A Conversion Story

[Cow Poke]

Ok, let's start with Muhammed. By what mechanism did his revelation come?

I suggested we look at their lives, and you switch to "by what mechanism" came their "revelations"? Jesus lived a sinless life. Did Muhammad?

That's what I was referencing.

Jesus was born of a virgin (understanding, of course, that atheists won't accept that, but it's part of "who Jesus is") Was Muhammad?

(by the way, you're disrespecting Muhammad by spelling his name incorrectly -- so off with your head! )

[Darth Xena]

In what sense?

In the hat sense.

[seer]

Ok, let's start with Muhammad. By what mechanism did his revelation come?

From the angel Gabriel - according to him. But let me ask you whag, whose moral teachings resonant more with you? Christ's or Muhammad's?

[Outis]

From the angel Gabriel - according to him. But let me ask you whag, whose moral teachings resonant more with you? Christ's or Muhammad's?

That's arguing from the consequences, Seer--also a culture based question. If one of the two is correct, then it is correct, regardless of how much it "resonates" with someone raised in a Western culture.

[Sparko]

In the hat sense.

[whag]

I suggested we look at their lives, and you switch to "by what mechanism" came their "revelations"? Jesus lived a sinless life. Did Muhammad?

That's what I was referencing.

Jesus was born of a virgin (understanding, of course, that atheists won't accept that, but it's part of "who Jesus is") Was Muhammad?

(by the way, you're disrespecting Muhammad by spelling his name incorrectly -- so off with your head! )

Fair enough, but you're comparing two different missions. Muhammed didn't claim to be god enfleshed to be sacrificed.

Both religions have experienced success and both adherents attribute that survival to divine authenticity. It's not that persuasive in determining one conversion experience more genuine than another.

[whag]

In the hat sense.

That's what I thought: in the asshat and donkey sense.

The bible is rife with asshats with whom god personally interacts. Your argument is invalid, you naughty Calvinist.

[Cow Poke]

Fair enough, but you're comparing two different missions. Muhammed didn't claim to be god enfleshed to be sacrificed.

True enough.

Both religions have experienced success and both adherents attribute that survival to divine authenticity. It's not that persuasive in determining one conversion experience more genuine than another.

I think it's legitimate to look at the "founder" of a religion as part of the process of determining that religion's validity. Mormonism has also had quite a following, but I can demonstrate (as can nearly anybody with an open mind) that Joseph Smith was involved in a number of questionable activities, and even activities that violated his own principles.

(how did we get here, anyway? I'm not sure where we're going with this, but I'm also involved in real life with my wife's situation, so maybe I'm just distracted)

[whag]

True enough.



I think it's legitimate to look at the "founder" of a religion as part of the process of determining that religion's validity. Mormonism has also had quite a following, but I can demonstrate (as can nearly anybody with an open mind) that Joseph Smith was involved in a number of questionable activities, and even activities that violated his own principles.

(how did we get here, anyway? I'm not sure where we're going with this, but I'm also involved in real life with my wife's situation, so maybe I'm just distracted)

I have no idea! Go tend to your wife, mr. poke. We'll talk later about this or something similar. =)

[seer]

That's arguing from the consequences, Seer--also a culture based question. If one of the two is correct, then it is correct, regardless of how much it "resonates" with someone raised in a Western culture.

Of course Outis you have to assume that our moral sense is based solely on cultural considerations. I on the other hand believe that as image bearers of God we all carry His moral stamp, as it were. However marred or darkened by sin. For instance, if we listened to the "better angles of our nature" I think we all would agree with the cardinal virtues - and so on.

[Outis]

Of course Outis you have to assume that our moral sense is based solely on cultural considerations. I on the other hand believe that as image bearers of God we all carry His moral stamp, as it were. However marred or darkened by sin.

That's a belief-based assertion that you are comfortable with. I personally have no objections to your having or voicing that belief (and if I did, kindly tell me to mind my own business). But if you were to use that belief to base arguments regarding how I think, or or to suggest that my words do not match my innermost heart (as some Christian apologists are wont to do), I'm likely to respond with rudeness.

[Cow Poke]

I have no idea! Go tend to your wife, mr. poke. We'll talk later about this or something similar. =)

Actually, the distraction is kinda helpful, maybe.

[seer]

That's a belief-based assertion that you are comfortable with. I personally have no objections to your having or voicing that belief (and if I did, kindly tell me to mind my own business). But if you were to use that belief to base arguments regarding how I think, or or to suggest that my words do not match my innermost heart (as some Christian apologists are wont to do), I'm likely to respond with rudeness.

Well I did edit to my post. For instance I think we all would agree with the cardinal virtues, no matter our culture. And if one didn't I would question their moral sanity. Fair?

[Outis]

Well I did edit to my post. For instance I think we all would agree with the cardinal virtues, no matter our culture. And if one didn't I would question their moral sanity. Fair?

Unfortunately, even your list of cardinal virtues is culturally based, not universal. Are you going to use the Catholic list (prudence, justice, temperance, courage)? Or do you prefer a different list?

Even worse, two people will disagree on how the terms are defined. What is justice? For one person, justice is punishing wrong-doers. For another person, justice is treating all people equally before the Law. Neither is wrong, but the definitions, while similar, are not the same.

[whag]

Actually, the distraction is kinda helpful, maybe.

Good!

Well in that case I'll respond to what you said. I tend not to regard the purity of a religion's author since that's hard to quantify. I'm more intrigued by the wide variety of Christian beliefs that formed after Jesus died than the religious requirements for sacrifice Jesus had to meet.