If the Bible says Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, but the Quran says God neither begets nor is begotten, then, at best, followers have no choice but to agree to disagree. At worse, they can have a war to decide who is right. — Art48

Why is their disagreement cause for such alarm? The pages of this forum are filled with disagreement.

Religions’ epistemological method is childish. Mommy or Daddy is the way children decide what is true and what is not. If my Mommy says a politician is golden but your Mommy says the same politician is human crud, then we have no choice but to agree to disagree. At worse, we can have a playground fight to decide who is right. Religion’s epistemological method is fundamentally the same as the child’s epistemological method. — Art48

You might say there is a foundational belief the faithful adhere to that the unfaithful do not, but you can't then say that the theology that follows is not subject to criticism and debate within the particular ideology. While you may find some particularly fundamentalist belief system that relies upon one or a small number of prophets to decree what is right and wrong, that doesn't describe religion generally, but just some particular ones.

The point being that you're rejecting religions that insist there is one simple reading of a particular sacred work and that it is not subject to debate or interpretation, but that criticism only works insofar as you choose your religions to criticize.

What epistemology do you use to determine morality? I would suspect it is not the scientific method. I ask because it is very likely that the method you use varies little from the ones used by religious systems, which, as you note, is reliance upon historical wisdom.

This is the situation we should expect if God does not really exist: different civilizations making up different stories about God. — Art48

The other option is to acknowledge that you're not the first to realize this and try to figure out how a rational, non-deluded person could resolve this. Otherwise, you posit yourself as a special someone who was able to see the emperor wears no clothes where others could not.

So, if I'm Christian (and I'm not), I would have to admit it seems that my belief did not come from an exploration of all religions, and by the force of logic, I fell upon Christianity. I would have to acknowledge the incredibly strong correlation between the belief of my family, my community, and my larger society and my beliefs. That is, is seems Christians beget Christians and Muslims beget Muslims. So, if I'm that honest, I must take the next step and ask why I insist upon Christianity's myths and not Islam's. The reason is likely that it comes to me with a certain credibility that I am willing to take seriously (where I am not willing to take others so seriously), and from that, more significant truths can be found. Will all the truths found from Christianity ultimately mirror those of Islam? Doubtful. The question though isn't whether I'm exploring trying to convince others who disbelieve, but it's whether I'm exploring trying to find what resonates with me, which then must allow me the ability to reject those conclusions in conflict with my other beliefs.

What is going here is not a whole lot different than what you probably do when reading one philosopher or another. Maybe your views are closely aligned with Kant's, so much so that you declare yourself a Kantian, read Kant's works closely, debate Kant, find subtleties within his writings that you insist you better understand than others, etc. And, occasionally you realize that what he just said was bullshit, so you reject it, but you're still a Kantian.

And what makes Kant so believable and credible? It's not the scientific method to be sure, but it's some other epistemological method being employed, but it's not the sort of epistemology you described in your OP, which is that you see Kant as your parent who tells you what to do. Maybe there is someone who actually uncritically accepts everything Kant says, but that's not an interesting person to speak to Kant about, and it doesn't give rise to a reasonable argument that Kantians are like uncritical children. In fact, I would suspect a Kantian to be the opposite of uncritical, but to be of a philosophical mindset, else he'd be doing something other than reading Kant..

: religion gets us started on the path, but eventually we realize it’s fictional. At that point, we arrive at a fork in the road: atheism lies on one side, a personal search for genuine knowledge and experience of God lies on the other. — Art48

You miss a key distinction between fiction and fraud. If you read A Christmas Carol and your primary criticism is that you've searched the world over and could find no Ebenezer Scrooge or Tiny Tim, I don't think you followed the purpose of the story. It is no doubt fiction. That you decided to treat it as a non-fiction narrative is your misstep. It can only be considered a fraud if you personally start with the notion that it attempted to take itself literally.

If you want to criticize those religions that do that, have at it, but that would be a criticism of certain religions and not of religion generally. That leaves open the possibility of accepting religion, but denying the very simple criticisms you assert in the OP.

What makes a prophet, if not his words?
We are all prophets, then, partaking of the same reality, describing it each in a different way. — Vera Mont

The words don't make a prophet so not all are prophets, that's obvious.

The most genuine prophets don't communicate ta all: they have pure, direct, inexplicable experience. — Vera Mont

Those are the only prophets, not just most genuine.
Direct experience comes first, then they attempt to express the inexpressible and because of the differences of time and space they seem to disagree to the casual.

Those are the only prophets, not just most genuine. — TheMadMan

Good. That means nobody needs to listen to anybody, because only those who do not speak speak truth; truth is silence.
Yes, I like that! It's just mystical enough to be spiritual.

Is that the only way to do philosophy? Is it the right way? Are there alternatives? — Banno

Of course not. Of course not. Of course.

I would say my characterization applies to the edifice of philosophy as a whole, especially as practiced here on the forum.

I really like the word "edifice" especially when used in this context.

Hanover,

You write: Why is their disagreement cause for such alarm?
You write: you can't then say that the theology that follows is not subject to criticism and debate within the particular ideology.
You write: you're rejecting religions that insist there is one simple reading of a particular sacred work and that it is not subject to debate or interpretation

I never said any of those things. Try re-reading the original post.

You write: If you want to criticize those religions that do that, have at it, but that would be a criticism of certain religions and not of religion generally. That leaves open the possibility of accepting religion, but denying the very simple criticisms you assert in the OP.

The fundamental criticism of the OP is religions’ faulty, childish epistemological method. If you know of a religion which is not based on purported “sacred” writings, then let me know what it is. It’s certainly not Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or the various Hindu religions.

That's very nicely argued.

The basic principle that we are aware of anything, not as it is in itself unobserved, but always and necessarily as it appears to beings with our particular cognitive equipment, was brilliantly stated by Aquinas when he said that ‘Things known are in the knower according to the mode of the knower’ (S.T., II/II, Q. 1, art. 2). And in the case of religious awareness, the mode of the knower differs significantly from religion to religion. And so my hypothesis is that the ultimate reality of which the religions speak, and which we refer to as God, is being differently conceived, and therefore differently experienced, and therefore differently responded to in historical forms of life within the different religious traditions.

What does this mean for the different, and often conflicting, belief-systems of the religions? It means that they are descriptions of different manifestations of the Ultimate; and as such they do not conflict with one another. They each arise from some immensely powerful moment or period of religious experience, notably the Buddha’s experience of enlightenment under the Bo tree at Bodh Gaya, Jesus’ sense of the presence of the heavenly Father, Muhammad’s experience of hearing the words that became the Qur’an, and also the experiences of Vedic sages, of Hebrew prophets, of Taoist sages. But these experiences are always formed in the terms available to that individual or community at that time and are then further elaborated within the resulting new religious movements. This process of elaboration is one of philosophical or theological construction. Christian experience of the presence of God, for example, at least in the early days and again since the 13th-14th century rediscovery of the centrality of the divine love, is the sense of a greater, much more momentously important, much more profoundly loving, personal presence than that of one’s fellow humans. But that this higher presence is eternal, is omnipotent, is omniscient, is the creator of the universe, is infinite in goodness and love is not, because it cannot be, given in the experience itself. In sense perception we can see as far as our horizon but cannot see how much further the world stretches beyond it, and so likewise we can experience a high degree of goodness or of love but cannot experience that it reaches beyond this to infinity. That God has these infinite qualities, and likewise that God is a divine Trinity, can only be an inference, or a theory, or a supposedly revealed truth, but not an experienced fact.

... Perhaps our different theologies, both within the same religion and between different religions, are human maps of the infinite divine reality made in different projections, i.e. different conceptual systems. These all necessarily distort, since that infinite reality as it is in itself cannot be represented in our finite human terms. But perhaps all are equally useful in enabling us make our journey through life. — John Hick - Who or What is God?

(John Hick (1922-2012) was an influential philosopher of religion and theologian.)


+1

I'm not talking about religions — TheMadMan

... just the same old superstition.

If you know of a religion which is not based on purported “sacred” writings, then let me know what it is. It’s certainly not Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or the various Hindu religions. — Art48

You need to learn to use the quote function and the tag function.

Basing a religion upon a writing does not suggest the writing has a divine origin, which means it is not inerrant and can be held to criticism, which makes it subject to the same epistemological standards in terms of deriving meaning as would any highly regarded writing.

My epistemology when searching for meaning, morality or really most of anything is whether I have justified belief of it, and it will be considered knowledge if it is true. As I noted, my justification is not that I was told it and therefore I believe it uncritically. As my post indicated, unless one were to adhere to a religion that demanded uncritical acceptance of rules from a divine origin, then they would not be adhering to your strawman created religion.

As I noted, if you want to attack the fundamentalists, you may, but that's an attack on fundamentalism and not on religion. Telling me you don't agree with the Pentecostals is a very different claim than that you don't agree with religion.

If you want to shift the focus to itemizing those religions you find childish, you can provide us that list and we can sort through it, but your approach wasn't intended as that, but it was intended as an attack on religion per se.

Hanover,
And you need to learn how to read a post and respond to what the post actually says.

First, the written and oral records of religious traditions mainly stem from the 'axial age' in the first millenium BC, at the time of the formation of the earliest civilizations. Religions were addressed to agrarian cultures with practically no literacy and very simple physical cultures. So naturally they utilised images and metaphors from those cultures - sheep, fields, blood sacrifice, and the like - and they are childish because culture was then in its infancy (although the same can't necessarily be said of Indian culture which by then had already been cultured for millenia.)

Secondly, it's worth knowing something about Wilfred Cantwell Smith, who maintained in The Meaning and End of Religion that Westerners have misperceived religious life by making "religion" into one thing. He shows the inadequacy of "religion" to capture the living, endlessly variable ways and traditions in which religious faith presents itself in the world - indeed that it is so hugely diverse that the term 'religion' itself ought to be retired as it is mainly used in the service of stereotyping:

Smith examines the concept of "religion" in the sense of "a systematic religious entity, conceptually identifiable and characterizing a distinct community". He concludes that it is a misleading term for both the practitioners and observers and it should be abandoned in favour of other concepts. The reasons for the objection are that the word 'religion' is "not definable" and its noun form ('religion' as opposed to the adjectival form 'religious') "distorts reality". Moreover, the term is unique to the Western civilization; there are no terms in the languages of other civilizations that correspond to it. Smith also notes that it "begets bigotry" and can "kill piety". He regards the term as having outlived its purpose — Wikipedia

Finally a non-academic essay Dharma and Religion on how these are fundamentally different (although with some overlaps.)

Wayfarer,

I have no problem with the idea “they are descriptions of different manifestations of the Ultimate”. But “and as such they do not conflict with one another” is obviously wrong. Either Jesus is God or he isn’t. Either heaven/hell awaits us, or reincarnation. Etc.

But this is all besides the point, which is that once a religion accepts certain writings as scripture, then the writings cannot be repudiated. For centuries, physicists believed Newtonian Mechanics was accurate and true. But science’s epistemological method allowed them to change their minds and accept Einstein’s theories. Have any Christians repudiated any teachings of Jesus as wrong? Not likely. Why? Because religion uses a childish “a special person said/wrote this so it must be true" epistemology.

Google “child dies because parents religious beliefs” Even today, Jesus’ nonsense description of disease as caused by sin and demons, and his cure of prayer and fasting, is still accepted by Christians. Can any of them say Jesus was wrong? It would save the lives of children. But they can’t say it and remain a Christian.

But this is all besides the point, which is that once a religion accepts certain writings as scripture, then the writings cannot be repudiated. — Art48

The writings themselves have been understood in many conflicting ways. Unfortunately, many violent struggles have been involved with such differences.
In addition, many writings do not agree with each other in an accepted tradition. There have been convergences through dogma. There have been many divergences as well.

Jesus’ nonsense description of disease as caused by sin and demons, — Art48

In the distant past, I was employed as a wardsman in the casuality department of a Catholic Hospital, at which my wife was to have life-saving surgery some 30 years later, with extraordinarily skilled surgeons and dedicated nursing staff. According to your argument, that hospital ought not to exist, and nobody working there could describe themselves as Christian, yet it does, and they do.

Either Jesus is God or he isn’t. Either heaven/hell awaits us, or reincarnation. — Art48

Don't you think that's just the kind of argument that fundamentalism makes?

What you're providing an argument for is your beliefs.

" According to your argument, that hospital ought not to exist, and nobody working there could describe themselves as Christian, yet it does, and they do."
According to your straw-manning of my argument.

My argument is that religions cannot repudiate their sacred texts because of their childish epistemological method. But then can, and do, in cases ignore the writings. That's why the hospital treated your wife with skilled surgeons and nurses, not casting out demons and forgiving her sins.

Here's another case in point. The first page of Revelation describes things which must "soon come too pass". It then describes the Second Coming.
The Second Coming has not come "soon". Revelation is wrong.
But what Christian preacher can admit that simple, obvious fact?

The bible as we know it today is a deeply flawed document of many origins, some of them suspect if not yet proven fraudulent, and some that should not be included at all. I believe Revelation is one such, along with all of Paul's correspondence. Nor, come to that, have the Jewish and Gentile texts any business being bound in the same volume.
It really doesn't seem fair to judge either of those religions by what we currently read in that much-translated, -edited and -tampered-with book.

It really doesn't seem fair to judge either of those religions by what we currently read in that much-translated, -edited and -tampered-with book. — Vera Mont

Well, that made me smile.

What makes a prophet, if not his words? — Vera Mont

The supposed words we can't trust.

Seems we's stuck.

Seems we's stuck. — Banno

You trust whom you choose to trust. It doesn't need to be prophet, verbose or taciturn; it can be a mentor, a guru, bumper-sticker, life-coach, scoutmaster or the woman who taught you to love.

There is some distinction between 'ancient civilizations' and 'tribal cultures', and again between 'prehistoric humans' and 'transitional hominids'. They were never so simple and ignorant as the standard depiction.
As to babies, the instinct to obey their species "quiet!" command goes way back before humans. Quail chicks huddle down in silence while their mother distracts a predator; fawns know to do the same; feral kittens, as soon as they can walk, scatter and hide under something on their mother's command - two weeks later, they do it on their own, when they identify a potential danger.
Natural phenomena, weather, hazards to health and safety didn't suddenly materialize in the world with the advent of H sapiens. We evolved in this world, surrounded by these dangers, adapted over 3 billion years to coping with them. — Vera Mont

I was simply suggesting reasons why god posits were invented by humans whilst experiencing or just emerging from the wilds. The ancient humans were every bit as smart as we are now but they just didn't have the legacy from science that we do.
It's simply embarrassing to me, that despite the fact that humans are smart and now have a mountain of scientific data, some of the people can still be fooled by theism and/or theosophism, all of the time!

But this is all besides the point, which is that once a religion accepts certain writings as scripture, then the writings cannot be repudiated. — Art48

This is just false. It assumes literalism, divine creation of the text, inerrancy in interpretation, and the actual history of change within many religions.

You act as if all Abrahamic religions truly believe the 5 books of Moses were handed down literally at Mt. Sinai by God, written exactly as God said, and the same Iron Age beliefs and rituals exist today.

You also ignore that within even very traditiona theyl often provide a means to reconsider text through their leadership.

You also treat religion as this single unified belief system, as if the Mormons, Unitarians, Orthodox Jews, Catholics, Quakers, Reform Jews, Episcopalians all have consistent methods of interpretation and belief.

Hanover,

Physicists can say Newton was wrong. Can you cite a similar instance in religion?
Of course, religions change. But do they ever repudiate scriptural teachings? No.

Christianity no longer kills "witches". But has it ever said "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Ex 22:18) is wrong and not of God? Of course, not. It can't because of its epistemological method.

Has it repudiated the chapters of Exodus which give rules for enslaving? No.

Revelation's first chapter (as I noted above) has a false prophecy. Can Christianity acknowledge that? No.

Some Christians take Genesis literally. Others in interpret it metaphorically. None that I'm aware of reject it.

I once made a list of some of the ways scripture is massaged to make it say what is desired. Here it is.

To properly understand the Bible, one must: 1) not read too superficially 2) not read too literally, 3) understand the overall context, 4) refer to the meaning of the original ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words, 5) understand the meaning of the words in their ancient linguistic/grammatical context, i.e., proper exegesis, 6) understand verses in their larger historical and literary context, i.e., proper hermeneutics, 7) be led by spirit not by mere words (“for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life” 2 Corinthians 3:6)

But saying scripture is just plain wrong is not in the list.

Hanover, — Art48

My previous comment regarding your using the functionality of this website was not meant as an insult, but it was so that I would properly be flagged to know you had responded to my post. Take a look at @Wayfarer's recent thread in that regard.

Physicists can say Newton was wrong. Can you cite a similar instance in religion?
Of course, religions change. But do they ever repudiate scriptural teachings? No. — Art48

Of course they do, and they do it often. Take, for example, the Protestant church, which dramatically changed scriptural interpretation compared to its Catholic predecessor. Reformations are common as are new denominations.

As I've acknowledged, the scientific method is not used to form moral beliefs, religious or otherwise, so the analogy to science is not apt. To the extent we agree that the epistemological definition is that knowledge is a justified true belief, I do think that we alter our religious and moral views and our scientifically held views consistent with the same epistemological definition, meaning that new justifications result in new beliefs.

Christianity no longer kills "witches". But has it ever said "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Ex 22:18) is wrong and not of God? Of course, not. It can't because of its epistemological method.

Has it repudiated the chapters of Exodus which give rules for enslaving? No.

Revelation's first chapter (as I noted above) has a false prophecy. Can Christianity acknowledge that? No. — Art48

Of course religions can deny claims made in their scripture.

Your comments only point to your lack of knowledge of those denominations that do allow for the complete rejection of certain religious tenants. It is very clear that the Bible has nothing kind to say about homosexuality, yet there are many biblically based religions that are fully embracing of homosexuality, and they have no qualms about admitting that such primitive morals have no place in today's society. The idea that morality evolves and that the Bible can still hold relevance is a view that is consistent with more liberal religions, but they remain religions just as well. This means, as I've noted, that your objections are to certain religions, but not as to religion per se.

You are arguing an immutability of religious views, and, while that is a stated standard that some religions claim to have, a historical analysis usually defeats those claims when you actually see that the religions actually have changed and evolved, even the most orthodox ones.

You are also arguing that there is this monolithic structure called "Religion" that each and every organization under that category must meet in order for it to be a religion. This leads to an impossible effort on your part to explain how Fundamentalist Baptists, for example, are similar to Reform Jews to the extent they both hold to the same interpretative systems.

I was simply suggesting reasons why god posits were invented by humans whilst experiencing or just emerging from the wilds. — universeness

I know, and it's a natural impulse exercised by many modern people who are familiar with the gods of current institutional religions but unfamiliar with early folklore. The concept of "gods" - the deities we know from Greek and Mesopotamian mythology - comes with civilization, quite late in human social development.
Primitive peoples were surrounded by spirits - the spirits of lake, river, cloud, wind, trees, birds and animals and their own ancestors. Some humans characters became archetypes in the stories: the wise grandmother, the heroic young man, the wanderer, the shaman, the bringer of corn or some other staple crop of a region. Some known human attributes also tended to become personalized: deception, conceit, vanity, gluttony, etc. turned into caricatures embodied in the form of an animal or a named person. These stories were told over and over, passed from one generation to the next, maybe to another tribe, elaborated, embellished, adapted - always changing. What seems constant is that most of the spirits are human scale, fallible, accessible; people can negotiate and reason with them, even fool them sometimes. Even the central, creator spirit is either directly involved the humans' daily activities, correcting wrongs and errors, or watching non-judgmentally.

None of those fanciful notions or stories ever stopped humans - or apes, or crows - from exercising their scientific curiosity, discovering, inventing and exerting their influence on their material environment.

It's simply embarrassing to me, that despite the fact that humans are smart and now have a mountain of scientific data, some of the people can still be fooled by theism and/or theosophism, all of the time! — universeness

That's only because religion and science don't serve the same human needs. Science is the tool used to understand and manipulate matter. Organized religion (which bears only the most superficial resemblance to prehistoric or tribal ritual) is a tool used in support of stratified power structures.

You are arguing an immutability of religious views — Hanover

As I mentioned, religions can and do change their teachings, by reinterpreting or ignoring scripture but not by repudiating scriptural verses. If you disagree, can you provide an instance where a religion admitted a scriptural verse was wrong?

Your comments only point to your lack of knowledge of those denominations that do allow for the complete rejection of certain religious tenants — Hanover

What denominations reject scriptural passages? Witches and slavery demonstrate certain scriptural passages can be ignored. But that's not the same as saying the passages are morally wrong and not from God.

It is very clear that the Bible has nothing kind to say about homosexuality — Hanover

It is quite clear to whom? The following verses are from Leviticus:
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Chapter 18 verse 22
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Chapter 20 verse 13

You are arguing an immutability of religious views — Hanover

I clearly say views are mutable (as in the case of slavery and witches).
I'm beginning to feel our exchanges are a waste of time..

You are also arguing that there is this monolithic structure called "Religion" that each and every organization under that category must meet in order for it to be a religion. This leads to an impossible effort on your part to explain how Fundamentalist Baptists, for example, are similar to Reform Jews to the extent they both hold to the same interpretative systems. — Hanover

Wow. Another view I do not hold. Let's just agree to disagree, shall we?

As I mentioned, religions can and do change their teachings, by reinterpreting or ignoring scripture but not by repudiating scriptural verses. If you disagree, can you provide an instance where a religion admitted a scriptural verse was wrong? — Art48

Sure, let us start in the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, and then he spent the next 6 days creating all of the plants and animals, and then on the 7th day he rested.

That is not accepted by most major religious groups, but instead evolution is.

"[Evolution] is generally accepted by major Christian churches, including the Catholic Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Episcopal Church (United States), and some other mainline Protestant denominations;[3] virtually all Jewish denominations; and other religious groups that lack a literalist stance concerning some holy scriptures."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_evolution_by_religious_groups#:~:text=This%20view%20is%20generally%20accepted,lack%20a%20literalist%20stance%20concerning

I could go chapter by chapter if you'd like. It is generally accepted by non-literalist traditions that the Bible is historically inaccurate.

What denominations reject scriptural passages? Witches and slavery demonstrate certain scriptural passages can be ignored. But that's not the same as saying the passages are morally wrong and not from God. — Art48

Again, many religions do claim that homosexuality prohibitions are morally wrong. Some very much so.

https://religionnews.com/2015/06/30/ranking-churches-on-acceptance-of-homosexuality-plus-their-reactions-to-scotus-ruling/

There are many religions that do not believe the Bible to be the word of God. That view is limited to certain conservative religions.

It is quite clear to whom? The following verses are from Leviticus:
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Chapter 18 verse 22
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Chapter 20 verse 13 — Art48

I indicated that it is clear the Bible is unkind to homosexuals, and then you questioned that, and then you offered support for my position. This comment just doesn't make sense by you.

Wow. Another view I do not hold. Let's just agree to disagree, shall we? — Art48

My only way of understanding your comments here is that you are not able to deduce the logical implications of your view and you therefore deny saying what you did in fact say. You continuously state what "religion" requires, yet at no point do you divide these various religions into their specific theologies to see whether they are applicable to your criticisms.

So, when I say that you have asserted a monolithic opinion as to religion, even though you haven't expressly admitted that, it's abundantly clear that you do, considering you speak of religion only as a single indivisible belief system that cannot vary from certain essential elements.

When you say "religion can't admit that certain scripture is wrong," or "religion relies upon the concept that the Bible is the word of God," you assert exactly as I've indicated, which is that religion must be X. I'm saying that view is wrong, and then you say you never said you held it, but you did. That you repeatedly cannot identify the logical implications of your view is apparent, but, what I'd propose instead of your just asserting that you did not say something, explain how my conclusions are not logically demanded from what you did say. That would be a meaningful conversation, as opposed to your refusing to understand my comments.

I'm not missing anything here, and I'm not putting words in your mouth. You simply are not following the conversation. That is not meant to be insulting. It's just true.

Let's just agree to disagree, shall we?

Let's just agree to disagree, shall we? — Art48

If you don't tag me, I don't know you've posted, so there's that.

I don't see that your factual inaccuracies are subject to reasonable disagreement, so I don't know if that's what you're asking that I agree to. In any event, if you're going to post an OP, it would seem reasonable that you defend it and not just simply try to declare a truce.

In any event, if you're going to post an OP, it would seem reasonable that you defend it and not just simply try to declare a truce. — Hanover

I'm happy to defend what I posted. If you disagree with something in the original post, please cite the specific sentence(s) and we can proceed from there.If you have multiple disagreements, let's do one at a time to avoid confusion. Deal?

I'm happy to defend what I posted. If you disagree with something in the original post, please cite the specific sentence(s) and we can proceed from there. — Art48

This is just a profoundly bad faith post. My every post cites to your posts, often cites to external websites for support, offers my basis for describing your arguments, and yet yours ignore the bulk of my responses with poorly formed "that's not what I said" type comments. You then try to end by saying we should just shake hands and walk away, and now you say we should start entirely over, as if you can't just scroll up and read what we've been talking about.

My reason for not letting go of this and continuing to respond to you is that religion threads on this site have been notoriously low quality, so much so that some have questioned whether they should remain. I'm replacing my former tact of ignoring the nonsense to responding until some sort of meaningful response can be provided.

If the Bible says Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, but the Quran says God neither begets nor is begotten, then, at best, followers have no choice but to agree to disagree. At worse, they can have a war to decide who is right. — Art48

Why is their disagreement cause for such alarm? — Hanover

The very first sentence in your first post in this thread mentions alarm, which does not appear in the original post. I'm happy to defend WHAT I POSTED. If you disagree with something in the original post, please cite the specific sentence(s) and we can proceed from there. If not, then I'll agree to disagree and move on.