Religion: What it means to you

Originally Posted by Fjordor

The difference is that one (your guys with degrees) is built purely on speculations and extrapolations, whereas another (my guys with degrees) is built upon actual written records.

I think a more accurate assumption would be: "The difference is that one (Avalokiteshvara's guys with degrees) outnumbers another (your guys with degrees) by a ratio of a bajillion to one."

See? We both said something without proving it. YAY!

Quote:

One is interpreting things in lieu of the 20th century mind, and the other is interpreting in the minds of the people at those times.

Yea, that's it. Because I'm sure you've read up on both sides of issue. You're not just taking the side of fundamental interpretors simply because it meshes with your own safe-haven assumptions more easily. You're taking their side because you've objectively studied the topic extensively from all available angles without letting your religous zeal get in the way. Right?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Da Joker

I don't believe in forcably pushing my beliefs on others. In fact the Bible is against it. It only allows us to tell people the good news when they ask, or when it comes up in a conversation.

Here we go with the two-faced dogma of the Christian. "We don't force our beliefs on others." No, you don't tell people that they have to be Christian. You just tell them that if they're not Christian they go to hell and burn for eternity. That in itself is a subliminal forcing of unbelievers, because they're threatened with eternal damnation if they don't believe Christ is their personal savior.

Double Post:

Originally Posted by Da Joker

The Angel of The Lord (Word of the Lord in the Hebrew) in our current day Bibles, is basically Jesus, before he became a human & took a name. John 1:1 says this basically.

"Angel" does not translate to "word" in Hebrew. It translates to "ambassador, angel, king, messenger." Trying to give it a connection with John 1:1 is rediculous. If anything, John was speaking in a metaphysical sense, probably attributing all forms of language to God, the ability to speak, to be cognizant of ourself. Sticking it into a "prophecy of Jesus" context is poor interpretation.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Da Joker

See, I can lump you togethor & judge you based on certain individuals too. We are never allowed to tell someone they are going to hell. In fact the most we can do, is warn them they are in danger. We can tell someone they are wrong, but we can't condemn them to hell, we aren't God.

Did you not read or understand my post? I don't even know how to respond to this. So I won't.

Originally Posted by Da Joker

Malak is the root word. Those words you just typed are what malak is turned into. It is a root word, & you have to take context in order to understand what the word means. In the case of the phrase "The Angel of The Lord", it is talking about the messanger of God.

Yea no shit, that's what I said in my post:

Originally Posted by FallDragon

"Angel" ...translates to "ambassador, angel, king, messenger."

My point was that you can't make a connection between this and "the Word" in John 1:1. John 1:1 isn't talking about Jesus, and it isn't talking about a messenger of God. You interpret poorly.

Originally Posted by Minion

If telling someone something was bad for them was enough to coerce them, we wouldn't have any cigarette companies anymore.

Are you kidding me? This is Christianity's main draw. Accept Jesus or your soul burns forever in Hell. That message runs all through the New Testament, it's the fundamental message/truth of Christianity. This isn't a case of just "being bad" for you, it's a case of your soul being eternally damned. Makes the coercion factor just a bit stronger, me thinks.

Originally Posted by Da Joker

Hell was made for rebellious "angels." But God loves us so much, that he allowed us to enter it if we choose.

WTF

Originally Posted by Minion

If a parent tells a child that he has to go to bed at a certain time and the parent decides to stay up, is that a double standard?

We're talking about major moral issues, not bed times. If a parent tells their child not to kill people, and then goes and murders hundreds of people out of anger, yes that's a double standard.

Originally Posted by Minion

What makes these emotions evil for us is that when we express them, we are putting ourselves on God's level, unjustly.

That's an interesting theory. That evil human emotions become good emotions when God uses them. However, I find this to be an irreconcilable hypocrisy on God's part. If I'm going to believe in a God, it's not going to be one that holds a double standard on morality and life.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Minion

No, it's not. Quit getting your theology from paintings and puritanical literature.

OK, it's Christianity's main draw according to Scripture. Many churches do skim over the going-to-hell part in hopes of getting new recruits from the moderate/liberal crowd, but scripture is plainly clear about it and gives plenty of warnings about how you'll be eternally damned if you don't accept Jesus as your resurrected personal savior.

Originally Posted by Minion

Just like killing isn't inherently evil. When killing becomes murder, then it is evil.

So what if God murders someone? Is God acting in an evil way? You would say no, but this is where the line blurs. When God commands the Hebrews to murder a tribe, including the women and children it's considered OK because it's written in the Bible, and thus that means it was God's Will. What about cases that aren't included in the Bible? There have been plenty of murderers in the past that claim they were following orders from God, and considering God has used people to murder others in the past, what stops Him from doing it now?

You see the fundamental problem is that God lets people break big moral codes like murder as long as it's within His will. He allows deception and theft for your own gain (the birthright Isaac stole from Esau) and undeserved hatred (God hated Esau from birth without any provication).

So the double standard is God allowing His elite to break the rules and get away with it while everyone else is expected to suck it up or else. Also, because God has historically commanded others to murder, lie, steal, and cheat, how are we to uphold a value system? If the possibility exists that they were commanded by God to do these things, then it's impossible for us to have any kind of law system where we can judge people for their actions. Unless you know God's will.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Da Joker

Also, to FallDragon. Hell is never said to be fire, or brimstone for that matter. It really isn't delved into that much. So your Burn in Hell argument is based off of pulpit learners, rather than people who actually study.

But Hell is cast into the lake of Fire, so your point is null. To list a few of the more prominent verses.

Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Can't make it much more obvious than that. If you don't believe in Christ you get sent to the lake of Fire to be tormented forever (and considering the language used, it seems pretty painful )

Matthew 13:30 "Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

40"As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

Also, your interpretation on Michael is based on half cocked assumptions and meshing random verses from random chapters together in hopes of forming a coherent theory. Your theory has no proof in scripture, you just twist scripture to fit your own purposes. Learn to interpret correctly or go away.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Da Joker

As far as the Fire & Brimstone verses, the burn part simply means they no longer exist. That's right, according to scripture, if you go to hell, at the judgement, you either become a saint, or you cease to exist.

First of all, give me some verses to back this up or I call bullshit. Secondly, this verse proves that it's eternal PAIN AND TORMENT, not just poofing out of existance.

Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

How can one be tormented day and night for ever and ever if they poof out of existance? That's illogical. No matter how you try to twist it, non-existance is NOT the same as eternal torment in a lake of Fire. If you say it is, back it up with scripture or else your argument is pointless.

Originally Posted by Da Joker

If it was any different, then all the talk about Jesus being the only way to eternal life would be moot & pointless. The Gospel in & of itself is of getting into heaven, not to escape hell, but to continue living.

I'd have to disagree. The Lake of Fire is eternal punishment, that much is made clear in scripture. You can't put your own spin on death when this verse clearly says that one can be eternally punished forever without needing to attain eternal life. You think it's moot and pointless because you want to prove your own theory on hell instead of looking at verses that blatently contradict you.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Da Joker

Matthew 10:28 - Pretty much says that the "Hell" of the Lake of Fire is complete destruction.

That's a good verse for your argument. For those who don't look up shit, it says God is able to destroy both body and soul in hell.

However, I have a different interpretation. This verse is merely reflecting the power of God, and not necessarily describing the attributes/purpose of Hell. This verse is saying God has the ability to destroy you in hell. This doesn't mean He will or that He does.

Originally Posted by Da Joker

Seeing as those 3 make up the fullness of Satan, it could be argued that he can't just be destoyed, & that God has to bind him. Though for regular old souls, the lake means ceasing to exist. If that isn't the way it is, like I said, the whole point of everlasting life is a contradiction. If it weren't this way, then you'd live forever regardless.

You do realize that you just said God can't destroy Satan? This in itself is a rediculous assumption to make, and using it to justify his eternal torment isn't a legitimate argument. The simplist explanation is that God created the lake of Fire for this eternal pain and torment, and threw everyone in there who was bad. Occam's razor. You have to do too much fancy elaborating, which isn't supported in scripture, to say otherwise, which shows that you're interpreting with an agenda instead of simply looking at verses in context.

Originally Posted by Da Joker

Though it's enough to argue against your point, seeing as you can only cite a few verses.

Then I'll post a few more scriptures to make it more interesting.

Matthew 25:46 And these [the wicked] shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Revelation 14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, 10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: 11And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Seems pretty clear to me that everyone in this lake of fire is tormented forever.

FELIPE NO

As far as a God is concerned, I'm agnostic. Though, that to me almost implies that I care whether there is one or not, which I don't.

As far as a power at work beyond our understanding, I'm Daoist.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Lost_solitude

Although the more I hear people tell me they don't belive because of evidencs or whatever, I see the devil laughing because he knows he is winning. Well the devil can kiss my ass. I except others for what they believe but the devil won't win over me damnit.

classic.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by shadowlink56

I did notice that you mentioned that abortions do not affect society though. The value of human life in a society directly affects how that society acts toward each other. Have you noticed people caring less and less about each other? I have, and I bet anyone who drives can argue the same way.

You're correct in saying abortions affect society. Unfortunately you apparently have no clue as to how it does. An amazing economist, Steven Levitt, published an abortion paper in 2001 detailing how the availability of abortion for the poor urban population of the US had strong correlation to crime rates steeply declining from 1991 to 2001. Would-be criminals coming into their 20's were instead aborted when clinics opened up everywhere in the 70s. You can read a detailed account of his argument in his book Freakonomics. Your argument that abortion makes people care less about each other is rediculous. Show some facts or evidence. I don't think decreasing crime rates will do much in the way of helping your argument.

Originally Posted by shadowlink56

Sex crimes have escalated since the advent of contraception.

Some evidence and correlations, please.

Originally Posted by shadowlink56

I have several friends that have children now because their birth control failed, and they still have the mentality that they did before they had the child. The child is just a detriment to their life how they knew it. This leads to awful parenting, and the very essence of an unwanted child.

You keep arguing that society with birth control causes more unwanted children then society with no birth control, but you provide no evidence. You know what happens when somebody gets pregnant while using birth control? They get an abortion in most cases. Your world of no-contraception no-abortion will lead to a STEEP increase in number of unwanted births.

Originally Posted by shadowlink56

When preists get ordained within the Catholic church, they take vows (or basically get married) to the church. While it may be difficult to understand, the preist is the bridegroom and the church is the bride. The church is seen as the woman, or mother. Woman can't be preists because then that union would be a same sex marriage. That is also why a gay preist doesn't really make sense, becuase if they prefer men, why would they marry a woman? The preisthood has also always been men because they are there to imitate Jesus for us and offer him up to us in the Eucharist.

What you means to say is, the Catholic church can legitimize their discrimination by accepting doctrines that say discrimination is OK. Of course, nobody expects Catholicism to the be pillar of equality in the Christian arena. I mean, they don't even let fellow Christians take communion with them.

Originally Posted by shadowlink56

Catholics believe that at the moment of conception, where God bestows the life upon the couple, is the moment where life begins.

Isn't it a bit ignorant to assume this to be an absolute truth considering there's no scriptural basis for it?

Originally Posted by shadowlink56

We just need to educate the woman about their choices.

No, what you're saying we need to do is education woman about the choices and then tell them which one is correct according to your personal religious preferences, and expect them to approve of your critique of their life.

Originally Posted by shadowlink56

My big handgups were why the Catholic church is "against" gays (which I found they are not, of course), why women can't be preists (which is complicated to explain), NFP (mentioned), the scandals of the preisthood, and the whole thought of organized religion.

Sorry to break it to you, but when you're against gays getting civil unions, you're "against" gays. It means you don't want them to have equal rights and privledges according to sexual preference, which is exactly why the Catholic church is against Gay unions.

Originally Posted by shadowlink56

There are many ways to deal with the pain and mental anguish of a rape.

Yes, and abortion is the easiest in most cases, not a 9 month pregnancy and birth.

Of course, I'm not sure where you stand. I'm coming to the conclusion that you're pro-life, but want government regulations to remain pro-choice. If this is true, that's fine. Just know that the Catholic doctrine on when life starts isn't scriptural.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by shadowlink56

And how does the Catholic Church discriminate? Against who?

Women don't have an equal chance in moving up the catholic ranks. That's called sexual discrimination. They don't want gays to be able to get civil unions. That's also called sexual discrimination.

Originally Posted by shadowlink56

I don't really know how to respond to this other than being offended. I think I even said that I want desperately for gays to have equal rights under the law. It is hopelessly discriminatory to deny people rights based on sexual preference.

I'm sorry, I had assumed that since you're Catholic, you believe things that the Church does, such as the corruption of America by way of gay marriage. So, to be clear, you think gays should be allowed civil unions? You do realize that the Catholic church is against this?

Originally Posted by shadowlink56

This is very difficult to explain fully, but the reason Catholics "don't let" other Christians take communion is because we believe that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ. ALL other christian religions do not believe this, so they are not in communion with our beliefs. Therefore, they cannot partake of it.

Correct. But I don't really care. Those are doctrines of Catholicism, not scriptural. What foundation do they have? None. All they cause is division, and make fellow Christians feel that Catholicism is an exclusive, elitist community. You think Jesus is up in Heaven going, "Good job guys! Don't let that other 80% of Christianity take communion with you! They're a bunch of bums who don't know the true meaning of it."??

Originally Posted by shadowlink56

So many people argue that there is no scriptural basis for anything that Catholics believe. Instead of fleshing out every argument for you, I have to direct you to the Catachism of the Catholic Church. It fleshes out all that we believe and provides scriptural basis. I doubt that you'll bother because you're already attacking my beliefs anyway.

Ahh here we go with the classic "I can't really provide any scriptures for you to prove what I believe, but I'm going to cry about you attacking my beliefs." Yes I'm attacking them. Boo hoo. How about you provide ONE SCRIPTURE that says life starts at conception, and then you'll be able to attack MY beliefs!

Originally Posted by shadowlink56

Obviously you didn't read through ANY of my previous posts, because you'd find that I was very careful in trying to avoid pressing my beliefs on anyone. It's ALWAYS they're choice.

You seem to be missing the difference between the word "pressing" and the word "forcing." You DO want to press your beliefs on others, but you're not going to force them to by putting a gun to their head. If given the option to talk to someone facing abortion, you would say the correct, spiritually holy choice is having the baby. This is what's called pressing your beliefs on someone.

Originally Posted by shadowlink56

I'm not really afraid of your arguments because they boil down to personal attacks and ignorance toward my faith.

Actually, hardly any of my post was a personal attack. I asked for statistical evidence of what you say, and for scriptures/verses to back up your beliefs. Instead you provide neither, and start crying about how mean I'm being to you. Put out or get out.

Originally Posted by shadowlink56

Relativism causes people to be afraid of voicing their beliefs because of the risk of offending someone else or being forced to defend their beliefs and possibly shake their faith. People don't realize that without shaking your faith now and then it never grows. That's sad.

I find it ironic that you spend a good deal of your reply complaining about how I'm attacking your beliefs, and then here you say that it's a GOOD thing. Nice hypocrisy.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by jsphweid

So, if we can argue that the deliberate killing of an innocent person is ALWAYS wrong, and that a fetus is ALWAYs a person, then abortion is ALWAYS morally wrong.

Agreed. Which is why philosophers and moralists disagree with each other on whether or not a fetus is a "person," where person is used in describing a human with a consciousness.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by shadowlink56

I do believe in all things the Catholic church does. It was part of my vows during confirmation. The official position of the church is that we love gay people, but simply cannot condone their sexual actions. As they say, it is their cross to bear. So therefore, I can CERTAINLY believe that they should have equal rights, I just don't agree or believe in their behavior. That's my cross to bear.

But the Church does not believe they should have equal rights, because the Church doesn't think they should be allowed civil unions. How do you respond to this?

Originally Posted by shadowlink56

I think a lot of people have a lot of misconceptions about Catholics, and there are many stereotypes related to it.

It doesn't matter whether you feel the Catholic church is respectful, and it doesn't matter whether the Church feels itself to be respectful. Catholicism, no matter the reason, still excludes other Christians from partaking in communion. My point is that, no matter what your explanations say, you're still excluding Christians in something that all other Christian communities aren't exclusive on, and therefore making them feel like you're an elitist group. The Church's stance against civil unions for gays make the gay community feel threatened by the Chuch. You can have as many explanations and reasons as you like, but you need to pay more attention to the reality that others see, the reality of what the Church says and does to other organizations. The Church offends people not because people believe in stereotypes, but because Christians go to Catholic services and feel excluded, and gays to Catholic services and feel unwelcome and misunderstood. This is the reality of the Church and it's policies.

Originally Posted by shadowlink56

I'm busy. I don't have time to hunt through the Bible to prove something to somebody who won't read it and just brush it off.

Well, I'd be worried if I were you. Not being able to provide any verses for something you have such deep convictions in will make you look like a blind follower.

Originally Posted by shadowlink56

I argue that you are pressing your disbelief onto me. Think about that. Please. It's a major problem these days.

Yes, if by pressing you mean I am presenting my views of what's correct, and why your views are wrong. What's the big deal? Besides, you ignored my point that you DO press your beliefs on abortion, you just don't force them. There's a difference.

Originally Posted by shadowlink56

BTW, where is your scripture. Perhaps if I had something to focus on. If not, it's a little overwhelming to have to counterpoint every point you made via scripture.

My scripture? My argument was that no scripture exists supporting the idea of a soul existing as soon as the sperm joins the egg. The burden of scripture is on you, since you're the one claiming the Bible says something about it.

As for my other requests for proof, they concerned these two comments you made:

"I did notice that you mentioned that abortions do not affect society though. The value of human life in a society directly affects how that society acts toward each other."

and

"Sex crimes have escalated since the advent of contraception."

So, in order for me to believe what you're saying, you'll need to give me some proof. Otherwise, why should I believe you?

Double Post:

Originally Posted by jsphweid

Right, but according to the dictionary, a person is a "human body." Not a "human body ONLY with a consciousness."

I guess these arguments could really go on forever.

Well by that line of logic you can say that a dead human is a "person." The argument mainly revolves around the idea of when souls or consciousness enters the human body, because without a soul or consciousness, what would it mean to be a person? Nothing.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by shadowlink56

The church is actually undefined about this right now.

Go ask your priest if God thinks gay civil unions are OK. He'll say no.

Originally Posted by shadowlink56

This is just a misunderstanding. Don't be so offended.

I'm not offended. I'm just telling how other people I know have reacted to the Church.

Originally Posted by shadowlink56

The old "I'm right you're wrong" argument, eh? Good one. I got your "argument" about pressed and forced. If I believe something strongly, shouldn't I feel obligated to speak my mind? Isn't that my right in this country? THAT one hasn't been stripped from me yet!

Yes, it's perfectly fine for you to press your beliefs on anybody. Everybody does it all the time. It's what we call debate. I just wanted you to stop pretending that you don't press you're beliefs on people.

Anyway if you have nothing more to contribue, I'm done.

How ya doing, buddy?

To GhaleonQ. I was going to make a big old long response to your article, but it became too tedious. This is because in many, many instances he generalizes Dawkins' arguments to an amazingly delusional degree, attacking straw men that don't exist in the book. And when he doesn't generalize it, he misunderstands it.

So instead of me wasting my time making a full rebuttal to the article I'm going to ask you to pick out the key errors in Dawkins book that you think this article sheds light on and I will respond to those specific points. And if you didn't read Dawkins book, good luck guessing at which parts of your article you think you'll be able to defend. You'll need it.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by JackyBoy

I suspect what upsets so many theologians is that they are being shaken out of their comfortable nest's of rational immunity they have enjoyed for so many years.

Agreed. Theology is finally being recognized as what it's comparable to; the study of faeries, the study of astrology, etc. All are fields which make claims on the observable world yet cannot be proven through the observable world. This is why their claims on reality will forever remain imaginary, and thus unimportant.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Crash Landon

Yet simultaneously, you use the theories and opinions from another, specific book as the sole basis for disproving those who subscribe to the first book.

Not sure what you're arguing in general. If a person of one religion is using this to blast another religion, I full agree with you that it's hypocritical. If, however, we're comparing something like The God Delusion to the Bible, it's a completely different story. One book uses observable evidence versus one book that uses unobservable evidence, which do we trust? We always trust the book that uses observable evidence. Unless, of course, we're discussing that grand exception that is religion. The issue doesn't concern whether we use books or not, it concerns what kind of foundation in observable reality the books have when they're both attempting to make claims upon observable reality.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

My favorite ones are Mother Teresa & Martin Luther King Jr. A careful study of their lives and written documents would reveal evidence that the power of the unseen was very apparent to them despite the "reality" of their circumstances.

As should be obvious, people doing great things in the name of any given cause doesn't make the truths of that cause any more real or true. There were Nazis that always tried to help Jews escape from death camps; does this then prove that the foundation of Nazism is good and moral? People do great things in the name of religion, yes, but this isn't caused by their faith in their religion. This is caused by their lack of faith. To be more specific, scripture is the only defacto material reference that religion has to it's past, and the more humanitarian one becomes, the more pick-and-choose one becomes with what the Bible "really" means and what its "real" message is. Religion becomes more and more secularized. The South was on the winning side of the scripture battle concerning whether Slave ownership was OK with God. Of course it was OK! Both the OT and NT talk about it like a fact of life. So why the hell was the north on the correct moral ground, and the south not? Because of secular progressive morality. Or basically, giving up blind faith in scripture and following a humanitarian instinct.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

Religion is a plan that seeks to aid the believer in finding solutions to moral & spiritual problems.

There are moral atheists and agnostics. This completely destroys your argument that we need religion for moral issues. In fact, we don't base our morality off of religion because we don't base our morality off of scripture, as I pointed out above. Moderate forms of religion simply mold scripture into a bastardization that resembles secular moral standards; it is religion/dogma that always gives ground in the end, and it is religion that depends upon adaptation to survive. It's beyond me how religion is still credited to be the source of morality these days.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

In this case those "Nazis" were not living out the dictates of the belief system that was still being fed to them at that time by their leaders. Please use a different example.

No, I'm not going to use a different example. You say Mother Teresa and Martin Luther King Jr. speak to the ultimate meaning of Christianity. I could just as easily say that men of the Crusades speak to the ultimate meaning of Christianity. Both of these ideas depended upon scripture for their beliefs, but they certainly both can't be true. That is because they are both false in the same way; Christianity has no ultimate meaning to begin with. It is merely a book of moral statements, some of which are very outdated and some of which are not. This is not a book by which we live by. This is a book that we edit in order for it to remain within our worldview, for no other purpose than to feel some special pride in thinking that our moral convictions are backed up by an invisible omniscient force.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

The south was winning the battle because of the money wrapped up in the decision making. And God was not ok with slavery, hence the reason for this issue to divide believers at that time. True slavery was a fact of life in bible times but Jesus was about setting people free from bondage not making excuses for it.

You're very ignorant to think that a scripture battle can be won through money. It's won through who has the most versus on their side. When we compare scripture, a very strong argument can be made pro-slavery while a very weak argument can be made anti-slavery. If God and Jesus saw no problem with it, neither should we. End of story.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

Not so. Religion was around first then the atheists came later and borrowed what fit their views. Atheism is a reletavely new stand in civilizations. No evidence of ancient atheistic cultures has been found.

You're either an idiot or you didn't read what I said in my previous post. In any case, I'm done with this thread.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

That man with his faults has opened up much in discussion on the Christian faith and I think that is great for witnessing & exposing people to their own issues and their need for a savior.

Yes, that's exactly what we need. More people depending on imaginary saviors instead of relying on their own self worth in the world. Trading heroine for God is simply replacing the addiction for an imaginary savior for another one that's less fatal.

I finally saw "Borat." During the course of the movie he goes to a Christian revival in Texas and plays the part of one who wants to convert. People are running around, shouting out God, talking in tongues, etc etc. This was also a mainstream church in Texas; the Chief Justice of the State and a Senator showed up for speeches. Borat proceeded to shout in tongues with the minister, all blabbing together in a group in the voice of the Holy Spirit. It was really quite striking.

The difference is that Borat knew he wasn't really speaking the voice of the Holy Spirit. The difference was that he wasn't temporarily insane. Speak to me of the wisdom of Christianity LordsSword, and I'll speak to you of it's madness.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

When you say self worth by what means are you referring to? Do you mean by utilitarianism? I volunteer to serve those who could not benefit from this model of determining self worth. The elderly, the sick & infirm people of the world are so much garbage from the utilitarian view. I have seen the results first hand.

By self-worth, I mean being free of the need for an imaginary savior.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

There are belief systems for many things. Before you jump to conclusions about any given system please evaluate it first. There are many different groups who call themselves "Christian" but are not, they just take the title like so many people do for brand association. The one you saw is a cult that stresses non-biblical practices as its centerpiece for showing that a person is bound for heaven.

I've done plenty evaluation of Christianity, thank you very much. Used to be one for, oh, 4-5 years (and not the crazy tongue-speaking snake-dancing kind either).

You say that these people who speak in the Holy Spirit aren't really "Christian" and that they're a "cult" that uses "non-biblical practices." Well, who the fuck are you to judge whether a person is Christian or not? To say this group is a cult is ridiculous; did you not read the part where I said a SENATOR and the CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE STATE went to it to give speeches?? How in the world can you just dismiss them as a weird Christian cult? The number of Christians who believe like they do probably outnumber the Christians who believe like you do; they have the majority, so aren't they the true Christians with the true message?

My point is, Christianity means what you want it to mean. You, LordsSword, like to pretend that Christianity is a clear-cut religion. You say it's a religion that has clear rules and clear morals and clear messages. This is completely incorrect, as demonstrated by the number of Christians who think they can speak in tongues, the number of Christians who dance around with snakes, the number of Christians who think missionary work is necessary to get into heaven, the number of Christians who think the Pope is infallible. There are so many different interpretations of Christianity, so many variations, so many different moral codes, yet you have the audacity to claim that you're little own denomination has a monopoly on the truth? Please, let your ego deflate a little bit.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

I truly had no basis for knowing what is "better" for my parents and I under the context that death is the final end to my existence.

Like I said earlier, exchanging drugs for God is just exchanging one imaginary savior for another imaginary savior (though one is less fatal in most cases). You're still dependent on something saving your soul and/or your body; it's an escape from the cold reality that you find overwhelming. Life can easily overwhelm us, but running away to a drug or a Religion isn't the answer we should seek.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by LordsSword

It not me its the book ->1 Corinthians 14:5. I go by the book and it doesnt say I have to blabber in a special way to show that I am bound for heaven.

So, here's the verses since you didn't post it:

1 Cor 14:4 "He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified."

These people blabbering in a special way are doing so because of these verses. They're edifying themselves, according to scripture. My argument was not that you need to blabber in tongues to get into heaven, my argument was that people who blab in tongues think it's the HOLY SPIRIT speaking through them, which is supported by these verses you so kindly pointed out (and other verses I can point out if necessary).

Of course, the author of these verses would rather have you prophecy instead of speak in tongues. I mean, obviously it's much easier and more beneficial to pretend your a fucking prophet then to pretend you're a vessel for the Holy Spirit. Tell me LordsSword, do you consider yourself a prophet or a vessel? I mean, you obviously have to be one of the two when looking at these verses.

My point stands: Christians, according to scripture, can certainly babble out in gibberish thinking the Holy Spirit is speaking through them. Scripture supports temporary insanity.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

I claim no denomination, I just read the book-->Luke 10:27 . The ancient european crusaders were "christian" too but they didnt love their neighbor. The label of Christian does not conform to what you put it on, its all about the book.

I don't care if you claim a denomination or not; you're still in one whether you like it or not. Call it your own personal denomination, I don't give shit. The point is that it's still your interpretation of the Bible verses every other possible interpretation of the Bible, ever.

Also, you say the crusaders weren't Christian because they didn't "love their neighbor." Well, a strong case can be made that when Jesus spoke those words he was speaking within the context of inclusive community. In other words, the Jews were their neighbors, not the Gentiles. And I don't care if you don't agree with this interpretation. All that matters is that this interpretation exists, so the "truth" of the matter is up for grabs.

Like I said earlier, there is no "true" Christian message, only various personal interpretations.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

I'm no prophet. I'd fail the Deuteronomy 13 test but every believer in Jesus is a vessel Acts 2:38. You could be as well since you have taken such a heated interest in my posts.

You misunderstood my use of the word "vessel." I used the word to represent allowing the holy spirit to talk through you in tongues, as per described in the verses you pointed out. I'll reword my question to you to be more clear: Do you prophecy or do you speak in tongues?

Originally Posted by LordsSword

My issue with the babblers is that they dont follow ALL of the instructions in the book. Notice there are plenty of those with something to blabber about but there are no interpretors <1 Corinthians 14:13> to be found to make their speech usable for others.

So you think if there was someone listening to their babble and trying to explain to everybody what it means, it would become more legitimate?

And speaking of rules the church doesn't follow check out this one in the very same chapter:

1 Cor. 14:34 As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

So pray tell, which rules out of this chapter of Corinthians should we follow and which ones should we ignore? Maybe an interpreter for tongues isn't so important anymore. I mean hell, we let women talk in church now.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

This is the true christian mesage> John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Unfortunately, such a tidy little verse has many, many undertones to it that many Christians are divided on. It's easy to say "believe in Jesus" but what exactly does that mean? Do we have to act like him too? Most say yes. Do we have to give up all our money to the poor like him? Most say no. Do we reject our parents as strangers like he did? Most say no. Do we show miracles like speaking in tongues and do we prophecy like He did? Not any more, most say. Do we live according to Jewish law or not? Did He really abolish it? Some say no, some say yes. Is it necessary to believe in a physical resurrection or is simply a spiritual resurrection good enough? Most say you need the physical. Do we have to pray for forgiveness every night? Every week? Every month? How often? If you die with sins on your soul do you go to hell, or can you ask for forgiveness when you're up on the judgement throne? Most are divided on the issue. Was Jesus born the son of God, or did He become the son of God when baptized by John? Who knows. Is there really a Trinity or were those verses added by the Church? A case can be made for it being a purposefully misleading addition. Does faith or works save our soul? Even the disciples themselves were divided on the issue according to scripture.

Suffice it to say, most Christians think these questions have clear, obvious answers and are the foundation of what it means to "believe in Jesus" even though they themselves are divided on the issues. Many of these questions do not have clear answers, especially considering how we're currently ignoring how shakey the authorship of the scriptures are to begin with.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Oh man, here I was missing the debate ; ; To backtrack a little...

Originally Posted by Pangalin

And if you have a firm belief in the nonexistence of this entity, neither provable nor disprovable? That's also faith. You purport, as does the theist, to know the unknowable: an essentially spiritual behavior.

It's a common claim to say atheists use faith. And indeed, if they believe that they are 100% sure of the truth, they must be using faith in some way to form the basis for their rationality. However, I'd like to think most atheists are 99.9% sure there are no gods. Sure, there could be a miniscule chance that we're wrong, but is it something to keep me up at night? No. Even agnostics don't worry about invisible fairies living in their garden.

Originally Posted by knkwzrd

Don't kid yourself about religious wars. There has never been a war about religion, it is only used as justification or propaganda. Wars are fought over land, money, or the balance of power. That's it.

But see, that's the key. Imagine convincing a country to go to war without faith-based justification.

"We shall invade this country and kill its inhabitants!"
"Why? Are they dumber than us? Is our race superior? Our religion? Is our God better?"
"No. They're basically our equals. It's actually because we want their land so we can get rich and powerful, and the people living there would fight for it so we have to kill them too."

How many followers do you think that would win over to begin a war? A serious argument can be made that without faith-based justification, battles over land money and power would fizzle out much quicker or never even occur. What reason would you have for attacking your fellow man if you actually thought he was as equally deserving as you?

Originally Posted by Benjamin

Religion is necessary despite anything said by anyone. At the very least, it keeps the masses from outright depression, etc. by giving them something to believe in.

I believe you meant to say "by giving them something imaginary to believe in." I don't believe it's necessary to believe in the imaginary. Relief from depression need not be discovered in a fairy tale. There are much healthier alternatives.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

And you don't notice this in atheists at all?

Yes some athiests are egotistical. Egoism is a trait one can adapt no matter their philosophy. The unique issue with the Religious is the way they look at life. They pray for things to happen, thinking it might effect the outcome. They perform acts of kindness or hatred within their context of doctrine. This kind of behavior leads to a distorted perception of reality. How about instead of praying to a God we realize that we can only depend on each other? Praying for poor kids in Africa and people you consider 'sinners' doesn't really do anything... at all. Contribute money to food programs and volunteer at prison rehabilitation centers if it's such an important personal value. The religious get to think they're doing all sorts of good just by praying when in fact they're doing nothing. Praying for your relative to survive an operation and then getting angry or happy feelings about "God's decision" is placing all sorts of extra, unneeded confusion into the reality of the situation. If your mother dies is it healthy to have an intense hatred toward an invisible, seemingly-heartless God who you think controls your life?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

You realize that a lot of doctorate-holding scientists actually believe in a god, right?

Maybe so, but I'd bet that their God is the neutered doesn't-really-do-anything kind of God. While it may not be PC to believe in ID, it is PC to believe in a God.

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

The theory of evolution is in fact just a theory (though it's accepted as fact in some areas of the nation), but it doesn't presuppose anything that requires a sort of faith.

Agreed. And to clairify "theory" for readers, it's as much a theory as the theory of planetary rotation that says the sun is going to rise tomorrow. We can't say for a fact that the sun will rise tomorrow, but we can say that according to a tested theory that was never proven wrong, the sun will rise tomorrow. (I felt the need to clarify since "it's just a theory" is often said as if it diminishes the truth of evolution, but I know you weren't saying it in that way).

Jam it back in, in the dark.