Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sarafan on March 14, 2009, 08:48:11 pm
-
http://www.examiner.com/a-1873794~Christian_salt_seller_hopes_to_shake_up_market.html
And now we can all go to hell for not eating the right salt.
-
Still waiting for Atheist food products....
-
*facepalm*
-
/me only uses satanic salt
-
/me only uses satanic salt
Yummy. It goes well with The Broodwich.
-
Pure NaCl with added Iodide and anti-caking agent (probably Sodium Ferrocyanide) only for me!
-
Real Christians use KCl salt "substitute".
It's bitter, like passover herbs...
-
The world never ceases to amaze me....
-
/me only uses satanic salt
few sulfur salts are particularly healthy, though.
-
"The fact is, it helps Christians and Christian charities," he said. "This is about keeping Christianity in front of the public so that it doesn't die. I want to keep Christianity on the table, in the household, however I can do it."
LET IT DIE. AARRGH.
I have much better uses for my table than a religion as retarded as Christianity. >.<
-
I have much better uses for my table than a religion
Fixed.
-
.
-
and the athiests say "there is no god. It is impossible...period"
No they don't. Not all or even most of them. Try to learn something before going off on a long spiel that has very little to do with the subject anyway.
-
.
-
Should I?
" ... and Christian salt shall you be eating, so sayeth the God. Not Jewish salt, Muslimic salt or salt from any other religion, with the exception of the Christian salt. So sayeth the God and God says so... " :lol:
Sorry, could not resist this time! Besides I find the whole thread highly entertaining, starting from the article!
Mika
-
"The fact is, it helps Christians and Christian charities," he said. "This is about keeping Christianity in front of the public so that it doesn't die. I want to keep Christianity on the table, in the household, however I can do it."
LET IT DIE. AARRGH.
I have much better uses for my table than a religion as retarded as Christianity. >.<
:wtf:
Didn't you just get 'monkeyed'?
-
Oh, ****. The ban expired.
Being the realistic ****er that I am and being now as in the past determined to bring everyone down, I feel the need to point out that salt is salt no matter what religious label is applied to it. Suck it, patents.
-
.
-
I suppose if it is more effective then the current brand I use to salt the fields of my foes it maybe worth consideration. Though for culinary purposes I think I will stick with the Kosher.
-
According to the article you didn't read, kosher salt is different from normal table salt. So.. there.
-
According to the article you didn't read, kosher salt is different from normal table salt. So.. there.
It's the kind with slightly larger grain and no iodide in it. Pretty damn common.
-
I have much better uses for my table than a religion as retarded as Christianity. >.<
I have much better use for vacuum than retards. There's too many of them of all shapes and sizes on this world. Shoot them all into the Sun I say.
I refuse to think that my x-love who is Buddhist would go to hell because she is Buddhist.
She wouldn't. Who told you that crap?
-
Anyone from most Christian denominations probably would have told him that. Though, near any religion with a Hell tosses in outsiders.
-
100% Fresh! Bottled right from the remains of Lot's wife, a true testament to god's forgiving and merciful nature!
-
***** deserved it. God said "don't look" and she looked, didn't she? You know that means that in her heart of hearts she wanted to go back to the burning cities for some gay orgy. I mean, look at her daughters!
-
Anyone from most Christian denominations probably would have told him that. Though, near any religion with a Hell tosses in outsiders.
Really? Last time I checked I was christian, and I wouldn't have told him that. God doesn't toss good people in hell. Period.
-
The bible begs to differ.
-
The bible begs to differ.
And he's going to say, "That was the beta version of the bible (Old Testament), God's released a patch for that (New Testament)". :rolleyes:
-
Let him try. There are plenty of examples of the New Testament saying it too.
-
Enjoy taking >1500 year old works literally. :p
-
.
-
Blah blah blah. 90% of religions just suck. Actually, I pretty much only respect Quakers and Buddhists.
-
When you get right down to it, most religions don't suck. As far as I've seen, most people that are anti-religion see religion as a be-all-end-all rut of worshiping an omnipotent God.
In reality, most people actually just want everyone to stop *****ing about everything and fighting so much. It's only the minority, the radicals, that some people see because they're the only ones that are interesting. Well, at least that's how I see it. I myself am not a very religious person, but when I go to church services, it's an hour where people stop being inconsiderate retards.
Sure, easily most of the bible stories aren't true in the way that they're portrayed, but given all of the major ones (at least at the place where I go to church), the message is pretty clear: Don't be a dick to other people.
EDIT: The bible isn't really the best representation of Jewish and Christian beliefs (or at least that's how it seems to me). It reflects the moral beliefs of its writers of the time, and the translators, more than it imparts actual truth. Truth, in this case, being a supposition of "good" moral values.
Regardless, most ideas of God fall prey to what my philosophy teacher calls "Drawing the bulls-eye around the arrow."
-
Gah. Religion is all about the whole worship and scripture bull****. That's why I don't like it. I actually kinda believe in afterlife-higher power-supernatural crap. Religion, however, is just mass idiocy.
-
Gah. Religion is all about the whole worship and scripture bull****. That's why I don't like it. I actually kinda believe in afterlife-higher power-supernatural crap. Religion, however, is just mass idiocy.
Way to ignore what I said.
-
Yeah, you said a bunch of stuff about how the bible doesn't correctly portray Christianity and Judaism. That's bull****. Those religions are based on nothing BUT the bible. The bible says there's a god and he wants us to behave. That's it. And then some people take it way too far and some people go "oh, but some of the stuff in the bible still applies, so that's the only stuff that counts. everything else is just metaphor."
Morals are completely arbitrary. They depend on the culture and the time period. Some last longer than others, some are more widespread than others.
"Don't be a dick" doesn't have to be a message from god. Cooperation is extremely useful to the continuation of our species. That's why most of us are somewhat altruistic. Period.
-
The bible begs to differ.
The Conquistadors went into America with a Papal edict that pretty much ran like the following:
"...recognize the Church as your Mistress and as Governess of the World and Universe, and the High Priest, called the Pope, in Her name, and His Majesty in Her place, as Ruler and Lord King...
And if you do not do this... with the Help of God I shall come mightily against you, and I shall make war on you everywhere and in every way I can, and I shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church and His Majesty, and I shall seize your women and children, and I shall make them slaves, to sell and dispose of as His Majesty commands, and I shall do all the evil and damage to you that I am able. And I insist that the deaths and destruction that results from this will be your fault."
[sic]
There are still plenty of folks who believe in their heart of hearts that the unbelievers are doomed to hell. People still kill each other the world over in the name of their god. Quite frankly I fail to see how any deity who callously dooms people for not being raised in their particular religion is in anyway worthy of devotion.
-
Yeah, you said a bunch of stuff about how the bible doesn't correctly portray Christianity and Judaism. That's bull****. Those religions are based on nothing BUT the bible. The bible says there's a god and he wants us to behave. That's it. And then some people take it way too far and some people go "oh, but some of the stuff in the bible still applies, so that's the only stuff that counts. everything else is just metaphor."
Morals are completely arbitrary. They depend on the culture and the time period. Some last longer than others, some are more widespread than others.
"Don't be a dick" doesn't have to be a message from god. Cooperation is extremely useful to the continuation of our species. That's why most of us are somewhat altruistic. Period.
You know, strings of platitudes aren't really going to hold up as cohesive arguments, especially against the first person who happens to come along and provide substantial counter-examples. (Say, for example, someone who decides to point out that all the major religions of the world have been shaped by rich philosophical traditions that extend far beyond their canonical texts, e.g. the medieval Christian mystics, or Nagarjuna in Buddhism.)
Just saying....
-
So what? Philosophy is nice to study and all, in the context of its history, but it's ridiculous to worship it.
-
I was thinking of something you could put on your path to make Jehovahs Witnesses shrivel up ;)
-
Yeah, you said a bunch of stuff about how the bible doesn't correctly portray Christianity and Judaism. That's bull****. Those religions are based on nothing BUT the bible. The bible says there's a god and he wants us to behave. That's it. And then some people take it way too far and some people go "oh, but some of the stuff in the bible still applies, so that's the only stuff that counts. everything else is just metaphor."
I have yet to meet a single person in real life that takes the Bible literally. Even priests and bishops. For some reason, you just don't seem to like the idea that people are reasonable. From what I can tell, the main reason that you don't like religion is that you expect people to accept either all of it or none of it literally, and permanently. That is a completely ridiculous notion. Look at physics, for example. Aristotle had some good ideas, and they lasted for about two thousand years. Then came Newton, and the system of physics was completely changed. Aristotle's observations weren't nullified, but his conclusions were. If people behaved the way you seem to want them to, then we'd still be working with Aristotelian physics.
Given that, it would seem as though I've shown that it is quite possible that the views and values of Judaism and Christianity are not bound to the bible by a chain.
Morals are completely arbitrary. They depend on the culture and the time period. Some last longer than others, some are more widespread than others.
Morals are not completely arbitrary, and they're not subjective. A cult's mass killing, while supposedly good for them, is still bad. The holocaust is still bad. The crusades were still bad. Or so we assume. People's morals can be correct or incorrect, if not, then it's nearly impossible to set up a truly just system of laws, because it would need to conform to all beliefs, many of which would be paradoxical.
Either way, enjoy your moral relativism.
"Don't be a dick" doesn't have to be a message from god. Cooperation is extremely useful to the continuation of our species. That's why most of us are somewhat altruistic. Period.
I never said it was a message from God. Let's say that God did not say it. Does that mean it is necessarily less valid? No. Let's say that God did say it. Does that make it necessarily and more valid? No. Let's say that God never mentioned it. Does that necessarily change it's validity at all? No.
-
Religions are made up. Physics isn't. So I would expect religion to just stay the same, yes. Religion tends to just follow our trends, but slowly.
Morals are defined by the majority and the perspective. That's just fact. We thought it was moral to enslave people, and now we don't. Was slavery always immoral? Tch. Ask the bible.
"Don't be a dick" doesn't have to be a message from god. Cooperation is extremely useful to the continuation of our species. That's why most of us are somewhat altruistic. Period.
I never said it was a message from God. Let's say that God did not say it. Does that mean it is necessarily less valid? No. Let's say that God did say it. Does that make it necessarily and more valid? No. Let's say that God never mentioned it. Does that necessarily change it's validity at all? No.
My point was that morality can exist without a god telling us to behave. That's pretty much the main argument for any religion or the bible or whatever. "It's a set of moral standards."
-
Just a quick note here: Physics (Just like Mathematics and Logic) is also made up. Just because it works doesn't mean it's true.
-
Well, okay then. It's all completely made up.
Physics and math get to join religion in the bull**** camp.
I'm not picky about what goes in there anymore.
-
Religions are made up. Physics isn't. So I would expect religion to just stay the same, yes. Religion tends to just follow our trends, but slowly.
Actually, religion is no more made up than any rationalistic physics theories. It's just that as time went on, physics theories became supported a posteriori. Logically speaking, it's possible for God to be as real as gravity.
Morals are defined by the majority and the perspective. That's just fact. We thought it was moral to enslave people, and now we don't. Was slavery always immoral? Tch. Ask the bible.
But it wasn't okay to enslave people then. Or ever. Why on Earth do you think we stopped? If it was okay when the majority thought it was right, then why would anyone ever say it's wrong? By you're logic, slavery is okay. By your logic, there is no reason for people to ever change their values, because they are always right.
And why do you keep trying to use the Bible as support in the sense that you are? Didn't I say that it's not an accurate moral assessment? Or did you not read that part of my posts either?
I never said it was a message from God. Let's say that God did not say it. Does that mean it is necessarily less valid? No. Let's say that God did say it. Does that make it necessarily and more valid? No. Let's say that God never mentioned it. Does that necessarily change it's validity at all? No.
My point was that morality can exist without a god telling us to behave. That's pretty much the main argument for any religion or the bible or whatever. "It's a set of moral standards."
What the hell are you talking about? It is "pretty much" the main argument of religion ("or the bible or whatever") arguing what? Religions do set a moral standard. A Utilitarian moral standard. That standard exists even without God, so I fail to understand the point you're trying to make here, which isn't surprising since you didn't finish typing.
-
Okay, well here's some that's not decided and in the past: is abortion moral or immoral? homosexuality?
Morality changes. Religion is whatever's popular morally.
Also, why keep the bible around as a religious text if it's not a religious text?
-
Okay, well here's some that's not decided and in the past: is abortion moral or immoral? homosexuality?
Morality changes. Religion is whatever's popular morally.
No, morality does not change. Everyone's morals are based upon what they know at the time, it's just they never say "as far as I know." People's religious views and ethical views differ because they know different information.
If a girl gets raped and has an abortion, it isn't morally acceptable and unacceptable because that's a paradox. Paradoxes cannot exist, if you haven't noticed. Someone's view is wrong, whether it be the conservative or the liberal, no one knows with 100% certainty.
Also, why keep the bible around as a religious text if it's not a religious text?
Because if read correctly, it's relevant. Very relevant. Possibly untrue, but relevant nonetheless. Most people pick and choose what they believe from, them interpreting the contents of the bible differently from many other people (knowing different information).
The reason that many people believe different things with "same" information is because they can interpret it differently (it essentially becomes different information) or they know that information with variable degrees of certainty.
-
If read correctly, anything is relevant.
I'm going to have to quit now. I'll try again when I've taken my meds. Stupid meds. >.<
-
If read correctly, anything is relevant.
Most people can sort out what's "reasonable" from what's not (Reasonable being actual ideas, ie the bible Torah, Qur'an, unreasonable being random books, ie a cookbook, which is hardly a philosophical work). Past that, it's a combination of tradition and publicity that keeps the Bible so popular.
-
So what? Philosophy is nice to study and all, in the context of its history, but it's ridiculous to worship it.
Religious philosophers are participants in the traditions they study, so their efforts come out of a perceived genuine stake in their implications. St. Augustine wasn't just a bystander; he helped to found Western Christianity. Contemporary Christianity owes its understanding of Original Sin largely to him. And it's not just the hermeneutical tradition-- Christian ritual is filled with extra-canonical texts written long after biblical times, including some of the most famous ones, like Te Deum and Dies Irae.
-
The bible begs to differ.
Haven't noticed really. Name a good individual that is confirmed to have landed in hell.
Let him try. There are plenty of examples of the New Testament saying it too.
Oh? Name them.
Things like what?
Like "no one comes before then Father unless trough me" (or something like that)? Open to interpretation.
See, Jesus opened the door to the Father (Heaven). He keeps them open. Anyone who passes trough does so trough him, cause he keeps them open. For everyone.
-
Morals are defined by the majority and the perspective. That's just fact. We thought it was moral to enslave people, and now we don't. Was slavery always immoral? Tch. Ask the bible.
But it wasn't okay to enslave people then. Or ever. Why on Earth do you think we stopped? If it was okay when the majority thought it was right, then why would anyone ever say it's wrong? By you're logic, slavery is okay. By your logic, there is no reason for people to ever change their values, because they are always right.
Actually, it is by your logic that those things would happen. If moral reasoning is truly objective (as in, there exists one true morality), there would be no reason for people to change their values, because as you said, they would be always right.
Each generation changes it's moral code ever so slightly (if in need of evidence, look at the 60's and 70's) giving birth to new values, and so new generations thought slavery was not okay anymore. Sure, it's fun to look back centuries and criticize ancient moral codes, but how can you be sure we are not the ones criticized centuries from now on issues we don't even think about because we find them to be acceptable?
-
Like "no one comes before then Father unless trough me" (or something like that)? Open to interpretation.
I interpret that to mean you have to kill Jesus to get into heaven. I guess we're all ****ed. Join my religion, because if you do (and you pay my church enough) I may be able to get you there through other means....
-
Let him try. There are plenty of examples of the New Testament saying it too.
Oh? Name them.
Things like what?
Like "no one comes before then Father unless trough me" (or something like that)? Open to interpretation.
See, Jesus opened the door to the Father (Heaven). He keeps them open. Anyone who passes trough does so trough him, cause he keeps them open. For everyone.
Since you insist on making me prove I know your holy book better than you do.
Matthew 13:41
The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Matthew 18:8
If thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.
And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.
Matthew 25:41, 46
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. ... And these shall go away into everlasting punishment.
Luke 16:22-24
And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
John 5:28-29
The hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
2 Thessalonians 1:8-9
In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction.
Revelation 14:10-11
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. And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever.
Revelation 20:14-15
20:13 And 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.
Mark 3:29
But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.
Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
And that's just from 10 minutes searching and only including the quotes involving damnation or eternal fire. There are a hell of a lot more that just imply it.
-
John's Apocalypse (Revelation) once became the subject in a discussion between me, a few other students and an Othodox archbishop. The holy father ended by saying that this particular book is not yet officially explained by the Church.
What i think is that from those early years, people like the apostles tried hard to destroy all the beauty of the Cristian message.
-
Morals are defined by the majority and the perspective. That's just fact. We thought it was moral to enslave people, and now we don't. Was slavery always immoral? Tch. Ask the bible.
But it wasn't okay to enslave people then. Or ever. Why on Earth do you think we stopped? If it was okay when the majority thought it was right, then why would anyone ever say it's wrong? By you're logic, slavery is okay. By your logic, there is no reason for people to ever change their values, because they are always right.
Actually, it is by your logic that those things would happen. If moral reasoning is truly objective (as in, there exists one true morality), there would be no reason for people to change their values, because as you said, they would be always right.
But that's assuming that people can get the correct moral values right off the bat, which I really don't think is the case. Just look at physics. We understand it pretty well now, but we sure don't fully understand it. And physics is relatively tangible.
-
Morals are defined by the majority and the perspective. That's just fact. We thought it was moral to enslave people, and now we don't. Was slavery always immoral? Tch. Ask the bible.
But it wasn't okay to enslave people then. Or ever. Why on Earth do you think we stopped? If it was okay when the majority thought it was right, then why would anyone ever say it's wrong? By you're logic, slavery is okay. By your logic, there is no reason for people to ever change their values, because they are always right.
Actually, it is by your logic that those things would happen. If moral reasoning is truly objective (as in, there exists one true morality), there would be no reason for people to change their values, because as you said, they would be always right.
But that's assuming that people can get the correct moral values right off the bat, which I really don't think is the case. Just look at physics. We understand it pretty well now, but we sure don't fully understand it. And physics is relatively tangible.
Then why assume there is a correct or true moral value? What reference do you use to compare it with? In physics you can experiment and see if the theory fits with reality. No such thing can be done with moral values without resorting to an absolute moral value (for example, for theists, god), which would pretty much defeat the purpose of having any other moral values.
-
Well, okay then. It's all completely made up.
Physics and math get to join religion in the bull**** camp.
I'm not picky about what goes in there anymore.
:lol:
This one belongs into the Top 5 of funny things that I saw today.
Mika
-
Since you insist on making me prove I know your holy book better than you do.
And that's just from 10 minutes searching and only including the quotes involving damnation or eternal fire. There are a hell of a lot more that just imply it.
Did you even bother reading what you posted?
Half of them can be interpreted the way I said (offend doesn't have to mean "not believe". All who do evil offend God) and the other half actually sez exactly what I said.
Luke 16:22-24
And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
- the rich man was evil and without compassion
John 5:28-29
The hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
- good go to heaven, evil to hell.
Revelation 20:14-15
20:13 And 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.
- again, judged according to their deeds
Mark 3:29
But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.
- you might want to inquire what exactly is "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost". To put it simply, those are grevious sins for which someone would generally get life of death penalty.
Not to say that there aren't any quotes from the Bible that are more murky, but the nature of God is clear. He is a just God. That is all that matters.
-
Morals are defined by the majority and the perspective. That's just fact. We thought it was moral to enslave people, and now we don't. Was slavery always immoral? Tch. Ask the bible.
But it wasn't okay to enslave people then. Or ever. Why on Earth do you think we stopped? If it was okay when the majority thought it was right, then why would anyone ever say it's wrong? By you're logic, slavery is okay. By your logic, there is no reason for people to ever change their values, because they are always right.
Actually, it is by your logic that those things would happen. If moral reasoning is truly objective (as in, there exists one true morality), there would be no reason for people to change their values, because as you said, they would be always right.
But that's assuming that people can get the correct moral values right off the bat, which I really don't think is the case. Just look at physics. We understand it pretty well now, but we sure don't fully understand it. And physics is relatively tangible.
Then why assume there is a correct or true moral value? What reference do you use to compare it with? In physics you can experiment and see if the theory fits with reality. No such thing can be done with moral values without resorting to an absolute moral value (for example, for theists, god), which would pretty much defeat the purpose of having any other moral values.
If you want to speak practically, why not be a nihilist? Just because you can't find a reference point to compare your morals to does not mean that A) there isn't one or B) there's no true morals. Thousands of years ago, I doubt people would have been able to count the number of atoms, most people probably couldn't fathom such things.
-
bold its the new capslock
-
If you want to speak practically, why not be a nihilist? Just because you can't find a reference point to compare your morals to does not mean that A) there isn't one or B) there's no true morals. Thousands of years ago, I doubt people would have been able to count the number of atoms, most people probably couldn't fathom such things.
True, but that also doesn't necessarily mean there is one. I do agree that there are arguments for both ways.
-
Trashman, you simply cherry picked the ones you felt like answering and completely ignored the ones that backed up my point the strongest. Come on then Trashman. Prove how
2 Thessalonians 1:8-9
In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction.
Isn't saying that anyone who doesn't obey the Gospel is going to hell. Unless you want to claim it was telling Christians to burn non-believers. While you're at it....
Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Well Hindus are going to fail on at least the bolded two for a start. Are you trying to tell me that there are no good Hindus?
-
Back on topic: The article is full of ****.
Matthew 15
11What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "
Seriously. It doesn't matter.
@Trashman:
Isn't saying that anyone who doesn't obey the Gospel is going to hell. Unless you want to claim it was telling Christians to burn non-believers. While you're at it....
Yes, that is exactly what it is saying. Fortunately for everyone else, that was Paul talking, not Jesus. Paul could be wrong.
Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
I disagree with the general translation of this verse. I much prefer the NIV interpretation:
Mark 16:16 (NIV)
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
I take this to mean those that have heard the message and do not believe.
Last one: Which book? It helps to know where the verse comes from the examine the context.
This is just what I can see below the 'post reply' box. If I'm missing an argument, let me know.
-
I take this to mean those that have heard the message and do not believe.
Okay, that takes care of people living in the jungled of Papua New Guinea who killed and ate missionaries but in this day and age most people of other religions have heard the message and don't believe. Either cause they are atheists or cause they have a religion already.
If you're saying that they all go to hell you're either saying that good people do go to hell for believing in the wrong religion. Which is the exact opposite to what Trashman was claiming.
-
You have to be careful. In the biggest religions, following the wrong sect of that religion will send you to hell, or even having not yet completed some ritual of that sect.
Example: in The Poisonwood Bible, the southern Baptist preacher father believes his five year old daughter went to hell when she died because he hadn't yet baptized her. he hadn't yet baptized her because he thought she wasn't yet old enough to understand what it meant. sad.
-
Trashman, you simply cherry picked the ones you felt like answering and completely ignored the ones that backed up my point the strongest.
Read my last sentance in the lat post.
Come on then Trashman. Prove how
2 Thessalonians 1:8-9
In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction.
Isn't saying that anyone who doesn't obey the Gospel is going to hell. Unless you want to claim it was telling Christians to burn non-believers. While you're at it....
People can obey the word of God without knowing it or realizing it. Everyone who is kind, compassionate and good to others is following the teachings of Christ.
To know God is to know mercy, love and compassion. To not know God is in essence equal to being a vile, sinfull person.
Belief was very much the same thing as action back then (and is very much considered so even today).
One has to be very careful with these quotes, since the english bible you're quoting from is a translation of a translation, and there were quite a few synonims in both greek, latin and hebrew.
In essence, it's difficult to determine the meaning, since the terms and phrases not only reflect the manner of speaking and meaning of that time, but one also has to factor in the possible mistakes due to translation. But I believe this one quote illustrates the issue quite nicely.
-
I have much better uses for my table than a religion as retarded as Christianity. >.<
That is offensive. You call it retarted but I doubt you have any idea what your talking about. Why is it retarted?
And now we can all go to hell for not eating the right salt.
Because of this threads uninformed comments i read the whole newspost. They not once said anything about going to hell for not using their salt. The salt was blessed and is a marketing thing, thats all. They said that. Its to help charities and fund raising organizations.
They never said it had anything to do with salvation or the faith.
BIG EDIT: Read the whole thread now.
[The bit about believing in ghosts]
Ghosts are demons. You are either in heavon or hell when you die, unless your an angle or demon. I have recently heard that some souls of men who die can remain on the earth for some time first, in some cases. But i have not read into that yet.
[Good men go to hell?]
I belive if you do not believe that Jesus is the son of god who came to take away the sins of the world, you go to hell. If you dont believe in him and in that, you do not receive that gift of forgiveness.
But I know God is merciful and gracious, at other times strict. I think the passage about those that Hear the message of salvation, and do not believe are held accountable. Those that dont hear about Jesus i dont think are accountable.
So im unsure of the specifics. its up to god.
Does that buddist GF of yours go to hell? If she heard of Jesus and does not believe by the second she dies, then yes.
More edits to follow.
EDIT2: Quote
Mark 3:29
But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.
- you might want to inquire what exactly is "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost". To put it simply, those are grevious sins for which someone would generally get life of death penalty.
I asked about this once. Im not exactly sure what it is right now. But im 100% sure its not "put it simply, those are grevious sins for which someone would generally get life of death penalty".
[No one takes the bible literally, even pastors]
I believe much of the bible is literal. I know a pastor who does not beleive that when God said Noah was a man and God saved him in the arch, that it was a real historical event. Well if God says Noah lived, then Noah lived. The pastor told me it was just a 'story' to give the lesson of Gods Covenant.
I say it was real and the covenent is a message\was real as well.
Please stop asking Catholics questions and bringing their crap here. For the majority of Christians.. according to me or my 'circles', we dont believe Cahtolics are christians. Hell, even several of catholics i know, asked me if their christian. Its rediculous.
[You must obey every thing in the bible or you go to hell]
No the one thing that gets you into heavon is Jesus. Belief in him. Baptism and everything else is extra, and required for a personal relationship and walk with God\Jesus. You can't live in sin and not want or try to change and expect to really be saved. If you believe in God and .... the next class is about to start, g2g, ill finish this later.
-
[No one takes the bible literally, even pastors]
I believe much of the bible is literal. I know a pastor who does not beleive that when God said Noah was a man and God saved him in the arch, that it was a real historical event. Well if God says Noah lived, then Noah lived. The pastor told me it was just a 'story' to give the lesson of Gods Covenant.
I say it was real and the covenent is a message\was real as well.
Please stop asking Catholics questions and bringing their crap here. For the majority of Christians.. according to me or my 'circles', we dont believe Cahtolics are christians. Hell, even several of catholics i know, asked me if their christian. Its rediculous.
Catholics are indeed Christian. If you believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, then you are a Christan. Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, therefore they are Christians. Acting like they're not is like acting like Ford is not really an automobile company because you don't like the stuff they make.
Short history lesson: Up until about the 11th century, there was really only one major denomination for Christianity. Then there was the schism, and the Eastern Orthodoxy split off, leaving "Roman Catholicism" and the Pope to do their stuff. Then in the 16th Century, there was another schism, where protestantism started. If you look at who broke off from who, Catholicism is technically the closest to original Christianity, mainly because of the Pope.
Also, I've noted that you said "much" of the bible is acceptable literally. This statement has no significance given how you can pick and choose lines of the bible to take literally. Passages that you can take literally literally can range from things describing things that someone did (ie things like Jesus ate some food) all the way to the ridiculous (ie things like it's okay to have slaves).
-
Catholics are indeed Christian.
Dang, beat me to it.
Ghosts are demons.
According to what? Your own interpretation? Does that make the Holy Ghost a demon? I claim (how do you do the 'citation needed' thing?).
But im 100% sure its not "put it simply, those are grevious sins for which someone would generally get life of death penalty".
And you are 100% correct :p. Blasphemy, according to Wikipedia (I'll get a better source next time):
"Blasphemy" may be used by extension to describe any display of gross irreverence towards any person or thing deemed worthy of exalted esteem.
Please stop asking Catholics questions and bringing their crap here.
Please don't say stuff like this. It takes away from the spirit of the argument. I can not agree with someone and still respect opinions. (See: Epicurius Quote thread)
-
/*snip*/
You know, as an atheist, I'm much more comfortable with the interpretation that says "Wether or not you believe in the existence of Christ, or the factual accuracy of the Bible, is irrelevant. As long as you act according to the moral standards as laid down in the Bible, you'll be right in the eyes of God."
Because, after all, not only does your interpretation condemn everyone who has had the bad fortune to be born more than, say, 3000 years ago, to hell, but also all the genuinely good people around today who happen to be Muslims, Buddhists, Shintoists or Atheists. And all that because they do not believe in the same version of the Saviour as you? I'm sorry, but your world doesn't seem to be a particularly happy place to live in.
I claim (how do you do the 'citation needed' thing?).
Just a simple application of the color and sup tags.
-
You know, as an atheist, I'm much more comfortable with the interpretation that says "Wether or not you believe in the existence of Christ, or the factual accuracy of the Bible, is irrelevant. As long as you act according to the moral standards as laid down in the Bible, you'll be right in the eyes of God."
All of which is irrelevant if you are an atheist :lol:. Also, as much as I would like to agree with you, several passages from the Bible directly refute that idea.
And everyone who calls
on the name of the Lord will be saved.'
Although not direct refutation, it does say that calling on the name of the lord (believing) works.
The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, "Who then can be saved?"
Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God."
More direct, it is impossible for man to save himself, it must be through God.
"If it is hard for the righteous to be saved,
what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?"
This verse may in fact work for your case. Notice it only says that it is hard for the righteous to be saved, not impossible. However, this was written by Peter, not Christ, as was said in the prior verse.
and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
Mostly the second part of the verse.
Because, after all, not only does your interpretation condemn everyone who has had the bad fortune to be born more than, say, 3000 years ago
*snip*
To which I answer:
who has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time
Before Christ, those people who had heard of and worshipped God, and most likely those who had not but led good lives (speculation alert) were saved. However, since Christ has come, it is imperative to accept his gift of salvation from Him to be saved (see: above verses).
EDIT:
Just a simple application of the color and sup tags.
Thanks.
-
What I wrote was more directed at Charismatic, really. Anyway, I said it was the interpretation I was comfortable with, not that it was true or the only possible interpretation. In fact, this was an answer that my Pater (catholic priest, are they called that in english?) gave me when we had a discussion about the subject. I tend to believe his sincerity on the subject.
The interpretation you described is much more, for lack of a better word, fanatic and less inclusive. Which, in my book, is a bad thing. Your mileage may vary, of course.
-
For the most part I tend to agree with you there Scotty. The Bible does pretty much flat out say that only those who believe in Jesus are going to heaven and everyone else is going to hell or just simply die (Well apart from that bit where it says that only the Jews are getting in to heaven but only the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that anyway). :p
You know, as an atheist, I'm much more comfortable with the interpretation that says "Wether or not you believe in the existence of Christ, or the factual accuracy of the Bible, is irrelevant.
As an atheist why would you care? :D As far as I'm concerned it has the same relevance as whether or not Father Christmas thinks I've been a bad boy this year. :D
-
Less inclusive? Only by choice of person wondering. Fanatic? Well, just like beauty, that's in the eye of the beholder.
it was the interpretation I was comfortable with
I know what you mean. Sometimes, I don't feel comfortable with some parts, mostly letters written by Paul and Peter and guys who WEREN'T Jesus, telling us what to believe. One of these days, I'm going to go through the gospels and find what Jesus actually teaches, and not all the fluff these guys add.
EDIT:
For the most part I tend to agree with you there Scotty.
OH S***, IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD!
More Seriously: I challenge anyone to find a mention of the horrors of Hell that aren't written by someone who could have gotten it completely wrong (i.e. Paul)
-
You know, as an atheist, I'm much more comfortable with the interpretation that says "Wether or not you believe in the existence of Christ, or the factual accuracy of the Bible, is irrelevant.
As an atheist why would you care? :D As far as I'm concerned it has the same relevance as whether or not Father Christmas thinks I've been a bad boy this year. :D
There's that. I also like to cover myself in case I'm wrong ;) And I'd like to deal with people who are able to accept my beliefs (or lack of them) without getting preachy about me needing to convert to their particular branch of religion.
-
I also like to cover myself in case I'm wrong
By only half believing? :lol:
Introducing for the argument of all (drum roll): Pascal's Wager!! Yay!
-
I'm with Dawkins on this one: "Suppose we grant that there is indeed some small chance that God exists. Nevertheless, it could be said that you will lead a better, fuller life if you bet on his not existing, than if you bet on his existing and therefore squander your precious time on worshipping him, sacrificing to him, fighting and dying for him, etc."
However, since living according to the ten commandments has worked so far, I see no reason to stop.
-
I intensely dislike Dawkins. (See, once again: Epicurius Quote thread) He knows nothing of how many religions work. There are no 'sacrifices' in my religion. Granted that may or may not be true for others, it isn't for what he is talking about. Fighting and dying for him is a matter of circumstance, not a dedication. Yes it could be said that you will lead a better, fuller life if you bet on His not existing. Then again, it could be said that we will all die in the next ten minutes because of a gigantic meteor. Saying it in no way makes it true.
I apologize if I seem preachy. This guy pisses me off.
EDIT:
However, since living according to the ten commandments has worked so far, I see no reason to stop.
It's impossible to know if it's worked until the end. And what makes taking that extra little faith in Christ so difficult? (legitimate question, not trying to convert anyone)
-
I'm with Dawkins on this one: "Suppose we grant that there is indeed some small chance that God exists. Nevertheless, it could be said that you will lead a better, fuller life if you bet on his not existing, than if you bet on his existing and therefore squander your precious time on worshipping him, sacrificing to him, fighting and dying for him, etc."
However, since living according to the ten commandments has worked so far, I see no reason to stop.
You know, it's possible to believe in God but not worship/sacrifice/fight/die for him.
-
I intensely dislike Dawkins. (See, once again: Epicurius Quote thread) He knows nothing of how many religions work. There are no 'sacrifices' in my religion. Granted that may or may not be true for others, it isn't for what he is talking about. Fighting and dying for him is a matter of circumstance, not a dedication. Yes it could be said that you will lead a better, fuller life if you bet on His not existing. Then again, it could be said that we will all die in the next ten minutes because of a gigantic meteor. Saying it in no way makes it true.
I apologize if I seem preachy. This guy pisses me off.
No apology necessary. After all, that's what he likes to do. (I sometimes believe he does it on purpose, just so that believers have someone that infuriates them as much as, say, Televangelists infuriate some Atheists)
EDIT:
However, since living according to the ten commandments has worked so far, I see no reason to stop.
It's impossible to know if it's worked until the end. And what makes taking that extra little faith in Christ so difficult? (legitimate question, not trying to convert anyone)
I was raised as a skeptic. Accepting the existence of God requires a leap of faith I am not able to make. After all, I have never personally felt Gods' presence in my life, or heard reliable stories of people who did. There's also the point that I believe that if God existed, free will would cease to exist. (That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.)
-
Could you explain that last bit of reasoning? It intrigues me, especially since I'm usually the one who has to explain something in these threads.
-
Right...According to the Bible, God is all-knowing, and all-powerful. Being all-knowing, he knows about everything going on in the Universe. Thus, he becomes Laplace's Demon, able to see the present and accurately predict the future.
Free will, on the other hand, is the ability of a sentient being to do something totally unexpected. However, once we introduce God, the "unexpected" ceases to exist, as HE already knows what you would do with your free will. The question is: If someone knows (not suspects, knows) what you will do at any point in your life, do you actually make decisions, or do you just act according to a script?
Another point: The mythology built up around God tells us that God does, occasionally, intervene in the lifes of his followers. Why do it? Why do it in a way that is so ambiguous? Why choose a "chosen people"? Why abandon them? Why allowing several incompatible versions of the same core beliefs to coexist?
(That last bit is me ranting, excuses for that. However, I'd like to see your answers to that.)
-
And what makes taking that extra little faith in Christ so difficult? (legitimate question, not trying to convert anyone)
Why Christ? Why not Muhammed or Buddha or Rama or Zeus or .......
Cause you're a Christian you can no doubt provide lots of examples why your religion is better but so can every other religion. To someone without religion they all seem equally good or equally bad for the most part.
But even if Christianity was the only religion I still wouldn't take that leap. Faith in Christ requires that I accept as true something I can not know is true. That's simply not the way I choose to view the world.
-
I see it more as God seeing what actions someone could take, not what they necessarily will. Sort of like playing chess, millions of moves in advance. He is all-knowing, meaning not just what you will do, but whay you can do.
I see our definition of free will differs slightly as well. It is not the ability of a sentient being to do something unexpected, but rather to choose what course of action it takes. Then, even if God is introduced, free will still exists. Given your argument about acting according to a script, if I know that someone is going to die, or go to school, or something like that, does that mean they have no free will?
Another answer: because of free will. God chose his people, and they strayed from Him. The incompatible versions are an expression of our free will. We choose what we do, and believe, to some extent.
EDIT:
Why Christ? Why not Muhammed or Buddha or Rama or Zeus or .......
Because we were talking about his following the Ten Commandments, not the eight-fold truths or the five-fold path, or reincarnation (Rama is not a Hindu god, by the way. He is one of four mortal incarnations of Vishnu, who kills the Rakshasa king Ravana in the Ramayana, according to Hinduism).
-
The ten commandments apply equally to Judaism and Islam too.
Yet you asked him why not Christianity as is that was the only choice. :p
Simple fact is that the other religions have concepts very similar to the ten commandments anyway.
-
If you believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, then you are a Christan. Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, therefore they are Christians. Acting like they're not is like acting like Ford is not really an automobile company because you don't like the stuff they make.
I'd argue this point. The LDS church, for example, claims to be a Christian sect, but they reject so much Christian doctrine it's hard to take it seriously. (Calling the Council of Nicea "the great heresy" does not help.) Under this definition they would fall under Christian headings, but doctrinally they tack on other things like personal divinity that raise serious issues.
-
Another answer: because of free will. God chose his people, and they strayed from Him. The incompatible versions are an expression of our free will. We choose what we do, and believe, to some extent.
So, free will condemned millions of people to hell because they believed in the wrong version of christianity?
But this assumes that somewhere out there is a true version of christianity. What will you do when it turns out that your version isn't the right one? It's not like judgment day will have an appeals court, is it? You do everything you can in order to be right in the eyes of God, but how can you be sure without any sort of feedback mechanism?
Oh, and the ten commandments thing? I chose that particular ruleset because it is one of the few things in the Bible that actually works in everyday life, even after 2000+ years of memetic mutation. And they work without bringing anything supernatural into the mix.
-
free will condemned millions of people to hell because they believed in the wrong version of christianity?
Where did this come from? Show me where in the Bible it says you have to be a such-and-such denomination of Christianity or you go to hell. That is probably one of the places I disagree with most if not all denominations. Believing and having faith in Jesus, and not being an alltogether evil person (I claim anti-nitpick here. You all know what I mean. Morals are not the debate at hand.) are most necessary IMHO.
What will you do when it turns out that your version isn't the right one?
I prefer to think of myself as non-denominational. Feel free to choose a denomination if you want to. In the early days of Christianity, there were no denominations, and I for one, agree with that. It doesn't really matter which one, as long as the two above prerequisites are met.
-
Sorry. I seem to have gotten some earlier comments in this thread associated with you. I'll try to not let that happen again.
-
The whole "being a non-christian doesn't mean you go to hell" raises the following question.
What are the rewards of being a christian assuming the christian god is real?
-
Part of the problem is that a lot of religions have trouble accepting that other religions have the same rules, i.e. 'Leave the club, spend an eternity in suffering'.
If someone thinks their eternal soul is in danger, not only is it hard to convert them, but they would rather kill, or die, than be converted.
Because of the fact that almost every religion has a general rule of 'convert the unbelievers' running alongside that belief, the outcome of every religion following its holy book to the letter it's lots of killing or dying.
The world would be a much better place if every Holy Book had said something like 'Tolerate the unbeliever, and treat him as you would a brother, for your kindness will place more of God in his heart than your hatred.'.
-
If you believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, then you are a Christan. Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, therefore they are Christians. Acting like they're not is like acting like Ford is not really an automobile company because you don't like the stuff they make.
I'd argue this point. The LDS church, for example, claims to be a Christian sect, but they reject so much Christian doctrine it's hard to take it seriously. (Calling the Council of Nicea "the great heresy" does not help.) Under this definition they would fall under Christian headings, but doctrinally they tack on other things like personal divinity that raise serious issues.
LDS is pretty out there, but off-hand I myself would call them Christian. Even Jehova's Witnesses. I dunno... I was always told that the only thing that could make you Christian was whether you believed that Jesus was the Messiah or not. I really don't remember all that much about the terms to know whether "prophet" or "messenger" or whatever counts, or even what LDS specific stances are.
-
And you are 100% correct :p. Blasphemy, according to Wikipedia (I'll get a better source next time):
"Blasphemy" may be used by extension to describe any display of gross irreverence towards any person or thing deemed worthy of exalted esteem.
Blasphemy in general and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit are not one and the same. "Blasphemy against Holy Spirit" is more of a phrase, a manner of speach and it does imply a VERY serious offense.
@Scotty...really. Read the quotes from the Bible and think a bit.
The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, "Who then can be saved?"
Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God."
More direct, it is impossible for man to save himself, it must be through God.
But of course. God created heaven and the afterlife. Naturally you are saved trough Him and His grace. It doesn't say anything about you having to believe in Him.
and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
Mostly the second part of the verse.
And what does "love the truth" mean here? See the problem? You people keep repeating it again and again. I really don't need to continue.
-
The whole "being a non-christian doesn't mean you go to hell" raises the following question.
What are the rewards of being a christian assuming the christian god is real?
I'd assume you get there easier. A discount on your sins? You get a "get out of Hell free" card? Get to a higher level of Heaven?
-
And what does "love the truth" mean here?
The Greek writing of the verse is
2 Thessalonians 2:10
ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙΣ Β΄ 2:10
καὶ ἐν πάσῃ ἀπάτῃ ἀδικίας τοῖς ἀπολλυμένοις, ἀνθ' ὧν τὴν ἀγάπην τῆς ἀληθείας οὐκ ἐδέξαντο εἰς τὸ σωθῆναι αὐτούς.
ἐδέξαντο in Greek is to receive, but also to accept or take
ἀγάπην in the above is Greek for love, but may also refer to benevolence or charity.
literally, it does say to love the truth, but it can also mean to accept the charity, presumably of God through Jesus.
Does that answer what it means?
-
well, this thread has turned out to be civil barring a few nutty posts.
I'm curious if anyone that has negative views on Christianity or religion in general has actually read their respective holy books through and through. I, self-admittedly have not, or at least not in any serious manner, so I feel a bit inadequate to respond to quotations that which I am not aware of the context. Though aiming to rectify this, I have read through the first three books of the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus), and plan on going through the rest of the Old Testament, and then the New Testament.
So far, my favorite passages were in regards to Cain and Abel, and Joseph (son of Jacob, i.e. Israel) of the Book of Genesis. The concept of slavery among the Israelites is also interesting with regards to treatment and general laws (yes, Exodus and Leviticus both depict laws regarding the purchase of slaves as well as the conduct that must be accorded to them). Since my knowledge of other ancient cultures is limited at best, I'm unaware if there were similar laws to say, this one: "When you purchase a Hebrew slave, he is to serve you for six years, but in the seventh year he shall be given his freedom without cost." Exodus 21:2. I note that the text is pertaining to male, and not female, granted she is not excluded. Probably something worth looking into if for no other reason than clarification purposes. After all, I'm only reading a book who's gone through so many translations, I could simply be wrong.
Anyways, there are some other things of interest such as if a man destines a female slave for his son, she must be treated as a daughter, or if he takes another wife, he can't simply deny her food, clothing, or conjugal rights (upon which she would be freed if denied).
There are other laws in there as far as striking a slave may result in their freedom depending on how severe the injury is and according to what type. Exodus 21:20-21, and Exodus 21:26 come to mind.
Considering I have yet to start the Book of Numbers, these laws may yet be nullified in later books, similar to how the sacrifice of animals stops after Christ sacrifices himself on the cross.
With regards to man needing God's grace in order to be saved, you have to understand, this isn't an arrogant statement as one might perceive it to be. When you consider that the very nature of man is flawed and imperfect, it would be wise to not place all your hopes and faith into man. If man was perfect and not in need of God, we sure wouldn't have produced such great 'heroes of moral authority' such as Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong!
-
With regards to man needing God's grace in order to be saved, you have to understand, this isn't an arrogant statement as one might perceive it to be. When you consider that the very nature of man is flawed and imperfect, it would be wise to not place all your hopes and faith into man. If man was perfect and not in need of God, we sure wouldn't have produced such great 'heroes of moral authority' such as Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong!
The fact that you can name those people and know that everyone in the room will agree they did terrible things indicates that human beings are capable of knowing good from evil without being told by a god, at least given sufficient time and perspective.
-
But what horrible price does that sufficient time and perspective cost? I can think of about 45 million things just between those three named. You also missed his point. He is saying that humanity is not perfect, and giving examples, not trying to say we don't recognize evil.
-
The problem here is that humans don't always agree with what is right and what is wrong, and because of that, you come across different ideas of what constitutes as being moral.
To Hitler and the Nazis, eliminating the handicapped and disabled was a humane endeavor. After all, it would be cruel to allow someone the pain of knowing that they are outside the norm, so therefore they must be spared the unending torture of their lives and laid to rest.
Is this really moral and good? And if not, why?
The idea that man CAN be God is absurd because man is forever making mistakes proving his own fallibilty. Therefore to place all of one's faith in man or a man is recipe for disappointment and in certain cases ruination, as is the case of Nazi Germany.
It is not enough to know that something is bad, but to know WHY it is bad, lest one keeps finding themselves in similar negative predicaments with similar negative results.
-
If there is a god, then he/she/it/they did not prevent those particular displays of human imperfection. Human action and recognition of evil may, at least, help to lessen or prevent such atrocities in the future. I couldn't say whether divine influence will do the same. I accept that many people believe in gods for personal reasons, but I do not find this a compelling argument for why humanity as a whole needs this belief.
-
We're all human, and we're bound to make mistakes, god or no.
What troubles me is how many otherwise rational adults find themselves still believing in fairy tales from books as if they're the truth.
-
We're all human, and we're bound to make mistakes, god or no.
What troubles me is how many otherwise rational adults find themselves still believing in fairy tales from books as if they're the truth.
Less than those who believe in simillar "fairy tales" broadcasted from TV.
-
And to get even lower on the intelligence scale, people who believe fairy tales on the internet.
-
This 'going down the intelligence scale' bothers me. People who are religious are not inherently stupid or irrational. Whether or not you meant to do so, you implied this with your previous comment.
Conversely, it troubles me how many otherwise rational adults find themselves believing unproven or even untested scientific theories as if they're truth.
It carries with it a negative connotation when you say 'otherwise rational.' The above, was just another example. That in no way means it is what I actually think.
-
It means i think you're a tad silly for living in this world and still believing there is some magical creator god who decides what to do with us after we die.
Edit: Who's claiming to believe in stuff from TV or unproven scientific theories?
-
.
-
It means i think you're a tad silly for living in this world and still believing there is some magical creator god who decides what to do with us after we die.
Edit: Who's claiming to believe in stuff from TV or unproven scientific theories?
It's a belief. How can it be critisized? And for the record, Einstein believed in God, was he an idiot?
And i don't mean that you believe in stuff from TV, i mean what i wrote, that the TV - propaganda victims are nowadays more than the Churches propaganda victims. In both cases, propaganda is the enemy, not the beliefs.
-
.
-
Carl Jung's "collective subconscience" theory. You're very close to that :yes:
-
I wonder what the religious fanatics will think if we find life on Mars or other places, even bacterial life.
Religious fanatics go ballistic at the slightest provocation, such as not wearing a burqa (only citing an example). Personally, that wouldn't phase me spiritually. The Bible says nowhere that He only created life on Earth.
What if all religions on earth are actually based off a core religion
Interesting theory. Have fun getting people to agree :). Nothing against you, but I disagree. I have trouble understanding how the same core religion could have evolved into both Christianity and Hinduism, or Buddhism and Shamanism, as well as crossing oceans before any contact between east and west.
-
.
-
And for the record, Einstein believed in God, was he an idiot?
For the record, Einstein spent the last 30 years of his life trying to disprove quantum physics because they didn't mesh with his view of God.
His famous "God does not play dice" quote was a reference to this. He was claiming that there was no way that quantum physics could be as random as they in fact have since been proved to be.
So yeah, once you got Einstein onto religion, he was pretty stupid. :p
-
Therefore to place all of one's faith in man or a man is recipe for disappointment and in certain cases ruination, as is the case of Nazi Germany.
Wait, what?
-
I thought of something. What if all religions on earth are actually based off a core religion but is just each culture interpreting it differently? They have similarities and call God a different name. What if there is only one religion and there are all just different ways of looking at the same thing, like calling Jehova Krishna or Zeus. Maybe the core religion is some unnamed religion and the truth, but every culture altered it to their own interpretations.
monotheistic religions are in essence the same. Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all belief in a all-powerfull, just God. It's the less important details like His name that cause the unnecessary divide.
-
No christian wars plox.... :ick:
-
And for the record, Einstein believed in God, was he an idiot?
For the record, Einstein spent the last 30 years of his life trying to disprove quantum physics because they didn't mesh with his view of God.
His famous "God does not play dice" quote was a reference to this. He was claiming that there was no way that quantum physics could be as random as they in fact have since been proved to be.
So yeah, once you got Einstein onto religion, he was pretty stupid. :p
Really? Last I hear, some of his more "redicolous" theories are beginning to have some merit again. The universe is more complex that you and I probably imagine.
The old coot, even in him most stupid phase, may yet prove to have been 1000 time smarter then you will ever be.
-
For the record, Einstein spent the last 30 years of his life trying to disprove quantum physics because they didn't mesh with his view of God.
His famous "God does not play dice" quote was a reference to this. He was claiming that there was no way that quantum physics could be as random as they in fact have since been proved to be.
So yeah, once you got Einstein onto religion, he was pretty stupid. :p
I got him onto religion? where that comes from?
And yes, i'm aware of this and his other quotes about God. Here's a nice bio : http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/einstein_symphony_prog_summary.shtml
Obviously he knew that we was speaking to an Atheist audience and he also knew that he could'nt proove anything about it. What makes me wonder is how the opposite can be prooven, the non existance of God. People are very sure about it (And please don't confuse it whith the religions. I think i've made my point very clear about them).
-
And for the record, Einstein believed in God, was he an idiot?
For the record, Einstein spent the last 30 years of his life trying to disprove quantum physics because they didn't mesh with his view of God.
His famous "God does not play dice" quote was a reference to this. He was claiming that there was no way that quantum physics could be as random as they in fact have since been proved to be.
So yeah, once you got Einstein onto religion, he was pretty stupid. :p
Really? Last I hear, some of his more "redicolous" theories are beginning to have some merit again. The universe is more complex that you and I probably imagine.
The old coot, even in him most stupid phase, may yet prove to have been 1000 time smarter then you will ever be.
You're getting the message wrong.
Many of his theories do have general merit. Though he tried to disprove them, it doesn't mean that he was wrong.
-
Really? Last I hear, some of his more "redicolous" theories are beginning to have some merit again. The universe is more complex that you and I probably imagine.
The old coot, even in him most stupid phase, may yet prove to have been 1000 time smarter then you will ever be.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
The point is that Einstein abandoned the scientific method and decided on faith that the universe had to run differently from the way the theory he had created said it did. Even if he is proved right, and relativity doesn't work that way, he's still wrong. Because all he did was take a guess and then try to prove that guess was correct even though every single experiment said he was wrong.
Furthermore I challenge you to provide proof of him being right as I suspect you pulled that claim out of your arse.
-
Time for a insanely long and very mis spelled post. I actually am dreading typing All this up.... But good luck reading it.
============================
I know what you mean. Sometimes, I don't feel comfortable with some parts, mostly letters written by Paul and Peter and guys who WEREN'T Jesus, telling us what to believe. One of these days, I'm going to go through the gospels and find what Jesus actually teaches, and not all the fluff these guys add.
Fluff? The words they spoke and wrote are all fine and inspired by God. They (paul etc) were Jesus' disciples, learning day and night from him alone. Their words should be trusted as well. The bible is the word of god. Everything written was written by men who were directed and inspired by god. What they spoke is just as powerful and meaningful as what Jesus himself spoke. Tho Jesus words have more significance and power. Im not contradicting myself, im just trying to show that the whole bible beyond what Jesus spoke, is not vastly insignificant.
not only does your interpretation condemn everyone who has had the bad fortune to be born more than, say, 3000 years ago
I heard this argument a long long time ago. I cannot remember the specifics. But I think its something like this: Because Jesus hadent come yet, they wernt responsible for not believing. And they will be personally judged by god himself, and he will judge their hearts and deeds. An example of gods grace.
but also all the genuinely good people around today who happen to be Muslims, Buddhists, Shintoists or Atheists. And all that because they do not believe in the same version of the Saviour as you? I'm sorry, but your world doesn't seem to be a particularly happy place to live in.
Everyone knows this is a messed up world. Happyness as well as suffering. And read what i said. If they havent heard the message, Jesus, they can still get into heaven. Its up to God. Those that refuse to believe, most if not all go to hell. But this is my belief. We cannot prove this, as stated, its up to god.
To be fair, theirs one version, gods version of the truth. Unfortunately every man gets it wrong, even if one 'version' of belief is the closest. Were not perfect.
Quote from: Charismatic
Ghosts are demons.
According to what? Your own interpretation? Does that make the Holy Ghost a demon? I claim (how do you do the 'citation needed' thing?).
According to what I have learned and what I know. I have read the bible as well as several other books.
Think about all the TV'shows such as ghost hunters, movies, stories, books, or online vids you have seen about ghosts. What are their traits? Do they make us happy, do they help us? What do they do?
They stay in houses, they make us afraid, they haunt us and the house. "This house is cursed", things move and scare us, or see dark images or bad things. People move Out of haunted houses, not in. Some people can get injured by them.
Fear, injury, curses, dark images... sound like God or a Godly thing? No. Sounds like a demonic thing, things from satan, demons. Its not a positive thing, its negative.
And the Holy Spirit has many other names as well. Thats how we describe him. Jesus had a body, but we dont call the Father the Father Ghost do we?
The Holy Spirit is God, a being. Dosent really have a 'body' per se, so we described him as ghost. Hes not, he is god.
Catholics are indeed Christian.
Short history lesson:*SNIP*
Yes I know their history just fine. Im not denying their history. But what Most have become today is getting farther and farther from actually being Christian. Most Catholics today pray to Mary, as if she is his heavonly parent and has greather authority over Jesus. Like sayign "Mary please ask Jesus or tell him to bless us!"
Seriously, Mary was his earthly mother, nothing else. NOTHING to be prayed to. Catholics pray to the 'saints'. Peter and paul and everyone. Why!?
Jesus is all that matters. Pray directly to him.
This and many other problems i have with Catholics. They seem to belive less and less in Jesus. Half dont even think Jesus was real. Its not becoming christianity. Christianity is about Christ.
The question is: If someone knows (not suspects, knows) what you will do at any point in your life, do you actually make decisions, or do you just act according to a script?
You said it yourself. Its What You WIll Do. You had the choice to do it. God cannot mess with free will. As others said, he has 'backup plans' for everyones life for every time they dont choose the path God wants them to take. God can influence things tho. For a very fast example. A depressed man wants to kill himself. God does not want him to. God can cause something good to happen to him the day before he planned to suicide. The man then sees some good in his life and chooses not to kill himself. God didnt make him not kill himself, it was the mans choice. We can continually choose our own way rather then gods way. God lets us do what we want. In the end if we let him God can have his will be done. I cant think of any ATM but i know there are examples of where god wanted something. People, or israle, chose differently. Bad things happened, and eventually things turned around and god had his way. We can choose our own path, or Gods.
God does, occasionally, intervene in the lifes of his followers.
God does many times a day. Hes everywhere, but it takes discernment to see him. It takes time and effort soem times, but you can learn how to see god work in your life. Gods always working in our lifes, we just dont always see him. Many times 'its the little things'.
Faith in Christ requires that I accept as true something I can not know is true.
You can, but it depends on when and how God god shows you. You first have to want to see and know. You have to let him into your life first, so he can begin to work in it and in you. And one day he will get through to you and show you. Many people have a personal relationship with God. Like me, he has proven himself to me time and time again. I have absolutely no dobut he exists and is in my life. Wether or not I see him working in my life constantly. Many people refuse to see or let god in.
I see it more as God seeing what actions someone could take, not what they necessarily will. Sort of like playing chess, millions of moves in advance. He is all-knowing, meaning not just what you will do, but whay you can do.
Yes.
Then, even if God is introduced, free will still exists. Given your argument about acting according to a script, if I know that someone is going to die, or go to school, or something like that, does that mean they have no free will?
Exactly.
Another answer: because of free will. God chose his people, and they strayed from Him. The incompatible versions are an expression of our free will. We choose what we do, and believe
Yep.
So, free will condemned millions of people to hell because they believed in the wrong version of christianity?
But this assumes that somewhere out there is a true version of christianity.
Free will condems people to hell if they dont believe in Jesus.
As i said before, there is a true 'version'. Gods version. Unless God shows us in full, and clearly, we cannot know it perfectly. We can get as close as possible, or be wrong about alot of the details and such (between demonminations). All that matters is Jesus. Everything else is 'extra' and can help in your relationship with him.
What are the rewards of being a christian assuming the christian god is real?
I dont know specifics. But AFAIk, Forgiveness for all sins, Eternal life, 'a glorified body' (spiritual, non physical body), a 'house' or place in heaven. Some other...things. But a big reward will being with and near God. That last statement, there is alot involved in it. Dont know all specifics. I wont Try to say more unless asked to.
And what does "love the truth" mean here?
It is clear, very clear, that the truth, the message, the way, the light... is Jesus. Jesus came to die for our sins, so that we can once again return to Gods sight and enter into heaven.
Quote
I belive if you do not believe that Jesus is the son of god who came to take away the sins of the world, you go to hell. If you dont believe in him and in that, you do not receive that gift of forgiveness.
Yep.
What about the many cultures all over the world who lived for a long time without ever being exposed to Christianity, not to mention the true first religion was worshipping the sun and then greek gods after that and before Christianity and Judism? You can't say that these cultures who have their own religions and were secluded from western society and were never exposed to Christianty will go to hell. You call that merciful? Also, I don't think you go to hell if you never get baptised. Stop thinking black and white or in absolutes.
Read the whole topic, or at the least my replies. I already discussed that. I do call it merciful, because god 'thought' of that already. He judged them on their lives because Jesus had not come yet. And NO you Dont go to hell if your not baptized. I already said that..
It means i think you're a tad silly for living in this world and still believing there is some magical creator god who decides what to do with us after we die.
Not magic. As i said before, its perfectly logical to me. I have no dobut. I sometimes dont get why You guys dont see it. He is very real and very much alive and here. There is so much to learn and know about God and spiritual things. Dont judge me. I dont blaim you for not believing, not everyone will. One day your heart might be ready to look into him more. Maby then.
========
Wow that wasent as bad as i thought it'd be.
-
Yes I know their history just fine. Im not denying their history. But what Most have become today is getting farther and farther from actually being Christian. Most Catholics today pray to Mary, as if she is his heavonly parent and has greather authority over Jesus. Like sayign "Mary please ask Jesus or tell him to bless us!"
Seriously, Mary was his earthly mother, nothing else. NOTHING to be prayed to. Catholics pray to the 'saints'. Peter and paul and everyone. Why!?
Jesus is all that matters. Pray directly to him.
This and many other problems i have with Catholics. They seem to belive less and less in Jesus. Half dont even think Jesus was real. Its not becoming christianity. Christianity is about Christ.
What are you on about man?
Catholics revere the saints, they don't worship them. They never were, are or will be even close to Jesus/God. Same goes for Mary.
People pry, asking them to intercede on their behalf, even moreso if said saints have been known as patrons of certain professions.
There's nothing wrong with that.
God and Jesus are definately number 1 in catholicism.
Now, if there are some who take that reverance toofar, I'd say it's their problem. But painting all of Catholics with such a wide brush is redicolous to say the least.
-
Yes I know their history just fine. Im not denying their history. But what Most have become today is getting farther and farther from actually being Christian. Most Catholics today pray to Mary, as if she is his heavonly parent and has greather authority over Jesus. Like sayign "Mary please ask Jesus or tell him to bless us!"
Seriously, Mary was his earthly mother, nothing else. NOTHING to be prayed to. Catholics pray to the 'saints'. Peter and paul and everyone. Why!?
Jesus is all that matters. Pray directly to him.
This and many other problems i have with Catholics. They seem to belive less and less in Jesus. Half dont even think Jesus was real. Its not becoming christianity. Christianity is about Christ.
What are you on about man?
Catholics revere the saints, they don't worship them. They never were, are or will be even close to Jesus/God. Same goes for Mary.
People pry, asking them to intercede on their behalf, even moreso if said saints have been known as patrons of certain professions.
There's nothing wrong with that.
God and Jesus are definately number 1 in catholicism.
Now, if there are some who take that reverance toofar, I'd say it's their problem. But painting all of Catholics with such a wide brush is redicolous to say the least.
While I may disagree with Trashman about a great many things in this discussion he's spot on here. To claim that half of Catholics don't even believe in Jesus is ridiculous. You merely show your ignorance about Catholicism by doing so.
Which makes the rest of your comments about it suspect at the very least.
-
Okay.....So, here's a few questions:
1. Do Catholics go to heaven?
2. If everyone gets it wrong, you got it wrong, too. What protects you from eternal damnation?
3. What happened 2000 years ago that required Christs' presence? What changed?
4. What have catholics done to you? Again, what makes you sure that you are right and they are wrong?
5. You contradict yourself. There is this statement:
Everyone knows this is a messed up world. Happyness as well as suffering. And read what i said. If they havent heard the message, Jesus, they can still get into heaven. Its up to God. Those that refuse to believe, most if not all go to hell. But this is my belief. We cannot prove this, as stated, its up to god.
To be fair, theirs one version, gods version of the truth. Unfortunately every man gets it wrong, even if one 'version' of belief is the closest. Were not perfect.
and there is this:
Free will condems people to hell if they dont believe in Jesus.
As i said before, there is a true 'version'. Gods version. Unless God shows us in full, and clearly, we cannot know it perfectly. We can get as close as possible, or be wrong about a lot of the details and such (between demonminations). All that matters is Jesus. Everything else is 'extra' and can help in your relationship with him.
So....do they have to "accept" Jesus, or is it up to God? Could you clarify?
So, you believe in Jesus. That's allright. I get it. Yet there are other people out there who choose to follow the example set by mortal men and women who performed notable works in God's or Christ's name, because they find them to be more accessible than God's own son. What is so condemnable about that?
-
But painting all of Catholics with such a wide brush is redicolous to say the least.
Yeah I know. I just have a lot of arguments against Catholics. But most of what I have heard and seen from catholics and when i attend catholic services confirm my beliefs and statements. The majority of my experiance and exposure to catholics showed me what i told you.
You merely show your ignorance about Catholicism by doing so.
Ignorance? I was raised catholic, my whole moms side of the family is catholic, and i go to a catholic service with them once every other month. I have seen enough to make the statements i made. Yes half is probably an exadgeration but i was making a point.
1. Do Catholics go to heaven?
I have gone over this. Its on a person by person basis, wether or not they believe in Jesus.
2. If everyone gets it wrong, you got it wrong, too. What protects you from eternal damnation?
Specific arguments such as baptism, gifts of the spirit, wether or not so and so is right or what version of the bible is right are all debated on. The one thing that isnt debated on is Jesus being the son of God sent to die for our sins. That I do not have wrong. I could talk for a long time on gifts of the spirit and healing and prophesy but some argue against it. Anything else but Jesus is the son of god who died for our sins, is extra, and can be debated.
3. What happened 2000 years ago that required Christs' presence? What changed?
Im unsure but IIRC, Man has been living in sin sence Adam and Eve. Sence then God promised to save us and send a savior, a messiah. God decided to send him then.
4. What have catholics done to you? Again, what makes you sure that you are right and they are wrong?
That would be a whole nother topic. And we would sidetrack too far IMHO. So ill leave that alone unless u ask again.
So....do they have to "accept" Jesus, or is it up to God? Could you clarify?
I told you the gist of it already. The basics have already been stated. I cannot guess what God will choose in various situations like that concerning their salvation. I only know what i have told you. Ill ask my dad sometime.
-
I suppose I would class myself as agnostic and believe myself to be a good person, does that get me into heaven?
I can believe in the notion that there MAY be a sentient cause to the universe. That maybe who is what ever created the universe may have directed it's growth, or evolution if you will. After all, at the moment we can almost predict the death of the universe , based on current observations and current theories. Maybe this GOD or creator, set this universe in motion as an huge experiment, could he create a finite universe and life with a will so strong to survive and a growing intelligence to fight the decline of the universe. Life evolves equally throughout the universe through evolution and reaching out to eventually form a universe wide alliance with high intelligence and technological knowledge to fight the ravages of the death of the universe. Then there will be our final judgement, can we fight the death of the universe, have we advanced far enough?
But so far there is no proof of any of this and none of the religions seem to say the right kind of thingfs.
*Edit* Just read back what I wrote, I sound like a damn Scientologist! ****! */Edit*
:lol:
-
Even with the danger of facing incredible long posts with long metaphors, I simply have to ask this:
Jesus is all that matters. Pray directly to him.
But but I thought he himself said exactly not to do that!
And also, it was taught to me that in Christianity you believe in Christ, God and Holy Spirit. But they are three separate things! So Christianity is not monotheistic.
My current view of religion is kind of shift in responsibilities. "I don't need to do something about it because that's the God's will!" I don't accept this kind of thinking personally, and I would actually react against it if more people would show this kind of behavior. Also, quite a lot of people detest any religion by looking at histories of the religions. Most of them claim to do good for individuals, but quite a lot of them have been used as a mind control tool by the people who had the power by that time to prevent useful changes from happening. In the end doing more harm to individuals.
Mika
-
But painting all of Catholics with such a wide brush is redicolous to say the least.
Yeah I know. I just have a lot of arguments against Catholics. But most of what I have heard and seen from catholics and when i attend catholic services confirm my beliefs and statements. The majority of my experiance and exposure to catholics showed me what i told you.
Or you've seen what you wanted to see.
As soon as you start with some preconceptions about something, everything you see or observe related to it will be colored by those preconceptions.
The same action commited by person A will be interpreted differently by person B and C, if tehy have different preconception of what kind of person A is or what he is doing.
And also, it was taught to me that in Christianity you believe in Christ, God and Holy Spirit. But they are three separate things! So Christianity is not monotheistic.
They are actually the same thing. God in 3 different aspects if you will
-
Yes I know their history just fine. Im not denying their history. But what Most have become today is getting farther and farther from actually being Christian. Most Catholics today pray to Mary, as if she is his heavonly parent and has greather authority over Jesus. Like sayign "Mary please ask Jesus or tell him to bless us!"
Seriously, Mary was his earthly mother, nothing else. NOTHING to be prayed to. Catholics pray to the 'saints'. Peter and paul and everyone. Why!?
Jesus is all that matters. Pray directly to him.
This and many other problems i have with Catholics. They seem to belive less and less in Jesus. Half dont even think Jesus was real. Its not becoming christianity. Christianity is about Christ.
The people that you've met are not Catholics. If you are a Catholic, then you believe in Jesus. If you don't believe in Jesus, then you are not Catholic, or you aren't representing actual Catholic belief. I was hoping you'd do some research on this, they are indeed Christian.
Also, you are right about it being Christianity. Mary and the saints have nothing to do with being Christian. All that matters is if you believe in Jesus. In fact, praying to someone does not necessarily mean that you worship them or view them as a deity. It's like how atheist people can still say "thank goodness" or "good luck" or things like that, AFAIK.
-
.
-
We're all human, and we're bound to make mistakes, god or no.
What troubles me is how many otherwise rational adults find themselves still believing in fairy tales from books as if they're the truth.
Why do you assume that they are fairy tales? Why would it be more rational to believe everything happened by chance?
-
What are you on about man?
Catholics revere the saints, they don't worship them. They never were, are or will be even close to Jesus/God. Same goes for Mary.
People pry, asking them to intercede on their behalf, even moreso if said saints have been known as patrons of certain professions.
There's nothing wrong with that.
God and Jesus are definately number 1 in catholicism.
Now, if there are some who take that reverance toofar, I'd say it's their problem. But painting all of Catholics with such a wide brush is redicolous to say the least.
I'm not sure about that because I see people focusing most of their prays on Mary rather than God/Jesus.
Females usually give Mary a lot of importance, possibly to evaluate their position and roles.
-
.
-
Old, old, old and outdated way to reply. Calling them theories doesn't necessarily mean that they're not reliable.
I for one think that all creationists are wasting their time because evolution has been accepted by Vatican's highest authorities. There even are astronomers in Vatican who accept the Big Bang and also have their personal opinions(very good ones, I may add) about aliens.
It's not the case to keep misusing the word "theory" in a debate.
-
So then we can call the Bible "God's Theory" or something like that and it would be more reliable? :lol:
Apparently, I am wasting my time because I think that God created the Earth a long time ago, and evolution progressed as it has. You might want to amend that statement.
What are you going to think and do if we find life in many places besides Earth, like Mars?
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I would think that was frickin' awesome and keep on believing that God didn't make life exclusively on Earth.
If Christianity and Judism were the absolute correct religions, then they would be the first, I'd think.
Which means that the flat-earth theory would be absolutely correct? It doesn't work that way.
contradicts the peacful nature that Christians should follow.
? And this applies to this argument how?
What if I don't want to go to heaven because I think it is too perfect and without free will or hardships?
Be my guest :p.
Without hardships, you can't be truly happy.
Without having experienced hardship. Once you get to heaven, you have still experienced such things on Earth. You can very much be happy.
Look at the heart and morals instead of the denomination.
Thank you.
I'm not sure about that because I see people focusing most of their prays on Mary rather than God/Jesus.
Discussion over. Catholics are Christians. Just because they don't do exactly the same things as you does not make them not Christians. They may very well be mistaken, but that isn't the point.
Also, quite a lot of people detest any religion by looking at histories of the religions.
The same thing applies to many, many countries. Besides, past performance is no indication of future performance :D.
I suppose I would class myself as agnostic and believe myself to be a good person, does that get me into heaven?
No.
-
You could say to the fanatics to prove that God exists and you could say to the athiests to prove that he doesn't exist. The argument could go on forever. Scientific theories are also not proven (like big bang and string/m theory) note the word "theory".
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/theory
Scientific and creation theories. They are all called theories.
Gravity is "only" a theory. Ask a scientist how a theory is made.
-
Well, of course it has to be this: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512 (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512) :D
-
Bad news people: according to the "Apocalypse", only 144000 people will be saved. I think that all places are taken by the Saints and the Martyrs so there's no hope, no hope at all :(
-
This guy does realize that Kosher Salt has a distinctive texture which helps it adhere to food, right?
Lmfao.
-
.
-
In related news, Goku could totally beat up Superman.
-
In related news, Goku could totally beat up Superman.
Poor fool. Superman is Strong As He Needs To Be, and therefore his strength rises to be just enough to defeat his opponent after a suitably long enough fight.
-
.
-
Bad news people: according to the "Apocalypse", only 144000 people will be saved. I think that all places are taken by the Saints and the Martyrs so there's no hope, no hope at all :(
And they're all Jews too.
Bad luck Christians. :p
-
The past version of Superman was overpowered but the newer Superman versions reduced his power. The older version (maybe the 1960's version "golden era it might have been called") was actually strong enough to move a planet, for example, and was a super genius too and maybe psychic. They had to reduce his power to make it so the villians could stand a chance.
That's stupid, why didn't they just make super-villains. :D
-
Dont derail topic.
Can someone quote that 144000 people thing from the bible for me? the whole passage
-
Dont derail topic.
Can someone quote that 144000 people thing from the bible for me? the whole passage
It isn't derailing, I was just hoping you guys would realize you've gone to a classic 'my overly detailed fiction is better than your overly detailed fiction and here are several reasons why' format :-P
-
Dont derail topic.
Can someone quote that 144000 people thing from the bible for me? the whole passage
This thread stopped being on topic after first 2 pages or so. o_o
-
Can someone quote that 144000 people thing from the bible for me? the whole passage
Revelation 7:4
And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.
Revelation 14:1
And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.
And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:
And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.
These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.
Bad luck to those of you who are married too apparently. :p
-
Revelation 7:4
And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.
I know that part. The numbers have a symbolic meaning.
12,000 people for each tribe and, since there are 12 tribes, 12,000*12=144,000.
BSG-ish? :p
-
Wrong way. BSG is Bible~ish.
-
Ah, now i understand the superman refrence. Yes yes ill get back to my mega quoting soon. IIRC i didnt see too much to quote to sence the last one. But its coming.
-
Bad news people: according to the "Apocalypse", only 144000 people will be saved. I think that all places are taken by the Saints and the Martyrs so there's no hope, no hope at all :(
And they're all Jews too.
Bad luck Christians. :p
You do realize that you're screwed as well, right? :p
In related news, Goku could totally beat up Superman.
Ah, I see now, you're still at the level where God can only be interpreted as Santa Claus in white robes. If my interpretation was limited to this, I'd probably be an atheist as well. No wonder Moses was pissed when he came down from Mount Sinai and found that the Israelites were worshipping a golden calf. If one attempts to limit God to a physical object, such as the calf, and expect it to fulfill their every need, then they will be severely disappointed. Why? Because such a thing can be easily destroyed or corrupted. By smashing the calf, Moses proved how wrong they were. After all, if the calf was God, then surely it would not allow itself to be destroyed, but alas, the idol was destroyed.
Remember Exodus 20:4-5 "You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth; you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishment for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation; but bestowing mercy down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments."
That actually is the first of the Ten Commandments listed in the Bible.
Now, you must understand, that much of the Old Testament descriptions of God are metaphorical and not literal in terms of the how we define things in the physical world. Such as with examples of God walking beside Cain asking him of his brother Abel. It's not like some human or alien called "God" was literally walking besides Cain asking him questions, the same way you would interact with another person. It is simply a personification. When I read the passage in Genesis, I interpreted it more as Cain's conscience had finally caught up with him and he could bear the guilt of murdering Abel no longer. True, he did deny his knowledge initially, but eventually he had to face what he had done. It has been said that a person's conscience is often referred to as the "Voice" of God.
-
Bad news people: according to the "Apocalypse", only 144000 people will be saved. I think that all places are taken by the Saints and the Martyrs so there's no hope, no hope at all :(
And they're all Jews too.
Bad luck Christians. :p
You do realize that you're screwed as well, right? :p
I don't believe that any of the story is true in the first place. So I'm no more screwed by the bible saying that than I would be if it didn't. It's those who actually believe it is the literal word of God who are screwed since either they must admit that they aren't getting into heaven or that they're wrong about it not being symbolic.
-
.
-
What I can't understand is, if an "infidel" who practices the "wrong" religion is going to hell, why bother even killing him? He's going to get "what's coming to him" eventually.
(To clear something up, I'm not an Atheist. I have no problem with religion, and I've seen it do a lot of good although I myself am not pious in any sense of the word. As with anything, it's problematic when taken too far.)
-
I'll have to buy me some of that salt. For the next time I barbeque a rack of lamb.
-
careful High Max, Atheists are no less judgemental in their beliefs than the religious people. I would dare say that this has more to do with a flaw of human nature. Even if you stripped out religion, people would still go to war over something else. As depressing a thought as it may be, the only way I can think of to realistically eliminate war permanetly is to eliminate the species.
-
.
-
It is impossible to be any more close minded than a religious super fanatic and they say that to a Christian fanatic, there is no such thing as a Christian fanatic.
That is debatable. I met quite a few atheistic people that were as close-minded and fanatical as the worst religious fanatics. As I said before - morons come in all shapes and sizes, religions or lack thereoff.
-
As depressing a thought as it may be, the only way I can think of to realistically eliminate war permanetly is to eliminate the species.
Sounds like a good idea! When do you wanna start? XD
-
careful High Max, Atheists are no less judgemental in their beliefs than the religious people. I would dare say that this has more to do with a flaw of human nature. Even if you stripped out religion, people would still go to war over something else. As depressing a thought as it may be, the only way I can think of to realistically eliminate war permanetly is to eliminate the species.
People (and cultures as a whole) have a natural tendency to view anything other than what they are and what they believe in as inferior in some way. Any Sociologists here who know what that's called? :nervous:
-
Humanity.
-
.
-
a.k.a. extremely selfish, manipulative and corrupted. Very hard to trust.
Actually, I find the place that I was raised around to be inferior in some ways to certain cultures and they are superior in certain ways. To think that just because a culture is not yours makes it inferior is close minded too. More people should read about it first and meet people from there.
Not everyone does it, it's more of a natural tendency than a generalized truth. From a psychological perspective, more than likely it's a natural instinct to think that way in order to better justify your mannerisms and existence.