A Closed Canon-enough is enough, apparently!

[Masterblaster]

Hello
'A Closed Canon'

boatsnguitars exclaims - "Why Christians think a 2000 year old book changes all the rules on how we assess reality is bizarre to me"

This is why! This is like a walled housing estate where life is in a time warp. It is the Truman show. Try getting in or out of that. Judaism, Catholicism, etc, jars full of the dust of ancient rhetoric now devoid of context and closed for posterity, like everlasting coffee jars for the well informed.

1. Is God finished talking or has he been told to shut up.?

2.Is it that if we tell any more lies, our heads will explode?

3.Is it that if we take the jar off the shelf ,the little bit of truth left in it, will be spilled and lost forever?

4. Can a doctrinal religion evolve exponentially?

5. Is it something else?

This ,to me is a 'screenshot background of another age being used as a backdrop to the everyday theistic lives of 2024. My God!, try and contribute to this depressing, Hobbson"s choice of a thing. Keep it simple for casual viewers. Thanks

[The Tanager]

I suppose so, but question of why anyone should think God has had their Last Word and no updates will be forthcoming is sure to lead to why the heck any one religion should claim to be the Last Word and anything that comes after is False vbbbfbrfg.

That has to lead to discussions about what makes a religion more valid than the others, and one may suppose that sidelining the discussion to some other place suggests they know they aren't going to win that one.

I've already answered why it makes perfect sense for the Christian story, if it is true, to have a closed canon and that be God's "last word". You seemed to agree with that, so perhaps I am misunderstanding you here.

[TRANSPONDER]

I suppose so, but question of why anyone should think God has had their Last Word and no updates will be forthcoming is sure to lead to why the heck any one religion should claim to be the Last Word and anything that comes after is False vbbbfbrfg.

That has to lead to discussions about what makes a religion more valid than the others, and one may suppose that sidelining the discussion to some other place suggests they know they aren't going to win that one.

I've already answered why it makes perfect sense for the Christian story, if it is true, to have a closed canon and that be God's "last word". You seemed to agree with that, so perhaps I am misunderstanding you here.

I think you must be, as clearly the Christians in fact do not have the last word, though (like all religions, it seems) they would like to. Islam and LDS came along later and added more revelations. That Christianity refuses them means no more than Islam adding a new revelation and maintaining that is the last one.

[The Tanager]

I think you must be, as clearly the Christians in fact do not have the last word, though (like all religions, it seems) they would like to. Islam and LDS came along later and added more revelations. That Christianity refuses them means no more than Islam adding a new revelation and maintaining that is the last one.

We were talking about God's last word; here we've switched to humans' last word. If Christianity is true, then Jesus is God's "last word" no matter what Muslims, Latter Day Saints, or anyone else thinks. If Islam is true, then Jesus wasn't God's "last word" no matter what other people have thought then or since. And, on a more technical point, Islam and LDS didn't simply add more revelation, they changed the message of what Christianity was (big picture story) in order to fit it into their new revelations.

[TRANSPONDER]

I think you must be, as clearly the Christians in fact do not have the last word, though (like all religions, it seems) they would like to. Islam and LDS came along later and added more revelations. That Christianity refuses them means no more than Islam adding a new revelation and maintaining that is the last one.

We were talking about God's last word; here we've switched to humans' last word. If Christianity is true, then Jesus is God's "last word" no matter what Muslims, Latter Day Saints, or anyone else thinks. If Islam is true, then Jesus wasn't God's "last word" no matter what other people have thought then or since. And, on a more technical point, Islam and LDS didn't simply add more revelation, they changed the message of what Christianity was (big picture story) in order to fit it into their new revelations.

Good old a prori Godfaith - or rather Biblegod faith, where not only God is taken as the default hypothesis before the debate even starts, but Christian - god is the default. The islamic revelation of God is simply dismissed as 'humans' last word'. But that is what they say about yours. Why is the Christian revelation the last One, and the later ones human revelations, not God's? He changed his mind once, from Judaism to Christianity; why not from Christianity to Islam? Or LDS? Do you see your problem here, with the builtin dismissal bias of Faith in a particular claim leading to dismissal of any and all other claims out of hand, apparently without any discussion? Do you get what 'closed mind' really means?

And founding fathers forbid, have you any idea what will ensue when such thinking takes on a political dimension?

[The Tanager]

Good old a prori Godfaith - or rather Biblegod faith, where not only God is taken as the default hypothesis before the debate even starts, but Christian - god is the default. The islamic revelation of God is simply dismissed as 'humans' last word'. But that is what they say about yours. Why is the Christian revelation the last One, and the later ones human revelations, not God's? He changed his mind once, from Judaism to Christianity; why not from Christianity to Islam? Or LDS? Do you see your problem here, with the builtin dismissal bias of Faith in a particular claim leading to dismissal of any and all other claims out of hand, apparently without any discussion? Do you get what 'closed mind' really means?

And founding fathers forbid, have you any idea what will ensue when such thinking takes on a political dimension?

How is saying IF Christianity is true, THEN Islam was a human word taking the Christian God as the default, dismissing Islam, not allowing for any discussion on the subject, or being closed minded?

[TRANSPONDER]

Good old a prori Godfaith - or rather Biblegod faith, where not only God is taken as the default hypothesis before the debate even starts, but Christian - god is the default. The islamic revelation of God is simply dismissed as 'humans' last word'. But that is what they say about yours. Why is the Christian revelation the last One, and the later ones human revelations, not God's? He changed his mind once, from Judaism to Christianity; why not from Christianity to Islam? Or LDS? Do you see your problem here, with the builtin dismissal bias of Faith in a particular claim leading to dismissal of any and all other claims out of hand, apparently without any discussion? Do you get what 'closed mind' really means?

And founding fathers forbid, have you any idea what will ensue when such thinking takes on a political dimension?

How is saying IF Christianity is true, THEN Islam was a human word taking the Christian God as the default, dismissing Islam, not allowing for any discussion on the subject, or being closed minded?

Because If the intention is to make the IF assumption for Christianity the preferred one and thereby dismiss Islam (and any other religions) as Man made, that is an invalid claiming of the win for Christianity on an invalid assumption on any basis other than Faitbased bias, which is clearly wat we have here or wou could not possibly even essay such an argument.

As If the point was that If any religion and its' god was 'the default' then that one would be true and the others 'man - made', which means nothing other than no religion has a case to be the default on that basis.

Now, I have only to ask whether you simply cannot see that the argument meant nothing unless trying a biased win for Christianity, or you knew it was an invalid argument but was trying it on hoping I'd be too dim to see it. You tell me which.

[The Tanager]

Because If the intention is to make the IF assumption for Christianity the preferred one and thereby dismiss Islam (and any other religions) as Man made, that is an invalid claiming of the win for Christianity on an invalid assumption on any basis other than Faitbased bias, which is clearly wat we have here or wou could not possibly even essay such an argument.

Why do you think this is clearly what we have here? Why do you think my intention was to make the IF assumption for Christianity the preferred assumption? Did I also not say that "If Islam is true, then Jesus wasn't God's "last word" no matter what other people have thought then or since." I didn't say one assumption was preferred over the other.

As If the point was that If any religion and its' god was 'the default' then that one would be true and the others 'man - made', which means nothing other than no religion has a case to be the default on that basis.

No religion has a case to be the default. Agnosticism is the logical default.

Now, I have only to ask whether you simply cannot see that the argument meant nothing unless trying a biased win for Christianity, or you knew it was an invalid argument but was trying it on hoping I'd be too dim to see it. You tell me which.

You don't understand what my argument is. My argument was that it makes perfect sense for Christians to close their Canon because they believe that Jesus is the long promised Messiah, which is the end of the story. That's it. Whether they are right or not is a different matter that I haven't addressed here (and I certainly wouldn't base my conclusion on mere assumptions).

[TRANSPONDER]

Ok. I apparently misunderstood. So, yes, I agree that religions may have a biased dogma that theirs is a closed canon or that theirs is right and true and the others are wrong or at least need to be revised.

I'm glad to agree with you that this is clearly unsound and invalid and that 'agnosticism' is the default, which logically means that disbelieving any of the (atheism) is the default unless one of them can make a compelling case.