve your chances of heaven. The god in these cases is a weighing-scales kind of god, measuring your good and bad deeds and deciding upon your eternal destination as a result.

Hinduism and other systems based on Karma follow the same idea. If you are good you'll escape the endless cycle of reincarnation. Even Buddhism - which hasn't a clear godhead - involves you having to follow certain practices in order to obtain to that systems desirable afterlife outcome.

Boiled down: follow the systems rules and regulations and you'll meet with the end you desire. This is opposed to Christianity where God is the one who provides salvation at his cost and loves unconditionally.

2) What is it that separates Christianity in your mind from any other religion? What do you take as proof that your religion is the correct one over all others?

I wouldn't say proof. I'd say evidence for.

A good theory is one which is said to best take account of all the observations. To my mind, Christianity best explains why the world is the way it is. I used to suppose all the trouble, strife, corruption and greed in the world was the product of complex sociological, antropological, geopolitical, psychological, historical, economical interactions - the like of which no one could untangle. Now I understand the cause to be sin. It's a relatively simple observation but a very powerful and widely applicable one.

The aforementioned 'work' ties in perfectly with the theory of sin which sees mans pursuit of independence from God losing him his rightstanding before God. And so, man spends all his time seeking his own rightstanding. Rightstanding through his good works.

3) Do you hold the belief that people of other religions are going to Hell? Do you believe people of other religions are, unbeknownst to them, praising your God (e.g. all versions of god(s) are different interpretations of the Christian God)? Do you believe something else entirely about the spirituality of people of other religions? Do you think about it at all?

I think God want's that none should perish and that he is at work seeking to bring all people to his salvation.

I think God has equipped everyman with the same knowledge of good and evil and that he has done so in such a way that that knowledge transcends culture/geography/time/education/class.

I think that that knowledge of good and evil interacts with the sinful nature also installed in everyman and the two (the pull to good and the pull to evil) provide the ground on which man's own will can decide on how it want's to respond to God's offer. All this without a person having to believe in God's existance.

I don't think a person has to have heard of Jesus Christ in order to be saved and so believe that God's salvation is as available to people here in the West as it is to a goat herder up a remote mountainside in Uzbekistan as it was to folk who live before Christ walked the Earth

I think that God is far bigger than any religion that attempts to represent him. And that man is far too important to God that it could stand in the way of God and his attempt to save man.

Donatello

antiskeptic wrote: »

All non-Christian religions demand that you do 'work' in order to to find favour with the god in question. This is especially the case when it comes to you obtaining a favourable afterlike outcome. Judaism, Islam and Roman Catholicism are obvious cases in point - where you need to obey the rules and regs of the religion in order to improve your chances of heaven. The god in these cases is a weighing-scales kind of god, measuring your good and bad deeds and deciding upon your eternal destination as a result.

It should be said that in Catholic Christianity, the justification/redemption is a pure gift from God. However, once we are justified, we must follow Jesus and keep His Commandments if we are to keep our baptismal garments clean. He gave us the means - grace, prayer, Sacraments, particularly the Eucharist and Penance. He did not leave us orphans. At the end of our life, the Lord wants to find that we have born spiritual fruits.

This is a good expo:

Thus it can be said in summary that redemption is a gift from God, worked out through the sacrifice of Christ, while salvation is a matter of our own personal responsibility. If we accept the gift of redemption and live a holy lifestyle thereafter, until the end, we will be saved from being excluded from heaven.

The Wedding Banquet

Think of justification, then, as a sort of ticket to the heavenly wedding banquet. Christ is our ticket to that wedding banquet. He freely gives Himself to everyone. At the door to the banquet, we are admitted when we present that ticket in faith. No other ticket will be honored, nor can we earn a ticket through our own efforts. But, even if we have a ticket, if we have not kept His commandments—if we have not put on the wedding garments provided by Him—we will be thrown out of the banquet into the darkness (see Matthew 22:1-14).

Read more here.

antiskeptic

Donatello wrote: »

It should be said that in Catholic Christianity, the justification/redemption is a pure gift from God. However, once we are justified, we must follow Jesus and keep His Commandments if we are to keep our baptismal garments clean. He gave us the means - grace, prayer, Sacraments, particularly the Eucharist and Penance. He did not leave us orphans. At the end of our life, the Lord wants to find that we have born spiritual fruits.

Each works-based religion will vary at the fringes from the next. I was concentrating on the core element, the essential bit that is common to them all.

There is no substantial difference between working for your salvation and being given your salvation for free and having to work to retain it. In both cases, your ending up 'in heaven' is dependent on the work you do. Fail to carry out that work and you can't expect the wages of that work.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote:

A good number of years ago, I read "The Easy Way To Stop Smoking" by a guy named Allen Carr. His method works by drumming the truth about smoking into you:

- why it is you started
- why people experience it as very hard to quit
- why you think you're getting something from it when you're actually not.

All the myths, all the mechanics, none of the shock/horror - just the truth about the trap called "Smoking".

And it's the truth itself, once apprehended, which set's you free. Now I haven't tried all the other quitting smoking methods (other than the anything-but-easy willpower method). But having seen the truth about smoking I now know that all those other methods are (deliberately or otherwise) based on lies.

- patches tell you that you need help with the nicotine withdrawal symptoms whilst you work to beat the habit. That's a lie - you barely notice nicotine withdrawal symptoms (and they go in a few days)

- the willpower method tells you to muster yourself for the long haul you're about to face into. That's a lie - quitting smoking is the easiest thing in the world.

- e-cigarettes tell you you need to exchange sticking cigarettes into your mouth for a plastic cigarette + you need relief withdrawal pangs whilst you work at quiting. All lies - the e-cigarette is just another way for people to make money from you.


In short. If you have truth. You don't need intimate knowledge of other methods to know already that they are lies.

This anecdote-analogy bears further examination due to its revealing what Christianity would identify a practical, physical example of the spiritual realm at work.

1. How satan works and how God works

Take a scan around the Giving up smoking forum. People who come to realise that they are caught in the smoking trap tend to describe cigarettes as evil. God believers or not, they unconciously detect that underneath what is afterall, only vegetable matter, there lies something malevolent. It lies in the very nature of the grip the trap exerts - in the sense of making the person a miserable addict. It is evil in that there are people who are prepared to spend their lives manufacturing the stuff and figuring out ways to get young people hooked to replace those at the other end who are dying.

And the whole thing is sustained by the various lies outlined. That is how satan works: a deceiver, a destroyer, a twister.

Compared to how God works. He destroys satans work merely by telling the truth. In this case, Allen Carr has a 'Eureka moment' and sees cigarette smoking for precisely what it is. And realises that the key to the trap is simply telling the truth about cigarettes. Jesus said "and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free"

Both satan and God at work. In this very mundane way.


2. Salvation by grace vs. salvation by works

It is interesting to note that the only advertised easy way to stop smoking is one that uses exposure to truth alone. This is precisely how Christianity poses salvation. Jesus said that his "yoke was easy and his burden light"

By comparison, the other ways of quitting typically involve your effort. Indeed, Nicorette make note of this in their advertising by saying "willpower required". Like the works religions, it's the religion + your effort that supposes to set you free.

CerebralCortex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Take a scan around the Giving up smoking forum. People who come to realise that they are caught in the smoking trap tend to describe cigarettes as evil. God believers or not, they unconciously detect that underneath what is afterall, only vegetable matter, there lies something malevolent. It lies in the very nature of the grip the trap exerts - in the sense of making the person a miserable addict. It is evil in that there are people who are prepared to spend their lives manufacturing the stuff and figuring out ways to get young people hooked to replace those at the other end who are dying.

And the whole thing is sustained by the various lies outlined. That is how satan works: a deceiver, a destroyer, a twister.

It has nothing to do with an evil being, force, Satan. It's just evolved human nature. A person is addicted cigarettes because of nicotine. A person produces cigarettes because it allows him to gather huge amount of wealth to enable him spread his genes.

antiskeptic

CerebralCortex wrote: »

It has nothing to do with an evil being, force, Satan. It's just evolved human nature. A person is addicted cigarettes because of nicotine. A person produces cigarettes because it allows him to gather huge amount of wealth to enable him spread his genes.

Lies about smoking are what get people into smoking. Lies about smoking are what keep people smoking. The truth about smoking is an effective way to free people from smoking. Was the point.

Whether you believe that there are personhoods behind both the lies and the truth .. or not, isn't really the issue given the thread title.

CerebralCortex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Lies about smoking are what get people into smoking. Lies about smoking are what keep people smoking. The truth about smoking is an effective way to free people from smoking. Was the point.

Whether you believe that there are personhoods behind both the lies and the truth .. or not, isn't really the issue given the thread title.

I'm just addressing you're point about addiction to cigarettes, which seems to unnecessarily add Satan and God to the mix.

antiskeptic

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I'm just addressing you're point about addiction to cigarettes, which seems to unnecessarily add Satan and God to the mix.

What's "unnecessarily added" depends very much on your worldview. It's not the naturalistic worldview which is being sought (or defended against) here.

CerebralCortex

antiskeptic wrote: »

What's "unnecessarily added" depends very much on your worldview. It's not the naturalistic worldview which is being sought (or defended against) here.

Too bad! You used a fallacious argument to make your point. Regardless of your worldview nicotine addiction and promotion can be explained without the need for supernatural agency and very easily aswell. You should think of a different example.

antiskeptic

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Too bad! You used a fallacious argument to make your point. Regardless of your worldview nicotine addiction and promotion can be explained without the need for supernatural agency and very easily aswell. You should think of a different example.

I'm not making an argument in order that it be considered fallacious. I'm elaborating on a worldview for someone who asks for it.

You don't seem to have gotten that yet.

CerebralCortex

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not making an argument in order that it be considered fallacious. I'm elaborating on a worldview for someone who asks for it.

You don't seem to have gotten that yet.

Oh I get it. I'm just pointing out the massive holes.

antiskeptic

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Oh I get it. I'm just pointing out the massive holes.

By asserting naturalism (potentially) explains everything? How positively yawn inducing.

As you will, CC. It's not as if I've never gone off topic

liah

Ugh, can we get this thread back on topic, please?

I asked for an opinion, not a 100% free-of-fallacies argumentative stance ffs. Why are you nitpicking for the sake of it, CC? I know what he meant.

CerebralCortex

liah wrote: »

Ugh, can we get this thread back on topic, please?

I asked for an opinion, not a 100% free-of-fallacies argumentative stance ffs. Why are you nitpicking for the sake of it, CC? I know what he meant.

Is that question rhetorical?

Fanny Cradock

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Is that question rhetorical?

Cut it out, please.