The Truth About Untruth in Religion

It is intentional that religions are not pure truth and goodness.

No one should expect religion to be nothing but truth.

The truth is mixed with dross in every religion. It is a test that God
puts us to.

To imagine that religion should give us the truth without effort on
our part is as foolish as it is lazy.

Religion is a testing and training ground that separates the pure from
the impure of heart. It is the boot camp wherein those who are
destined to "graduate" to higher levels of training and become
warriors for God and are separated from those who can't pass muster.

Those with a pure heart chose the truth in religion.

Those who are impure choose the dross and are led the way of delusion
within their religion.

Fools and cowards observe all of their religion, truth and falsehood
alike, without discernment.

The weakest of spirit give up entirely and, blaming religion for not
fulfilling their infantile desires, feel justified by their
disappointment with religion in turning their backs on God entirely
and indulging their whims and wallowing in materialism.

D2

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:12:40 -0700 (PDT), Visual Purple
 wrote:

>The Truth About Untruth in Religion
>
>It is intentional that religions are not pure truth and goodness.
>
>No one should expect religion to be nothing but truth.
>
>The truth is mixed with dross in every religion. It is a test that God
>puts us to.

What part of "atheist" are you pretending you are too stupid to
understand, moron?

Visual Purple wrote:
> The Truth About Untruth in Religion

Doreen,

The bottom line here is that religions simply 'define' a number of 
'truths', whether supported by the evidence or not.

So, if we re-read your piece knowing that each religious 'truth' may 
itself be factually untrue, then I think that we get a measure of 
its contribution to the discussion.

regards, Ian

"Ian Smith"  wrote in message 
news:OtKdnWDA9q1mVDbVnZ2dnUVZ8h-dnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> Visual Purple wrote:
>> The Truth About Untruth in Religion
>
> Doreen,
>
> The bottom line here is that religions simply 'define' a number of 
> 'truths', whether supported by the evidence or not.
>
> So, if we re-read your piece knowing that each religious 'truth' may 
> itself be factually untrue, then I think that we get a measure of its 
> contribution to the discussion.
>
> regards, Ian

it might be more useful than at first appears.

It is an admission that:

1. Every 'truth' presented by a religion might be untrue;

2. every such 'truth' therefore needs to be interrogated carefully to 
establish its truth or falisty;

3. it must be logically possible that every truth presented by any 
particular religion (and thus by any religion you care to name) is false;

4. No 'holy book' should be accepted unquestioningly;

5. All religionists must decide for themselves which truths to accept;

And thus that no religious proposition put forward by anyone should be 
accepted without seareching debate as to its truth.

Now all we have to do is to get them to accept that the debate as to the 
truth of any religious proposition should be conducted with due regard to 
the principles of logic and evidence......

"Visual Purple"  wrote

> No one should expect religion to be nothing but truth.
>
> The truth is mixed with dross in every religion. It is a test that God
> puts us to.
>
> To imagine that religion should give us the truth without effort on
> our part is as foolish as it is lazy.


So you're saying evangelists and others that claim a literal truth of the 
Bible are wrong? Splendid.

The big problem with religion is where it talks gibberish about 'truth' as 
if it is the preserve of believers. Their 'truth' seems to be about the 
existence of god which would then negate a need for faith. But faith remains 
because there is no evidence to prove that god exists.

I'm still waiting for a reasonable explanation of what god is.

Steve M

Visual Purple  wrote:

> The Truth About Untruth in Religion
> 
> It is intentional that religions are not pure truth and goodness.
> 
> No one should expect religion to be nothing but truth.
> 
> The truth is mixed with dross in every religion. It is a test that God
> puts us to.
>
So... The Truth can be whatever you say it is - according to your
interpretation of your particular religion at any given time. How
convenient for you.

Reminds me of those oh-so-amusing workplace signs that were popular a
few years back:

Rule 1: The boss is always right.
Rule 2: When the boss is wrong, see rule 1.

Oh how we larfed and larfed.
 
> To imagine that religion should give us the truth without effort on
> our part is as foolish as it is lazy.
>
Brilliant! Sir Humphrey Appleby would be so proud. Ever considered a
career in politics?

> Religion is a testing and training ground that separates the pure from
> the impure of heart. It is the boot camp wherein those who are
> destined to "graduate" to higher levels of training and become
> warriors for God and are separated from those who can't pass muster.
>
> Those with a pure heart chose the truth in religion.
> 
> Those who are impure choose the dross and are led the way of delusion
> within their religion.
> 
> Fools and cowards observe all of their religion, truth and falsehood
> alike, without discernment.
>
This is great. We're not just moving the goalposts, we're mounting them
on wheels so they can be trundled around to wherever they're needed.
 
> The weakest of spirit give up entirely and, blaming religion for not
> fulfilling their infantile desires, feel justified by their
> disappointment with religion in turning their backs on God entirely
> and indulging their whims and wallowing in materialism.
> 
Speaking as an infantile, weak spirited, indulgent, materialism
wallower, I just have one question: How do I know you're not lying now?
Your "Truth about Untruth" might itself be untrue. It's a bit like that
old "Everything I say is a lie" conundrum.

Maybe everything you have to say is dross.

-- 
Jon

The message <ie-dncSNgsDcCDHVnZ2dnUVZ8sTinZ2d@posted.plusnet>
from "Steve Marshall"  contains these words:

> The big problem with religion is where it talks gibberish about 'truth' as 
> if it is the preserve of believers. Their 'truth' seems to be about the 
> existence of god which would then negate a need for faith. But faith
> remains 
> because there is no evidence to prove that god exists.

All religions are of necessity man made and they all lie about their
essential message for there is no god and there never has been one.  
Mankind has sought an explanation of the unknown and until modern times
goddidit was the best they could come up with.    The gullible can
always be exploited which is why there are so many mutually exclusive
religions and gods and also why no one anywhere has ever been able to
prove that his god even exists.

-- 
********
DavidWG
********

On Aug 20, 5:05 pm, "Steve Marshall" 
wrote:
> "Visual Purple"  wrote
>
> > No one should expect religion to be nothing but truth.
>
> > The truth is mixed with dross in every religion. It is a test that God
> > puts us to.
>
> > To imagine that religion should give us the truth without effort on
> > our part is as foolish as it is lazy.
>
> So you're saying evangelists and others that claim a literal truth of the
> Bible are wrong? Splendid.
>
> The big problem with religion is where it talks gibberish about 'truth' as
> if it is the preserve of believers. Their 'truth' seems to be about the
> existence of god which would then negate a need for faith. But faith remains
> because there is no evidence to prove that god exists.
>
> I'm still waiting for a reasonable explanation of what god is.
>
> Steve M

REPLY:  'I'm still waiting for a reasonable explanation of what god
is.' (Steve)
Youve been shown many times thruout your life Steve that the
engineering and complexity of this universe , earth, DNA, your human
body, et al...never comes about from naturalistic means by a
compilation of accidents.  Just as in your everyday existence, a
PERSONAL BEING (Creator) is necessary for something as complex as your
personal Cell Phone .  And that Steve, horribly pales in comparison to
the complexity found in one DNA molecule . Did it take personal
intervention for your Cell Phone to come about ?  Did it take a
plan ?  Did it take a willful implementation to form it ?  How much
more so for over 250 extremely narrow parameters of our Universe which
are all needed simultaneously so you can live to use your Cell Phone
tomorrow.   There is not ONE excuse for denying a personal creator
exists ;  and that personal creator is who fashioned yuou after
himself --- his name is God and he is worthy to be praised ;  Charles
Darwin and Dawkins are not worthy to be praised.

On Aug 19, 11:12 pm, Visual Purple  wrote:
> The Truth About Untruth in Religion
>
> It is intentional that religions are not pure truth and goodness.
>
> No one should expect religion to be nothing but truth.
>
> The truth is mixed with dross in every religion. It is a test that God
> puts us to.
>
> To imagine that religion should give us the truth without effort on
> our part is as foolish as it is lazy.
>
> Religion is a testing and training ground that separates the pure from
> the impure of heart. It is the boot camp wherein those who are
> destined to "graduate" to higher levels of training and become
> warriors for God and are separated from those who can't pass muster.
>
> Those with a pure heart chose the truth in religion.
>
> Those who are impure choose the dross and are led the way of delusion
> within their religion.
>
> Fools and cowards observe all of their religion, truth and falsehood
> alike, without discernment.
>
> The weakest of spirit give up entirely and, blaming religion for not
> fulfilling their infantile desires, feel justified by their
> d isappointment with religion in turning their backs on God entirely
> and indulging their whims and wallowing in materialism.
>
> D2

REPLY:  Go with the Religion whos Leader claimed and proved to be
God , and, which 456 prophecies were confirmed and met in ONE person
hundreds of years before he was born.  Dont go with a Religion that
requires 10^40,000 th power kind of blind Faith without reason , and
which reconstructs 'truth' to bolster moral relativism so maximum
personal freedom can be had thru capitalizing on getting feelings and
urges met asap ;  for...this is what represents our current culture of
every unsacred and immoral thing imaginable .  So much so, that, it
isnt fashionable any  longer to be dogmatically Moral. (cause thats no
fun).

No sense in re-repeating myself, as we all know the drill.....K

Dave is an evangelical fundamentalist, based in the US. He will not 
listen to reasoned argument and will continue to post the same 
invalid materials no matter how many times their falsehood is 
pointed out.

His typical posting consists of material copied from creationist 
websites - mainly pseudo science and frequently quotations from 
credible scientists (2) that have been edited to indicate the 
opposite of what the author intended.

If you are fired up with anger and feel compelled to respond (Dave 
frequently makes a series of increasing unsupportable allegations 
designed to provoke), the regulars here can't stop you, but please 
understand that you will simply initiate an endless stream of posts 
attempting to preach to anyone who is gullible enough to listen.

Notes:
1 If you wish to understand the truth about evolution and the 
science of our origins, and the erroneous nature of Dave's 
arguments, then this is a good starting point:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
2. A recent example asserts Francis Crick (who discovered DNA) 
making statements about the sheer improbability of the natural 
origins of life. The quotes actually come from Fred Hoyle, an 
astronomer, but Dave's source is a creationist site that has 
(accidentally or deliberately) mixed up the references. Dave can't 
bring himself to even acknowledge the error, let alone apologise for it.

<SNIP>

"Steve Marshall"  wrote in message 
news:ie-dncSNgsDcCDHVnZ2dnUVZ8sTinZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>
> I'm still waiting for a reasonable explanation of what god is.

Accepting the explanation may come after a willingness to believe that He 
exists.

"Visual Purple"  wrote in message
news:039baaa0-a126-4cdb-b223-f25c241fc802@v57g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> The Truth About Untruth in Religion
>
> It is intentional that religions are not pure truth and goodness.

I don't believe that is strictly true. I think God allows this though. God 
did send strong delusion.

> No one should expect religion to be nothing but truth.

That is true, because religions have corrupted the truth.

> The truth is mixed with dross in every religion. It is a test that God
> puts us to.

Perhaps.

> To imagine that religion should give us the truth without effort on
> our part is as foolish as it is lazy.

Now I belive that completely.

> Religion is a testing and training ground that separates the pure from
> the impure of heart. It is the boot camp wherein those who are
> destined to "graduate" to higher levels of training and become
> warriors for God and are separated from those who can't pass muster.
>
> Those with a pure heart chose the truth in religion.

They have a spiritual capacity to judge others righteously and not judge
others on inappropriate issues and doctrines.

> Those who are impure choose the dross and are led the way of delusion
> within their religion.

True.

> Fools and cowards observe all of their religion, truth and falsehood
> alike, without discernment.

Discernment does come  by considering the meat not the milk all the time.

> The weakest of spirit give up entirely and, blaming religion for not
> fulfilling their infantile desires, feel justified by their
> disappointment with religion in turning their backs on God entirely
> and indulging their whims and wallowing in materialism.

Possibly.

In article ,
 "Richard"  wrote:

> "Steve Marshall"  wrote in message 
> news:ie-dncSNgsDcCDHVnZ2dnUVZ8sTinZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> >
> > I'm still waiting for a reasonable explanation of what god is.
> 
> Accepting the explanation may come after a willingness to believe that He 
> exists. 

*Credo ut intelligam*, wrote St Anselm, I believe so that I may 
understand. This was a natural way of thinking in the Middle Ages, when 
religion seemed to provide a perfectly good explanation of the way 
things are. These days we have science to help us understand, and it has 
turned out to be a far better guide than faith.

Religion has nothing to offer any more. That's why the churches are 
empty.


Alwyn

"Richard"  wrote

> "Steve Marshall"  wrote
>> I'm still waiting for a reasonable explanation of what god is.
>
> Accepting the explanation may come after a willingness to believe that He 
> exists.

Why 'He'?
I did believe in there was a god. The more I heard about it the more 
confused the message became and the more things didn't add up. Knowing of 
many fakirs and people like David Ike, I've good reason not to accept the 
claims people make.

Steve M

Richard  wrote:

> "Steve Marshall"  wrote in message 
> news:ie-dncSNgsDcCDHVnZ2dnUVZ8sTinZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> >
> > I'm still waiting for a reasonable explanation of what god is.
> 
> Accepting the explanation may come after a willingness to believe that He
> exists. 

Phfffwwhat?? Fer fucksake, have a listen to yourself.

Is this what happened to you? - You 'willed' yourself to believe in
something before you understood what it was that you were believing in?

No wonder your brain imploded!

-- 
Jon