I can’t prove God to an Atheist, if I could I would be the most famous man in the world. I can’t shift that pendalem; no way! And I am not trying to swing anyones views one way or another. I started this thread on the topic of hell and it has taken a life of its own. And topics of its own; and it has me curious; if your not interested in God, then why are you so interested?
Because You Walk Alone.
How dramatic.
I don’t curse at others choice of beliefs.
And I don’t use a book supposedly corrupted by demons as a reliable history book. Your religion doesn’t bother me much-it is your religion’s total lack of internal consistency that bugs me so much.
I don’t have a religion, and you can’t give me one. What I don’t understand about you is this; we debated for more than a week, back and forth, and that was fine; I am not Atheist, you are not Theist; then you decided to throw cursing into the debate; I don’t understand that, what did it accomplish? I don’t let Atheism get me so mad that I have to curse it out! In my view, that is a total lack of respect.
You hve a religion - it has a membership of one - you. You use the same ‘resource’ as many other religions, but you ‘walk alone’.
He did not ‘curse’ anything - he used descriptive language to desribe his view - sometimes that is required.
You have a religion.edited to add: When you can get dictionaries to accept your bizarre definitions I will start accepting them. Good luck with that.
I can go by your definitions;
I don’t worship God
I don’t serve him
I don’t have a personal set of practices and my beliefs are changing every year.
By YOUR listed definitions that YOU just gave, I am not religious. That’s because YOU think all Theist are naturally religious. I dislike many of the same things you dislike about religion. I disagree with many of the things you disagree with in religion. But I don’t tell you your some kind of Theist.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.”
Religion is mans effort to reach God, in my belief, God has to reach you.
Where did you get that definition?
Why does your definition of religion deny the existence of any god but your own?
That is my own definition; I like going by my own consciousness, and don’t always look for what somebodyelse has said to define terms.
And I don’t have a God of my own.
You definitely fit the first and third meaning - I’ll give you a buy on the middle definition.
You have a ‘religion’ - you have a belief in God - its clearly very important to you.
This does not mean that you are a member of ‘a religion’ (as in the organized/groupthink/cultural aspect of it).
we had someone else here a while back that liked to make up his own definitions - caused a lot of chaos.
Post #929.
Lets be reasonable, one of my favorite books is a dictionary; yes I create my own terms " Sometimes", but the vast majority of the time I go by established terms. But see here, every single word I use is under scrutiny, and everyone is constantly searching for a day light of error in anything I say; and thats fine; I see absolutely nothing wrong with creating a term of your own; I have done it for years; and I like doing it.
Like " Scarcasm", meaning using sarcasm to insult people; I made that up years ago.
You can make up whatever words you want…although it would be polite to let other people know what you mean when you say them. What we are obviously objecting to here is your habit of adding unestablished definitions to already existing words and demanding that we abide by your definitions.
I have NEVER demanded that anyone here or anywhelse abide by my definitions; where have I done such a thing? Show me that post#. I get accused here every day of saying things I have not said, and when I ask the people to produce me saying it, they can’t, but the accusations persist.
Why don’t you show me anywhere I have falsely accused anyone? Politely do that.
When you are discussing things with the members of your congregation - thats all well and good - when your trying to have a debate in a public forum, it only causes confusion and does not help to further the conversation.
“I have no religion”
<crowd points to definition of ‘religion’>
“I don’t use that definition”.
In order to accept your premise (that you dont have religion) - we are forced to accept your definiton - which is not the correct definition.
You could say you are not a member of ‘a religion’ - and your meaning would be clearer - you could say that you find ‘religion to be despicable’ - and your meaning would be clearer - but otherwise - you seem to like to argue over nits instead of actually debating the subject at hand.
Its frustrating.