PDA

View Full Version : The Christian Thread!


Pages : [1] 2

Halo_92
08-03-2006, 05:00 PM
I'd like to know how many of you are Christian?

(Please keep it clean)

Nedak
08-03-2006, 05:22 PM
I’m Agnostic. (Means I believe there could be a god, but I think most religions are crazy.)

MachineCult
08-03-2006, 05:44 PM
I'm a Christian.

Halo_92
08-03-2006, 05:44 PM
thats cool

Lantzen
08-03-2006, 06:15 PM
I am a christian, but i dont really belive in god. So im not a true christian

Pho3nix
08-03-2006, 06:21 PM
I'm an atheist. I do not support any form of religion.

Astrotoy7
08-03-2006, 07:05 PM
I am a muslim. Many Christians are oftened surprised to hear that Hazreti Isah or "The Prophet Jesus" is described in the Kuran as a great teacher/prophet. The main distinction that the Kuran makes with regards to him is that he is viewed as a teacher, not the son of God. Although Mohammed is revered as the greatest of prophets, there is no other divine aspect ascribed to him, save the fact that he was the messenger chosen to deliver God's message, via the Kuran.

As i do not pray 5 times a day or attend Friday prayer, many would describe people like me as a 'non practising muslim'. I find this description irrelevant, as - similar to the Jewish communities of the world, being Islamic is just as much about cultural identity as it is an expression of faith. Being of Turkish Cypriot heritage makes me Islamic by default, practising or not.

A word of advice to flamebaiters or preachers. Dont. Please use this thread to discuss, not harrass other members about their beliefs.

mtfbwya

Darth Andrew
08-03-2006, 07:40 PM
I'm Roman Catholic (which is obviously Christian ;)). Though I could be a better one. :(

Samnmax221
08-03-2006, 07:42 PM
I'm wonderfully athiest.

SkinWalker
08-03-2006, 07:51 PM
No religious superstition for me. But I'm curious, why can we not criticize?

MachineCult
08-03-2006, 07:53 PM
I am a christian, but i dont really belive in god. So im not a true christian
You are not a Christian, period.

Darth Andrew
08-03-2006, 07:57 PM
But I'm curious, why can we not criticize?That's what the Senate Chambers are for. :p ;)

SkinWalker
08-03-2006, 08:01 PM
Then why bring the topic up at all.. then put it in your sig? I say that opens it up for criticism all around. I'd argue that I'm duty bound to speak out against propaganda and poppycock whenever it rears its silly head in any serious nature.

MachineCult
08-03-2006, 08:09 PM
I am a muslim. Many Christians are oftened surprised to hear that Hazreti Isah or "The Prophet Jesus" is described in the Kuran as a great teacher/prophet. The main distinction that the Kuran makes with regards to him is that he is viewed as a teacher, not the son of God. Although Mohammed is revered as the greatest of prophets, there is no other divine aspect ascribed to him, save the fact that he was the messenger chosen to deliver God's message, via the Kuran.

I found that out not too long ago there was a programme where a Christian man learned about Muslims and the Muslim community. When he was told that Jesus and Abraham (I think) are described in the Kuran as prophets of the same (including the Muslim) God, he couldn't accept it, which I found extremely disturbing.
He couldn't accept that Christians, Jews and Muslims are all worshipping the same God in their own way, and this young man was affectively representing American Christians, so what does that say about his view on the other two religions?

Faaip De Oaid
08-03-2006, 08:21 PM
I was a Christian, but I have since then decided to open my eyes. Currently I'm captivated by Gnostism. Makes more sense than any organized religions.

Pho3nix
08-03-2006, 08:26 PM
I found that out not too long ago there was a programme where a Christian man learned about Muslims and the Muslim community. When he was told that Jesus and Abraham (I think) are described in the Kuran as prophets of the same (including the Muslim) God, he couldn't accept it, which I found extremely disturbing.
He couldn't accept that Christians, Jews and Muslims are all worshipping the same God in their own way, and this young man was affectively representing American Christians, so what does that say about his view on the other two religions?

That's pretty typical behaviour. "My religion is better than yours and the only true original one!"

SkinWalker
08-03-2006, 08:33 PM
Which is why it is so obvious that none are true. With all the hundreds or thousands of religions that have existed for man, each has a basic tenet: that *it* is the true religion and all others are false.

All cannot possibly be false.

Halo_92
08-03-2006, 08:42 PM
Oh boy, here we go..............

Pho3nix
08-03-2006, 09:16 PM
Why not? I think it's great when people question religions in general.

And constructive discussion is always good, even with criticism.

TK-8252
08-03-2006, 09:38 PM
I'm with Skin on this one. What the hell is the point of a thread in a DISCUSSION board if you can't discuss the topic? Just vote yes or no? This thread fails.

SkinWalker
08-03-2006, 10:06 PM
People who belong to religious cults like to announce their piety to the world and try to "witness" their indoctrinated dogma on others, but somehow expect their superstitions to go un-criticized.

In fact, there's some fallacious taboo about criticizing and questioning the religions of others, what Daniel Dennett calls a "spell," which is cast on believers by those that indoctrinate them to begin with: their parents, pastors, emans, rabbis, etc.

This is all complete bollocks! How convenient for a religious cult to exclude inquiry and criticism as part of their dogma by making it taboo!

I'm reminded of the whole BS about the Muslims who were affronted by the cartoons of Muhammad (one of them would make a great avatar), and demanded of the rest of the world that they not be shown in publication. What nonsense! How can a single religious cult expect to enforce their internal taboos on the rest of the world? Should I give up coffee because the lady I work with is a Mormon (ain't gonna happen)? Should we expect Jews to begin bombing shops that sell pork? Should Hindus riot in the streets, burning U.S. flags because we eat beef?

The superstitions of others willing to discuss them in public are fair game for inquiry, question, criticism, skepticism, and even ridicule in the same way we would treat people willing to believe in alien abductions and remote viewing.

swphreak
08-03-2006, 10:07 PM
Religion disgusts me.

I was dragged to church since middle school, but once I started high school my parents slacked off on going, and I outright quit going. Was never interested in it. As long as people don't bother me about joining their cult, I really don't care what they do in their spare time.

St. Jimmy
08-04-2006, 03:56 AM
I am definately a Christian, and 'aint no-one gonna stop me.

Darth_Terros
08-04-2006, 11:43 AM
I'm deeply anti religion i think we've reached a point in our society where it really isnt needed, we dont need to be scared into being good by such childish things like hell.

Did anyone catch the 2 part documentry 'Root of all evil?' a few months back? it was awesome and made some very good point and to be honest the religious people Dawkins spoke to where down right terrifying.

Heres the a Wiki article on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Root_of_All_Evil%3F

Richard ' darwins bulldog' dawkins is one of my heroes.

Nedak
08-04-2006, 02:01 PM
we dont need to be scared into being good by such childish things like hell.


I agree. For example, my friend and his family are very Christian. They have scared their children so badly about hell, my friends’ sister is scared of fire, and hates the colors black, and red.

Darth_Terros
08-04-2006, 02:08 PM
I agree. For example, my friend and his family are very Christian. They have scared their children so badly about hell, my friends’ sister is scared of fire, and hates the colors black, and red.

Thats incredibly depressing you dont need to scare children into being good if your a good parent then you should be able to teach them whats right and wrong without having to resort to scare tactics.

MachineCult
08-04-2006, 02:38 PM
Thats America though isn't it, Terros. You never get uber-Christian lunatics who teach their children that Jews and Muslims are blasphemous and you go to hell for the slightest breach of Christian law over here.
It's totally f**ked, i've gone to church of England schools my whole life and i've never met anyone whos parents are so fanatically Christian that their children are scared of fire, and the colours black and red, because that just ain't right.

Pho3nix
08-04-2006, 02:39 PM
I'm deeply anti religion i think we've reached a point in our society where it really isnt needed, we dont need to be scared into being good by such childish things like hell.

Did anyone catch the 2 part documentry 'Root of all evil?' a few months back? it was awesome and made some very good point and to be honest the religious people Dawkins spoke to where down right terrifying.

Heres the a Wiki article on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Root_of_All_Evil%3F

Richard ' darwins bulldog' dawkins is one of my heroes.

Yes I watched it on Google Video, the 1st part.
I thought it was a great documentary, and there's a thread about it in the Senate Chambers forum.

Darth_Terros
08-04-2006, 03:34 PM
Thats America though isn't it, Terros. You never get uber-Christian lunatics who teach their children that Jews and Muslims are blasphemous and you go to hell for the slightest breach of Christian law over here.
It's totally f**ked, i've gone to church of England schools my whole life and i've never met anyone whos parents are so fanatically Christian that their children are scared of fire, and the colours black and red, because that just ain't right.

You'd be suprised buddy, though it isnt that bad over here *mainly because we're quite a cynical bunch* it would not suprise me if in a few years it got to be.

MachineCult
08-04-2006, 04:19 PM
You'd be suprised buddy, though it isnt that bad over here *mainly because we're quite a cynical bunch* it would not suprise me if in a few years it got to be.
There was an advert for a programme on Four called Gods next army (http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/godsarmy.html).
Thats the future of America, it's frightening frankly. Things like that is what I hate about America, their insane warped Christian beliefs.

RC-1162
08-04-2006, 04:22 PM
i'm a christian and i'm okay with it, but sometimes i think the bishops and pope overreact too much. i mean, look at the fuss they made over the Da Vinci Code. come on, people, its just a frickin work of fiction!

MachineCult
08-04-2006, 05:17 PM
i'm a christian and i'm okay with it, but sometimes i think the bishops and pope overreact too much. i mean, look at the fuss they made over the Da Vinci Code. come on, people, its just a frickin work of fiction!
I know! And they made a huge fuss about Harry Potter as well, some little kid becomes a wizard and Christians think it's satanic or something, have they ever seen Buffy FFS? Now thats satanic.

Fealiks
08-04-2006, 06:28 PM
To be honest, I fing the idea that a human of 2006 can actually believe in anything to do with the miraculous side of religion, And by this, I also mean the fact that God is watching you and going to keep you in a cloud when you die, truly perplexing. I can accept that people pray to someone they created to make them feel more secure, sort of a lifeline perhaps, but not that they actually believe it exists. In the heart of hearts of the most religious man in the world, he must know that God isn't really watching him. That's just my view. Oh, and isn't it spelt Qur'an, rather than Kuran? Just a thought.

90SK
08-04-2006, 06:43 PM
I do have a degree of faith (or perhaps a better term to use would be spirituality), but I don't practice a specific religion. I prefer to celebrate the miracle of life, as opposed to how it should be lived and who created it. Traditional religious institution doesn't sit well with me, though I have no problem with others taking part in it as long as it isn't hurting anyone.

Darth_Terros
08-04-2006, 06:56 PM
I prefer to celebrate the miracle of life,

You can celebrate life without being religious life is a great thing its amazing what nature creates i dont need to believe some higher being created the world if anything i think its more amazing that things turned out the way they did down to pure chance of us having all the right conditions for life now that is great.

MachineCult
08-04-2006, 07:13 PM
Lol, is anyone here into scientology? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology) It reminds me of that episode of the Simpsons with that Cult.

Astrotoy7
08-04-2006, 08:56 PM
That's what the Senate Chambers are for. :p ;)

indeed. but anyway....

I'd argue that I'm duty bound to speak out against propaganda and poppycock whenever it rears its silly head in any serious nature

hehe.. Skin, just like Lynky and Nintendo, you seem to materialise in religion threads very quickly. Amazing :)

Is critical yet respectful discussion around religion possible here ? who knows. Lets see :)

@Fealiks :)
"Qur'an" is a poor western mimicry of the arabic word for the Holy Book. It is a terrible spelling because it is phonetically variable in pronuciation.. eg. some might read it "Cure-ran" or "Chew-ran" or "Ker-ran" etc. In Australia, I definitely can say that "Koran" is the standard Australian-English word/spelling for the Islamic Holy Book. Im not sure who still uses that exotic version you have listed. Maybe in the UK??

Being of Turkish heritage, I have spelt it in Turkish, which has a wonderfully phonetically precise alphabet. "Kuran" is our word for the book and is derived from the eski Turkce ("Old Turkish") word for the book. Old Turkish of course had arabic letters, so this word was identical to its arabic equivalent. Whether we originally used it in the form "Kur-an" Im not sure(please note that the letter "u" in Turkish without accents on top is always pronounced as "oo" so there are never any difficulties in reading/pronouncing the word) I can say though, when the modern Turkish alphabet was introduced in the late 20s, some of the nuances of Arabic/Eski Turkce pronunciation were dropped, for political and somewhat practical reasons.

mtfbwya

Kurgan
08-04-2006, 10:16 PM
Think I'll sit this one out. Though interesting, you can vote multiple options on the poll.. so you could say "yes, no and want to be" ? That has to be a goof...

I'm Catholic.

MachineCult
08-04-2006, 10:33 PM
Is critical yet respectful discussion around religion possible here ? who knows. Lets see
It would be nice but it appears that many people who are "anti-religion" have decided to voice their opinion quite offensively, maybe we can try this thread again if those people grow up and try to take other peoples feelings into account.
Im not sure who still uses that exotic version you have listed. Maybe in the UK??

Qur'an is the spelling that is used in the UK.

Darth Andrew
08-04-2006, 10:48 PM
It would be nice but it appears that many people who are "anti-religion" have decided to voice their opinion quite offensively, maybe we can try this thread again if those people grow up and try to take other peoples feelings into account.Their opinions aren't really being offensive, but are instead extremely critical of religion in general. But, those comments are in a Christian discussion thread. However, there is a thread that is critical of religion. (http://lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=167815)

St. Jimmy
08-04-2006, 11:13 PM
So for all you people who aren't religious, what do believe? That we're just here for no reason?

SkinWalker
08-05-2006, 12:13 AM
Why must there be a reason? We exist. We live. We seek to go on living and insure that our DNA continues to propagate.

Tyrion
08-05-2006, 03:16 AM
Moreover, why do we have to know the reason for our existence? We're mortal men, with fallacies and foibles; to suggest that somehow, one of us managed to find the meaning of life seems a bit overoptimistic. I'm perfectly happy with being an agnostic and knowing that whether or not there is a God, he's also perfectly happy with leaving me and the rest of us alone.

St. Jimmy
08-05-2006, 03:17 AM
@ Skin Walker
Yeah, but then we die and that's the end of everything for us?

SkinWalker
08-05-2006, 03:21 AM
All the more reason to live life to the fullest and not waste it preparing for an afterlife that will never come.

Tyrion
08-05-2006, 03:39 AM
All the more reason to live life to the fullest and not waste it preparing for an afterlife that will never come.

Of course, that's assuming you fully believe that there definitely won't be an afterlife. With an assumption like that, it's no better than the idea of Christians knowing there's a heaven for them.

SkinWalker
08-05-2006, 03:50 AM
I see no evidence to suggest that there *is* any existence after death, therefore, I see no reason to waste time engaging in rituals and adhering to dogmatic rules to get to one. The question becomes: which dogma and what rituals? Just because you're born into a culture that is primarily a given religion doesn't imply that *that* religion is the correct one or that, if there *is* an afterlife, it knows the correct steps to reach it.

I prefer to live life in a morally sound manner (no religion required to do this) and to its fullest, enjoying every day of living and those that I share my life with. If there's an afterlife, I'll worry about it when I'm dead. If there isn't, I won't be capable of worry.

Of course, religious nutters of all types will say that their brand of religion is the only way to get to this alleged afterlife, but they offer no evidence that what they say is truth.

Astrotoy7
08-05-2006, 05:48 AM
...Qur'an is the spelling that is used in the UK....

lolz...thought so. No doubt the work of some long gone "Professor of Eastern Religions", replete with bow tie and tweed jacket, who translated a 1920s Edition of the Holy Book when he was 78 years old :p

tally ho old chaps, and carry on !!

mtfbwya

MachineCult
08-05-2006, 06:32 AM
tally ho old chaps, and carry on !!

Erm... G'day mate...

Pho3nix
08-05-2006, 08:38 AM
So for all you people who aren't religious, what do believe? That we're just here for no reason?

I agree with SkinWalker why does there have to be a reason? We eat, sleep and mate and then we die, anything in between is up to one self.
Enjoy your life, live to the fullest, stop worrying about the "afterlife".

Darth Andrew
08-05-2006, 09:54 AM
Of course, religious nutters of all types will say that their brand of religion is the only way to get to this alleged afterlife,....Not necessarily. ;)

Nedak
08-05-2006, 12:38 PM
I know! And they made a huge fuss about Harry Potter as well, some little kid becomes a wizard and Christians think it's satanic or something, have they ever seen Buffy FFS? Now thats satanic.

Yeah, I remember when I was like 8-10 and Harry Potter came out and I wanted to see it with my friend and he told me that it was Satanic.(he also told me Pokemon was evil when I was 5, he told me Greenday is evil, and Wizards are evil.)

Pho3nix
08-05-2006, 12:42 PM
Sounds like brainwashing to me.
Not good.

MachineCult
08-05-2006, 12:43 PM
Yeah, I remember when I was like 8-10 and Harry Potter came out and I wanted to see it with my friend and he told me that it was Satanic.(he also told me Pokemon was evil when I was 5, he told me Greenday is evil, and Wizards are evil.)
How is Greenday and Pokemon evil? What kind of people raise a child like that?

Darth_Terros
08-05-2006, 12:52 PM
How is Greenday and Pokemon evil? What kind of people raise a child like that?

Well greenday are evil but for probably completely different reasons to what han sala's friend thinks.

MachineCult
08-05-2006, 02:23 PM
Greenday aren't evil, they're just s**t.

Darth_Terros
08-05-2006, 02:56 PM
Greenday aren't evil, they're just s**t.

Lol well said.

Kurgan
08-05-2006, 04:33 PM
It would be nice but it appears that many people who are "anti-religion" have decided to voice their opinion quite offensively, maybe we can try this thread again if those people grow up and try to take other peoples feelings into account.

Qur'an is the spelling that is used in the UK.


My copy (T.B. Irving's translation, published in the US, 1991) says "Qur'an" as well. Some of my older books spell it "Koran/Moslem" instead of "Qur'an/Muslim" but yeah, it's all just an aproximation of the Arabic. The only Imam I've ever talked to pronounced it "Koo-ron" and "Moose-limb" of course I wouldn't expect every member of the religion to say it the same way.

PS: Wow, we've drifted far offtopic, from the original post, haven't we?

Nedak
08-05-2006, 08:00 PM
How is Greenday and Pokemon evil? What kind of people raise a child like that?

They are very weird people (and he is not really my friend.. he has no friends so my parents feel bad for him and tell me to go hang out with him =/). They are raising their children completely wrong. His sister (that I mentioned earlier about) is going to be a total sl** when she gets older. She is only 7 and she already talks about wanting to be a rock star ,wanting to dye her hair purple ,and kiss boys! They completely shelter their kids from the outside world (home schooled and no cable). (Thinks back to the Southpark episode with the home schooled kids)

St. Jimmy
08-06-2006, 10:50 AM
Greenday aren't evil, they're just s**t.
*Long drawn out horified gasp*.......... *bitchslaps and walks away*

swphreak
08-06-2006, 11:09 AM
Ok, this thread has been derailed enough. Let's get back on topic.

Astrotoy7
08-06-2006, 11:20 AM
Ok, this thread has been derailed enough. Let's get back on topic.

damnit... I was just about quote the pokemon crap said above and close it :(

phreak says give it a chance, so we shall :)

@Kurgz.. you spelling "Moose-Limb" like that reminded me of similar things Malcolm X said in his autobiography. He also disliked the word "knee-grows."

Ruhuna El Fatiha Malcolm was a great man.

mtfbwya

Kain
08-06-2006, 05:35 PM
Yea, for those of you who haven't read any of my posts, I'm direly atheist. And I derive some sick pleasure from crushing the beliefs of other people under my heel. Its a good way to root out those who truely believe what they say they believe and those who just say it to be part of a crowd of hyper-disillusional people who tell me how ****ed my afterlife is going to be. As if I could find myself believe such nonsense.

itchythesamurai
08-06-2006, 06:07 PM
I'm a pretty liberal Christian; I think religion should be a more personal experience than anything. I respect people of all faiths though, their god(s) are just as real and meaningful to them as ours.

Tyrion
08-06-2006, 08:48 PM
I'm a pretty liberal Christian; I think religion should be a more personal experience than anything. I respect people of all faiths though, their god(s) are just as real and meaningful to them as ours.

So...pretty much, you don't believe in a God?

Lantzen
08-06-2006, 08:58 PM
You are not a Christian, period.
Well, i did believe in god before, and i have confirm (Dont know if thats the english word). But i don't belive in it right now, my faith is weak, sometimes i think there is a god but most of the time i dont think it. Thats why i sayed im a little christian

Joetheeskimo
08-07-2006, 12:12 AM
I'm a Christian. I'm a Presbyterian (a type of Protestant).

Skin, I think one thing that sets Christianity apart from other religions is the fact that today in the news, you will read about people being threatened with death and torture in places like China (and places much worse), and still not giving up their faith.
Furthermore, from a purely historical standpoint, you have to admit that Christianity spread incredibly fast after Jesus' time, despite heavy oppression from the Roman Empire. If Christianity is fake, then why did the early believers manage to spread Christianity across all of the known Mediterranean world, on pain of death, with frequent killings and imprisonments leaving them unfazed? Why did they not fear death?
Another thing that sets Christianity apart is that in a crowd, you can sometimes spot Christians by the way they act: morally, maybe more patiently, etc. (And I'm not including those homosexual Catholic priests who rape young boys in my label of "Christians".) Sure, there are moral non-Christians, but 50% of the time, a friendly, patient or moral person will be a professing Christian; and not just because their parents told them to.

han sala, I think the problem some Christians have with Harry Potter is not actually the story, but the author -- T.K. Rowling (that's her name, right?) is publicly anti-Christian. And about Pokemon and Greenday being evil...that's just going overboard.
My idea of Christianity is not a list of rules: "No drinking, partying, dancing, playing cards, etc." Christians have to live in this world. But we want to live in a moral way. For example: sure, I can go to a dance, but I shouldn't...*cough*...go any farther than dancing, with my date.

Also, han sala, those parents who freaked their kids out about hell? They've got the completely wrong idea. My idea of Christianity is to make it seem like a good thing: "You can find meaning in life and put your mind at rest with Christianity", not a bad thing: "IF YOU DON'T FOLLOW MY RELIGION YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!!!" The latter is the attitude of some religions out there, which is another thing that sets them apart from Christianity (at least, the Christianity that I follow).

TK-8252
08-07-2006, 12:24 AM
If Christianity is fake, then why did the early believers manage to spread Christianity across all of the known Mediterranean world, on pain of death, with frequent killings and imprisonments leaving them unfazed? Why did they not fear death?

Why did the Christians launch the Crusades and the Inquisition?

Another thing that sets Christianity apart is that in a crowd, you can sometimes spot Christians by the way they act: morally, maybe more patiently, etc. (And I'm not including those homosexual Catholic priests who rape young boys in my label of "Christians".) Sure, there are moral non-Christians, but 50% of the time, a friendly, patient or moral person will be a professing Christian; and not just because their parents told them to.

And yet divorce rates for Christians are higher than divorce rates for atheists/agnostics. :)

han sala, I think the problem some Christians have with Harry Potter is not actually the story, but the author -- T.K. Towling (that's her name, right?) is publicly anti-Christian.

Huh?? I'd never heard that before. IIRC, J.K. Rowling is a self-proclaimed Christian.

DarthSquee
08-07-2006, 12:44 AM
I dont believe much, but I do believe what is most important is that no one should force any religion on anybody.

St. Jimmy
08-07-2006, 01:39 AM
Why did the Christians launch the Crusades and the Inquisition?

Huh?? I'd never heard that before. IIRC, J.K. Rowling is a self-proclaimed Christian.
^^ Revenge XD No, really, It's a different kind of Christian. There's heaps of different "catagories" of Christian, I for instance am a Brethren/Baptist.

2. Without trying to offend anyone, *Whispers* I've never met a christian that's anything like what she belives. Hence the upcoming scripture.

Revelation 22:14-15
"Blessed are those who wash thier robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs,those who practise magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practises falsehood.

Revelation 21: 8
"But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practise magic arts, the idolater and all liars- thier place will be in the fiery lake of buring sulfur. This is the second death."

Hopefully you noticed the "magic arts" stuff. To write whole books about that and aquaint yourself so much with it is clearly going directly against those two versus.

TK-8252
08-07-2006, 01:43 AM
Hopefully you noticed the "magic arts" stuff. To write whole books about that and aquaint yourself so much with it is clearly going directly against those two versus.

J.K. Rowling does not practice magic. She writes fiction books about a character who does.

The scripture says not to PRACTICE magic. No where does it say you cannot write a fiction book about it.

schwager
08-07-2006, 01:59 AM
I see no evidence to suggest that there *is* any existence after death, therefore, I see no reason to waste time engaging in rituals and adhering to dogmatic rules to get to one. The question becomes: which dogma and what rituals? Just because you're born into a culture that is primarily a given religion doesn't imply that *that* religion is the correct one or that, if there *is* an afterlife, it knows the correct steps to reach it.



You see, that is exactly the problem. "Rituals and adhering to dogmatic rules". The emphasis on religion. I am a Christian, and yet I am not "religious". There are branches of the Christian faith (Catholicism namely), that believe that you have to "do this, that, and that" in order to have eternal life in heaven. Belief that your good deeds will save you, going to church every Sunday will save you, along with putting money in a collection plate. This is religion. Rituals like that, when it even says in the Bible (the basis of the Christian faith), that none of this will, in fact save anyone.

According to the Bible, salvation comes as a free gift. It is not a gift that one has to earn, or even a gift that one can earn. One just has to accept it. Helping the old lady across the street, while a very nice gesture, won't get you into heaven (according to Biblical scriptures). True Christians will not look down upon those who do not go to church every Sunday, those who did not give money to the church, or those who do not believe in a god at all. Exhaltation of self is a sin (once again, according to Biblical scripture). Of course, we are all human beings, and we are all fallible, but that is the same for every single person on this earth.

The fact of the matter is, everyone believes something. Whether you believe that we are here just to live, reproduce, and die, or that were are here for a greater purpose, whatever that purpose may be. Whether you believe in an afterlife, or you simply believe that our deaths bring the end, and the only end. You still believe in something. My beliefs are just as "religious" as an Atheist who believes that there is no god, no heaven, no hell.

Personally, I'm not going to go out there and be critical of another's beliefs and/or religious practices, simply because it is their choice, and it does not bother me, in a sense where I would think less of them or attempt to impose my own beliefs upon them. However, just know that anyone can die on any given day, and that all your questions will be answered for better or worse, when that time comes. There is no evidence of what comes next, because it is impossible to completely prove or disprove any theory that has been proposed (theory of evolution, Christianity, Islam), and it never will be possible. No matter how far one can go to prove/disprove a theory, there will always be questions. :)

St. Jimmy
08-07-2006, 02:11 AM
@ TK
But She influences people all over the world of all ages with stories depicting a wizard as the good guy. She writes stories in favor of magic arts. So many children thought wizards and things like that were cool after the whole Harry Potter thing. People fully imersed themselves in that culture. Do you really think someone who followed the scripture to the letter as best they could, would want anybody to think wizardry is cool?

TK-8252
08-07-2006, 02:16 AM
But She influences people all over the world of all ages with stories depicting a wizard as the good guy. She writes stories in favor of magic arts. So many children thought wizards and things like that were cool after the whole Harry Potter thing. People fully imersed themselves in that culture. Do you really think someone who followed the scripture to the letter as best they could, would want anybody to think wizardry is cool?

I seriously doubt that upon reading a fictional story book, anyone is going to go practice magic and wizardry. If they do, then, they're so damn stupid that they need to go to hell anyway.

After watching Star Wars, were people going to go learn how to be a Jedi and use the Force on people??

St. Jimmy
08-07-2006, 02:20 AM
Hah! true, but the thing is she influenced people to like that kind of thing and that's just wrong according to the Bible.
And as for the force That's not magic arts it's completley different thing in a 'galaxy far far away.'

schwager
08-07-2006, 02:33 AM
^^ Revenge XD No, really, It's a different kind of Christian. There's heaps of different "catagories" of Christian, I for instance am a Brethren/Baptist.

2. Without trying to offend anyone, *Whispers* I've never met a christian that's anything like what she belives. Hence the upcoming scripture.

Revelation 22:14-15
"Blessed are those who wash thier robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs,those who practise magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practises falsehood.

Revelation 21: 8
"But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practise magic arts, the idolater and all liars- thier place will be in the fiery lake of buring sulfur. This is the second death."

Hopefully you noticed the "magic arts" stuff. To write whole books about that and aquaint yourself so much with it is clearly going directly against those two versus.


I think you are bit off-base here. To write a fantasy story is a bit different than practising magic arts. If I were to write a documentary about witchcraft and other forms of "magic arts", does that mean that I am practising those beliefs? Absolutely not. It is a book that you pick up in the fiction section of the library. Though I do not enjoy the Harry Potter books, that is simply because of my taste in books. The book wasn't written with the intention of converting people to believe in witchcraft and wizardry, and I haven't seen the author attempt to convey a message other than a fantasy story to entertain those who read it. It does not go against those two versus at all. If the author were to convey a message with the intention of converting people to the beliefs of sorcery and witchcraft, then those two versus would apply. However, this is not the case.

Halo_92
08-07-2006, 02:51 AM
I find this incredibly weird.
These people who lived a coupla doors down are hardcore Christians, Ya' know going to awana and stuff like that but let their kids read, watch, and even bought them "magic wands" from harry potter.

Frankly I find that VERY disturbing.

RC-1162
08-07-2006, 03:21 AM
harry potter is kids stuff and not satanic, period. i mean, i'm not a fan of it (frankly, it disgusts me) but really, if the author is supposedly anti-christian, then why blame the book? there might be people out there who like HP, so the church should leave them be.

St. Jimmy
08-07-2006, 04:23 AM
I think you are bit off-base here. To write a fantasy story is a bit different than practising magic arts. If I were to write a documentary about witchcraft and other forms of "magic arts", does that mean that I am practising those beliefs? Absolutely not. It is a book that you pick up in the fiction section of the library. Though I do not enjoy the Harry Potter books, that is simply because of my taste in books. The book wasn't written with the intention of converting people to believe in witchcraft and wizardry, and I haven't seen the author attempt to convey a message other than a fantasy story to entertain those who read it. It does not go against those two versus at all. If the author were to convey a message with the intention of converting people to the beliefs of sorcery and witchcraft, then those two versus would apply. However, this is not the case.
I never said she wrote the books with the intention of converting people. It's just that she claims to be a Christian and then goes and writes novels and stuff that are clearly pro-wizardry. The Bible is clearly anti-magic arts and wizardry. Also, If you were to make a documentary about that kind of stuff with the intent of making it purely educational, and so we could better understand these things, You're right. That doesn't mean you're practising those believes. Actually I never said she was practising them either, I just wonder what kind of person calls themselves a Christian and then goes out and openly celebrates wizardry?

TK-8252
08-07-2006, 04:31 AM
It's just that she claims to be a Christian and then goes and writes novels and stuff that are clearly pro-wizardry.

It's not really "pro-wizardry" though. That'd be like saying that Star Wars is "pro-Force." It's just telling a story.

St. Jimmy
08-07-2006, 04:59 AM
Look, All I'm saying is that, she says she's a Christian but she doesn't have any issues with the magic arts. Surely you'd think that there was something else to write about rather than wizards of all things.

TK-8252
08-07-2006, 05:02 AM
Look, All I'm saying is that, she says she's a Christian but she doesn't have any issues with the magic arts.

It's just fiction!

Surely you'd think that there was something else to write about rather than wizards of all things.

*Shrug*

People like her books. Why not write about wizards.

St. Jimmy
08-07-2006, 05:11 AM
It's just fiction!

*Shrug*

People like her books. Why not write about wizards.
Fiction that goes against her "beleives"
She can write about wizards see if I care? But calling yourself a Christian and then forming a wizardry empire is blasphemous.
Third comandment dude, Exodus 20:7
"You shall not take the name of your LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain."

SkinWalker
08-07-2006, 05:13 AM
I find it ironic that devout believers of one fiction are offended by another fiction in which no one actually believes is true. Credulity knows no bounds.

St. Jimmy
08-07-2006, 05:25 AM
Yeah thanks for that.

Smon
08-07-2006, 05:51 AM
Fiction that goes against her "beleives"
She can write about wizards see if I care? But calling yourself a Christian and then forming a wizardry empire is blasphemous.
Third comandment dude, Exodus 20:7
"You shall not take the name of your LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain."
I think the bible was just a series of stories meant to help people live a better life but some people jsut took it way, way too far.

Who knows? Maybe some modern literature will be worshipped in three-thousand years...

FLASHFORWARD SEQUENCE...

Priest-And the lord did say, as he departed the material sphere, "UP, UP, AND AWAY!"
Followers-"Up, up and away, in the name of our lord and against the bald one..."


...plus I think God approves of a lot of this stuff. He has a very big sense of humor. Think about it: he appeared as a burning bush, he told an elderly man to build a boat and live with animals for forty days, and of course there's the platypus.

Plus God sounds like kind of a dick after you read the book of Job where God puts this guy through utter hell just to settle a bet with Satan. (http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/RsvBJob.html)

St. Jimmy
08-07-2006, 08:08 AM
Hah! Yes, yes there is the platypus... As for the Bible just being a whole bunch of stories.. Don't think so. There's plenty of stuff in there that is in no way a story. And as soon as it was written it had followers throughout at least a thousand years! you can't tell me that as soon as it was written (as a story) people just disregarded it as a story and chose to base thier lives on it. With the burning bush, The way He chooses to appear has to do with symbolism, every time. You think He just chose to take Noah and his family on the ark for a joke? Really, come on. And actually, I've currently been reading the book of Job and He put Job through all that to prove things to satan, and It really opened Job's eyes. Job thought he knew God about as well as you can get to know God, and God let him know that he had so much more to learn, therefore, helping him and in the end having a 'happy ending'.

Pho3nix
08-07-2006, 09:09 AM
I think the Bible is just a life-guidance book, but people tend to take it too seriously.
It has alot of "advice" or rules that are quite obvious like It's not ok to kill another person etc. I don't need a fictional storybook to tell me that, I can figure that out for myself.

Rexraptor2000
08-07-2006, 09:30 AM
I'm Christian and I think that people can tend to take the bible a bit to seriouly also.

swphreak
08-07-2006, 10:00 AM
I seriously doubt that upon reading a fictional story book, anyone is going to go practice magic and wizardry. If they do, then, they're so damn stupid that they need to go to hell anyway.

After watching Star Wars, were people going to go learn how to be a Jedi and use the Force on people??

Uhhh... hopefully these people aren't serious. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1589133.stm)


I find it annoying when I read about mothers wanting Potter banned because of witchcraft, ect, and when asked if they've actually read the book, their response is "no." If Christians, mothers, or anyone else doesn't like something, they have every right to not partake in it.

Another reason why religion should be a personal thing and stay in the church, not in the government influencing legislation.

Joetheeskimo
08-07-2006, 10:42 AM
schwager, your post echoes my thoughts exactly.

Why did the Christians launch the Crusades and the Inquisition?

Medieval "Christians" were not Christians. The Church thought of nothing but its own gain. Medieval Christians didn't even have access to the Bible. That's how the Reformation came to be - because Martin Luther believed the Catholic church had strayed very far from the original principles of the religion.

And yet divorce rates for Christians are higher than divorce rates for atheists/agnostics. :)

Just because a man declares himself a "Christian" doesn't mean he has any interest in the principles of Christianity whatsoever.

Huh?? I'd never heard that before. IIRC, J.K. Rowling is a self-proclaimed Christian.

I think she's Orthodox Christian. I did some "research" (:p) on Google and it looks like I'm wrong.
I don't think that Harry Potter is some kind of abomination, because it's really no different than a lot of books that have to do with magic out there -- even Lord of the Rings has magic, and it's highly recommended by a lot of Christians.

Pho3nix, I also consider the Bible as a life-guide. I don't worship it. It wasn't made for us to worship. It was made so that we don't forget the whole reason we're following this religion.
By the way, don't call in fictional. I'll understand if you don't want to believe Jesus performing miracles, but all of the stories you find in there are historically accurate, and any historian will tell you that.

Plus God sounds like kind of a dick after you read the book of Job where God puts this guy through utter hell just to settle a bet with Satan.

God put Job through all that to test his faith. And Job did a much better job (no pun intended) than I ever would in that situatation.
And the only reason Satan even got to do all that -- the only reason Satan even got to speak with God -- was because God let him. You make Him sound like some insecure gambler.

Rexraptor2000
08-07-2006, 11:00 AM
I agree with you all the way joetheeskimo5.

Astrotoy7
08-07-2006, 01:59 PM
ah. this thread is like those crop patterns designs... perfect concentric circles ;)

the cantina used to be a refuge from religion threads...and now :( :violin:

By the way, don't call in fictional. I'll understand if you don't want to believe Jesus performing miracles, but all of the stories you find in there are historically accurate, and any historian will tell you that.

um, no. So much of the Old Testament is mythology for starters. As for the Gospels, there are gaps and discrepancies between the "big 4". Then read the story of Jesus(Hazreti Isah) in the Kuran/Koran/Koroon/Qu'ran (;)) and then St Thomas' 'gospel' and see what historical facts you can actually qualify...?

As a Muslim, Jesus' message to us from the Kuran is one of Brotherhood and Tolerance. The rest of it....well, there is no rest of it as far as Muslims are concerned. That was Jesus core message, and one which only he makes. Indeed, in the Kuran, Jesus could be described as the most human of all the prophets, with a message as pertinent today as it was back then.

I often get asked, "Why dont Muslims worship Jesus" and "Dont you believe in Jesus" etc. My answer is, and anyone who has read the Kuran properly will tell you the same. Jesus(Hazreti Isah) is very dear to all peace loving Muslims. I find it sad that "Christian" demoninations sometimes seem to forget the powerful message of Jesus teachings alone. This seems to pale against things like the Immaculate Conception/Resurrection etc. Take out these things and is Jesus message any less important ? No, of course not.

I think it is an important distincton the Kuran makes re-the Conception/Resurrection. Rather than go into it, I encourage Christians to read the Kuran and see what they get out of it :)

mtfbwya

Joetheeskimo
08-07-2006, 02:22 PM
Yeah, I think this should be in Senate Chambers

Halo_92
08-07-2006, 02:57 PM
ok i'll send a request.

SkinWalker
08-07-2006, 03:05 PM
I must remind all involved, that much of the dissenting voices here come from the fact that the OP advertised the thread in his thread. If you don't want attention, don't advertise.

Also, none of the core claims of biblical mythology are historically accurate. Indeed, there is much that is historically inaccurate that its clear that the limited perspectives of its Bronze/Early Iron Age authors had more of a mind to create a set of fictions to propagandize their cults and maintain power than to tell "history."

And no historian I've ever met would agree that the bible is overall historically accurate, not even some of the theological historians I've read and met.

Joetheeskimo
08-07-2006, 03:25 PM
I'm not only talking about Genesis, Exodus, etc. I'm mostly talking about the New Testament. Whether or not Jesus was the Messiah, he did exist. And his death is very much historically accurate. I'm not expecting you to believe right off the bat that he was raised from the dead, but it did say that the Jews covered the story up (for understandable reasons), which is why you will find no mention of him being resurrected in most historical sources: because the only ones who found out were those closely involved.

SkinWalker
08-07-2006, 03:30 PM
There are no historical references to Jesus that are independent and contemporary. All the extra-biblical references to Jesus were well after his alleged time and hearsay.

Borrowed from my friend, Iasion:

JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)

The famous Testamonium Flavianum in the Antiquities of the Jews is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the Jew Josephus (who remained a Jew and refused to call anyone "messiah" in his book which was partly about how false messiahs kept leading Israel astray.),
* The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages,
* The T.F. was not mentioned by any of the early CHurch fathers were reviewed Josephus. Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* (The other tiny passage in Josephus is probably a later interpolation.)
An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/supp10.htm

(The 2nd reference may be to ANOTHER Jesus.)

In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)
But, yes,
it COULD just be actual evidence for Jesus - late, corrupt, controversial but just POSSIBLY real historical evidence.


TACITUS (c.112CE)

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* Tacitus accepts the recent advent of Christianity, which was against Roman practice (to only allow ancient and accepted cults and religions.)
* This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/ToC/0067.php


PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)

About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.
So,
Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/pliny.html


SUETONIUS (c.115CE)

Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 75 years after the war) Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
* this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "useful"), and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos"
* this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was.
So,
this passage is not evidence for Jesus,
it's nothing to do with Jesus,
it's evidence for Christians grasping at straws.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/suetonius.html


IGNATIUS (107CE? 130-170CE?)

The letters of Ignatius are traditionally dated to c.107, yet:
* it is not clear if he really existed, his story is suspicious,
* his letters are notoriously corrupt and in 2 versions,
* it is probable that his letters were later forgeries,
* he mentions only a tiny few items about Jesus.
So,
Ignatius is no evidence for Jesus himself,
at BEST it is 2nd century evidence to a few beliefs about Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ignatius.html


QUADRATUS (c.125CE)

Quadratus apparently wrote an Apology to Hadrian (117-138), but:
* we have none of his works,
* it is not certain when he wrote,
* all we have is 1 sentence quoted much later.
So,
Quadratus is uncertain evidence from about a century later.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/quadratus.html


THALLUS (date unknown)

We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote, there are NONE of Thallus' works extant.
What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse".
But,
there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely referred to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians MIS-interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a false reading.)

Richard Carrier the historian has a good page on Thallus:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/thallus.html

So,
Thallus is no evidence for Jesus at all,
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.


PHLEGON (c.140)

Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon actually said anything about Gospel events, he was merely talking about an eclipse (they DO happen) which LATER Christians argued was the "darkness" in their stories.
So,
Phlegon is no evidence for Jesus at all -
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.


VALENTINUS (c.140CE)

In mid 2nd century the GNOSTIC Valentinus almost became Bishop of Rome, but:
* he was several generations after the alleged events,
* he wrote of an esoteric, Gnostic Jesus and Christ,
* he mentioned no historical details about Jesus.
So,
Valentinus is no evidence for a historical Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/valentinus.html


POLYCARP (c.155CE)

Polycarp wrote in mid 2nd century, but :
* he is several generations after the alleged events,
* he gives many sayings of Jesus (some of which do NOT match the Gospels),
* he does NOT name any evangelist or Gospel.
So,
Polycarp knew sayings of Jesus,
but provides no actual evidence for a historical Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp.html


LUCIAN (c.170CE)

Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian satirised Christians, but :
* this was several generations later,
* Lucian does NOT even mention Jesus or Christ by name.
So,
Lucian is no evidence for a historical Jesus, merely late 2nd century lampooning of Christians.


GALEN (late 2nd C.)

Late 2nd century, Galen makes a few references to Christians, and briefly to Christ.
This is far too late to be evidence for Jesus.


NUMENIUS (2nd C.?)

In the 3rd century, Origen claimed Numenius "quotes also a narrative regarding Jesus--without, however, mentioning His name" - i.e. Numenius mentioned a story but said nothing about Jesus, but by Origen's time it had become attached to Jesus' name.
This not any evidence for Jesus, it's just later wishful thinking.


TALMUD (3rd C. and later)

There are some possible references in the Talmud, but:
* these references are from 3rd century or later, and seem to be (unfriendly) Jewish responses to Christian claims.
* the references are highly variant, have many cryptic names for Jesus, and very different to the Gospel stories (e.g. one story has "Jesus" born about 100BC.)
So,
the Talmud contains NO evidence for Jesus,
the Talmud merely has much later Jewish responses to the Gospel stories.



MARA BAR SERAPION (date unknown)

A fragment which includes -
"... What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?",
in the context of ancient leaders like Socrates.
It is NOT at all clear WHEN this manuscript was written, nor exactly who it is referring too, but there is no evidence it is Jesus.


--------

In short,
* there are no Roman recods of Jesus,
* there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus,
* the claimed evidence is very weak - late, forged, suspect or not about Jesus at all.
* the T.F. is probably the best "evidence", but it is at best corrupt, at worst forged.

Joetheeskimo
08-07-2006, 03:44 PM
You have some very good evidence there. However, if you are right and if Jesus never existed, then what drove the early Christians? To quote my above post:

Furthermore, from a purely historical standpoint, you have to admit that Christianity spread incredibly fast after Jesus' time, despite heavy oppression from the Roman Empire. If Christianity is fake, then why did the early believers manage to spread Christianity across all of the known Mediterranean world, on pain of death, with frequent killings and imprisonments leaving them unfazed? Why did they not fear death?


Perhaps it was widespread hallucinations.

TK-8252
08-07-2006, 04:20 PM
You have some very good evidence there. However, if you are right and if Jesus never existed, then what drove the early Christians? To quote my above post:



Perhaps it was widespread hallucinations.

Well, what drove the early Muslims? They created the largest empire in history, albeit a short-lived one (darn Crusaders).

PoiuyWired
08-07-2006, 04:39 PM
Fact, you are a christian if :
1) you believe in God
2) Jesus Being the son of God, and/or Binity (Trinity is not required, a concept for only 200 years old or so)

THAT IS ALL.

As for things in the Bible, Scriptures and the like, different sects/groups/etc have different interputation and/or selection of what is being Kanon and what is not. EVEN for the same line in the same verses there are varients dut to different source, menuscript and/or translation. Also remember that some books are at odds to each other, due to the will of humans, namely the translators and writers. Even the writer of old verses have different views on things, and they(and their followers) sometimes do not see eye to eye with each other.

Well, you add another bunch of "Traditions" to this like festivals, saint-worshipping and rituals.

Joetheeskimo
08-07-2006, 04:47 PM
Well, what drove the early Muslims? They created the largest empire in history, albeit a short-lived one (darn Crusaders).

They spread Islam through bloodshed. Christianity spread because people heard the message and accepting it by their own free will.

TK-8252
08-07-2006, 05:19 PM
They spread Islam through bloodshed. Christianity spread because people heard the message and accepting it by their own free will.

Except for all that "burning people at the stake" nonsense.

Joetheeskimo
08-07-2006, 05:50 PM
That was a trademark of the Church of medieval times, and like I said, they didn't even know about the Bible or what it taught, so they can't even be considered "Christians".

grrrrrrrrrr7
08-07-2006, 06:15 PM
I AM A CHRISTIAN AND I AM PROUD OF IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Well, I don't go to church every weekend.............)

Pho3nix
08-07-2006, 06:21 PM
Why do you have to be proud? Can't you be normal about it?
Sure i'm "proud" of an atheist, but I never incorporate the word "proud" when I say that i'm an atheist, i'm normal with it.

Originally Posted by joetheeskimo5
They spread Islam through bloodshed. Christianity spread because people heard the message and accepting it by their own free will.

uhh..no? Christianity took over the pagan religions of Finland for example because of Swedish settlers that took the religion with them, we didn't choose christianity. It was the Swedes that forced it upon us and preached it to us.
And what about Native Americans for example? Spanish/Portugese settlers forced christianity to them aswell, which also lead to genocide.

-BLT Yes :D

grrrrrrrrrr7
08-07-2006, 06:22 PM
Why do you have to be proud? Can't you be normal about it?
Sure i'm proud of being Finnish and an atheist, but I never incorporate the word "proud" when I say that i'm Finnish and an atheist.

Ever heard of scarcasm? (No offense)

Joetheeskimo
08-07-2006, 06:50 PM
Originally Posted by joetheeskimo5
They spread Islam through bloodshed. Christianity spread because people heard the message and accepting it by their own free will.

uhh..no? Christianity took over the pagan religions of Finland for example because of Swedish settlers that took the religion with them, we didn't choose christianity. It was the Swedes that forced it upon us and preached it to us.
And what about Native Americans for example? Spanish/Portugese settlers forced christianity to them aswell, which also lead to genocide.


In that post, I was referring to early Christians - i.e., those who lived during the 1st century. After there were less and less witnesses of Jesus' lifetime, the ideals of Christianity began to deteriorate and, in my opinion, Christianity wasn't re-awakened until the Reformation. Although there are some Catholic churches who I believe have the right idea, in general the Catholic church has given Christianity a bad name throughout the centuries. So quit trying to compare the old European Catholic church to today's Christians.

TK-8252
08-07-2006, 06:54 PM
So quit trying to compare the old European Catholic church to today's Christians.

You're right - Medieval Christians were nothing like how modern Christians are. Radical Muslims today are much like how the Medieval Christians were. This is because Christianity was influenced by the secular humanism that came with the Enlightenment.

St. Jimmy
08-07-2006, 10:46 PM
Actually the Bible is very historicly accurate. Even it's PROPHECIE'S (or however you spell it) came true. And yes, Christians from hundreds of years ago are different from the ones you see today.

Joetheeskimo
08-07-2006, 10:54 PM
Actually the Bible is very historicly accurate. Even it's PROPHECIE'S (or however you spell it) came true.

Just get rid of the apostrophe.

Smon
08-07-2006, 10:55 PM
Actually the Bible is very historicly accurate. Even it's PROPHECIE'S (or however you spell it) came true. And yes, Christians from hundreds of years ago are different from the ones you see today.
Yes it is accurate. Just look at all the cavemen and dinosaurs Adam and Eve saw.

Joetheeskimo
08-07-2006, 11:11 PM
That's one thing that's disputed among Christians; about where the events of Genesis can be placed in relation to...well...yeah, cavemen and dinosaurs.

SkinWalker
08-08-2006, 03:06 AM
Actually the Bible is very historicly accurate. Even it's PROPHECIE'S (or however you spell it) came true. And yes, Christians from hundreds of years ago are different from the ones you see today.

Actually, the bible is very inaccurate, historically speaking. There isn't a single confirmed prophecy. There is plenty of evidence of literary manipulation to fulfill prophecies, but none that can be actually said to be prophetic.

I challenge anyone to cite a myth from the bible that they feel is 'historically' accurate. I'll gladly debunk it if it it's historically inaccurate. Exodus perhaps? The "prophecies" of Ezekiel? Resurrection? Virgin birth? Global flood?

Joetheeskimo
08-08-2006, 09:19 AM
Global flood?

Actually, interestingly enough, the Mesopotamians had an ancient hero named Hammurabi, and one of the stories about him includes a great flood across the earth. I found it interesting that two different stories seem to be related.

edlib
08-08-2006, 10:10 AM
That's because they both stem from the same myths.

The ancient Israelites that wrote down and codified the Old Testament were products of the cultures around them (the cultures that they themselves came out of.) They heard the ancient myths of a "world-spanning" flood and incorporated it into their own stories. No need to make more of it than that.

The myth itself might be somewhat rooted in truth: A very bad localized flood that washed an entire tribe's village away (which, for a people who may not travel more than a couple miles from the place of their birth in their lifetimes, that would have been the ENTIRE world for them.) Perhaps the survivors managed to escape to the high ground, or on-board a boat with a couple of breeding pairs of livestock. The fact that they managed to survive while all their neighbors were wiped out could only be attributed to divine providence, and being favored by the deity. Instant mythology.

Joetheeskimo
08-08-2006, 10:28 AM
Yeah, I agree that some Old Testament stories may not be exactly what they sound like. But I still hold to the fact that the New Testament is historically accurate.

ChAiNz.2da
08-08-2006, 11:23 AM
I found it interesting that two different stories seem to be related.
The same can be said about the birth of "vampires" and "vampirism".. ;)

Both the idealogy and conceptions on the creatuers developed on 2 seperate sides of the world near the same era... with almost all the details matching... however, this tid-bit of info isn't going to affect my life and change my belief (or non-belief rather) of said creature/monster...

I'm no Christian (nor Emo or Goth for that matter.. hehehe), but I don't have anything against the ideas & concepts that the Bible is supposed to be portraying. However, if someone was to bring one in and try to teach me factual history lessons with it (Old or New Testament) .. I'm sorry, but I'd laugh in their face...

Darth_Terros
08-08-2006, 11:42 AM
Yeah, I agree that some Old Testament stories may not be exactly what they sound like. But I still hold to the fact that the New Testament is historically accurate.

But surely by saying that the Old testament has fallacies in it is going against the bible which is the word of god? and wouldnt saying god is wrong make you a very bad little christian?

SkinWalker
08-08-2006, 11:53 AM
The New Testament is the worst. It wasn't even written by those that witnessed the alleged christ. The earliest gospel was probably written around 70 CE, and the remaining gospels except John were based on this and another text that has yet to be discovered.

Errors and inconsistencies in the stories between the writers abound, most notably the ignorance one of the anonymous authors had about the geography of the region as he had Jesus zig-zagging around the Sea of Galilee in a manner that wouldn't have occurred.

Mark was the first gospel, and the anonymous authors of Luke and Matthew basically plagiarized Mark and Q (another gospel source).

Joetheeskimo
08-08-2006, 12:43 PM
But surely by saying that the Old testament has fallacies in it is going against the bible which is the word of god? and wouldnt saying god is wrong make you a very bad little christian?

Many Christians debate over how literal we should take the Old Testament. For example, some believe that Earth being created in six days really means six days, and is not symbolic for 6,000 years or something like that. Genesis could very well be symbolic and in fact the Big Bang could have actually been the cause of creation, except that it was initiated by God.

The New Testament is the worst. It wasn't even written by those that witnessed the alleged christ. The earliest gospel was probably written around 70 CE, and the remaining gospels except John were based on this and another text that has yet to be discovered.

Errors and inconsistencies in the stories between the writers abound, most notably the ignorance one of the anonymous authors had about the geography of the region as he had Jesus zig-zagging around the Sea of Galilee in a manner that wouldn't have occurred.

Mark was the first gospel, and the anonymous authors of Luke and Matthew basically plagiarized Mark and Q (another gospel source).

Keep in mind the gospels don't describe every single moment of Jesus' travels. So if one chapter they're at one place and the next chapter they've leapt to a different part of the area, that just means the author skipped several events to get there. They only included the most important and memorable stories.

The gospel writers may have very well worked off of Mark's, but who cares? Mark was one of Jesus' disciples. Luke wasn't. Luke was only a companion of Paul. Most likely, Luke went around and interviewed witnesses and those who knew Jesus. John's gospel is different because it is his own version -- he was one of Jesus' closest disciples.

SkinWalker
08-08-2006, 01:17 PM
The gospels might not even describe a single moment of jesus' travels. There's no evidence that they were authored by their title names and quite a bit that indicates that they were authored by those that weren't alleged to be directly connected with the alleged christ.

The gospel of John differs because it was written by an anonymous author who didn't read Mark or Q.

Joetheeskimo
08-08-2006, 01:30 PM
So, basically, your assumption is that the entire history of Christianity - and the whole reason it spread to become the single largest-followed religion on Earth - with one-third of the world's population accepting its message - is because of a huge network of lies and carefully planned out made-up stories, which are compiled in one, 1,000+ page book. Yes, that makes sense.

Darth_Terros
08-08-2006, 02:09 PM
So, basically, your assumption is that the entire history of Christianity - and the whole reason it spread to become the single largest-followed religion on Earth - with one-third of the world's population accepting its message - is because of a huge network of lies and carefully planned out made-up stories, which are compiled in one, 1,000+ page book. Yes, that makes sense.

Just because its popular doesnt make it right i mean the nazi party was pretty popular in germany at one point and look how that turned out.

Christianity has been forced on more people over the years than any other religion hell at one time if you didnt believe it you wouldve been killed which kind of gave them a boost when it came to spreading across earth.

Astrotoy7
08-08-2006, 02:17 PM
So, basically, your assumption is that the entire history of Christianity - and the whole reason it spread to become the single largest-followed religion on Earth - with one-third of the world's population accepting its message - is because of a huge network of lies and carefully planned out made-up stories, which are compiled in one, 1,000+ page book. Yes, that makes sense.

that is a terrbly cynical statement. Skin is a man that deals with facts, he is stating them. Whether or not Jesus, or any figure within any theology actually existed or did what is written becomes immaterial in matters of faith. Faith is something complex, and far more than a collection of facts and figures. It is a sociological, political and psychological phenomenon that is an innate construct of humanity alone. ie. It's a really tricky subject !

mtfbwya

SkinWalker
08-08-2006, 02:23 PM
So, basically, your assumption is that the entire history of Christianity - and the whole reason it spread to become the single largest-followed religion on Earth - with one-third of the world's population accepting its message - is because of a huge network of lies and carefully planned out made-up stories, which are compiled in one, 1,000+ page book. Yes, that makes sense.

So, basically, your assumption is that it must all be true because that's what most of everyone you know believes.

If that's not a logical fallacy, they don't exist!

Its an argument from authority, because it relies on time and quantity as authorities to provide veracity rather than testing or inquiry.

Its an argument from personal incredulity because the adherents of christian cults can't explain the world any other way -mostly by refusal to inquire or examine.

It's Ad ignorantum because its believers say it must be true because they don't know it isn't.

It's a Non sequitur because it doesn't follow that just because there are a lot of cult followers that they must be right. Its argued that 33% of the world follows some brand of christianity. But this 33% agrees on very little! It includes after all, Mormons, Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. There are, by the way, a lot of Muslims in the world. Indeed, the Islamic cults are, together, the fastest growing! By your own logic, would that not indicate that you are WRONG! Xianity isn't the way to go -Islam is!

Finally, the argument is a tautology, because it argues we know xianity to be true "because it tells us so" as the Sunday school hymn goes.

For the most part, humans get their world beliefs and religious ideas from the parents. This is readily apparent simply by looking at the obvious correlation between nations and regions with predominant religions and noting that no christians are born in Saudi Arabia to parents that are Muslim; no Hindi born to parents in Dublin who weren't already Hindu; and no Buddhists are born to Mormon families in Utah.

The numbers of people who convert to other religious cults or give them up entirely is small (though the numbers giving up religion is growing).

The world was colonized by nations like Britain, France, Belgium, Spain, and Portugual. Each ruled by monarchs who had "divine provenance" and empowered by the Judeo-Christian faith.

Going further back in time, each of these nations was once part of a larger empire of Rome, which conquered what it termed "pagan" religions -stealing many of their icons and myths to adopt for the new christian cults that took their places. Indeed, there were competing cults at the conception of christianity, one of them being Mithraism, which celebrated he birth of Mithra on Dec. 25 (none of the gospels mention this date), visited by magi bearing gifts; celebrates consumption of wine & bread and baptism as sacraments; etc.

Evidence is suggestive that these two competing cults may have originated from the much, MUCH earlier cult of Dionysus, who's myth is strikingly similar to that of the Jesus myth.

The evidence is, that the early christian cult leaders were looking for ways to gain and maintain patriarchal power. They stole/borrowed the mythologies of the peoples they sought to influence as a method of developing trust or just outright deception.

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Darth_Terros
08-08-2006, 02:31 PM
And with that post SkinWalker has won this thread.

The awesomeness of that post nearly brought a tear to my eye.

SkinWalker
08-08-2006, 02:42 PM
I just believe that people should think and question. That religion has cast some "spell" to prevent inquiry is wrong. That it is somehow taboo to criticize religions and religious practices is nuts, particularly when the five or six major religious cults of the world (Sunnism, Shi'aism, Baptists, Catholicism, etc. -particularly the evangelicals of each) have such a profound effect on societies and governments to the point of being dangerous.

Planes flown into buildings, pseudoscience in public schools, government policy and decisions based on religious dogma...

Halo_92
08-08-2006, 02:44 PM
Well how do You explain this prophecy, in Revalations it says that natural disasters, Wars, and all would rise aganst Israel. These are very true signs that Jesus' second coming is very near.

Darth_Terros
08-08-2006, 02:49 PM
Well how do You explain this prophecy, in Revalations it says that natural disasters, Wars, and all would rise aganst Israel. These are very true signs that Jesus' second coming is very near.

... that is so damn retarded

Natural disasters happen because they are natural they happen all the freaking time all through out history there has been natural disasters and theres nothing to suggest at all that they are becoming more frequent or worse.

Wars well name a time in our history where there hasnt been a war.

I dont see everyone rising agasint Isreal.

Halo_92
08-08-2006, 03:14 PM
ok here we go
Iran has missiles right they are going to use those against the us tryin to turn the us against israel.

SkinWalker
08-08-2006, 03:20 PM
And, so, is the strawman tactic now to change the argument from inquiry about christianity to the current political problems in the Middle East.

People go to war. Natural disasters happen. Predicting either or even both is hardly a "prophecy."

TK-8252
08-08-2006, 03:36 PM
These are very true signs that Jesus' second coming is very near.

You do know that the Christians have ALWAYS been claiming that right? My parents, who were raised Jehovah's Witnesses (they're not anymore), both say that they remember from childhood being told that "the end is near." My dad really regrets the fact that he was discouraged from education because his parents thought that Armageddon was almost here. He now, as an atheist, embraces education, and encourages me to be something that he never had the chance to be, like a teacher or a journalist.

My parents are both middle-aged and no freakin' end of the world despite what their religion told them. Next time when all the Christians get excited about the "end times" and they never come, why won't they just admit that they have no clue when the "second coming" is near.

Joetheeskimo
08-08-2006, 03:50 PM
You do know that the Christians have ALWAYS been claiming that right? My parents, who were raised Jehovah's Witnesses (they're not anymore), both say that they remember from childhood being told that "the end is near." My dad really regrets the fact that he was discouraged from education because his parents thought that Armageddon was almost here. He now, as an atheist, embraces education, and encourages me to be something that he never had the chance to be, like a teacher or a journalist.

Yes, that is what Jehovah's Witnesses teach, and that's also why Presbyterians dont' refer to Jehovah's Witnesses as "Christians". The New Testament tells all Christians to live our lives as normal, and nowhere in there does it say to stop everything and hide in your house, because the end is near. "Near" can mean millennia.
However, from a scientific viewpoint, things are deteriorating, and conditions are much worse since your dad was a kid (global warming, ozone depletion, etc.)

My parents are both middle-aged and no freakin' end of the world despite what their religion told them. Next time when all the Christians get excited about the "end times" and they never come, why won't they just admit that they have no clue when the "second coming" is near.

We have admitted that. For a while, Jesus' disciples thought the ned was really, really near -- that it would be in their lifetime. Eventually, they realized Jesus had a different definition of "near", and that was why they began to plant churches: because they realized they needed to settle down and survive the attacks of the Roman Empire and other oppressors, since the end was, in fact, farther than they thought. So if anyone you know gave up education or something else thinking that the end was coming within months, then that person has got the wrong idea.

And with that post SkinWalker has won this thread.

The awesomeness of that post nearly brought a tear to my eye.

You're right. He's won this argument, because I'm tired of countering what he says. Enjoy your victory. :)

Pho3nix
08-08-2006, 03:55 PM
Yes, that is what Jehovah's Witnesses teach, and that's also why Presbyterians dont' refer to Jehovah's Witnesses as "Christians". The New Testament tells all Christians to live our lives as normal, and nowhere in there does it say to stop everything and hide in your house, because the end is near. "Near" can mean millennia.
However, from a scientific viewpoint, things are deteriorating, and conditions are much worse since your dad was a kid (global warming, ozone depletion, etc.)

BTW. Global Warming / Ozone depletion have not been scientifically proven. It's only propaganda fed to people by scruffy lookin' nerfherders like Al Gore.

edlib
08-08-2006, 04:55 PM
Is it? ;) (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-08-03T225820Z_01_N03438084_RTRUKOC_0_US-ROBERTSON.xml&archived=False)

There isn't a single, respected scientist that I can think of that refutes global warming... the scientific community is pretty universal in their acceptance of it as fact.

But we are off topic (again... :rolleyes: )

Samnmax221
08-08-2006, 05:07 PM
Well how do You explain this prophecy, in Revalations it says that natural disasters, Wars, and all would rise aganst Israel. These are very true signs that Jesus' second coming is very near.
To quote Billy Joel "We didn't start the fire", the world is and always will be some what unstable.

Rexraptor2000
08-08-2006, 05:19 PM
As long as there is man there will be war as Einstien once said.

MachineCult
08-08-2006, 06:00 PM
As long as there is man there will be war as Einstien once said.
Yeah, I saw that quote on Call of Duty 2.

Rexraptor2000
08-08-2006, 06:01 PM
I saw it in the first Call of Duty.

BasiliskJC
08-08-2006, 08:06 PM
I used to be a christian. It's funny I went to public schools most of my life, but when I went to a private christian school I just couldn't belive it all any more. Religions, to me, just don't add up.

Smon
08-08-2006, 09:27 PM
I used to be a christian. It's funny I went to public schools most of my life, but when I went to a private christian school I just couldn't belive it all any more. Religions, to me, just don't add up.
They don't make sense...

And there's a reason Christianity is so popular: FEAR.

Hinduism says that if you don't believe it, no prob, go out and do your own thing and you're good!
Buddhism says that if you don't believe it, no prob, go out and do your own thing and you're good!
Christianity says that if you don't believe it, no prob, YOU'LL JUST BURN IN HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY AND KNOW UNENDING PAIN FOREVER.

...and that is no good!

St. Jimmy
08-08-2006, 11:24 PM
Actually, Christianity says you can believe whatever you want but if you don't accept that Jesus died for you and that God will allways love you and be willing to care for you then YOU'LL JUST BURN IN HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY!!!!!!!!
It's not like you guys haven't had fair warning or anything.

Samnmax221
08-08-2006, 11:29 PM
Actually, Christianity says you can believe whatever you want but if you don't accept that Jesus died for you and that God will allways love you and be willing to care for you then YOU'LL JUST BURN IN HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY!!!!!!!!
It's not like you guys haven't had fair warning or anything.
If Jesus comes back I'll lock him in a closet nobody tells me what to do.

St. Jimmy
08-08-2006, 11:35 PM
Yes, have fun with that. THEN BURN IN HELL!!!!!!!! :)

Smon
08-08-2006, 11:59 PM
Actually, Christianity says you can believe whatever you want but if you don't accept that Jesus died for you and that God will allways love you and be willing to care for you then YOU'LL JUST BURN IN HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY!!!!!!!!
It's not like you guys haven't had fair warning or anything.
They say God makes no mistakes, but sending Jesus down just so he can die and scare the hell out of us (literally) seems like a mistake to me.

Darth Andrew
08-09-2006, 12:00 AM
They don't make sense...

And there's a reason Christianity is so popular: FEAR.

Hinduism says that if you don't believe it, no prob, go out and do your own thing and you're good!
Buddhism says that if you don't believe it, no prob, go out and do your own thing and you're good!
Christianity says that if you don't believe it, no prob, YOU'LL JUST BURN IN HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY AND KNOW UNENDING PAIN FOREVER.Um, no. As far as I know, Catholicism teaches that as long as one does God's will to the best of their knowledge and ability, they will go to Heaven. Besides, Christianity wouldn't be popular if it told people 'come with us or suffer eternal damnation;" people would simply leave.

They say God makes no mistakes, but sending Jesus down just so he can die and scare the hell out of us (literally) seems like a mistake to me.How so? He didn't seem to scare the hell out of us....

St. Jimmy
08-09-2006, 12:12 AM
They say God makes no mistakes, but sending Jesus down just so he can die and scare the hell out of us (literally) seems like a mistake to me.
How did He scare you? I don't get it.
And it wasn't a mistake. God sent Jesus to earth to witness but the main reason was so that Jesus could die for us. He had to die for us to redeem us of our sins. Thanks to Him we are all forgiven as soon as we ask. Because Jesus was 100% perfect the ultimate sacrifice, perfect and pure it counters all our sins. He came here to die for us.

TK-8252
08-09-2006, 12:18 AM
He had to die for us to redeem us of our sins. Thanks to Him we are all forgiven as soon as we ask.

Wow that makes no sense at all. God forgave us for our sins... because we killed his son.

He must have really hated his son.

St. Jimmy
08-09-2006, 12:22 AM
No, Because we have sinned against him we need forgivness. So Jesus was willing to come down to earth, represent mankind, and die for us. Therefore being the perfect sacrifce because He was completely sinless.

Smon
08-09-2006, 12:24 AM
How did He scare you? I don't get it.
And it wasn't a mistake. God sent Jesus to earth to witness but the main reason was so that Jesus could die for us. He had to die for us to redeem us of our sins. Thanks to Him we are all forgiven as soon as we ask. Because Jesus was 100% perfect the ultimate sacrifice, perfect and pure it counters all our sins. He came here to die for us.
So... if I kill two-thousand retarded albino children and then go to church and say "Please forgive me." I get a free ticket to heaven?

...bitchin'.

Samnmax221
08-09-2006, 12:24 AM
No, Because we have sinned against him we need forgivness. So Jesus was willing to come down to earth, represent mankind, and die for us. Therefore being the perfect sacrifce because He was completely sinless.
Nobody is born guilty of anything

TK-8252
08-09-2006, 12:26 AM
No, Because we have sinned against him we need forgivness. So Jesus was willing to come down to earth, represent mankind, and die for us. Therefore being the perfect sacrifce because He was completely sinless.

If he was completely sinless, how the hell did he represent mankind? Shouldn't a sinner represent mankind?

And why, when god created us as sinners, should we be punished for sinning? Shouldn't god be cursing himself for creating sin? Why did he create sin?

St. Jimmy
08-09-2006, 12:44 AM
Smon, Yes if you truly mean that you're sorry.

Samnmax, What?

TK8252, If a sinner represented mankind then his death wouldn't have covered all of our sins seeing as he wouldn't be the perfet sacrifice. Jesus could represent us 'cause he was a human sinless or not. God created us to praise and love Him. Now, he didn't create us as sinners born to rot in hell He created us with free wills. What good would a bunch of clones without free wills be that just bow down and worship because they know nothing else? It's not His fault YOU sin. You do that by yourself.

Darth Andrew
08-09-2006, 12:49 AM
So... if I kill two-thousand retarded albino children and then go to church and say "Please forgive me." I get a free ticket to heaven?As long as you are truly sorry for doing it and somehow make up for it, then you will go to Heaven (assuming you didn't do any other sort of sinning ;)).If he was completely sinless, how the hell did he represent mankind? Shouldn't a sinner represent mankind?Let's say you break your neighbor's window. Simply apologizing wouldn't work, so you would have to pay for it. But what if it cost $1 googol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_google) to replace? Adam and Eve's sin was so great that it would be impossible for mere humans to pay off. So, the only other option would be for God to sacrifice Himself to Himself: the perfect sacrifice, like St. Jimmy said.

TK-8252
08-09-2006, 12:50 AM
God created us to praise and love Him.

What a big god damn ego he must have.

Now, he didn't create us as sinners born to rot in hell He created us with free wills. What good would a bunch of clones without free wills be that just bow down and worship because they know nothing else? It's not His fault YOU sin. You do that by yourself.

I see. So he created us to worship him BUT also gave us free will.

But using said free will to say, work on Sunday, will get me sent to burn in hell forever.

Ironic.

St. Jimmy
08-09-2006, 12:57 AM
Actually, working on the sabbath (wich is more than likely Saturday btw) won't get you ETERNAL DAMNATION!!!!!!!! 'cause you can just ask for forgiveness. As for the ego thing, if you had those powers wouldn't you do something like that ;P ?
No, but really, He does deserve it. (the praise) and also He reciprocates.

Darth Andrew
08-09-2006, 12:59 AM
What a big god damn ego he must have.Well, if you believe He created all of humanity, then you'd think He'd deserve it. :)
I see. So he created us to worship him BUT also gave us free will.

But using said free will to say, work on Sunday, will get me sent to burn in hell forever.

Ironic.If you do it purposely so as to defy God, then it would be a sin. But working on Sundays to put food on the table wouldn't send anyone to Hell.

EDIT: Dang. St. Jimmy keeps beating me to it. :fist:

Kurgan
08-09-2006, 01:17 AM
Not to bust in on here with your converstation and stuff (my views on the topic I presume are well known), but Skin, didn't you say in the old religion thread how you had some amazing data you were going to show on the Historicity of Jesus?

PM me. ;)

Samnmax221
08-09-2006, 01:19 AM
Samnmax, What?
I'm not going to spend my whole my whole in servitude because some naked people supposedly ate some fruit. The who point behind the Adam and Eve story is that knowledge is dangerous.
God created us to praise and love Him.
I much prefer living for only for myself.

TK-8252
08-09-2006, 01:21 AM
If you do it purposely so as to defy God, then it would be a sin. But working on Sundays to put food on the table wouldn't send anyone to Hell.

"But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns."

SkinWalker
08-09-2006, 01:43 AM
Kurg,

Man, I don't remember. I'll have to review that thread and see if I can remember what it was. I've been busy, busy, busy...

Kurgan
08-09-2006, 01:48 AM
Skin,

Typical! You probably have the meaning of life lying around too, lost in a pile of unfinished projects! ;)

Hey, I feel your pain; I'm totally disorganized! My apartment needs to be cleansed from top to bottom I swear... :smash:

Okay, off to bed for me!

Halo_92
08-09-2006, 01:52 AM
Okay, off to bed for me!

i know what u mean

RC-1162
08-09-2006, 03:43 AM
you know, there's something ive been wondering all this while. many christians i know say that God is more powerful than Satan. if true, why doesnt God just pwn Satan and restore a sin-free society?

Typical! You probably have the meaning of life lying around too, lost in a pile of unfinished projects! ;)

well, it's 42. i thought you knew that :xp:

St. Jimmy
08-09-2006, 06:21 AM
"But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns."
But the whole reason God made the sabbath His holy day is 1. So we have a day that we can dedicate to the LORD and 2. For US! He wants us to rest on that day becaude He knows it's good for us! He made us, He knows everything about us and He know that we should rest on the last day of the week. That is why He commanded us to keep the seventh day holy.
Also RC, If He were to just get rid of satan and sin with him then, like I was saying earlier, it would defeat the whole purpose of God having created us with our free wills. However, In Heaven there will be no sin and no satan. We will have fought the final battle and God will have (easily) triumphed over satan.

edlib
08-09-2006, 10:21 AM
Question then:

Do you do no work from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown as prescribed in the Commandments... or do you do what most Christians do, and observe Sunday midnight to midnight (which is technically the FIRST day of the week.)

I believe that this is important. Keeping the Sabbath IS one of the 10 Commandments. And the exact way that you are supposed to keep it is laid out in very specific detail. And I believe, if I am remembering correctly, that there is language there to observe it this way "... for all time."

So that means that the vast majority of Christians are breaking one of the Commandments each and every week.

Somebody changed it at some point. Which makes me very curious... Who, exactly, has the authority to decide to override one of the 10 Commandments?

I won't even get into the point that God clearly outlined all the Holy days that he wants people to observe and use for worship... and that most of these days are now ignored by Christians in favor of holidays (Christmas, Easter, Halloween...) that (as Skin so deftly pointed out) are pagan celebrations in origin.

This is an aspect of modern Christianity that I've never been able to quite come to grips with. Was God just wasting his breath on these commandments, or do humans have the power to belay orders of His that are inconvenient for us?

Joetheeskimo
08-09-2006, 12:46 PM
Somebody changed it at some point. Which makes me very curious... Who, exactly, has the authority to decide to override one of the 10 Commandments?

Jesus does. But I don't actually know where along the way it changed from Saturday to Sunday, but since Sunday is the day Christians worship, it's the day we rest on. If we worshipped on Saturday like Jews, that would be our Sabbath.

I won't even get into the point that God clearly outlined all the Holy days that he wants people to observe and use for worship... and that most of these days are now ignored by Christians in favor of holidays (Christmas, Easter, Halloween...) that (as Skin so deftly pointed out) are pagan celebrations in origin.

This is an aspect of modern Christianity that I've never been able to quite come to grips with. Was God just wasting his breath on these commandments, or do humans have the power to belay orders of His that are inconvenient for us?

One of the things that sets Christians very much apart from Jews is that we believe when Jesus came, he changed many people's ideas of what the law said. For example - the Jews are told, in order to divorce your wife you must give her a certificate of divorce. But - Matthew 19:8 - "Jesus said, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But this was not the way from the beginning. I tell you than anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, commits aldultery."

In this way, he changed many Old Testament rules that God had set down for the Israelites - and one of the things he always denounced in the Jewish teachers of the law was that they were too legalistic - they followed every single word in the Old Testament and actaed all high-and-mighty as a result. So much of the laws you read in hte Old Testament have changed since the beginning of Christianity.

edlib
08-09-2006, 01:26 PM
Well, that's the explanation I always get, but the whole thing seems a little redundant to me: To make one set of laws that are eternal and everlasting... then to re-write the entire thing a couple of thousand years later with a whole new set of eternal, everlasting laws.

But my point is that the Sabbath command is the only one of the 10 Commandments that Christians state isn't to be obeyed in both the letter and spirit of the law. Just the spirit of the law...

You don't hear too many Christians saying that we don't need to worry about adultery (if anything, your own example shows a much stricter definition of the spirit of the law than the letter...) murder, lying, taking the Lord's name in vain, etc...

The Sabbath command has always seemed to me to be the only one of the 10 where it seems OK to ignore the letter of the law in favor of the spirit. (Well, since it's possible that a Crucifix might be defined as a graven image, maybe that one too...)

Since Jesus and all the apostles were devout Jews, we can only imagine that they always kept the Jewish (seventh-day) Sabbath. And if it was good enough for them...

My deep suspicion is that the day Christians were to worship on was changed much, much later, by a law of man, rather than God. Probably to differentiate themselves from Jews during a time of persecution... and/or to convert a group of non-Christians who already worshipped on that day.

I don't think God would have placed so much emphasis on that particular command if he had meant to overturn it a few years down the road. To state otherwise is to imply that there was no plan in place, and He's just making the whole thing up as He goes along. That doesn't feel right to me either...

It's just something I think about.

Jeff
08-09-2006, 05:59 PM
Christians observe the Sabbath on Sunday because that is the day Jesus rose from the dead.

St. Jimmy
08-09-2006, 07:55 PM
^That's not why we have sabbath Moeller. We don't know the exact day that God had in mind for us when He was talking about the sabbath, (if you ask me it's Saturday) But we do know that he wanted us to consistetly have a full day of rest and prayer. Most Christians do this on Sunday 'cause they figure 'Oh, well we've already gone to church we'll just dedicate the rest of the day to the LORD.'. They can do what they want but I think you're supposed to have a day set aside for God as well as go to church on Sunday. Really, it's not that hard. Alot of Christians just ignore this rule because they're busy on Saturday or they just can't be bothered to obey this commandment. It's wierd, and they should be treating it with as much respect as the other commandments.

Kurgan
08-10-2006, 10:26 AM
Well the Old Testament (or the "Covenant with Moses," the Hebrew Bible, if you prefer, since it is only the "Old Testament" to Christians though this is common parlance to most Americans) indicates that the "seventh day" is the "Sabbath" (day of rest) for the Hebrew people/Israelites/Jews, so that would be Saturday. Reckoning of the day begins at sundown on Friday to sundown Saturday.

The reason Christians began to worship specifically on the first day of the week (which would be Sunday) is because of the early belief that Jesus rose from the dead on Sunday, making it "the Lord's Day." According to historical evidence, many Christians (and Jesus' followers of "The Way" before they were called "Christians") continued to worship on Saturday as well, considering the majority of the early disciples were Jews, and this was the traditional Sabbath.

The movement eventually become dominated by Gentile converts and then generations of people who were raised Christian, so the Sabbath keeping eventually faded out.

There is also tradition going back to Jesus about the Sabbath as not something strictly kept, since Jesus proclaimed it was lawful to "do good" on the Sabbath (as the Pharisees agreed in principle). He declared that since God could work miracles and good works on the Sabbath through him, it was okay for his followers to do so as well and that the "Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." The "spirit of the law" according to the traditional words of Jesus was that "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."

Many followers interpreted this as, yes, you continue to keep the Sabbath, but you don't neglect doing good works or helping people on that day (rather than avoiding "all work," period and haggling over what constitutes "work"), while others interpreted to mean that setting aside the seventh day as special really was no longer important for Christians (Paul the apostle writes in his letter to the Romans 14:5-6 "One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.")

Today many denominations (if they are large or active enough) do provide services on more than just Sunday, but traditionally Sunday is the day people go to services (and Saturday is thought of as more of a "backup" if you are going to miss out on Sunday, such as people who have to work that day). It's traditional, much like having worship services in the morning, rather than in the evening or night (many churches offer services at these times as well).

There are a few churches designated "Sabbartarian" (that is "Sabbath Keeping") such as the Seventh Day Adventists, who generally believe that it was always meant to be Saturday and this was never "changed" and so no Christian has the authority to avoid Saturday worship as the true day of observance, etc. This is a minority view within Christianity and really didn't gain strength until the 19th century, but still.

To put things into perspective, most Christians don't take the "10 commandments" hyper literally anyway, since if they did, they'd have a few things to wonder about, like what exactly does it mean to put other gods "before" the God of Israel (does that mean you can acknowledge other gods, so long as you don't consider them more powerful than God or you can think they exist but don't worship them? Or just don't place actual idols in front of God?), or "bearing false witness" does that apply to all lying or only false testimony in a court of law against somebody who lives near to you?

Does forbidding adultery mean it's okay to sleep with your neighbor as long as neither of you is married to somebody else at the time?

Does 'not coveting your neighbor's wife' mean it only applies to men?

Does "keep Holy the name of the Lord/do not take the name of the Lord your God in vain" refer to misuse of the tetragrammaton used as a magical incantation, false oaths invoking the "Lord's Name," or forbid simple "profanity"? (or only that which involves references to deity?) Does it apply to Jesus' name also? Etc.

And so on and so forth.

Christians generally say that they "follow the Bible" but that doesn't mean the same thing to all of them. Traditionally, it is believed that Jesus re-ratified certain points of the Mosaic law (Law of Moses, in the Old Testament, primarily in the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, that is the "Books of the Law" the Torah/Pentateuch), reinterpreted others (reading them "spiritually") and abrogated the rest all as part of the "New Covenant". Even though these words are still in Christian Bibles, they are not considered necessary to be followed by Christians today.

That's why you don't typically see Christians stoning people for working on the Sabbath or cursing one's parents, keeping kosher food laws, etc.

Even modern Jews don't keep these commandments hyper-literally, but instead refer to the interpretations of the later sages and Rabbis who inspired, contributed to and compiled the "Oral Torah" in the Talmud (including the commentaries on the Law, and the commentaries on those commentaries).


There is a popular (but misleading) notion among many people today that Saturday was the Sabbath until Emperor Constantine changed it to Sunday (presumably because he was still a pagan at the time, and pagans worshipped the Sun God on Sunday) in the 4th century, and thus nobody need pay attention to this "new worship day" (this seems to be the argument used by many Sabbartarians as well). I think this was bolstered by the Da Vinci Code as well. There's evidence in the early Christian writings that Jesus' followers did worship on Sunday from very early on, and Saturday began to fade out as a dual special day of worship among non-Jewish converts to the new religion.

For example by the 3rd century of the Common Era, the Christian movement was not seen by outsiders as a Jewish sect but as its own cult. This helps explain the persecution of Christians (the Romans considered "old" religions to be good, but new religions to be "superstition" and thus dangerous and spurious... this is why even though the Jews were thought of as weird for denying the Roman pantheon, they at least could claim they had been around a long time, plus they were so stubborn in their beliefs they were welcome to them, so the thinking went, but the Christians were some strange johnny-come-latelys that suddenly were rejecting the gods and just yesterday they were pagans doing everything like everyone else) and the move towards defining their own boundaries. Christians and non-Christian Jews were in tension with one another for a long time, but the "break" between them is debated among scholars. There seems to be a growing understanding that this "schism" was much more gradual in many places than previously thought (in other words, Jesus' followers were not all expelled from the synagogue during Jesus' own lifetime as often implied in Bible readings). The cultural situation is much more complex than that.

Anyway, I've rambled on enough, many of you probably already knew that but I thought I'd toss that out to people that were interested.

Daniel Boyarin and George Nickelsburg are two modern scholars of Early Christianity and Judaism who have written several books on the topic which helped me understand the complexities of the issue, and could provide a good introduction for others as well. See also Paula Fredricksen and James Dunn for new perspectives on the apostle Paul and the debate. Geza Vermes has also written extensively on the teachings of Jesus from a Jewish perspective and in Jewish context (the Historical Jesus is of course not one monolithic theory but a set of varying theories, and his provides a good example on the topic).

Joetheeskimo
08-10-2006, 12:00 PM
Eh...are you a Christian, or just really, really informed? :D

slornie
08-10-2006, 12:11 PM
im a Christian... i believe in God... but i also accept other religions... i think that they are all facets of the same God... and that the differences in religion are no more than people's individual way of worship and recognition... in my opinion... the bible is not so much a book of rules... but a book of case studies and guidelines as to how we should live our lives... so what that they may not be historically accurate or do not fit into our defined concept or realism... history is written by the victors... therefore that is not neccessarily accurate... it is all dependant on points of view... if we did not have religion... our society would be minimal and lifeless... without christianity there would not be christmas or easter... without religion there would be fewer charities... religion provides a moral basis for us to live our lives... it does not matter whether people believe that there is one God... or whether they only eat certain foods... or worship in a certain way... the important thing is that they believe and trust and have faith...

Joetheeskimo
08-10-2006, 12:35 PM
May I ask why you end every sentence with ... ?

I kind of think the label "Christian" doesn't fit, based on your description of your beliefs.

Kurgan
08-10-2006, 01:02 PM
Eh...are you a Christian, or just really, really informed? :D


Are the two mutually exclusive? ;)



And actually, slornie's beliefs are not that uncommon. There are many what you might call "liberal" Christians (not just denominations but individuals) who hold similar views and yet consider themselves to be faithful Christians.

Of course, in a more general sense, even those of us who are more "traditional" will still point out, that when push comes to shove, it really is a matter of faith, belief and gut instinct. We all "could be wrong" and ought to be open to the possibility of modifying our assumptions in the face of overwhelming new evidence. Not admitting that is usually a sign of being in denial (but then again if you really have absolutely no doubts or questions, EVER, then lucky for you I guess!).

Jan Gaarni
08-10-2006, 01:24 PM
Question then:

Do you do no work from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown as prescribed in the Commandments... or do you do what most Christians do, and observe Sunday midnight to midnight (which is technically the FIRST day of the week.)
I always wondered why some countries view Sunday as the first day of the week.
Here, Sunday is the last day of the week, cause on the 7th day God rested. :)

Anyone care to explain that though, without going too far off-topic? :p

Dagobahn Eagle
08-10-2006, 08:15 PM
if we did not have religion... our society would be minimal and lifeless... without christianity there would not be christmas or easter... without religion there would be fewer charities... religion provides a moral basis for us to live our lives... Fewer charities? Minimal and baseless?

Go to Norway. Largelly atheistic, best nation in the world to live in (UN report). Edit at TK-and-four-numbers-I-keep-forgetting: Shaddup, You:p.

On-topic
Christianity is not necessarily evil, but it sure as Heck is obsolete. There's no part of it that atheistic institutions does not do better.

Helping people live a better life? Bah, any sound parent can do that. Science is better than teachings in a book. Was it up to the Bible we'd still be using physical punishment (not that many still do).

Saving people from depression, suicide, and so on: We've got therapists, councellors, the Red Cross, Amnesty, and other such organizations. We don't need a Church, we need to get rid of this idiotic taboo on grief and psychiatry. We need to start learning about grief and sorrow in school so we know how to handle it and how to help friends who lose someone. We need to stop keeping boys from expressing their emotions. We need to learn about what psychiatric help is so people don't go around with idiotic misconceptions about it. And finally, we need to learn much more about depression, suicide, self-multilation, divorce, and other sad facts of life buried and not part of schooling.

That will save lives. Knowledge, not a 2000-years old book with obsolete rules such as "stone those who cuzz at their parents to death" or "don't marry someone of your own gender".

We don't need Christianity. It's as simple as that. What's going to save more lives: Donating $60 to your church's upkeep or donating $60 towards Red Cross's ban on land-mines or cluster bombs? Or Amnesty's work to stop violence and human rights abuse? Or Free the Children?

Well how do You explain this prophecy, in Revalations it says that natural disasters, Wars, and all would rise aganst Israel. These are very true signs that Jesus' second coming is very near.It's not the first time that's come true.

Why didn't World War II bring about God's coming? There was a huge war, natural disasters - as always - and six million Jews murdered in the dreaded camps.

And not all are rising against Israel as she attempts to get into Guiness' Book of Records under the "most rules of engagmeents broken in the shortest time"-entry. The US government still blindly suppports and sells weapons to Israel and vetoes every UN attempt to control Israel.

So no, no Jesus returning just yet:).

Off-topic

BTW. Global Warming / Ozone depletion have not been scientifically proven. It's only propaganda fed to people by scruffy-lookin' nerfherders like Al Gore.Someone here has been fed propaganda, and it's not me;).

To quote Billy Joel "We didn't start the fire", the world is and always will be some what unstable.It's been soundly proven that humans are behind global warming, which in turn is behind the extreme weather raging around the world. The only thing we don't know for sure is how much humans affect it.

Anyone care to explain that though, without going too far off-topic?Skin, correct me if I'm wrong:p.

According to original Scripture, Sabbath is on Saturday, not Sunday. The Sunday-part is a mis-translation.

Oh, and whoever tries to follow the rules of the Bible, or worse yet, shove them down peoples' throats (cough, anti-homosexuals, cough) should read the Letter to Laura (http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp).

St. Jimmy
08-10-2006, 10:06 PM
Dagobahn Eagle,

Oh. My. Goodness. Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about when you preach against Christians. You like the red cross eh? It's called the RED CROSS!!! Surely you realise you're so wrong when you quote: "stone those who cuzz at their parents to death" It's "honour your Mother and your Father" all that crap about what we need to learn rather than read your Bible,.. Half of that stuff could be avoided if those people read the Bible! And as for the physical punishment I follow what the Bible says... Yeah sure dude, I just go out and bash people 'cause they're not doing what the Bible says. Pfft!

As for the whole "oh, Why didn't God come at the second world war?" For goodness sake! it doesn't say "As soon as someone attacks my people then I'm coming for you!" yeesh, at least know what you're talking about before you knock it.

Dagobahn Eagle
08-10-2006, 10:47 PM
EDIT:

Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about when you preach against Christians.I don't "preach (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=preach)". Preaching is for priests, imams, monks, witch doctors and bishops.

And I'm not "against Christians", just saying how Christianity is obsolete.

Without religion there wouldn't be easter or ChristmasI don't know about Easter, but there'd certainly be Christmas. People celebrated on the 24th/25th (depending on your nation) for many, many years before Christians came along. According to the Bible, Jesus was born in March, not December. We celebrate on the 24th/25th for some other reason laid down by nature-worshippers.

But to address your point: Yes, there'd be a free week and celebration or two missing. So the Heck what? There'd be others to replace them.

[/Edit]

You like the red cross eh?I love the Red Cross! I've finally found something to do in there, too! I'm to take ICRC classes come November, and then I'm hopefully going to be assigned a psychiatric patient to take care of (http://www.redcross.org.uk/standard.asp?id=40508). I wanted to be a refugee guide, but there's no need for more of them (there are people who have been on waiting lists for two years and still have not been assigned a refugee!). But yeah, it's gonna be great:).

It's called the RED CROSS!Speaking of not knowing what you're talking about...

The Red Cross symbol has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity. It doesn't even look the same. Some religions and people mis-interpret the Red Cross as a Christian symbol (which has ultimately led to the creation of the even more neutral Red Crystal (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/INTRO/615) symbol), but trust me, it's inherently atheistic. Watch The Story of an Idea (http://www.google.no/search?hl=no&q=%22the+story+of+an+idea%22&btnG=Google-s%C3%B8k&meta=) for more info.

This has been an off-topic ICRC public service announcement:p.

Surely you realise you're so wrong when you quote: "stone those who cuzz at their parents to death" It's "honour your Mother and your Father"Yup, that's one part of the Bible. Another says that you shall be stoned to death when you insult your parents.

The Brick Testament (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_stone_your_children/dt21_18a.html) eats you for lunch:cool:.

And either way, my point was that a book that contains such drivel is not much of a source for moral teachings.

all that crap about what we need to learn rather than read your Bible,.. Half of that stuff could be avoided if those people read the Bible!Oh?

Give me the passage of the Bible that details coping skills come self-mutilation (I only remember things like "do that and you're a Sinner" - hey, thanks a lot, pal). Give me the passage that tells me what to do and not do - in detail - when a friend of mine loses her mom. Give me a passage that shows me how to settle disputes in marriages (the Bible just has vague ravings about when you can divorce, etc.). And what am I supposed to do when a friend of mine calls and announces that he intends to kill himself? There was a nice helpful list in my Health textbook, not that I hope I'm never going to have to use it, but nothing in the Bible.

And as for the physical punishment I follow what the Bible says... Yeah sure dude, I just go out and bash people 'cause they're not doing what the Bible says. Pfft!I meant physical punishment of children who misbehave, which is in the process of being abolished thanks to human progress - as opposed to the Bible and Christianity.

As for the whole "oh, Why didn't God come at the second world war?" For goodness sake! it doesn't say "As soon as someone attacks my people then I'm coming for you!"I wasn't the one who put forth the points of the prophecy. I'm just stating they came true in World War II (and quite a few other times), in response to another post on how the current Israel-Lebanon spetacle is a sign of God's coming.

Having said that, if I created a people and named it my chosen one, I'd be sure as Heck to give them a hand when an evil empire was slaughtering six millions of them:rolleyes:.

TK-8252
08-10-2006, 10:57 PM
Go to Norway. Largelly atheistic, best nation in the world to live in (UN report).

Bah, socialism!

Shrink your government and I'll move there...

coupes.
08-10-2006, 11:09 PM
Weirdly enough, five pages in a religion thread and WWIII has not yet been declared :p. I just want to remind all of you guys to remain civilised and only respond to arguments by arguments so this thread stays on track. Make sure you leave the flaming and flame baiting at the door. And please don't make anything personnal... ;)

Good debating.

schwager
08-11-2006, 02:58 AM
I find that many people are just tossing out generalizations left and right here, many of them created by "religion" itself. Any branch of Christianity that teaches people to believe that one will burn in hell over any number of fallacies, is incorrect. There are however, many "Christians" that believe this, when these teachings are not based on Biblical scriptures at all. If one would actually take a look at Biblical scripture itself, instead of relying on information from "another source" (who, by the way, probably won't forget to twist around the words to the understanding they feel most comfortable with), you would find a few things that cannot be misinterperated.

First, we are all fallible beings. Sure we may not be guilty of anything when we are first born, but the fact remains that all human-beings will "mess up" at some time or another. I'm pretty sure that that is something everybody can agree on. To suggest that we aren't fallible beings would just be ridiculous, no matter which way one chooses to look at it.

The ten commandments are merely guidelines. Everybody has broken them, everybody will. And if you read the Bible, what you will find is that God offers salvation to all. Not just those who go to church their whole lives, or those who pray every single day, and twice on Sundays. According to the Bible, you could be 85 and on your deathbed, and ask Jesus into your heart as your personal lord and savior, and you would be granted eternal life.

BUT, once again, we run into that problem known as "religion". Many people over the ages accepted Christian teachings, but thought that this was far too easy to work. So, they created a bunch of rituals and theories to either make themselves feel better, or to simply manipulate people to believing things such as "you will burn in hell if you don't tithe your earnings to the Church." When in fact, that this does not matter at all. According to Biblical scriptures, you could tithe money every single week of your entire life to the Church, and not be any closer to salvation than the man that hasn't even gone to Church. These teachings fall under the category of "religion". Those who believe that such teachings are true are not Christians, though they might label themselves as such. According to the biblical scriptures, the only way you could possibly become a Christian is to accept the aforementioned gift from god.

Also, Jesus offered something along the lines of this...Love thy lord and thy neighbor as yourself. If you do this, you will have fulfilled all of the commandments. Obviously no person would be able to uphold the commandments for their entire lives, which is why it is more or less stated in the Bible that God will forgive us of our sins, no matter which commandment is broken, if we ask for forgiveness. It is in no way "do that and you are a sinner", simply because we already are sinners. Even if one is not a Christian, but prefers to keep some form of moral guidelines will find that they cannot live up to those guidelines day in and day out. We make mistakes.

About the Sabbath, Jesus says something along the lines of: Was the Sabbath created for man, or man created for the Sabbath? If you choose not to rest, that's your deal, and it is not something to worry about.






I just believe that people should think and question. That religion has cast some "spell" to prevent inquiry is wrong. That it is somehow taboo to criticize religions and religious practices is nuts, particularly when the five or six major religious cults of the world (Sunnism, Shi'aism, Baptists, Catholicism, etc. -particularly the evangelicals of each) have such a profound effect on societies and governments to the point of being dangerous.

Planes flown into buildings, pseudoscience in public schools, government policy and decisions based on religious dogma...

I can agree that yes, "religion" has done this. People may be afraid to ask questions simply because of fear created by "religion". But let me ask you something. Do you acknowledge the distinction between "religion" and faith? Is it possible for someone to be a Christian and in a powerful position, and yet make decisions based on their own morals? That is the problem. Some people will use "religion" as a way to undermine someone else's efforts, for their own political agendas. "No! They can't have morals! They are basing their decisions on religious doctrine!" The fact is, putting an Aetheist in a postion of power, such a position that could make influencial decisions in our society, could make decisions that would be just as influenced by "religion" as putting a Christian up there. The fact is, some people refuse to accept people for what they believe in, and use the word "religion" to blow some situations out of proportion. Think about it. Somebody that is Aethiest and has beliefs (as all human beings do), could be just as influencial in government as a Christian with their beliefs. The only difference is, is that because their beliefs aren't "religious beliefs" (which is what some people tend to label morals), they don't get shot down for it.


I'm a Christian and I have asked questions my whole life. I was raised to not trust what was thrown out there, in the media and in "religious" doctrine alike, but to rather come to a conclusion after doing the research. What it comes down to, for me personally, is nothing like a cult at all. Because I am not "religious". I accept God's free gift and teachings for what they are, and I don't need any crazy rituals and regulations created by man, to attempt to verify those teachings further than they need to be. When you look at it, it is a "win-win" situation.

TK-8252
08-11-2006, 03:06 AM
According to the Bible, you could be 85 and on your deathbed, and ask Jesus into your heart as your personal lord and savior, and you would be granted eternal life.

Yeah, you could also be on death row and accept Jesus and go to heaven. Meanwhile, the atheist who's a Red Cross volunteer and who regularly donates to charity is the one who goes to burn in hell for eternity for refusing to believe in a fairytale.

:rolleyes:

edlib
08-11-2006, 04:23 PM
Arrgh! I have the worst luck with this forum! :mad:

I just spent the better part of an hour typing out a response to this thread, only to have my browser freeze up and crash when I hit the post button!

I thought I'd copied the whole thing as a safety against that possible eventuality, but it was mostly incomplete when I went to paste it.

Why does that never happen on the hundreds of short, meaningless posts I make every week, but only the ones that I spent a significant chunk of thought and time on, and that I don't have the patience to sit and try do over?!??

<Insert stream of very, very bad words here>

:mad:

*sigh* Maybe I'll try it again, later...

Dagobahn Eagle
08-11-2006, 04:33 PM
Yeah, you could also be on death row and accept Jesus and go to heaven. Meanwhile, the atheist who's a Red Cross volunteer and who regularly donates to charity is the one who goes to burn in hell for eternity for refusing to believe in a fairytale.Sigh. Exactly. I prefer mythologies that stress the importance of doing good things, rather than just believing in the right thing.

Timothy McVeigh [Christian terrorist* who blew up that courthouse in Oklahoma]and Paul Hill [Christian terrorist* who shot that abortion doctor]? Straight to Heaven since they were good Christians who followed Christ. Nothing else matters.

Mohatma Gandhi? Off to Hell since he was an evil Sinner who did not acknowledge God.

Arrgh! I have the worst luck with this forum!

I just spent the better part of an hour typing out a response to this thread, only to have my browser freeze up and crash when I hit the post button!

I thought I'd copied the whole thing as a safety against that possible eventuality, but it was mostly incomplete when I went to paste it.

Why does that never happen on the hundreds of short, meaningless posts I make every week, but only the ones that I spent a significant chunk of thought and time on, and that I don't have the patience to sit and try do over?!??Tell me about it:mad:.

*Anyone else than me notice that when a Christian fanatic does something wrong, no one in the media mentions his religious background, but when a Muslim does something wrong, it's instantly "Islamic Terrorism"? I love how everyone demanded that Muslims publicly distance themselves from the London bombings they had nothing to do with. Raise a hand if, after the Oklahoma bombing, you wanted your Church leader to make a public statement about how "his Church of [name here] distanced themselves from the Christian terrorism in Oklahoma"?

Jeff
08-11-2006, 06:05 PM
I'm not sure of the Christian terrorists, but I know the Muslim Extremist terrorists' religion is covered because they say that they are doing it in the name of Alah and it's a religious war.

Dagobahn Eagle
08-11-2006, 09:32 PM
Yeah, but so did McVeigh and Paul Hill. And their supporters (Paul Hill was a minister, according to Wikipedia). If you do a Google Search for Paul Hill, there's tonnes of Christian fanaticism.

TK-8252
08-11-2006, 09:50 PM
Yeah, but so did McVeigh and Paul Hill. And their supporters (Paul Hill was a minister, according to Wikipedia). If you do a Google Search for Paul Hill, there's tonnes of Christian fanaticism.

Don't forget Eric Rudolph, the Christian Identity movement, the IRA, the KKK, and so on...

Jeff
08-11-2006, 10:04 PM
But let's not forget that just like the Muslim extremists, those people and groups do not represent what the religion really is or is really about.

TK-8252
08-11-2006, 10:07 PM
But let's not forget that just like the Muslim extremists, those people and groups do not represent what the religion really is or is really about.

No one's saying they do. But I'm tired of hearing neocons say that Islam is not a religion of peace, and failing to note that the other major religions, when held to the same standards, are not religions of peace either.

Dagobahn Eagle
08-11-2006, 10:34 PM
But let's not forget that just like the Muslim extremists, those people and groups do not represent what the religion really is or is really about.No prob':)! (+What TK-8252 said.)

Astrotoy7
08-12-2006, 02:32 AM
May I remind everyone that we are in a forum dedicated to movies and games about flying around in spaceships and muppets fighting with laser swords :p All these super long posts - that are as long as a chapter in any Holy Book -are more like homework than forum fun :( But some people feel the need I guess....

Im all for discussion, but heckling people about their beliefs and soap-box preaching is puerile and makes for bad reading.

discuss, and be respectful is all I can say :)

mtfbwya

schwager
08-12-2006, 03:06 AM
Yeah, you could also be on death row and accept Jesus and go to heaven. Meanwhile, the atheist who's a Red Cross volunteer and who regularly donates to charity is the one who goes to burn in hell for eternity for refusing to believe in a fairytale.

:rolleyes:


If you refuse to believe it, then why does it concern you? If you think it is not the truth, that's perfectly fine by me. Why worry about such things, if it is one big joke? I was simply making a point that Christianity is not a "religious" thing (in the sense that it does not involve rituals and so on) and does not require a lifetime of excellency as a human being to make it into heaven, according to Christian teachings. Not to say that the Bible does not clearly encourage living a life based on morals.

It's simply a "take it or leave it" type situation.


By the way, I apologize for the length my rant in the earlier post. I had missed out on the discussion for a few days, it was close to 2 a.m.... :)

Samnmax221
08-12-2006, 03:17 AM
I was simply making a point that Christianity is not a "religious" thing (in the sense that it does not involve rituals and so on)
What do you call baptism or having ashes rubbed on your forehead?

TK-8252
08-12-2006, 03:40 AM
If you refuse to believe it, then why does it concern you?

It doesn't. It really doesn't. I'm just curious as to how someone - and the vast majority of the world's population for that matter - could possibly believe such a thing.

RC-1162
08-12-2006, 04:08 AM
to all the devoted followers:
i came across this paradox once about God's "almightiness":

Can God create a stone which he himself cannot lift?
If he can't, he is not almighty.
If he can, he is still not almighty.

any solution for it?

SkinWalker
08-12-2006, 04:32 AM
But let me ask you something. Do you acknowledge the distinction between "religion" and faith? Is it possible for someone to be a Christian and in a powerful position, and yet make decisions based on their own morals? That is the problem. Some people will use "religion" as a way to undermine someone else's efforts, for their own political agendas. "No! They can't have morals! They are basing their decisions on religious doctrine!" The fact is, putting an Aetheist in a postion of power, such a position that could make influencial decisions in our society, could make decisions that would be just as influenced by "religion" as putting a Christian up there. The fact is, some people refuse to accept people for what they believe in, and use the word "religion" to blow some situations out of proportion. Think about it. Somebody that is Aethiest and has beliefs (as all human beings do), could be just as influencial in government as a Christian with their beliefs. The only difference is, is that because their beliefs aren't "religious beliefs" (which is what some people tend to label morals), they don't get shot down for it.

I don't think an atheist would make decisions based on religion in the way you might be implying. If you mean, an atheist in some position of power might consider the needs of the religious in his/her constituency, then perhaps. But if you mean that religious dogma and cult doctrine might influence this hypothetical leader's decisions, I see no reason to believe this unless he/she is making a decision against some limiting or bigoting religious idea.

I do, however, think that the morals of the religious and non-religious intersect, correspond, and agree more often than not, but there are some very significant "morals" that are uniquely religious in their origin, including the aversion against same-sex marriage, the pretense of caring about embryonic stem cells, etc.

But as far as religion and faith go, they are two separate human constructs.

Religion is simply a social system in which adherents profess a belief in supernatural agents or or agents whose approval is desired.

Faith is simply blind trust without evidence.

All Abrahamic religions require faith. Without it, the game is up.


Because I am not "religious". I accept God's free gift and teachings for what they are, and I don't need any crazy rituals and regulations created by man, to attempt to verify those teachings further than they need to be. When you look at it, it is a "win-win" situation.

Its a waste of time when *I* look at it. But if it works for you, go for it. I won't pretend to believe you truly looked at christianity critically and logically reached your conclusions, however. In the end, you still cling to faith, that blind trust without evidence, to guide your worldview.

Atheists have beliefs, to be sure. They base these beliefs in evidence and predictable observation.

Darth_Terros
08-12-2006, 11:04 AM
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com

Fantastic site.

this made me giggle....

Genesis 1:29
God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Since many plants have evolved poisons to protect against animals that would like to eat them, God's advice is more than a little reckless. Would you tell your children to go out in the garden and eat whatever plants they encounter? Of course not. But then, you are much nicer and smarter than God.

Joetheeskimo
08-12-2006, 12:27 PM
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com

Fantastic site.

this made me giggle....

Genesis 1:29
God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Since many plants have evolved poisons to protect against animals that would like to eat them, God's advice is more than a little reckless. Would you tell your children to go out in the garden and eat whatever plants they encounter? Of course not. But then, you are much nicer and smarter than God.

According to Christianity, plants were once free of poisons and thorns, before the Fall. And according to Christianity, they will be free of poisons and thorns once again after Jesus' second coming.

[Edited]

Darth_Terros
08-12-2006, 12:35 PM
According to Christianity, plants were once free of poisons and thorns, before the Fall. And according to Christianity, they will be free of poisons and thorns once again after Jesus' second coming.

[Edited]

Care to point me to where it says this?

PoiuyWired
08-12-2006, 12:51 PM
Now, while I am happy that the Pastafarian page is locked, it does point out a few interesting points.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastafarian

It seems like some people dwelled too much on things that are supposed to be a leson of deeper value, and treat everything with just the word value.

Obviously, die-hard creationism fanatics would be one of it, but there are other aspacts of believe that dwells on the same peril.

There is a difference between faith and ignoring possable alternative answers. And believing humanity is sparked by the all mighty is different from believing that the planet is a flat surface...

Ok, what I use might be an extreme case, but there are many similar things happening between sects, especially when it comes to things like rituals and more "minor" aspacts.

Joetheeskimo
08-12-2006, 02:32 PM
Care to point me to where it says this?

Genesis 3:18 - "It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field."

and,

Revelation 21:4 "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things as passed away."

Since thorns are an imperfection, and they cause pain, we can assume that thorns, among many other things (e.g., bee stings), will be gone.

Dagobahn Eagle
08-12-2006, 04:55 PM
Since thorns are an imperfection, and they cause pain, we can assume that thorns, among many other things (e.g., bee stings), will be gone.Thorns are nowhere near imperfections more than claws and teeth are. They are supposed to sting, to keep unwanted animals and birds away. Likewise with bee-stings, for that matter.

"No more (...) pain" could mean a thousand things. It could just as easily mean that humans will just stop hurting themselves on the thorns.

Ok, what I use might be an extreme case, but there are many similar things happening between sects, especially when it comes to things like rituals and more "minor" aspacts.Right.

To believe in Gods (although our buddy Richard Dawkins begs to differ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVQoxrrMftA)) is far less silly than believing that the Earth is flat, or that the Sun revolves around it. Those things have been proven false a thousand times, while the belief in God has not.

DarthXilon123
08-17-2006, 10:08 PM
Christian/Cathlic

grrrrrrrrrr7
08-18-2006, 10:40 AM
I'm Lutheren

Samurai DD
08-18-2006, 02:18 PM
Proud Atheist!!!

Dagobahn Eagle
08-19-2006, 10:07 PM
Proud Atheist!!!
Ditto.

Fealiks
08-22-2006, 06:30 PM
@Fealiks :)
"Qur'an" is a poor western mimicry of the arabic word for the Holy Book. It is a terrible spelling because it is phonetically variable in pronuciation.. eg. some might read it "Cure-ran" or "Chew-ran" or "Ker-ran" etc. In Australia, I definitely can say that "Koran" is the standard Australian-English word/spelling for the Islamic Holy Book. Im not sure who still uses that exotic version you have listed. Maybe in the UK??

Being of Turkish heritage, I have spelt it in Turkish, which has a wonderfully phonetically precise alphabet. "Kuran" is our word for the book and is derived from the eski Turkce ("Old Turkish") word for the book. Old Turkish of course had arabic letters, so this word was identical to its arabic equivalent. Whether we originally used it in the form "Kur-an" Im not sure(please note that the letter "u" in Turkish without accents on top is always pronounced as "oo" so there are never any difficulties in reading/pronouncing the word) I can say though, when the modern Turkish alphabet was introduced in the late 20s, some of the nuances of Arabic/Eski Turkce pronunciation were dropped, for political and somewhat practical reasons.

mtfbwya

Well, I'm friends with alot of Muslims, "Qur'an" is how they all spell it. I don't know if this is the correct Islamic spelling, but this is how we spell it throughout the whole of the UK (I think) :)

MachineCult
08-22-2006, 08:05 PM
Well, I'm friends with alot of Muslims, "Qur'an" is how they all spell it. I don't know if this is the correct Islamic spelling, but this is how we spell it throughout the whole of the UK (I think) :)
Due to the large Indian, Pakistani, etc. population in the UK we learn alot about Islam at school (in primary school my whole class went to an inner-city school for a day that was all muslim.) and everywhere i've seen it the word is spelt Qur'an.

Good Sir Knight
08-29-2006, 02:46 AM
Proud Atheist!!!

It's a thread asking people of their Christian faith and the atheists can't help but evangelize their beliefs. 'Quick lets go to the Christian thread, we need to preach the secular gospel.'





Episcopilian.

SkinWalker
08-29-2006, 10:08 AM
Well, poppycock and BS needs a dissenting voice wherever its found.

Jae Onasi
08-30-2006, 02:32 AM
Well, I'm friends with alot of Muslims, "Qur'an" is how they all spell it. I don't know if this is the correct Islamic spelling, but this is how we spell it throughout the whole of the UK (I think) :)

The spelling differences come about because the Arabic letters don't always translate directly into English letters and vice versa. For instance, we have no letter equivalent in the English alphabet for the Arabic letter 'ayn, because we don't use that sound in English. I think K gets used in place of Q sometimes so that there's no confusion on the sound. When we see 'Qu' in English, we tend to think of a 'kw' sound (as in 'queen'), but the Arabic 'Q' has a sound more like what we associate with our English letter K.
The challanges of transliterating from one alphabet to another is why we end up with multiple spellings for (for lack of a less controversial example at the moment) Osama bin Laden--I've seen it spelled Usama, bin interchanged with ibn, and Laden/Ladin.

So, when translating from Arabic to English, there could be more than one spelling and they all could be correct, though there's usually one accepted convention.

Astro'd have to comment on translation/transliteration in Turkish. I only took Arabic, and only 3 credits at that, though when I get a little more time, I'd like to go back and learn more because it's a really cool language.

Astrotoy7
08-30-2006, 07:25 AM
Well, I'm friends with alot of Muslims, "Qur'an" is how they all spell it. I don't know if this is the correct Islamic spelling, but this is how we spell it throughout the whole of the UK (I think) :)

lolz...hasnt this been settled ? Yes, Qu'ran for UK. Because of academic smarminess, most likely finding its origins in Colonial/Victorian times, the UK English word for the Islamic Holy Book is a (IMO) silly and unnecessary mimicry of the original arabic. As Jae and others has said above, arabic is phonetically different from English.

It doesnt matter at the end of the day though, the says of Imperial English are well over - so this form of lingustic patronisation no longer occurs :)

I like the US/Australian English "Koran" Nice, simple, phonetic :) The "Qu'ran" version is much easier to misread ie. "Chew-ran" "Cue-ran" (etc. as Ive already mentioned before)

Jae - it seems you know more arabic than I do. There is an ever growing contriversy in Turkey and other non Arabic speaking Islamic nations to allow readings/prayers of the Book in their native langauge. Current law dictates that it MUST be in Arabic, which makes it hard to follow without knowing arabic or what the main suras mean.

There was a similar practise in the Roman Catholic Church which only allowed certain prayers (in Church) in Latin. IIRC, this was changed about 50 years ago.

I'm all for conversion to native languages. I know there is something that is lost, but it makes things much more accessible to all people, not just Arabic speakers. It would be like asking all Christians to learn Aramaic to be able to pray with the words as Christ had used them. It's not very practical :(

mtfbwya

Jae Onasi
08-30-2006, 04:20 PM
Jae - it seems you know more arabic than I do.

I started learning it from my History of the Middle East prof in between undergrad and grad school, because I am an education junkie and have withdrawals if I'm not learning something new on a regular basis. :) I took 3 credits in grad school, but didn't have time to keep going with it once I hit professional training because the scheduling and the amount of credits required were crazy.
My undergrad history prof gave a lot of essay tests, and had to suffer through reading my horrible writing. A few weeks after working on learning how to make the letters and putting together some simple words, he said "Hey, your penmanship in Arabic is a lot better than it is in English." :) I'm left-handed, so that sort of makes sense.


There is an ever growing contriversy in Turkey and other non Arabic speaking Islamic nations to allow readings/prayers of the Book in their native langauge. Current law dictates that it MUST be in Arabic, which makes it hard to follow without knowing arabic or what the main suras mean.

There was a similar practise in the Roman Catholic Church which only allowed certain prayers (in Church) in Latin. IIRC, this was changed about 50 years ago.

I believe the change came at the Vatican II council in '62, but I'm Protestant, not Catholic, so I may be incorrect on that. I was thinking 'you know, that was in the '60's, not too long ago....' and realized that yes, that was awhile back. My perspective on what was 'a long time ago' changes as I get older. :D



I'm all for conversion to native languages. I know there is something that is lost, but it makes things much more accessible to all people, not just Arabic speakers. It would be like asking all Christians to learn Aramaic to be able to pray with the words as Christ had used them. It's not very practical :(

mtfbwya

I'm with you on that. I think scholars need to learn the original languages to fully understand the intent and language nuances, but the vast majority of us aren't religious scholars. For instance, in the Greek New testament, there's 3 different words for love, but in English there's only one, so English speakers miss out a little in the translation, but unless someone's a theologian, it's probably not much of an issue if at all.

The rest of us learn a lot more if it's in our own languages. I'd have no real access to the Bible if I had to read it in Aramaic or Greek, since I can't read either. I'd be missing out on a lot if that was the case.

Sabretooth
09-02-2006, 04:12 AM
Oooh, religion threads! Fascinating!

I'm a Hindu, not a fervent one, but only in formalities. I prefer the Baha'i faith more, but I'm inclined to stay out of religion and build my own religion, my own spirituality. I refuse to accept the idea of a God, but then it is impossible to prove that he does not exist. Maybe there is a soul, I believe that, but then how do you prove that? Maybe not. I'm spiritual, yess, maybe a little superstitious, even, but not religious, never.

About the Quran, as far as the Hindi pronounciation goes (which I think must be quite accurate to the Arabic one) is, "Ku-rann". The Ku is like "coo" from "cool", ra like a reverse of ar from "farm" and the double n is a heavy "n" used in Indic languages, which I believe is impossible for westerners to pronounce. Try rolling your tongue against the upper jaw while pronouncing "n".

Nedak
09-03-2006, 09:31 PM
The thing I don't get is why would god create Earth and put people on it but do nothing with the other planets? Also why would god care so much about little mistakes that we make and send us to hell for it? People always say, be a good chirstian..ect ect.(well not to me but to others)

90SK
09-04-2006, 12:44 AM
We don't know anything about the universe at large. God, no god: both are assumptions based on the same lack of knowledge. Nobody should have the right to elevate their opinions of the matter above others. If you have a sense of faith (I.E. belief that there is some sort of higher power), fine. If not, fine. But saying one scenario is more plausible than the other is ridiculous, because how should we know. Can we base a decision that immense on experience ascertained in the known world? Certainly wouldn't seem that way.

Jeff
09-04-2006, 11:25 AM
The thing I don't get is why would god create Earth and put people on it but do nothing with the other planets? Also why would god care so much about little mistakes that we make and send us to hell for it? People always say, be a good chirstian..ect ect.(well not to me but to others)Well in the Bible it says the reason is because God loved us so much that he made us superior to all the other creatures and gave us free will. We don't really know why he didn't put us on other planets but it probably falls within the same answer.

Negative Sun
09-04-2006, 04:07 PM
Who says we aren't on other planets? I mean how much of the universe do we really see or know about?

Valter
09-05-2006, 09:10 PM
I'm a Christian.

To be more specific I'm a protestant.

wHen
09-06-2006, 05:58 PM
I'm officially a protestant (as in a christian) but am planning on leaving the church since I don't really believe in the christian god.
Therefore I say: No, I'm not a christian (atleast i dont want to be ;o)

Valter
09-07-2006, 12:06 AM
Atheists have beliefs, to be sure. They base these beliefs in evidence and predictable observation.

Not true, God has never been disproven, nor has He been proven. Then again, neither has evolution... anyway that's a different debate altogether. My point is Atheists and religious folk (like myself) only have different points of view.

Life choices and experiences shape a person's outlook on religion, not facts.

Just my $0.02.

SkinWalker
09-07-2006, 12:50 AM
Not true, God has never been disproven, nor has He been proven. Then again, neither has evolution...

I don't see how your comment about the proved/unproved nature of your, or any other, god has on the passage of mine that you quoted. I made no reference to this. With regard to that other debate of evolution, only the under-educated and those who believe their mythology is threatened and thus deny it believe evolution to be anything other than a fact. That debate can be accessed in my signature.

Life choices and experiences shape a person's outlook on religion, not facts. For example my life experiences have showed me time and time again that there truly is a God.

My bet is that your parents and the culture you grew up in is where you draw your "knowledge" of whatever god you believe in. If I'm wrong, then you are an anomaly since the vast majority of all religious adherents inherit the mind virus of their particular religion from their parents and their dominating culture. This is why nearly every single child born of muslim parents is a muslim; why nearly every single child born to catholic parents is catholic; why nearly every single child born to protestant parents is protestant; and why nearly every single child born to Masai parents finds that he is a Masai.

Those that allow facts to pass them by rather than influence their worldviews find themselves continuing to follow the religious cults they are born to, without examining other faiths and philosophies and without inquiry into their own religion. Indeed, nearly every religion has a common attribute: inquiry and criticism is taboo. It simply would not do to have adherents question their religious cults and the doctrines they are based upon.

TK-8252
09-07-2006, 12:53 AM
Not true, God has never been disproven, nor has He been proven. Then again, neither has evolution... anyway that's a different debate altogether. My point is Atheists and religious folk (like myself) only have different points of view.

A teapot in orbit around the sun has also never been disproven, nor has it been proven. Are you prepared to believe in that teapot simply because you cannot disprove it?

SkinWalker
09-07-2006, 12:58 AM
Now where have I hear that analogy made before... hmm.... :cool:


But what a powerful analogy it is!

Valter
09-07-2006, 02:42 AM
I never really wanted to get into this debate but oh well...


I don't see how your comment about the proved/unproved nature of your, or any other, god has on the passage of mine that you quoted. I made no reference to this. With regard to that other debate of evolution, only the under-educated and those who believe their mythology is threatened and thus deny it believe evolution to be anything other than a fact. That debate can be accessed in my signature.

I apologise, I did not present my argument very well. I will try not to make that mistake again. :)


My bet is that your parents and the culture you grew up in is where you draw your "knowledge" of whatever god you believe in. If I'm wrong, then you are an anomaly since the vast majority of all religious adherents inherit the mind virus of their particular religion from their parents and their dominating culture.

Unfortunately you lose the bet, my father is Catholic and my mother is "Non-Denominational". The Chuch I go to is "Non-Denominational" as well. My own interpretation of the Bible has led me to believe that the Protestant point of view is the most accurate.

I acept Protestantism over the other three branches of Christianity for a number of reasons. I believe Christ is the only mediator between God and His people instead of the Pope or "Saints" or Mother Mary.. In this branch of Christianity it is taught that works do not apply to ones' salvation, that only the blood of Jesus Christ and accepting His teachings as truth can save us. Lastly, Protestants believe in the Grace of God, in other words no one is worthy of salvation and everyone deserves to go to Hell, but God sent His son to die for us so that we may spend eternity in Heaven.

I belive in this "poppycock" despite what my Parents and Church taught me. If you were to ask me why I believe in Christianity I would say it's because my faith in Christ has helped through some hard times in my life. Reading the Bible gives me strength each day. My faith has shaped me into the person I am today.

Those that allow facts to pass them by rather than influence their worldviews find themselves continuing to follow the religious cults they are born to, without examining other faiths and philosophies and without inquiry into their own religion. Indeed, nearly every religion has a common attribute: inquiry and criticism is taboo. It simply would not do to have adherents question their religious cults and the doctrines they are based upon.


What facts are you refering to exactly?

Jae Onasi
09-07-2006, 10:35 AM
The Christianity vs. Atheism debate is very interesting. It's also unfortunately one that I don't have time to delve into fully because I have a massive project due Oct. 1 and a final report in mid-Oct for it.
I _might_ be able to do a debate if we break it down into small parts, otherwise I have to wait til after mid Oct.

Nedak
09-07-2006, 10:00 PM
Well in the Bible it says the reason is because God loved us so much that he made us superior to all the other creatures and gave us free will. We don't really know why he didn't put us on other planets but it probably falls within the same answer.

Then why God make other planets, if we are supose to be the only beings?

SkinWalker
09-07-2006, 10:37 PM
To give us astrology, of course. [/sarcasm]

Jeff
09-07-2006, 10:42 PM
Well no one really knows the answer to that I suppose. I do believe that somewhere out there there is life, but how far away and how intelligent I don't know.

Jae Onasi
09-08-2006, 12:59 AM
To give us astrology, of course. [/sarcasm]

Or so we could sit here and argue about it on LucasForums. :D

Nedak
09-08-2006, 08:44 PM
Well no one really knows the answer to that I suppose. I do believe that somewhere out there there is life, but how far away and how intelligent I don't know.

Wouldn't the belief of other beings be against Christianity?

Valter
09-08-2006, 11:00 PM
Then why God make other planets, if we are supose to be the only beings?

Perhaps He made all of the different planets to display His wisdom and power and maybe He's creative, you know being a creator and all that.

Darth Andrew
09-09-2006, 12:07 PM
Indeed, nearly every religion has a common attribute: inquiry and criticism is taboo.Sign. If only you knew.
A teapot in orbit around the sun has also never been disproven, nor has it been proven. Are you prepared to believe in that teapot simply because you cannot disprove it?Science can prove whether a teapot can or cannot orbit the sun, as it is part of the physical world. A god, however, is of the supernatural, thus the existance of a god can never be proved or disproved. :)
Wouldn't the belief of other beings be against Christianity?How?

Jeff
09-09-2006, 01:59 PM
Wouldn't the belief of other beings be against Christianity?I don't know, I haven't learned anything about that, but I don't know if it would change my views.

Pho3nix
09-09-2006, 02:30 PM
http://www.break.com/index/islam_vs_christianity2.html

:D

Joetheeskimo
09-09-2006, 03:14 PM
Wouldn't the belief of other beings be against Christianity?

Christians believe God to be more powerful than we can humanly fathom. Who are we to say God would constrain himself to one tiny planet, and one tiny group of tiny people? The universe is infinite, isn't it?

Kurgan
09-09-2006, 04:13 PM
It might be infinite, or it might not. Or there might be more than one universe. But none of those possibilities would rule out there being a God or that Christianity could be true.

Joetheeskimo
09-09-2006, 07:32 PM
Nor was I suggesting that....:confused:

SkinWalker
09-09-2006, 07:49 PM
It might be infinite, or it might not. Or there might be more than one universe. But none of those possibilities would rule out there being a God or that Christianity could be true.

And yet these nor any other information logically imply that a god must exist any more than there is data to support the notion of the Stay-Puff Marshmellow Man as creator and caretaker; :cool: or that the universe is simply infinitely large as well as infinitely old, thereby requiring no creator at all or a god to manage it.

90SK
09-09-2006, 08:32 PM
Refusing to even consider the possibility that there may be/have been some sort of divine presence in the universe is just as ignorant as blindly believing in a specific entity. We don't know anything about the origin of the universe and the life within it.

TK-8252
09-10-2006, 12:00 AM
Refusing to even consider the possibility that there may be/have been some sort of divine presence in the universe is just as ignorant as blindly believing in a specific entity.

Show me evidence and I'll consider it.

We don't know anything about the origin of the universe and the life within it.

Unless you buy into that "science" nonsense that non-believers are always spreading...

SkinWalker
09-10-2006, 12:22 AM
Refusing to even consider the possibility that there may be/have been some sort of divine presence in the universe is just as ignorant as blindly believing in a specific entity.

I certainly consider a "divine presence" as a possibility. So is the Stay-Puff Marshmellow Man. I simply see no evidence to get overly expectant of either of these *or* any other infinite number of explanations.

We don't know anything about the origin of the universe and the life within it.

We know a lot about the universe, but I'll concede there's a lot we don't know. At least I'm willing to say, "I don't know." Cult members of the world's religions aren't willing to do this. They think they "know." And aren't willing to concede ignorance. Not knowing the origin of the universe is hardly reason to subscribe to magical explanations.

Jae Onasi
09-10-2006, 03:05 AM
A civil debate involves having a certain level of respect for the opposing viewpoint(s). I am not going to treate atheism with disdain. Those who believe in atheism obviously feel very strongly about it, and I respect that right. However, I happen to believe strongly in Christianity. While I find it faintly amusing that some consider belief in God analogous with belief in magic, a cartoon marshmallow character or some floating teapot in space, I find it also rather disrespectful. You can argue your points without making fun of someone's belief (or lack thereof) in God.

Now with that being said, I have a little philosophy digging to do before I can adequately address the question of 'why believe in a God?' with a better answer than 'I can see the evidence of God's presence around me.' That's a rational question to ask.

90SK
09-10-2006, 03:10 AM
Show me evidence and I'll consider it.

So, what you're saying is: If there isn't solid evidence that something exists, you don't believe in it?


Unless you buy into that "science" nonsense that non-believers are always spreading...

Ah, okay. I forgot scientists had already plumbed the murky depths of creation and retrieved all the critical answers.

Maybe you can tell me all about how the universe came into existence, and better educate me so I won't make foolish invalid statements.

TK-8252
09-10-2006, 03:15 AM
So, what you're saying is: If there isn't solid evidence that something exists, you don't believe in it?

Usually I only believe something though if there's actual proof. Evidence isn't always enough, but at least a shred of some would help.

Ah, okay. I forgot scientists had already plumbed the murky depths of creation and retrieved all the critical answers.

Maybe you can tell me all about how the universe came into existence, and better educate me so I won't make foolish invalid statements.

I'm not a scientist, and I'm not going to pretend to be one. :)

SkinWalker
09-10-2006, 03:57 AM
While I find it faintly amusing that some consider belief in God analogous with belief in magic, a cartoon marshmallow character or some floating teapot in space, I find it also rather disrespectful. You can argue your points without making fun of someone's belief (or lack thereof) in God.

My philosophy in life is that religion shouldn't be shielded from the same tools of criticism, inquiry, and skepticism that other human endeavors seem to find with little or no quarrel. I'm sure those of particular political persuasions find it offensive that their politics are criticized and questioned, yet society as a whole accepts this. I'm sure that pedophiles are offended that those not afflicted with their deviant desires dare question their motives. I'm not in any way comparing religion to pedophilia, but showing that "offense" is often an emic and even ethnocentric perspective. Perhaps a more fitting analogy is the Islamic adherent that is offended by the practices of Western, Christian women which range from the clothes they wear to the positions of authority they attain in society. The Muslim is "offended," yet we do not yield to their sensibilities.

My criticism of religion as "magic" is a fair one and my analogy of the Stay-Puff Marshmallow Man is likewise a fair one. I'm afraid I cannot offer my apology if you are offended, for this is my position; my argument; and my story. I'm sticking to it. As Lord Reith (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith/reith_history.shtml) once remarked, "there are those for whom it is one's duty to offend." Religion is one of the most pervasive human endeavors and it permeates every culture in some form or another. Most importantly, religion has the potential, as history has demonstrated so painfully, to influence large numbers of people, including entire populations, for good or for bad. Any human institution or endeavor with this much power and potential should be carefully scrutinized and the tough questions asked of it always.

Ironically, the most significant and pervasive human endeavor is the one that is most likely to be tolerated without inquiry or dissent: a human failing that has resulted in much pain and suffering in history.

SkinWalker
09-10-2006, 04:13 AM
Ah, okay. I forgot scientists had already plumbed the murky depths of creation and retrieved all the critical answers.

Maybe you can tell me all about how the universe came into existence, and better educate me so I won't make foolish invalid statements.


This is a logical fallacy known as an argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). Not knowing how the universe came into existence or retrieving all the critical answers from the "depths of creation" (whatever that is), doesn't imply that a god is necessary. Nor does it imply that one is unnecessary.

A god or gods is certainly possible, but what TK is saying is that there is simply no more reason to believe in a god or gods than there is a magical, invisible teapot orbiting the sun. Or a Stay-Puff Marshmallow Man that hides on the dark side of Jupiter. Or an invisible, incorporeal dragon that lives in my garage. Each of these has the same quantity and quality of evidence as any of humanities "gods."

Applying the explanation that "a god did it" is a cop-out, illogical, and nonsensical when asking questions that have meaning. Cosmologists and astronomers actually *do* have some very good ideas of the origins of the universe, though they admittedly have many more questions than answers. This implies only that there is more knowledge to be gained, not that there is some magic involved in "creation." It may be that the universe is simply infinitely old. After all, most people have little problem imagining that time can go on to infinity in a forward motion (the future). Why not in a backward motion (the past)?

Incidentally, relying on the "god did it" explanation as a "creator" for the universe creates a paradox: who created this god? Who created the creator's god? Who created the creator's creator's god? ... ? Suddenly, we have an infinite number of "gods." In a universe(s) with so many gods, of what use are mere humans? Moreover, shouldn't we be tripping over this infinite number of gods?

The natural, non-god explanations are far more parsimonious.

90SK
09-10-2006, 12:53 PM
This is a logical fallacy known as an argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance).

I don't think I'm claiming that a god exists. I'm advocating that it's feasible, because we couldn’t know either way. Just like your toaster, or marshmallow man, or whatever. In that particular response, I was just demonstrating that there's a great deal about everything that we don't know, not that because we don't know about it obviously god is responsible.

The natural, non-god explanations are far more parsimonious.

Yes, they are. I could use a rebuttal like "If a god or gods do exist, I'm pretty sure they'd be beyond our comprehension”, but that’s hardly a decent focal point for an argument, considering it is theory based on theory. So, no arguments here.