Religion [Archive] - Ichigo's Forums

Nightmare

October 17th, 2006, 06:26 pm

I agree with Sir Jaso. Most people just say things like that because they don't know the bible well enough. I'm really Christian too, so I con't care if you don't like the religion, but don't be rude about it please. And don't close this forum, I think it's a good topic for everybody!

I consider myself more knowledgeable on the bible than most Christians I know. I was not rude about it at all. I merely pointed out attributes that I have found out about God as I have read and studied the bible, and questioned why Christians considered him still moral if he had done such a thing.

The only reason I had not provided quotes for this, was because I had done so time and time again in the previous debates on this forum. I apoligize for this, Sir Jaso, as because I have already posted the quotes so many times, I sometimes forget that I am debating with a different person who may have not read my quotes. I was about to make a post on it but then my computer shut down!

I don't want an arguement, just a debate. I put those claims about God down so most Christians (like yourself) would disagree with them, and so you would come and defend. Did you know there are some Christians who agree that these are immoral actions, and agree that god committed them, yet also say that God is still perfectly moral? Unfortuantely, as of now, I don't have the time to go back and find all the quotes I had found in the bible about genocide, rape, etc. But if you'll wait, I'd be glad to post them later.

In the mean time, here are some that you can see for evidences:

Innocent:

http://www.bibleatrocities.mediashrine.com/god_punishes_the_innocent.html

Slavery:

http://www.bibleatrocities.mediashrine.com/god_condones_slavery.html

Rape:

http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm

Genocide:

Read Joshua.

The first two links are my website, the third one is not mine, and for now, you'll just have to read the book of Joshua to see how God commanded Joshua to conquer and destroy nations. When I return from work, I'll be sure to dig out some of the better quotes that support my claims.

Jaso

October 17th, 2006, 06:36 pm

musicangel820

October 17th, 2006, 07:44 pm

Matt

October 17th, 2006, 07:52 pm

"I am not accepting those sources." So you don't accept the bible... I don't understand. :\

melzii

October 17th, 2006, 08:19 pm

Innocent:

http://www.bibleatrocities.mediashrine.com/god_punishes_the_innocent.html

Ok so in that link, it says that God tempted abraham to kill his own son, right? So in one of my RE lessons I learnt that God was testing Abraham, to see if how much he trusted God, cause God had already promised him like, loadsa descendants. So God's intention wasn't for Isaac [abe's son] to die. And then i got taught that because abraham's son wasn't sacrificed, in the New Testament, God does actually sacrifice his own son [Jesus] instead, so He kinda finished the job for Abraham, because when abraham was about to kill his son, God knew how much faith Abraham had for him, so God stopped him.
So yeah, God wasn't trying to trick abraham just for the bloody sake of it.

Jaso

October 17th, 2006, 08:25 pm

"I am not accepting those sources." So you don't accept the bible... I don't understand. :\

It isn't the verses that I reject its the comments after, the biased comments that only look at one side and completely misinterpret the text; thus turning it into the one direction they want. The nature of the site is to discriminate every part of the bible so it is safe to say that thats is completely biased and wont even consider other sides of the interpretations.

I didn't reject the quote from The Bible in any way or form.

musicangel820

October 17th, 2006, 09:08 pm

So for all practical purposes just look at the 'atrocity' and the verse numbers and formulate your own opinion.

leonheart

October 17th, 2006, 09:10 pm

Rape:

http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm

Genocide:

Read Joshua.

The first two links are my website, the third one is not mine, and for now, you'll just have to read the book of Joshua to see how God commanded Joshua to conquer and destroy nations. When I return from work, I'll be sure to dig out some of the better quotes that support my claims.

None of those passages actually said the women were being raped just taken as wives it never said the women refused to become wives of the men.

musicangel820

October 17th, 2006, 09:19 pm

Hmm I just found this quote and thought it was pretty interesting so here XD:

"My aim in that was, to justify the character of Jesus against the fictions of his pseudo-followers, which have exposed him to the inference of being an impostor. For if we could believe that he really countenanced the follies, the falsehoods and the charlatanisms which his biographers father on him, and admit the misconstructions, interpolations and theorizations of the fathers of the early, and fanatics of the latter ages, the conclusion would be irresistible by every sound mind, that he was an impostor. I give no credit to their falsifications of his actions and doctrines, and to rescue his character, the postulate in my letter asked only what is granted in reading every other historian... I say, that this free exercise of reason is all I ask for the vindication of the character of Jesus. We find in the writings of his biographers matter of two distinct descriptions. First, a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstitions, fanaticisms and fabrications. Intermixed with these, again, are sublime ideas of the Supreme Being, aphorisms and precepts of the purest morality and benevolence, sanctioned by a life of humility, innocence and simplicity of manners, neglect of riches, absence of worldly ambition and honors, with an eloquence and persuasiveness which have not been surpassed. These could not be inventions of the groveling authors who relate them. They are far beyond the powers of their feeble minds. They shew that there was a character, the subject of their history, whose splendid conceptions were above all suspicion of being interpolations from their hands... That Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God, physically speaking, I have been convinced by the writings of men more learned than myself in that lore. But that he might conscientiously believe himself inspired from above, is very possible... Excusing, therefore, on these considerations, those passages in the gospels which seem to bear marks of weakness in Jesus, ascribing to him what alone is consistent with the great and pure character of which the same writings furnish proofs, and to their proper authors their own trivialities and imbecilities, I think myself authorised to conclude the purity and distinction of his character, in opposition to the impostures which those authors would fix upon him; and that the postulate of my former letter is no more than is granted in all other historical works." - Thomas Jefferson

October 18th, 2006, 12:02 am

[...] Apparently the serpent had legs... [...]

Actually, they say the serpent was Lillith, if you believe in the hierarchy of Angels and Demons. She was the first wife of Adam, and the future wife of Samael--one form of "Satan".

And there are many books left out (http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/index.htm) of the canon due to various reasons.

Also, for unifying the scripture in the debate, I recommend everyone use THIS (http://www.biblegateway.com/) site. This way you can cross reference the verses you have from your standard bible, to another's without going "OH! THAT'S NOT HOW IT WAS WRITTEN!"

musicangel820

October 18th, 2006, 12:29 am

You can still choose a different version of it though xD I think the New International Version (NIV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIV)) and New Revised Standard Edition (NRSV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NRSV)) are supposedly the most accurate of the translations

Nightmare

October 18th, 2006, 01:21 am

I don't consider these valueable sources at all; in fact such sites are extremely biased. Who can say that evilbible.com is proof?

The first site is my own, and of course the source is biased. So is any Christianity site. How could one not be biased as an atheist against Christianity? How can a Christian not be biased towards atheism? You make no sense. It's not the website, Sir Jaso, that is the proof. It is the verses contained within that offer evidence to my claims. Even if it is not 100% proof, it is still something that can be interpreted easily to back up my claims.

No, I am not accepting those sources, they are not fair, unless you state in the chapters you have problems with.

Those sources are completely fair. They take a quote directly from the bible and then elaborate on it. In fact, for the first two, it is exactly the same as if I were to take the verses out of the bible and comment on them in this post. Let me give you a good example:

Exodus 20:5 God Punishes Children For Their Parent's Deeds

"You shall not bown down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,"

How can you see this in any other way? God here explicitly states that he is punishing children for something they did not do. The children are innocent for the crime they are being punished for. What's more, it's not only good enough for God to punish the children for the "inquity of parents", but he'll continue on for another 2 or 3 generations after them. This verse was contained within one of the sources you claimed were unfair.

I think you are being unfair to me, Sir Jaso. I gave you sources that provided several verses supporting my claims which then elaborating on the claims. If you don't agree, then why don't you tell me why these verses are incorrect or how the interpretation was wrong, rather than just remarking how unfair the sources are and how they offer no evidence or proof. Was the bible translated incorrectly? With verses like the above, I don't see how you can possibly have a doubt in your mind of whether or not God chooses to punish innocent people.

Also, if you didn't want an arguement (which, for the record I haven't started) how come you said : *gets the fire going*?

It was a pun, Sir Jaso. It was merely in jest. Try not to think too hard on it or take it too seriously.

and I do not consider myself christian. Thats a mainly American generalisation. I am Catholic. Big difference in denominational codes in England and many other countries.

I'll keep that in mind for future reference.

Nightmare

October 18th, 2006, 01:27 am

Ok so in that link, it says that God tempted abraham to kill his own son, right? So in one of my RE lessons [I go to Sunday School] I learnt that God was testing Abraham, to see if how much he trusted God, cause God had already promised him like, loadsa descendants. So God's intention wasn't for Isaac [abe's son] to die. And then i got taught that because abraham's son wasn't sacrificed, in the New Testament, God does actually sacrifice his own son [Jesus] instead, so He kinda finished the job for Abraham, because when abraham was about to kill his son, God knew how much faith Abraham had for him, so God stopped him.
So yeah, God wasn't trying to trick abraham just for the bloody sake of it.

There is a huge, huge problem with logic in that. In addition to being omnipotent, God is also omniscient. When you say "to see how much he trusted God", you are basically saying God did not already know. An omniscient God would already know how much his follower(s) trusted him, and so there would be no need for such a test. There is no point in testing something of which you already know the outcome of.

Furthermore, there is no point whatsoever for God to sacrifice his own soon. It's' absolutely pointless. Is God incapable of forgiving people without such a thing? I know that if someone wrongs me, I can choose whether or not I want to forgive them, and I don't need to kill my dog or cat for that. If I can do something as simple as that, why can't God?

None of those passages actually said the women were being raped just taken as wives it never said the women refused to become wives of the men.

What you appear to be implying is that all or most of the women had no problem being taken for a wife, even after their family, friends, and entire village was slaughtered right in front of them. I know if I my friends and family were killed in front of me, I certainly wouldn't want to be married to one of the people who took part in the killing, much less be the one to produce offspring to carry on the bloodline. What about you?

methodx

October 18th, 2006, 01:40 am

Wow so this was re-opened. Ftr I have no religion but am not really atheist; and I live in peace with men and women of the cloth. I have pretty much nothing against them.
Pardon me, but what is the difference between Christians and Catholics? Don't they believe in the same God and read from the same holy book? And Roman Catholics?
Apparantly, the US constitution clearly states that religion and the state are not to be combined/influenced by each other, or something along the lines of. Rumour has it that Mr Bush himself is in fact opposed to same-sex marriage and abortion because of his faith; thus used his grand Presidential veto to nullify any attempts to get those rights in place (notice, I say "rights"). Shouldn't that be illegal, and quite unheard of considering he's the President breaking his own country's constitution. Or does the Christian society have a little something concocted to justify this action?

October 18th, 2006, 02:05 am

Catholics are a subset of Christianity, similar to Lutharans or Southern Baptist, called denominations. Realisticlly, they are seperate groups within Christianity that think different, or interperate things differently, from the other groups.

musicangel820

October 18th, 2006, 02:16 am

There is a huge, huge problem with logic in that. In addition to being omnipotent, God is also omniscient. When you say "to see how much he trusted God", you are basically saying God did not already know. An omniscient God would already know how much his follower(s) trusted him, and so there would be no need for such a test. There is no point in testing something of which you already know the outcome of.

Furthermore, there is no point whatsoever for God to sacrifice his own soon. It's' absolutely pointless. Is God incapable of forgiving people without such a thing? I know that if someone wrongs me, I can choose whether or not I want to forgive them, and I don't need to kill my dog or cat for that. If I can do something as simple as that, why can't God?

What you appear to be implying is that all or most of the women had no problem being taken for a wife, even after their family, friends, and entire village was slaughtered right in front of them. I know if I my friends and family were killed in front of me, I certainly wouldn't want to be married to one of the people who took part in the killing, much less be the one to produce offspring to carry on the bloodline. What about you?
About God testing Him, I always used to think that the test was more for Abraham than God. When you take a math test, not only does it let your teacher know how you're doing, but it lets you yourself know how you're doing, so you know how much more effort to put into it into the future. You're right in saying that God knows everything so the outcome is of no consequence to Him because He already knew. But along with that God also knew that that story would be put into the ible by Moses to teach all who read it. So I believe that the test had a greater puurpose.

God sacrificing His Son was necessary! God is Just and Merciful, so He doesn't simply forgive all sins without just punishment. Because of His love for the world He sent his Son to die for the sins of the world (mercy) and because of His perfection raise Him higher than all others (just). Because of this, the price for all sins committed was paid, and now humans no longer have an excuse to sin, so at the last day we can rightfully be held accountable for our actions. The Holy Spirit was not there until Jesus had been glorified, and Jesus could not have been glorified until he descended to the world. So Jesus' first coming was also necessary to give us the Holy Spirit.

To methodx:
Just because an issue is mentioned in a religious text does not make it a religious issue. The 6th commandment is "Thou shalt not murder", does that mean murder is a religious issue? It's interesting that abortion and same-sex marriage were brought up along with politics in a religion thread, but what the hey. Jus soli is a principle that stattes that any peron born on the soil of a country is a citizen of that country. The word 'born' has several definitions, one of them being 'to create life'. With the advent of technology we all see very clearly that human fetuses and embryos are viable after 3 weeks (first heartbeat). That would make them citizens, so how is Bush wrong for protecting citizens from being murdered?

The US Constitution has an 'equal protection clause in it that basically says it the government protects or gives benefit to one group is cannot deny a same group the same benefits. Heterosexual marriages and same-sex marriages are not equal, they are different. If they were equal, there would be no differentiation. (With taxonomy being the greatest and best example) when things are classified into divisions it is because they are unequal. Therefore why would the government be forced to give a totally different group the same rights as another?

methodx

October 18th, 2006, 03:24 am

Just because an issue is mentioned in a religious text does not make it a religious issue. The 6th commandment is "Thou shalt not murder", does that mean murder is a religious issue? It's interesting that abortion and same-sex marriage were brought up along with politics in a religion thread, but what the hey. Jus soli is a principle that stattes that any peron born on the soil of a country is a citizen of that country. The word 'born' has several definitions, one of them being 'to create life'. With the advent of technology we all see very clearly that human fetuses and embryos are viable after 3 weeks (first heartbeat). That would make them citizens, so how is Bush wrong for protecting citizens from being murdered?

The US Constitution has an 'equal protection clause in it that basically says it the government protects or gives benefit to one group is cannot deny a same group the same benefits. Heterosexual marriages and same-sex marriages are not equal, they are different. If they were equal, there would be no differentiation. (With taxonomy being the greatest and best example) when things are classified into divisions it is because they are unequal. Therefore why would the government be forced to give a totally different group the same rights as another?

Very well, but it's debatable about at which what point one can become classified as a being. A dot, no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence, is significant enough to be considered life? Does it become life once the sperm reaches the egg or later? Sure, perhaps it is, it looks like a human except -700% smaller (but that's only until after a few weeks) and will come into the world as one in nine months. But it is not capable of thought or reason, the one thing separating us from other animals. The only thing that separates us from another creature at your local zoo, it is not. It's nothing more than a protein based object in a womb. So then it deserves the right to live? If their parent had wanted to abort them, they'll most likely end up living as a delinquent drop out with a shoddy parent who doesn't take care of them. Is that what you want to bring them into? A life of neglect? Alright.
Secondly, okay, I understand that same-sex marriage can and perhaps should be classified differently then normal marriage. But that is not enough to not allow them to be “married”. If they don’t like the idea of redefining marriage, then don’t. Simply call it something else. How much harm are they going to be doing to you if they live in the same house with a few legal papers? Absolutely nothing. Is it just a little too much to ask for? Let’s say that same-sex marriage isn’t marriage, but, something else. So then you can’t use the excuse “It’s redefining marriage” to disallow them from *ahem* uniting under the same name. Hello, it’s not even marriage. And I am pretty sure that rewriting the dictionary a little is not against the law. And it is a fact that somewhere in the U.S. laws/constitution/something that state and religion are to be completely segregated and have no influence on each other. Where in their laws? I don’t know. I’m not American. And if you have problems about where I obtain this information, I suggest you call up my history teacher (who is religious and therefore has no reason to not say that about this) and complain there.
Goodnight, it’s been fun. and I have band at 6am.

JSTAdreamer

October 18th, 2006, 09:06 am

Sorry for going back but i had to say this

I believe that God is immoral for the following reasons:

He commands rape.
He commands genocide.
He punishes innocent people.
He condones slavery.

If anyone feels the above can be considered moral in any situation, I'd like to hear the reasoning. I do not understand how Christians can consider their god morally perfect when such atrocities are committed by him. Would anyone care to respond with why they disagree?

*gets the fire going*

God doesn't comand people to do wrong things people are reponsible for their actions whether bad or good. What is the point of God making people do things, then we would just be robots we would have no sense of self. Thats why we have a consience to differntiate between bad and good, some ppl are jus too ignorant and do bad things wen they know its bad, well they are gonna get whats coming to them.

musicangel820

October 18th, 2006, 10:28 am

To methodx:
A period doesn't have a heartbeat, human dna, organs, and life functions -.-

Show me where the Constitution has the phrase 'separation of church and state' and I'll believe you.

ChristNme17

October 18th, 2006, 11:29 am

In response to just the first topic in the first link Nightmare posted (I'll go through the rest of the topics in that link, along with the rest of the links with more precision when I have more time.)

I am kinda new to these forums, but I never pass up a good thread on religion. I went to the first link you posted and found this first arguement:

Genesis 20:1-3 God Threatens to Punish a Person Deceived by Abraham
“From there Abraham journeyed toward the region of the Negeb and settled between Kadesh and Shur. While residing in Gerar as an alien, Abraham said of his wife Sarah, ‘She is my sister.’ And king Abimelech of Gerar sent and took Sarah. But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, ‘You are about to die because of the woman whom you have taken; for she is a married woman.’”
This is absolutely ridiculous! Abraham outright lies to Abimelech claiming Sarah is his wife, and then God promises death to Abimelech for taking Sarah. God is then inconsistent with his words when Abimelech later himself asks if God will punish an innocent person. God retracts his promise, and gives a condition for Abimelech to live, which turns it into a threat against an innocent person.

Ok first off, let me say that the author of this is wrong when he says 'Abraham outright lies to Abimelech claiming Sarah is his wife' because he doesnt. He clearly says, in verse 2 of that chapter "...and there Abraham said of his wife Sarah, 'she is my sister.' " Part of this story line is how Abraham says how his wife is so beautiful and he is afraid that if people realize they are married, they would want to kill him to get her. Therefore he tries to pass her on as a sister. Likewise, the author talks about 'if God will punish an innocent person'. Well, a couple things are brought to mind there. First of all, the author needs to not cut off his quote. In verse 6 of that chapter, it goes on to say "Then God said to him in the dream, 'Yes, I know you did this with a clear conscience, and so I have kept you from sinning against me. That is why I did not let you touch her. Now return the man's wife, for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you will live. But if you do not return her, you may be sure that you and all yours will die." Now clearly God has told this guy that because he was tricked by Abraham and that Abimelech didn't know that Sarah was actually Abraham's wife, that he had not punished him yet--he states that he had saved him from sinning. However now that he had been warned and told by God what the situation was and what he must do, if he then directly disobeyed the Lord, then he has sinned against God and the punishment will be carried out.

The other thing that sparks off of this is enheirited sin. Are we born into sin? Well, I believe so, as the Bible says that we have ALL sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Now if you havn't guessed by now, I am religous. I believe that we are all born sinners. I believe in original sin. Why? Because its in the Bible. Ephesians 2:1 states that Christians are "dead in trespasses and sin" until we accept Jesus in our hearts. This is not the only place the Bible alludes to this idea of born into sin (Gen. 8:21 and Gen 6:5 are just two more examples, I will gladly point out more if you want at a later time). So as an end result, Abimelech wasn't purely innocent--nobody is. Everyone is born into sin. There is only one exception--Jesus, who was born of the holy spirit (a whole other topic open for debate--the Virgin birth which again, I hold is true).

Now, I wanted to talk about all the rest of the stuff that you mentioned in your post, but I simply don't have the time right now. Its 6am and I havn't been to sleep yet. I have a class in the early afternoon so I really have to get some rest but I really wanted to just hit on this first topic.

In short, watch what you are quoting from...make sure they are legit. Many places we find online are weighted and skewed one way or another. Many people, as our mod here pointed out in the first post of the thread, try to flame their view and will cut things off or leave stuff out. So for us to debate this, we need to be cautious of what we look at.

If you have any questions on anything I have mentioned, let me know and if I don't know the answers for you, I will contact people who probably do. Hopefully we can have a good time learning from eachother.

shade

October 18th, 2006, 11:49 am

i have an argument... im not here to flame religion but

god is a perfect being. his state of perfection is what allows him to be omnipotent and omnicient. now the scrips and bible say, without doubt of translation error or anything, that state that god made us because he wanted to commune with us. now there lies the problem. "WANTED" the desire for something, the need for something = a state of imperfection. therefore that action negates the possibility of his exitance. if he was truly a god, we would not be here.

Nightmare

October 18th, 2006, 03:50 pm

About God testing Him, I always used to think that the test was more for Abraham than God. When you take a math test, not only does it let your teacher know how you're doing, but it lets you yourself know how you're doing, so you know how much more effort to put into it into the future. You're right in saying that God knows everything so the outcome is of no consequence to Him because He already knew. But along with that God also knew that that story would be put into the ible by Moses to teach all who read it. So I believe that the test had a greater puurpose.

Again, I see another problem with this. To say that you know how much more effort to put into it is to also so that you aren't putting as much as you possibly can into it. Abraham, as shown clearly by the outcome of his actions, was already putting all his 'effort' or faith into God. So knowing how much faith he had when he already put his all into it did not serve any purpose whatsoever for Abraham, because he already was doing his best.

Having said this, the only potentially good reason that you are using is that it served a function in the bible. Using this morality, you could justify any kind of action God could have done. For example, if God were to order the rape of children (which he didn't to my knowledge), you could justify it by claiming it was for the bible. I don't believe saying "it's for the bible" is a justifiable means for having such a cruel and unnecessary test done between a father and his son. Even more, God-as the omnipotent being that he is-could have found another way to communicate his point in the bible, which also makes your arguement null.

God doesn't comand people to do wrong things people are reponsible for their actions whether bad or good. What is the point of God making people do things, then we would just be robots we would have no sense of self. Thats why we have a consience to differntiate between bad and good, some ppl are jus too ignorant and do bad things wen they know its bad, well they are gonna get whats coming to them.

If you consider genocide a bad thing, God commanded it. Here's a good verse for you:

"For it was the Lord's doing to harden their hearts so that they would come against Israel in battle, in order that they might be utterly destroyed, and might receive no mercy, but be exterminated, just as the Lord had commanded Moses." Joshua 11:20

For one, we see that God hardened people's hearts for the purpose that they could be slaughtered. It was even written with such care that the people would be "utterly destroyed", "recieve no mercy", and be "exterminated". This is called genocide. He even went so far to say "as the Lord had commanded Moses".

But I'll assume, for some bizarre reason, that this might not be enough to convince you. So here's another one.

"Then the Lord said to Joshua, "Do not fear or be dismayed; take all the fighting men with you, and go up now to Ai. See, I have handed over to you the king of Ai with his people, his city, and his land. You shall do to Ai and its king as you did to Jericho and its king; only its spoil and its livestock you may take as booty for yourselves. Set an ambush against the city, behind it." Joshua 8:1-2

Here's what they did in Jericho:

"Then they devoted to descruction by the edge of the sword all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys." Joshua 6:21

"They burned down the city, and everything in it; only the silver and gold, and the vessels of bronze and iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the Lord." Joshua 6:24

We see that Joshua killed men and women, even the animals, and burned everything down! This is clearly genocide. I would like you, as well as Sir Jaso, to retract your claim that God did not command genocide (or in your case, JSTAdreamer, claim how this form of unmerciful genocide was just.)

I am going to make a retraction on my claim for rape. It is not that I don't believe that God commaned rape, but I feel that I do not yet have sufficient support for my arguement, and as such I will retract it. My apoligies, Sir Jaso.

God does condone slavery. There is no opinion to have on it. Whether or not he encourages it may at times be open to interpretation, but the fact that he puts laws to it shows that he condones it. No exception:

""These are the ordinances that you shall set before them: When you buy a male Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, but in the seventh he shall go out a free person, without debt. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out alone. But if the slave declares, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out a free person, ' then his master shall bring him before God. He shall be brought to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him for life. When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt unfairly with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out without debt, without payment of money." Exodus 21:1-11

If God did not condone of slavery, he would prohibit slavery. But these laws act as regulations. Sir Jaso, though you can argue that slavery was good or bad in the time, you still can't deny that God still condoned slavery. Please retract your statement about this.

Ok first off, let me say that the author of this is wrong when he says 'Abraham outright lies to Abimelech claiming Sarah is his wife' because he doesnt. He clearly says, in verse 2 of that chapter "...and there Abraham said of his wife Sarah, 'she is my sister.' " Part of this story line is how Abraham says how his wife is so beautiful and he is afraid that if people realize they are married, they would want to kill him to get her. Therefore he tries to pass her on as a sister.

He may have lied to protect his wife, but regardless of the intent, it is still a lie.

lie1 /laɪ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lahy] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, lied, ly‧ing.

–noun 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
–verb (used without object) 5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
6. to express what is false; convey a false impression.
–verb (used with object) 7. to bring about or affect by lying (often used reflexively): to lie oneself out of a difficulty; accustomed to lying his way out of difficulties.
—Idioms8. give the lie to, a. to accuse of lying; contradict.
b. to prove or imply the falsity of; belie: His poor work gives the lie to his claims of experience.

9. lie in one's throat or teeth, to lie grossly or maliciously: If she told you exactly the opposite of what she told me, she must be lying in her teeth. Also, lie through one's teeth.

By all means, this was a deliberate attempt to decieve; an attempt to convey a false impression. The reason does not matter; it's the action that makes it a lie. What you are basically trying to do is justify the lie. I will agree with you, that his reason for lying may have been good-this still does not change the fact that he lied. Do you not understand what a lie is? Do you think if someone has a good reason to lie, it's not a lie anymore?

Before I make further notes on your post, the "author" of the first two websites is me. You do not need to address me in third person. I'm going to use the first two links as a source, as I am the author of the website.

In verse 6 of that chapter, it goes on to say "Then God said to him in the dream, 'Yes, I know you did this with a clear conscience, and so I have kept you from sinning against me. That is why I did not let you touch her. Now return the man's wife, for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you will live.

God was about to kill Abimelech. God even claimed this himself. It was not until Abimelech claimed innocence that God changed his mind. If God really wanted to proetect Abimelech, why did not he not let him take her in the first place? If God was to go so far as to prevent Abimelech from touching her, he may as well have gone so far as to prevent him from taking her-for by taking her, God was about to kill him!!! God was still willing to punish an innocent person, even if he did not carry out the action. God even acknowledged that Abimelech was innocent, but still had the intent to kill if Abimelech did nothing.

"ChristNme17", do you have any comments for the following quote:

"You shall not bown down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me," Exodus 20:5

Does this not explicitly say that God punishes innocent people?

tanonev

October 18th, 2006, 04:45 pm

Innocent:

http://www.bibleatrocities.mediashrine.com/god_punishes_the_innocent.html

Exodus 34:16 taken grossly out of context.
Exodus 34 NIV: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ex%2034;&version=31;

Nightmare

October 18th, 2006, 05:24 pm

Would you care to tell me how this verse is out of context? I use the New Revised Standard Version of the bible; http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Exodus+34

God sacrificing His Son was necessary! God is Just and Merciful, so He doesn't simply forgive all sins without just punishment. Because of His love for the world He sent his Son to die for the sins of the world (mercy) and because of His perfection raise Him higher than all others (just). Because of this, the price for all sins committed was paid, and now humans no longer have an excuse to sin, so at the last day we can rightfully be held accountable for our actions. The Holy Spirit was not there until Jesus had been glorified, and Jesus could not have been glorified until he descended to the world. So Jesus' first coming was also necessary to give us the Holy Spirit.

I meant to address this earlier, but ran out of time. musicangel830, please address the following questions:

Do you consider it just for a god to punish innocent people?

Do you consider it just for a god to punish people of crimes they haven't committed?

Do you believe God is always merciful?

If you say yes to this, what do you have to say to the following quote:

"For it was the Lord's doing to harden their hearts so that they would come against Israel in battle, in order that they might be utterly destroyed, and might receive no mercy, but be exterminated, just as the Lord had commanded Moses." Joshua 11:20

If I were to go out in town and beat several people with a bat, should my son (if I were to have one) be beaten by my father? Would this be your view of a just punishment?

I don't think you believe that God is omnipotent. If you believed that God was omnipotent, then you would also realize that God does not need to do anything to get or carry out an action for something else. How is sacrificing his son neccessary for an omnipotent god? Please make more sense!!! You are being very irrational and illogical. I know I can forgive a person without demanding a sacrifice from someone else. Why can't God do this? It's a simple question. If God is far more powerful than I, than surely he should be able to do such a simple thing!

Jaso

October 18th, 2006, 05:58 pm

ok Nightmare I was a bit of a b**** but it was only because you were starting again on the 3rd comment when the thread was at such a fragile state (aka near distinction) and that the information was biased. What's the use of biased information? If you had stated those points yourself I would have listened but when it came from a site that will only pick up on the "bad" interpretations then I won't even bother.

Nightmare

October 18th, 2006, 06:32 pm

The thread was not in sugh a fragile state. Noir claimed we could debate, and of course that's mostly why I wanted this thread back. I apoligized to you for not supporting my claims and gave a good reason for why I hadn't. The information being biased doesn't neccesarily detract from the arguement.

Is is almost impossible if you are an athiest to have an unbaised view when trying to debunk the bible to a Christian-oriented audience. Likewise, it is nearly impossible to have an unbaised view as a Christian to an atheistic-oriented audience. Biased views are not necessarily incorrect views. They only lean more towards a particular view. So of course when I look for the bible for a verse, I'm not going to be looking for verses that are contrary to the verse I'm looking for (and even if I was, this would only be a contradiction.)

I believe I may perhaps being used the word "biased" a bit too freely. I consider myself biased only in that I lean more toward an atheistic view point, rather than a Christian one, and this changes how I search for verses in the bible. But I try to be as objective as possible when I search for verses, and this is partly why I retracted by claim on rape. I do not believe I am using the term "biased" correctly here, as I feel confident that the proofs I have to offer are adequate.

I did state the points myself, only on an outside source. The interpretations are not "bad". In fact, that's the debate. Telling me how my interpretation of it is incorrect. But let's pretend I never even gave you those links! I even said I was only going to provide them for you to look at for the time being. Why don't you respond to some of the verses and comments I made on them below?

Hiei

October 18th, 2006, 07:35 pm

To make it clear,

Main Entry: 1bi·as
Pronunciation: 'bI-&s
Function: noun

3a) BENT, TENDENCY b : an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : PREJUDICE c : an instance of such prejudice d (1) : deviation of the expected value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates (2) : systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others.

In religious discussions, most information is biased because in order to make a point, an idea must be biased to make the conclusion sound clear/convincing. If one claims he is unbiased, then all he/she will do is state facts from the bible and not interpret it as his own. Although unbiased views do exist, it is nearly impossible to refute or debate in religion with unbiased views because religion is ambiguous. If one tries to contradict another's idea with another statement from the bible or text, he/she should have a reason and thats where biased ideas occur.

Correct me if I am wrong.

melzii

October 18th, 2006, 07:42 pm

So in other words, these people are just gonna debate for a looong time, and never agree with each other...?

October 18th, 2006, 07:42 pm

I don't consider these valueable sources at all; in fact such sites are extremely biased. Who can say that evilbible.com is proof?

No, I am not accepting those sources, they are not fair, unless you state in the chapters you have problems with.

Also, if you didn't want an arguement (which, for the record I haven't started) how come you said : *gets the fire going*?

and I do not consider myself christian. Thats a mainly American generalisation. I am Catholic. Big difference in denominational codes in England and many other countries.

Theres a diffrence from being biased and being biased and citing your scources. You go and look in your bible to see if those are true quotes for they gives you book, verse and line numbers.

I think a majority of Christian are more biased then non-Christians. They not only have more power in the world through governemnt and population, but they exploit the religion to hate. There are those who hate Homosexuals because they are sinners, but doesnt god say all people are sinners in his eyes? If so, then why are people being so nit-picky about who to hate for what sin? Jesus himself didnt say Homosexuality is a major sin; lust is bigger then it and yet all people, stright or gay, can lust.

If I were to go out in town and beat several people with a bat, should my son (if I were to have one) be beaten by my father? Would this be your view of a just punishment?

I love this. Bravo on that Night.

So in other words, these people are just gonna debate for a looong time, and never agree with each other...?

That is only true for the ignorant and stubborn. If you are proven wrong with citation, then there is no reason for the other people not to agree with you.

ChristNme17

October 18th, 2006, 07:43 pm

He may have lied to protect his wife, but regardless of the intent, it is still a lie.

By all means, this was a deliberate attempt to decieve; an attempt to convey a false impression. The reason does not matter; it's the action that makes it a lie. What you are basically trying to do is justify the lie. I will agree with you, that his reason for lying may have been good-this still does not change the fact that he lied. Do you not understand what a lie is? Do you think if someone has a good reason to lie, it's not a lie anymore?

Before I make further notes on your post, the "author" of the first two websites is me. You do not need to address me in third person. I'm going to use the first two links as a source, as I am the author of the website.

God was about to kill Abimelech. God even claimed this himself. It was not until Abimelech claimed innocence that God changed his mind. If God really wanted to proetect Abimelech, why did not he not let him take her in the first place? If God was to go so far as to prevent Abimelech from touching her, he may as well have gone so far as to prevent him from taking her-for by taking her, God was about to kill him!!! God was still willing to punish an innocent person, even if he did not carry out the action. God even acknowledged that Abimelech was innocent, but still had the intent to kill if Abimelech did nothing.

"ChristNme17", do you have any comments for the following quote:

"You shall not bown down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me," Exodus 20:5

Does this not explicitly say that God punishes innocent people?

Ok first my first question is about the Abraham, Sarah and Abimelech. You keep saying I am justifying a lie. Yeah, it was a lie...but who are you saying lied? I might just be reading your reply wrong but it sounds like you are saying God lied. The fact is that Abraham lied. The reason I say it sounds like you are saying that God lied is because you stress the fact that you said all this: "this was a deliberate attempt to decieve; an attempt to convey a false impression. The reason does not matter; it's the action that makes it a lie. What you are basically trying to do is justify the lie. I will agree with you, that his reason for lying may have been good-this still does not change the fact that he lied."

And yeah, what of it? I mean men do lie. You can't tell me there wasn't one time that someone can say I have never lied. So you are right, that is bad..and I underdstand that the action is what makes a lie, no matter what the reason. In the Bible it also talks about how a thought to wrong someone is even a sin. So yes, I understand. But nowhere did God tell Abraham to lie. God had sworn to protect and make Abraham flourish.

As far as the "God was about to kill Abimelech", well, God has been described as all knowing. One of the best examples that I have heard of this is by drawing a timeline on a piece of paper. If you are on that line all you can see is where you are however, being an omnipitant being, God is litterally outside of time. This is discussed in Genesis during creation. So God would be someone who can look at that piece of paper and see beginning and end all at the same time. So therefore I know that God himself knew that Abimelech would in fact claim innocents. I think the phrase that he claimed he was ready to kill him was meant to scare him into claiming his innocents. And there is nothing sinful about a threat. Over and over God warns his people in the Old Testiment. Thats pretty much what the OT is...God declares a people...makes them flourish...they turn their back on him...he strikes them down...they come back to him...and repeat.

Now, if you want to argue God's intent to kill, then thats fine. Now, lets say God never stepped in and told Abimelech about the situation. Abimelech would probably have taken Sarah and had children, not knowing she was married. This, despite his unknowing, is still a sin. Not knowing is not an excuse. And the Bible tells us that the wages of sin is death. Therefore, God has every right to carry this out. But because he is compassionate and forgiving, he stepped in and basically reminded Abimelech of this promise. And what was the end result? Abimelech didn't die.

Ok and now on to your questions about the quote: "You shall not bown down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me"

Well, before I say much, I do want to say I understand how you are looking at this. Innocent Children being punished for something they didn't do. It does appear wrong. Now, I am in a computer lab right now and I dont currently have all my resources on me, so I will come back and give you some verses here if you want. However I do recall reading in the New Testiment about how each man is accountable for his own sins. If a father sins, you punish him and if a son sins, he will be punished. Not the father for the son's sins or the son for the father's sin. Now I know this now makes you think 'aha! you have proven God contradicts himself'. But I think not. Now, I havn't heard much arguments from you, being that I am new to these boards, so I can't predict everything you might think or know already. I figure that you will agree that the New Testiment marks a new covenant with God and man. Therefore, God has made a few new commandments. One of these is the Golden Rule. It goes hand in hand with how we are expected to live.

As for you're quote from the ten commandments, sometimes meaning can be lost in translation. Often times the original texts will have many different words for one meaning. In addition, they may have a word that can be replaced by different words in English. The general message is conveyed but some of the detail is lost. One such word is Children. In many instances the word 'children' is used to mean 'followers' (the 'children' of Satan for example). Now I think you will agree that in most cases, a parent has a very strong influence on what their child grows into. Im not saying it is always that way cause I know people who grew up with extreme unbelievers that turned to Christ and I know people who grew up in Christian homes that turned away from it all. But in many cases, my statement is true. Likewise, many times in the OT you can see the Kings of Juda and Isreal and how one king went bad and usually his son followed him to the thrown and did evil as well. Now, eventually a 'good' king (for lack of a better word) came along and tried to abolish all the evil ways, but it never seemed to last. Therefore, when God promises to punish a sinner's 'children' I think one way it might have been meant is that he would punish his 'followers' or those he has influenced to do evil as well.

But like I said, I dont have all my resources with me currently so I can come back and give you more exact locations in the Bible this is all said if you want.

October 18th, 2006, 07:46 pm

As far as the "God was about to kill Abimelech", well, God has been described as all knowing. One of the best examples that I have heard of this is by drawing a timeline on a piece of paper. If you are on that line all you can see is where you are however, being an omnipitant being, God is litterally outside of time. This is discussed in Genesis during creation. So God would be someone who can look at that piece of paper and see beginning and end all at the same time. So therefore I know that God himself knew that Abimelech would in fact claim innocents. I think the phrase that he claimed he was ready to kill him was meant to scare him into claiming his innocents. And there is nothing sinful about a threat. Over and over God warns his people in the Old Testiment. Thats pretty much what the OT is...God declares a people...makes them flourish...they turn their back on him...he strikes them down...they come back to him...and repeat.

Thats a bit questionable to me. If god was all knowing, from before time and after time, then what was the point of making Earth and life? God obviously knows what is to come, so is there a need to watch it happen? Some people say that people can change their actions from good to bad and vice versa, but if god was almighty, couldn't he see that also?

musicangel820

October 18th, 2006, 07:52 pm

Thats a bit questionable to me. If god was all knowing, from before time and after time, then what was the point of making Earth and life? God obviously knows what is to come, so is there a need to watch it happen? Some people say that people can change their actions from good to bad and vice versa, but if god was almighty, couldn't he see that also?
But He wants people to honor and glorify Him. I mean, wouldn't you get, bored if you were God with no people? o.o

October 18th, 2006, 07:54 pm

I give birth for the soul purpose of having my children glorify me. If they don't then I will kill them and their children.

Thats what im getting.

musicangel820

October 18th, 2006, 08:37 pm

Well God didn't give birth... come on now. God created humans to glorify Him. And you aren't God, only a human, so why wold you get any glory?

Jaso

October 18th, 2006, 09:14 pm

guess what. since this is turning into another of the other religion threads, I am not going to even bother. I am not saying I am right anyway, I am just not going to bother. So, what religions are we all?

Noir7

October 18th, 2006, 09:24 pm

What's the point of discussing if you don't bother to get your point across? Don't get too sensitive and personal :)

Anyway, three pages and no eyes have been gouged out yet. I'm quite proud of you all. Keep up the good work and the world will keep spinning! Regardless of who created it :)

musicangel820

October 18th, 2006, 09:25 pm

Anyway, three pages and no eyes have been gouged out yet. I'm quite proud of you all. Keep up the good work and the world will keep spinning! Regardless of who created it :)

XD

Jaso

October 18th, 2006, 09:27 pm

^_^ yay ^_^

*gouges ^'s eye out*

How long will this thread last then?

Meer

October 18th, 2006, 09:43 pm

^_^ yay ^_^

*gouges ^'s eye out*

How long will this thread last then?

Infraction prz. :mellow:

Spoonpuppet

October 18th, 2006, 09:58 pm

Come on, now, this is supposed to be for some good, thought-provoking discussions. People don't have to agree with each other, it's just interesting to hear from different people's views (and debating can be fun as well). Asking somebody to agree with you, for example if you're the atheist convincing the religious person, is like asking them to change their way of life. For some people, religion can be an integral part of their everyday life, and they can get very passionate about it.

For eye-gouging, I suggest you go to the Everyday Chat board.

Jaso

October 18th, 2006, 10:13 pm

Wait! Don't be so hasty Meer! It was only an ironic joke...

:cry: I'm gonig to get infractionated? :cry:

methodx

October 18th, 2006, 10:34 pm

This forum goes fast. ..

To methodx:
A period doesn't have a heartbeat, human dna, organs, and life functions -.-

Show me where the Constitution has the phrase 'separation of church and state' and I'll believe you.

My post: http://forums.ichigos.com/showpost.php?p=301927&postcount=26
My point was at what point it can be considered human life. I meant that by the time the egg is fertilized it is NO BIGGER IN SIZE than the PERIOD AT THE END OF THIS SENTENCE. I don't know what you're thinking I said, but whatever you thought I said has a point. If that makes any sense to you. At that point, the egg resembles in no way at all human life except for the fact it is composed of a few chromasomes and a little sentimental value. As you said, it (well rather the punctuational period as you thought, but in this case..) has no heartbeat, no organs or life functions, so is it human enough to life? So at that size, however insignificant, well. Is insignificant. So would it hurt let the aborter pay the cost for the abortion, seeing as it sure is not murder, and it isn't hurting anyone except your misguided conscience.
In reference to your U.S. constituion comment please refer to here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause. Please don't skim the first few paragraph and come back saying it doesn't say anything about the separation of church and state. Scroll down and read the whole thing, carefully. It claims "The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion' " which includes the "prohibition of the preference of one religion over another or of religion over non-religious philosophies in general". Same-sex marriage is not a religious matter redefining marriage because, since they insist, it is not marriage! Thus is not redefining it! Thus not making it a religious problem! Even if it was, you can't do anything about it! Because of what the Establishement Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states! If you have any more reasons to defend and/or justify the lengths taken to outlaw the so-called same-sex 'marriage' by the all powerful veto, please say so or forever hold your peace.

Now I would go one, but it seems that every point I made in my post was overlooked by everyone, and it took way too much energy to think all that up. I had to break my curfew and tap into my long unused debating skills to write that. Yes, I am sore, I feel neglected so I'll leave now bye. *waves*

ChristNme17

October 18th, 2006, 10:59 pm

I give birth for the soul purpose of having my children glorify me. If they don't then I will kill them and their children.

Thats what im getting.

Well, I wont make this one long because I have a couple hockey games I have to play in a few hours away, but one question. Why do people have children? I mean you can look at God as the same way.

If you think of core reasons why people have children, its because they want someone to love them, they want to have someone to love, they want to pass on their knowledge, they want to share their experiences ect. God could've made humans something that just naturally glorified Him, but where would the passion be in that? I mean, if I were to build a robot that did everything I told it and had no choice, then do I or does it really care about what it's doing? I mean, its hard to love someone that has no choice and HAS to love you back.

Therefore, God gave man choice. Now, even though he already knows what choice we have made...he knows our actions before they are even conceived in our brains, he still gives us a choice. If we actually put forth effort and try to do what he wants us to do, then there is more love and passion in the fact that we obey him, unlike a robot which would have no choice.

So God gave us a choice. And he also says that he won't come back to Earth until everyone has had a chance to accept Him as their savior. Thats why there is the 'great commission' which says Christians should go out and make themselves heard wherever there is a chance. And with the people, he already knows who they are, that choose him, he will bless with wisdom...knowledge...and love--the same thing that every parent should want for their children. Yes, our goal is to glorify him...that should be our greatest desire...but he also desires to love and share with us. It isn't one of those 'one way' relationships where he will sit in this big throne and listen to us say 'you are awsome' all the time. He wants to interact with us and give us what we want as well.

musicangel820

October 19th, 2006, 01:21 am

This forum goes fast. ..

My post: http://forums.ichigos.com/showpost.php?p=301927&postcount=26
My point was at what point it can be considered human life. I meant that by the time the egg is fertilized it is NO BIGGER IN SIZE than the PERIOD AT THE END OF THIS SENTENCE. I don't know what you're thinking I said, but whatever you thought I said has a point. If that makes any sense to you. At that point, the egg resembles in no way at all human life except for the fact it is composed of a few chromasomes and a little sentimental value. As you said, it (well rather the punctuational period as you thought, but in this case..) has no heartbeat, no organs or life functions, so is it human enough to life? So at that size, however insignificant, well. Is insignificant. So would it hurt let the aborter pay the cost for the abortion, seeing as it sure is not murder, and it isn't hurting anyone except your misguided conscience.
In reference to your U.S. constituion comment please refer to here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause. Please don't skim the first few paragraph and come back saying it doesn't say anything about the separation of church and state. Scroll down and read the whole thing, carefully. It claims "The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion' " which includes the "prohibition of the preference of one religion over another or of religion over non-religious philosophies in general". Same-sex marriage is not a religious matter redefining marriage because, since they insist, it is not marriage! Thus is not redefining it! Thus not making it a religious problem! Even if it was, you can't do anything about it! Because of what the Establishement Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states! If you have any more reasons to defend and/or justify the lengths taken to outlaw the so-called same-sex 'marriage' by the all powerful veto, please say so or forever hold your peace.

Now I would go one, but it seems that every point I made in my post was overlooked by everyone, and it took way too much energy to think all that up. I had to break my curfew and tap into my long unused debating skills to write that. Yes, I am sore, I feel neglected so I'll leave now bye. *waves*
Well I was saying that a human being is a human being because it has human DNA. Zygotes have DNA. So if the government wished to, there is the 'rule' of jus soli, so a zygote would become an American citizen, and thus protected from being terminated. It's not fair to assume the child could grow up bad and have a tough life. I mean, sack up, everybody has problems and everybody's life gets tough, and we don't all get aborted.
I saw this sign once and thought it portrayed the issue pretty well:

Everyone who supported slavery was free.

Everyone who supports abortion was born

Thats how oppression works.

I actually have to write a position paper on abortion for my term project so I'm going to do more research and thinking and get back to you on this ok?

As for same sex marriages:

The Defense of Marriage Act is the name of a federal law of the United States that is officially known as Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (Sept. 21, 1996) and codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects.

No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if the marriage was concluded or recognized in another state.
The Federal Government may not recognize same-sex or polygamous marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

Powers reserved to the states:
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Definition of ‘marriage’ and ‘spouse’:
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives, and was signed by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

Although, in my honest opinion, allowing them to file taxes together and whatnot doesn't bother me. If two drunk people can get married in Vegas just because they're a guy and a girl, then I don't see why two people of the same gender who actually love each other can't get married. They don't want the religious side of marriage, that would be completely contradictory since most religions condemn homosexuality anyway. They just want the benefits of marriage.
However, while that may be 'right' to do, that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not it is constitutional to deny them the rights of marriage. People call it discrimination, but is it really? (Just thinking out loud here) If a male tries to join NOW and is rejected, is that gender-based discrimination? No, because NOW is an Organization solely for women. If a white man tries for the NAACP and is denied, is it race-based discrimination? No, because the NAACP is an Association solely for colored people. With that analogy you can say this: Is denying two men/two women marriage discrimination? No, because marriage is a social and legal recognition solely for a man and a woman.

C0Y0TE

October 19th, 2006, 12:58 pm

I don't have enough time to take on all the issues presented here, but I'm going to quickly tackle marriage with three seemingly truthful points.

1. ALL religions made the mistake of handing the keys of marriage over to the state, especially Christianity. Something that was a very sacred sacrament was turned into a bureacratic form.

2. I believe that America is an equal oppurtunity nation and that homosexuals should be guranteed the same right as all others, therefore gay marriage should be recognized.

3. Christianity will NEVER recognize gay marriage so I really don't care what the government does.

Nightmare

October 19th, 2006, 05:02 pm

Ok first off, let me say that the author of this is wrong when he says 'Abraham outright lies to Abimelech claiming Sarah is his wife' because he doesnt.

You need to be a bit more logical. You clearly stated that I was incorrect. I explicitly stated that Abhram lied. There is no possible way to view it as my claiming God lied, because I said "Abraham outright lies". I did not even refer to Abraham as a "he", I used his name. Please, tell me how "Abrhaham outright lies" sounds even close to "God outright lies". I said it was an attempt to decieve, convey a false impression on Abraham's part. He wanted to make it look like his wife was his sister. Don't you agree?

However I do recall reading in the New Testiment about how each man is accountable for his own sins. If a father sins, you punish him and if a son sins, he will be punished. Not the father for the son's sins or the son for the father's sin.

Just beause God stops punnishing innocent people in the New Testiment doesn't mean he hasn't punished innocent people. He's still guilty of that crime. Making new commandments doesn't free God of his horrid actions he commited in the Old Testiment.

In many instances the word 'children' is used to mean 'followers' (the 'children' of Satan for example).

First off, I notice how whenever something doesn't fit for children, they try to make things metaphorical. In other words, if it doesn't work out correctly in the book, it's metaphorical, otherwise it will be literal. Sorry, but no. If the translators thought that it was to mean "followers", they would have at the least made a note. I don't have time to do the research just yet, but I'm pretty sure the word "children" here is based off the same word as is used to describe a child (person of very young age) elsewhere in the book.

And even if we descard this arguement, what of all the times God commands Joshua or Moses to kill all the people in a city, including babies? What sin can a baby commit? But here's a good verse; let's see you pass it off as followers this time:

"Ephraim's glory shall fly away like a bird---no birth, no pregnancy, no conception! Even if they bring up children, I will bereave them until no one is left. Woe to them indeed when I depart from them! Once I saw Ephraim as a young palm planted in a lovely meadow, but now Ephraim must lead out his children for slaughtter. Give them, O Lord--what will you give? Give t hem a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. Every evil of theirs begain at Gilgal; there I came to hate them. Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of my house. I will love them no more; all their officials are rebels. Ephraim is tricken, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit. Even though they give birth, I will kill the cherished offspring of their womb." Hosea 9:11-16

If you think of core reasons why people have children, its because they want someone to love them, they want to have someone to love, they want to pass on their knowledge, they want to share their experiences ect. God could've made humans something that just naturally glorified Him, but where would the passion be in that? I mean, if I were to build a robot that did everything I told it and had no choice, then do I or does it really care about what it's doing? I mean, its hard to love someone that has no choice and HAS to love you back.

God could have made it so that all the choices we were to make would only be good ones. And in the first place, God doesn't need anything. Boring for us, but for him? God doesn't need something to keep him occupied.

guess what. since this is turning into another of the other religion threads, I am not going to even bother. I am not saying I am right anyway, I am just not going to bother. So, what religions are we all?

What is this, Sir Jaso? I made a minor mistake of not giving you quotes with my first post, and so you demanded evidence for them. So I apologized and said I would give you some quotes later, providing you in the mean time with some websites I would partly base my quotes on. You told me the sites were (obviously) biased and absolutely refused to accept quotes from them.

So I then took the liberty of going through my bible, copying the quotes down to my computer, and add yet a new interpretation for them. The quotes I gave clearly supported my claims. I asked you to either retract your claims on how I was incorrect, or prove how I was incorrect. Yet rather than do this, you continue to bring up how it upset you so for me to start the third post without support.

As I continue to debate with other Chrisitans, you then actually had the nerve to come along and try to act like this thread was turning into another one of the religion threads-yet not a single insult or flame had been passed between members by then. Is this how you debate, Sir Jaso? You demand support from other people for their beliefs, and then just run away claiming this thread has turned into "another religion thread" claiming you never said you were right in the first place?

I took the time to find those quotes specifically to back up my claims at your demand. Don't you think the least you can do is either retract your claims about how I am incorrect or defend your own, rather than running away from this claiming it's just another religion thread? Can you understand my frustration?

melzii

October 19th, 2006, 08:39 pm

Don't you think the least you can do is either retract your claims about how I am incorrect or defend your own, rather than running away from this claiming it's just another religion thread? Can you understand my frustration?
Please, don't take things personally. And Sir Jaso doesn't have to stay and debate with you if he doesn't want to.

Jaso

October 19th, 2006, 08:49 pm

Exactly. Failure to do so ended the other forums. Lets let sleeping dogs lie.

Melzii what religion do you (or do you not) follow?

melzii

October 19th, 2006, 08:51 pm

I'm just a Christian. *nods*

Jaso

October 19th, 2006, 08:53 pm

What do you mean by just a christian?

melzii

October 19th, 2006, 08:53 pm

Um..I dunno. Did you take offence by that?
I'm not trying to diss Christians or anything, cause that would be dissing myself...

Jaso

October 19th, 2006, 08:55 pm

No of course not... I couldn't find a way to say what I wanted to say without sounding like I was saying something else... nevermind ^.^

Asuka

October 19th, 2006, 09:16 pm

First off, I notice how whenever something doesn't fit for children, they try to make things metaphorical. In other words, if it doesn't work out correctly in the book, it's metaphorical, otherwise it will be literal. Sorry, but no. If the translators thought that it was to mean "followers", they would have at the least made a note. I don't have time to do the research just yet, but I'm pretty sure the word "children" here is based off the same word as is used to describe a child (person of very young age) elsewhere in the book.

I really don't want to get in to this discussion, I just like lurking it now, so I'm just going to comment on this and give a piece of information. This discussion was actually spoken about in the Homily last sunday when I went to church. My catholic priest said that God uses the word Children because Children are fragile, and they have utter faith in what they believe in. Like Santa Clause, when you tell your toddler he is real, he will have complete faith in it. Same is for God, and until we become like children, in the sense that we have complete faith in god, we will not inherit eternal life. So, yes Nightmare, you are right that the word Children is correct, and that it does mean child, this is actually supposed to be taken literally.

methodx

October 19th, 2006, 09:36 pm

Well I was saying that a human being is a human being because it has human DNA. Zygotes have DNA. So if the government wished to, there is the 'rule' of jus soli, so a zygote would become an American citizen, and thus protected from being terminated. It's not fair to assume the child could grow up bad and have a tough life. I mean, sack up, everybody has problems and everybody's life gets tough, and we don't all get aborted.

As for same sex marriages:

Although, in my honest opinion, allowing them to file taxes together and whatnot doesn't bother me. If two drunk people can get married in Vegas just because they're a guy and a girl, then I don't see why two people of the same gender who actually love each other can't get married. They don't want the religious side of marriage, that would be completely contradictory since most religions condemn homosexuality anyway. They just want the benefits of marriage.
However, while that may be 'right' to do, that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not it is constitutional to deny them the rights of marriage. People call it discrimination, but is it really? (Just thinking out loud here) If a male tries to join NOW and is rejected, is that gender-based discrimination? No, because NOW is an Organization solely for women. If a white man tries for the NAACP and is denied, is it race-based discrimination? No, because the NAACP is an Association solely for colored people. With that analogy you can say this: Is denying two men/two women marriage discrimination? No, because marriage is a social and legal recognition solely for a man and a woman.

You people always misinterpretating what I say. I am not that children that would have been aborted would turn out bad, since they're just as much like any other child; the fact that they "would have" been aborted would not affect them, that would be just silly. What I'm saying is that if the mother had wanted to abort them, then most of the time it is probably probably because they would not be able to support the child and bring them up, or they are simply not that type taht would care for children. In that case, they would most likely be raised by incompetent parents in an un-nurturing (is that a word?) environment. Even if they are raised by the aborter's family or a foster family, it would not be the same as having their own parents with their own parental bond, no? I am not saying this will always be the case, but merely in most cases. I know my argument is not very strong so if you prove me wrong then that is quite alright and I will take it in grace since I haven't done this in a while and I'm rarely right, I often have something overlooked.
Moving on to same-sex marriage. I'm not talking discrimination here. They can discriminate and be arrogant all they want, as long as nothing/no one gets hurt. But, again, we're misinterpreting what I say. I was supposed to be arguing whether or not Bush has the right/decency to deny them their claim merely based on his religion and his allmightyness; even when his own constitution claims he cannot deny them this because he thinks it is against his religion? How far is he allowed to go with his veto? Surely it must be wrong for him to break the constitution of the country he leads, even when he swore he would uphold them when his term began? And, I don't know for sure, but do people not usually swear upon something over the Bible? All this seems ironic and hypocritical, but heck, I may have my facts wrong so please do correct me when I need so. Looking back now, it seems that you merely repeated my question rather than answer it, and it doesn't seem that you opposed it either, so if you were not going to respond, that's quite alright; for I sure hope someone else can explain this all to me. *nudge*

Hiei

October 20th, 2006, 12:06 am

(In response to Sir Jaso's question to Mezzi) I'm basically an atheist, but I dont want to be called that because there is so much bias to atheism. Either someone considers atheism as opposition to god, or that atheism is the belief of no gods.

In my (or others) definition of atheism: one who does not follow any religion.

When saying that Atheism is someone who doesn't believe in god, sounds completely biased, when I think makes it sound like atheists are just opposites of christians or catholics.

Other than that, I have a buddhist mentallity. Simple and Clean. This does not mean that I follow or practice the religion. I just believe in its philosophy.

Other asian religions, like confucianism and taoism express different views. Does anyone here have any ideas towards what confucianism or taoism is about?

musicangel820

October 20th, 2006, 01:09 am

You people always misinterpretating what I say. I am not that children that would have been aborted would turn out bad, since they're just as much like any other child; the fact that they "would have" been aborted would not affect them, that would be just silly. What I'm saying is that if the mother had wanted to abort them, then most of the time it is probably probably because they would not be able to support the child and bring them up, or they are simply not that type taht would care for children. In that case, they would most likely be raised by incompetent parents in an un-nurturing (is that a word?) environment. Even if they are raised by the aborter's family or a foster family, it would not be the same as having their own parents with their own parental bond, no? I am not saying this will always be the case, but merely in most cases. I know my argument is not very strong so if you prove me wrong then that is quite alright and I will take it in grace since I haven't done this in a while and I'm rarely right, I often have something overlooked.
Moving on to same-sex marriage. I'm not talking discrimination here. They can discriminate and be arrogant all they want, as long as nothing/no one gets hurt. But, again, we're misinterpreting what I say. I was supposed to be arguing whether or not Bush has the right/decency to deny them their claim merely based on his religion and his allmightyness; even when his own constitution claims he cannot deny them this because he thinks it is against his religion? How far is he allowed to go with his veto? Surely it must be wrong for him to break the constitution of the country he leads, even when he swore he would uphold them when his term began? And, I don't know for sure, but do people not usually swear upon something over the Bible? All this seems ironic and hypocritical, but heck, I may have my facts wrong so please do correct me when I need so. Looking back now, it seems that you merely repeated my question rather than answer it, and it doesn't seem that you opposed it either, so if you were not going to respond, that's quite alright; for I sure hope someone else can explain this all to me. *nudge*
There was a study done on the % of people choosing abortions and the reasons and 98% of them were for non medical/econimic reasons. Only for things like "oops the sondom broke" or to help further the womans career or etc. I know, I assumed the same thing you did and thought that most women who had abortions did it for economic reasons but turns out thats not true. I wasn't really directing my responses towards your questions, you were just the only other person talking about it with me lol. I was trying to sum up the problem in a nice way and offer a conclusion. Basically, in the abortion debate you're either a baby killer or anti-woman's rights. Bush has made stattements involving religion and abortion, yes, but I think that religion is more for support of his argument than his actual argumennt. I think I wrote this before i dunno but think about murder. If I said murder should be illegal because its in the bible I'd be 100% correct, and that would be a legitimate reason to make murder illegal, because most religious law follows a moral code, which everyone regardless of religion abides by. so if you give Bush the same analogy that killing unborn babies is prohibited in the bible, one would reason that it is morally wrong to have an abortion and it should be made illegal. He also mentioned religion to satisfy the evangelical republicans in his own party.

However to tackle the actual issue of abortion, it is constitutional to have an abortion. Every person had individual worth and the right to make personal decisions without government interference. While the fetus and the mother may have the right to life, only the mother has the right to liberty. But... that doesn't mean abortion is right to do. I mean, i could make a racist speech and be protected by the first ammendment but that doesn't make it right to do it. we've all seen those ads on tv calling for 'a drug-free america' and all that. The government may not be able to legislate much on the issue but it can still use it's wealth and influence to discourage it.

Again with same-sex marriage I was merely trying to solve the entire question rather than answer yours directly ^^'. But logic stands that we are granted equal protection under the law and same-sex couples should be entitles to the rights married couples are. Sure Bush can say religious-this and religious-that all he wants but it's the Supreme Court that decides in the end not him so does it really matter?

methodx

October 20th, 2006, 02:33 am

Ah but in the end he did outlaw both you see! He over-ruled the court somehow I think, but I'm not keen on listening to the news so..
But I see this really just going in circles and coming to no end and I'm tired so goodnight. It really doesn't matter if we argue about, seeing as we can't do much about it. (And I can do even less, seeing as I'm not American, not caucasian, am female and quite young.)

Nightmare

October 20th, 2006, 04:17 am

Please, don't take things personally. And Sir Jaso doesn't have to stay and debate with you if he doesn't want to.

If he doesn't want to debate, that's is perfectly fine with me! I'm not asking Sir Jaso to debate with me; I just dug up a bunch of evidence to prove my claims, and so I merely want Sir Jaso to retract his statement claiming I was incorrect. If I spent the time to find the evidence, and took the time to carefully put it into simpler terms, trying my best to be as clear and consise as possible just to prove my point, don't you think the least Sir Jaso could do is acknowledge the verses and/or retract his claim of my views? If he will not retract his views, at the very least he can tell me he disagrees with the verses.

I feel that he has completely demeaned my time by his demand for the biblical support for those verses, and then rather than even making notice of them, just running away behind the excuse that the religion thread, because it's debating Christianity, has turned into another "religion thread". Wouldn't you also be upset if someone asked you to do something for them, and after you did it they didn't even acknowledge it? I know I sure am! Sir Jaso doesn't have to debate if he wants to...but I would appreciate at least some kind of response.

Jaso

October 20th, 2006, 04:52 am

Let sleeping dogs lie and move on

October 20th, 2006, 05:48 am

1-If you think of core reasons why people have children, its because they want someone to love them, they want to have someone to love, they want to pass on their knowledge, they want to share their experiences ect. God could've made humans something that just naturally glorified Him, but where would the passion be in that? I mean, if I were to build a robot that did everything I told it and had no choice, then do I or does it really care about what it's doing? I mean, its hard to love someone that has no choice and HAS to love you back.

2-Therefore, God gave man choice. Now, even though he already knows what choice we have made...he knows our actions before they are even conceived in our brains, he still gives us a choice. If we actually put forth effort and try to do what he wants us to do, then there is more love and passion in the fact that we obey him, unlike a robot which would have no choice.

3-So God gave us a choice. And he also says that he won't come back to Earth until everyone has had a chance to accept Him as their savior. Thats why there is the 'great commission' which says Christians should go out and make themselves heard wherever there is a chance. And with the people, he already knows who they are, that choose him, he will bless with wisdom...knowledge...and love--the same thing that every parent should want for their children. Yes, our goal is to glorify him...that should be our greatest desire...but he also desires to love and share with us. It isn't one of those 'one way' relationships where he will sit in this big throne and listen to us say 'you are awsome' all the time. He wants to interact with us and give us what we want as well.

1- I do think most of those are good reasons, but the loving one is a bit eh. I wouldnt have a child just to have somthing love me. I also wouldnt punish them if they didn't; I would be sad, but there has to be a reason why they don't, and you say "I mean, its hard to love someone that has no choice and HAS to love you back.", which is what god does.

2-We do have free will, but its dictated by rules. Good rules are based on morles and common sense, but many of gods rules are silly; love me and only me or you will live a life of eternal pain, get your penis cut at birth for it makes me happy, things like that. There is nothing anyone gets out of those things.

3-What I want is free will, and the ability to have the will to do things without being punished for stupid actions, like not loving a god that doesn't love himself.

I don't have enough time to take on all the issues presented here, but I'm going to quickly tackle marriage with three seemingly truthful points.

1. ALL religions made the mistake of handing the keys of marriage over to the state, especially Christianity. Something that was a very sacred sacrament was turned into a bureacratic form.

2. I believe that America is an equal oppurtunity nation and that homosexuals should be guranteed the same right as all others, therefore gay marriage should be recognized.

3. Christianity will NEVER recognize gay marriage so I really don't care what the government does.

1- Most religions do so. Some religions lightly touch the subjects of marrige, and some could care less, like Buddhism.

2-The problem is that many do not think that homosexuals are their equals. Its sad that people would think that, but its true.

3-I don't concur, actualy. The religion it self isn't all that anti-homosexual, its the many people who bend words out of context; people do it all the time. Heres an example: I was watching a Christian show [yeah, I'm weird] and there was this guy that was speaking. His show is, say, 20-40 years old, but out of all the idiocy he makes more sense then everyone else because he is more open minded to others. He listed four newer saints and one of them what Ghandi. He calimed that a quote of his was ""I am also a Christian.". Right, he was, but the whole quote is, "Yes I am. I am also a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist and a Jew.". He didnt lie, he just bent the world out of line, by A LOT. Just an example of how false things come through religion.

musicangel820

October 20th, 2006, 09:52 pm

If he doesn't want to debate, that's is perfectly fine with me! I'm not asking Sir Jaso to debate with me; I just dug up a bunch of evidence to prove my claims, and so I merely want Sir Jaso to retract his statement claiming I was incorrect. If I spent the time to find the evidence, and took the time to carefully put it into simpler terms, trying my best to be as clear and consise as possible just to prove my point, don't you think the least Sir Jaso could do is acknowledge the verses and/or retract his claim of my views? If he will not retract his views, at the very least he can tell me he disagrees with the verses.

I feel that he has completely demeaned my time by his demand for the biblical support for those verses, and then rather than even making notice of them, just running away behind the excuse that the religion thread, because it's debating Christianity, has turned into another "religion thread". Wouldn't you also be upset if someone asked you to do something for them, and after you did it they didn't even acknowledge it? I know I sure am! Sir Jaso doesn't have to debate if he wants to...but I would appreciate at least some kind of response.
Hey Nightmare if this really means that much to you, I'll look over the issues and verses you listed on your website and share my views/arguments on them this weekend.

ChristNme17

October 21st, 2006, 06:56 am

Just beause God stops punnishing innocent people in the New Testiment doesn't mean he hasn't punished innocent people. He's still guilty of that crime. Making new commandments doesn't free God of his horrid actions he commited in the Old Testiment.

-----------------------

And even if we descard this arguement, what of all the times God commands Joshua or Moses to kill all the people in a city, including babies? What sin can a baby commit? But here's a good verse; let's see you pass it off as followers this time:

-----------------------

God could have made it so that all the choices we were to make would only be good ones. And in the first place, God doesn't need anything. Boring for us, but for him? God doesn't need something to keep him occupied.

Ok Well, three quick things to comment on. The first thing is about how children are accountable for their parent's sin and vice versa and how God 'making new commandments'. Now I said that their are verses in the new testiment simply cause those are the easiest to come to mind. Grant it I should've seen a response much like you did--God makes up new stuff to conteract old 'mistakes'. Well, let me clarify that these laws are not only in the new testiment:

"Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin." Deuteronomy 24:16

Now grant it, maybe saying children metephorically means followers could be strectching it a bit, but you can't argue that parents do have a large influence on their child's upbringing. Like I said last time, it doesn't mean someone growing up believing one thing will always turn out believing that or not. It just means that usually there is a strong influence. If you whole family for generations have believed in one thing to be fact and you grew up in it...chances are you would probably believe it too (again, not always the case). In that sense, in the Bible when parents worshiped Baal, this was taught to their children and was seen right in their eyes, however it was still a sin. Therefore what you can conclude is that when God says something along the lines of destroying your children for generations, more than likely thats because they will grow up learning and accepting the same things. I don't know for sure, nobody does.

Now, when you talk about killing babies and what sins could they commit, you need to know that Christianity holds that there is an age of accountability. While no set age is actually given in the Bible, 13 is historically considered to be the age, based on Jewish custom. One story in the Bible that closesly alludes to this is 2nd Samuel 21-23. David committed adultry and for his sin, the Lord was going to kill the baby. While the baby was alive, David crys for his child begging for it to stay alive, but after it died, he stopped crying. When he says in vs 23 "...I will go to him, but he will not return to me" this implies that David will see his child again, in heaven. Yet, this child has never accepted God...it has never even been taught about God. So how can it get to heaven? The answer is because the child had not yet become of age that it could comprehend and make a conscience decision about his religious beliefs. And because the Lord knows this, if the baby dies, then it will not be thrown to hell.

As for mass murder of babies such as when pharoh was killing all the baby boys hunting down Moses, yes it is a horrible thing to see a baby die or to order it to death. But again, these babies were never withheld from the kingdom of God just because they died before they could decide. In other instances where God was basically clearing the land that he promised to Israel he also ordered that every baby in certain lands be put to death as well. Now yeah, this sounds bad and I would definately never want to be place in a situation like that. However, the Lord knows that if these babies die, they will be in heaven with Him. For Christians, death is just a transition from one life to the next. So yeah, they might have a shorter time in this life, but those year's they could've spent here are instead going to be spent with God...a much better place than even the most comforting places on Earth. And what would've happened to those babies if they had been spared? They would've grown up not having anyone of their own kind around. They probably would've ended up leading a less than desireable life had they been spared. Again, yes it is horrible, but God is merciful and He sees the bigger picture than what we do.

The third thing I wanted to say is about your comment regaurding how God could've made us have only good choices. Well then, they aren't exactally fully our choices now are they? I mean, grant it he could've made us like that, but again, its more of a robot type situation. Besides without temptation and evil, there would be no test for us. Life is a test for us to stay strong in what we believe in. If there is no opposition, how can we grow. Just like this thread. If you and me agreed on everything, then not much would be done...you'd say something and I'd probably say 'yep..' and that'd be about it.

And I don't believe I ever said God needed us. If I did then I was sadly mistaken. I could tell people that I need a new computer cause mine is outdated (even if it still works fine). Now I dont need the computer, but I want it. Big difference. God doesn't need anything, but just because he doesn't need it doesn't mean he can't want it.

Anywho, that's about all I have time for right now. But I would like to ask one last thing. I would appreciate it if you could refrain from using phrases like "let's see you pass it off as followers this time". It's a bit childish and I would prefer if you can keep comments like that to yourself.

ChristNme17

October 21st, 2006, 07:36 am

1- I do think most of those are good reasons, but the loving one is a bit eh. I wouldnt have a child just to have somthing love me. I also wouldnt punish them if they didn't; I would be sad, but there has to be a reason why they don't, and you say "I mean, its hard to love someone that has no choice and HAS to love you back.", which is what god does.

2-We do have free will, but its dictated by rules. Good rules are based on morles and common sense, but many of gods rules are silly; love me and only me or you will live a life of eternal pain, get your penis cut at birth for it makes me happy, things like that. There is nothing anyone gets out of those things.

3-What I want is free will, and the ability to have the will to do things without being punished for stupid actions, like not loving a god that doesn't love himself.

And to respond to this really quick.

Alrighty I agree it might be hard to see the love situation--have a kid because you want to love someone and you want someone to love you. I didn't mean that love alone is the only reason to have a child. As you said you wouldn't have a child just to have something love you, well, yeah I agree that I wouldn't have a kid for that sole reason. But I personally think that if you put together all the reason to have a kid, this could account for some of God's reasoning.

As for free will based on rules, well that's true that we should abide by rules. But saying good rules is a little vague--though I know what you meant by it. However one thing that is a whole other topic to get in on, and I've been to seminars on it, is where morals came from. Morals basically are a natural sense of right and wrong right? Well, how do you define right and wrong? That's where the arguement comes. Christian's say that God defines it. I have better examples that I like to use to give a mental picture, but I'll refrain cause I dont know the age of everyone that can view this, but basically picture something that you know is absolutly wrong. Now, how do you know that it is wrong? 'you just know' doesn't really answer it.

Now, as far as some of God's rules being silly, well, one thing you mentioned, circumcision, has more value than you might know. First of all, circumcision on anyone is something that should be done for your health. Disease can set in due to lack of hygene along with other reasons. It doesn't happen in all cases, but in studies by Dr. Tom Wiswell, a pediatrician and neonatologist, confirm that having a circumcision is the healthy thing to do. However, back in Bible times, these medical explainations may have been too advanced for them.

Now aside from the physical circumcision, it is often referenced in the Bible that what is actually required of a Christian is a circumcision of the heart. Cutting off the sinful layers (metaphorically) and dedicating yourself to the Lord.

As to your third and final point, I can understand wanting to be able to make decisions without fear of punishment--especially on a topic as debated as Religion. What I don't see is the logic of not believing. I mean, lets just take the logical side of chosing to believe or not. Now, you shouldn't say you want to be a Christian just because of some of this next stuff (you have to honestly desire a relationship with Jesus Christ) however lets just take a logical approach:

You have two options and two outcomes and 4 Scenerios.
Option 1: Believe
Option 2: Don't believe
Outcome 1: You're Right
Outcome 2: You're Wrong

Scenerio 1
So let's say you believe in God and are right. He exists. When you die what happens? You get all this ultimate 'good' forever and ever that is talked about in the Bible.

Scenerio 2
Ok so you believed in God but were wrong, He doesn't really exist. When you die, thats it and nothing comes of it.

Scenerio 3
You don't believe and you were right. Well, you would get this 'haha I wasn't suckered' feeling, but you are dead and nothing comes of it.

Scenerio 4
You don't believe and were wrong. You get all the ultimate 'this sucks' that the Bible says happens to non-believers. And it happens forever without end.

So logically is it better to believe or not to believe. Where is the payoff the greatest? This is known as Pascal's Wager. But again, it should'nt be the only reason to believe. It has to be a pure desire to have a relationship w/ Christ. He will know your heart and the real reason you are doing it.

Anywho, enought said. It's getting late and I do need to get some rest.

Nightmare

October 21st, 2006, 01:47 pm

Now grant it, maybe saying children metephorically means followers could be strectching it a bit, but you can't argue that parents do have a large influence on their child's upbringing. Like I said last time, it doesn't mean someone growing up believing one thing will always turn out believing that or not. It just means that usually there is a strong influence. If you whole family for generations have believed in one thing to be fact and you grew up in it...chances are you would probably believe it too (again, not always the case). In that sense, in the Bible when parents worshiped Baal, this was taught to their children and was seen right in their eyes, however it was still a sin. Therefore what you can conclude is that when God says something along the lines of destroying your children for generations, more than likely thats because they will grow up learning and accepting the same things. I don't know for sure, nobody does.

This arguement relies on special pleading. And didn't I give you another verse that specifically said babies were being killed (not the one in Egypt.)

David committed adultry and for his sin, the Lord was going to kill the baby. While the baby was alive, David crys for his child begging for it to stay alive, but after it died, he stopped crying. When he says in vs 23 "...I will go to him, but he will not return to me" this implies that David will see his child again, in heaven. Yet, this child has never accepted God...it has never even been taught about God. So how can it get to heaven? The answer is because the child had not yet become of age that it could comprehend and make a conscience decision about his religious beliefs. And because the Lord knows this, if the baby dies, then it will not be thrown to hell.

Using this mentality, you can justify murder anytime. I am strongly opposed to this viewpoint, as it really demeans life. Whether or not there is an afterlife, all life is precious. Only religion can convince people such as yourself otherwise. What you are essentially saying is that it's perfectly moral for God to kill innocent people because they are going to have a better afterlife (assuming the people he kills are heading towards heaven.) And from the rest of your post, you also seem to imply that it's okay for other people to do this as well. Do you realize that terrorists think like that?

What is the point then, of living? Why not just kill everyone so we can have this better afterlife? Certainly you can't deny that I would be better off dead a long time ago-then I would be able to be in heaven. This particular view you are holding is one that I feel can be linked to terrorism. The murder of others for religion is okay-is how we can sum it up. Surely then the Al Queda are justified as well. And Osama Bin Laden is moral also. I know you're going to hate me for saying this, but you really aren't thinking much different from a terrorists. Though you may be a good person and would never consider such an act of violence, just the way you are thinking is how these people who have caused so much harm to America have thought.

Sorry, but no. Even if the babies will have a better after life, God is still murdering innocent people. There is no good morality in this. God is omnipotent, and does not need to shed innocent blood.

The third thing I wanted to say is about your comment regaurding how God could've made us have only good choices. Well then, they aren't exactally fully our choices now are they? I mean, grant it he could've made us like that, but again, its more of a robot type situation. Besides without temptation and evil, there would be no test for us. Life is a test for us to stay strong in what we believe in. If there is no opposition, how can we grow. Just like this thread. If you and me agreed on everything, then not much would be done...you'd say something and I'd probably say 'yep..' and that'd be about it.

No, they are still our choices. I wake up in the morning, and decide if I want to have a cup of coffee, a cup of orange juice, or a glass of water. These are all my choices, and I can choose based upon my personal preference at the time. The way I interact with other people is my personal choice. Why do we need a test? Adam and Eve were perfectly content without knowing temptation and evil. In a utopian society, we don't need to grow. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather live in this society than a utopian society. But were I to have grown up in a utopian society, I would rather live there then here. This is only because I've come to know the society I've grown into.

Certainly you probaly may not wish to go to a more primitive society, like a hunting and gathering society. And a hunting and gathering society probaly does not want to go to a more complex society such as ours. There is no need for growth in a utopian society-because to grow is to encounter and overcome conflict. And conflict cannot exist in such a society.

Edit: If this post as a bit too offensive for you, ChristnMe17, I apologize sincerely! I meant no harm, and was more or less expressing my feelings. As for you, Sir Jaso, I'd also like to apoligize to you. You never said you were going to debate, and merely wanted to see some support. I apologize for harassing you. Thanks for being so cool about it!

ME411

October 21st, 2006, 10:31 pm

correct me if im wrong, but wasnt it 'satan' that made the snake in the garden of eden? it wasnt god who gave us temptation and the bad choices. (im not an expert but i think thats how it goes) that brings up the issue that god made us all in his image. so, would that mean that adam and eve were doomed to eventually oppose god and be 'thrown out' of the garden? (the angels were also made in his image and satan used to be an angel, so......)

Noir7

October 22nd, 2006, 12:41 am

I have a friend who is a Jehova's Witness. I think everybody here knows that they never donate blood, not even to a dying relative. I find it both stupid and respectful at the same time. It's hard to explain, but they really commit themselves to their religion.

On the other hand, if your relative was dying and you alone could save him/her -- would you abandon (yes, they do abandon their religion if they donate blood) your religion if you could save your mother by donating blood? I'm not asking you atheists, but you more comitted religious people. I never understand how someone can let their loved ones die by following the rules of a God.

Asuka

October 22nd, 2006, 08:02 am

I would donate my blood, because if I didn't I would be committing murder, which I think is a far greater sin than donateing something as simple as blood. Especially since I would be killing my mother, which is like kudo murder points in the sin scale.

methodx

October 23rd, 2006, 11:19 pm

I don't suppose anyone could refresh my memory on exactly why they cannot share their blood with anyone else? I recall at one point there had been an article in a local newspaper about how there had been this 13 year old girl who was terminally ill from leukemia or something like that. In order to live she had to recieve a blood transfusion from someone of the same blood type. But she was a Jehovah's Witness, therefore she could not and refused the transfusion. I'm not sure if she lived or not, but probably not; unless her parents came to their senses and made her take it. <- I know that makes it sound obvious what my opinion is on the matter is, but I guess you'd all better know. Anyways, I had to write an essay in English class to debate whether she should had made the right decision. If I remember correctly, I had said yes; since she had the right to be true to her religion and choose not to act against it. And she does have the right. You can't force someone against their own religion if they really don't want to, they would be kind of immoral itself. But then it can be argued whether or not, can you trust a mere thirteen year-old with a life and death decision? I certainly wouldn't. I wouldn't even trust myself to make that decision.
Oh drat this isn't really related to religion is it? *prepares for infraction*

ME411

October 24th, 2006, 12:48 am

it is really religion and that is an interesting question.

can you trust a minor with a decision about their life or death?
I think it has more to do with if they are really in the right mental state to decide. Why is it that Jehova's Witness can't take blood from others? a kid in my school is Jehova's Witness but he doesnt really practice it (i think you could call him atheist).

October 24th, 2006, 03:26 am

You people always misinterpretating what I say. I am not that children that would have been aborted would turn out bad, since they're just as much like any other child; the fact that they "would have" been aborted would not affect them, that would be just silly. What I'm saying is that if the mother had wanted to abort them, then most of the time it is probably probably because they would not be able to support the child and bring them up, or they are simply not that type taht would care for children. In that case, they would most likely be raised by incompetent parents in an un-nurturing (is that a word?) environment. Even if they are raised by the aborter's family or a foster family, it would not be the same as having their own parents with their own parental bond, no? I am not saying this will always be the case, but merely in most cases. I know my argument is not very strong so if you prove me wrong then that is quite alright and I will take it in grace since I haven't done this in a while and I'm rarely right, I often have something overlooked.

There was an actualy number floating around, but I read and heard on one of them science shows that a majority of mothers/families who abort can't even afford a baby [or even another one].

And to respond to this really quick.

1) Alrighty I agree it might be hard to see the love situation--have a kid because you want to love someone and you want someone to love you. I didn't mean that love alone is the only reason to have a child. As you said you wouldn't have a child just to have something love you, well, yeah I agree that I wouldn't have a kid for that sole reason. But I personally think that if you put together all the reason to have a kid, this could account for some of God's reasoning.

2) As for free will based on rules, well that's true that we should abide by rules. But saying good rules is a little vague--though I know what you meant by it. However one thing that is a whole other topic to get in on, and I've been to seminars on it, is where morals came from. Morals basically are a natural sense of right and wrong right? Well, how do you define right and wrong? That's where the arguement comes. Christian's say that God defines it. I have better examples that I like to use to give a mental picture, but I'll refrain cause I dont know the age of everyone that can view this, but basically picture something that you know is absolutly wrong. Now, how do you know that it is wrong? 'you just know' doesn't really answer it.

3) Now, as far as some of God's rules being silly, well, one thing you mentioned, circumcision, has more value than you might know. First of all, circumcision on anyone is something that should be done for your health. Disease can set in due to lack of hygene along with other reasons. It doesn't happen in all cases, but in studies by Dr. Tom Wiswell, a pediatrician and neonatologist, confirm that having a circumcision is the healthy thing to do. However, back in Bible times, these medical explainations may have been too advanced for them.

Now aside from the physical circumcision, it is often referenced in the Bible that what is actually required of a Christian is a circumcision of the heart. Cutting off the sinful layers (metaphorically) and dedicating yourself to the Lord.

4)As to your third and final point, I can understand wanting to be able to make decisions without fear of punishment--especially on a topic as debated as Religion. What I don't see is the logic of not believing. I mean, lets just take the logical side of chosing to believe or not. Now, you shouldn't say you want to be a Christian just because of some of this next stuff (you have to honestly desire a relationship with Jesus Christ) however lets just take a logical approach:

You have two options and two outcomes and 4 Scenerios.
Option 1: Believe
Option 2: Don't believe
Outcome 1: You're Right
Outcome 2: You're Wrong

Scenerio 1
So let's say you believe in God and are right. He exists. When you die what happens? You get all this ultimate 'good' forever and ever that is talked about in the Bible.

Scenerio 2
Ok so you believed in God but were wrong, He doesn't really exist. When you die, thats it and nothing comes of it.

Scenerio 3
You don't believe and you were right. Well, you would get this 'haha I wasn't suckered' feeling, but you are dead and nothing comes of it.

Scenerio 4
You don't believe and were wrong. You get all the ultimate 'this sucks' that the Bible says happens to non-believers. And it happens forever without end.

So logically is it better to believe or not to believe. Where is the payoff the greatest? This is known as Pascal's Wager. But again, it should'nt be the only reason to believe. It has to be a pure desire to have a relationship w/ Christ. He will know your heart and the real reason you are doing it.

Anywho, enought said. It's getting late and I do need to get some rest.

1) Thats the same excuse many people use to justify the many bad actions they do; be it a dictator or a child raping murder manic. God just wants attention and thats all he says. Everything we do isnt for our good, its for gods well being or for him to be happy. Its religous bull shit.

2) I totaly know where your getting at because I used that same debutle, "what defines good and bad?". For many people god does define it, but even if he did its so confusing and vauge because of contradiction.
That makes me think of somthing. If a mother raises her son to think that he must kill all people who arent white, does that make it okay? No. Just because some hierarchy says to do somthing, doesnt mean its okay. Brain wash man, brain wash.

3) But see, thats just coincident; were yet to find justifacation for his other 1000 silly rules.

4) If I go along with the dictating government just to save my sorry ass and watch others get killed, would that make me feel any better? Whether I helped the government [non-violent or not] or tried to stop it, they are still going to kill people in the short or long time period.

Same goes with God. Even if he is real, it doesnt mean I'm going to suck his balls just to get into heaven and pretend the trillions of people who went to hell didnt.

Nightmare

October 24th, 2006, 04:46 am

As to your third and final point, I can understand wanting to be able to make decisions without fear of punishment--especially on a topic as debated as Religion. What I don't see is the logic of not believing. I mean, lets just take the logical side of chosing to believe or not. Now, you shouldn't say you want to be a Christian just because of some of this next stuff (you have to honestly desire a relationship with Jesus Christ) however lets just take a logical approach:

You have two options and two outcomes and 4 Scenerios.
Option 1: Believe
Option 2: Don't believe
Outcome 1: You're Right
Outcome 2: You're Wrong

Scenerio 1
So let's say you believe in God and are right. He exists. When you die what happens? You get all this ultimate 'good' forever and ever that is talked about in the Bible.

Scenerio 2
Ok so you believed in God but were wrong, He doesn't really exist. When you die, thats it and nothing comes of it.

Scenerio 3
You don't believe and you were right. Well, you would get this 'haha I wasn't suckered' feeling, but you are dead and nothing comes of it.

Scenerio 4
You don't believe and were wrong. You get all the ultimate 'this sucks' that the Bible says happens to non-believers. And it happens forever without end.

So logically is it better to believe or not to believe. Where is the payoff the greatest? This is known as Pascal's Wager. But again, it should'nt be the only reason to believe. It has to be a pure desire to have a relationship w/ Christ. He will know your heart and the real reason you are doing it.

Anywho, enought said. It's getting late and I do need to get some rest.

Wow! I can't believe I missed this. This type of fallable arguement is called "Pacal's Wager" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager). I'm not going to get into specifics and I'll allow you to read the link, but one of the main problems with this logic is that it does not apply soley to Christianity. In other words, the same is true for every other religion.

And when you ask if it's logical to believe, do you honestly think it makes sense to believe in something that is not supported by any proof or evidence? I wake up in the morning, and I start my car up. It's logical for me to believe it's going to work because it has done so countless times in the past, and I have seen it done elsewhere by others. As I drive to work, I may stop by a bookstore to purchase a book. I have never been to Florida, but I have seen countless pictures and adds showing locations in Florida in this bookstore, as well as videos at home. When I finally get there, I may need to go through the computer to check a few things. I have some pretty reliable
evidence for how busy we were last night; such as logs and tapes on the camera.

Now tell me, ChristNme17, what evidence do you have for your god and religion, and why should we choose it over thousands of other ones?

musicangel820

October 25th, 2006, 12:17 am

Pascal's Wager is wrong on his assumption that if you believe in God you automatically go to heaven. Which is false. He was just trying to support Christianity =P

Lightningsage

October 25th, 2006, 12:31 am

I'm a Puritan...Nah, just kidding, I'm Christian. Anyways, do you think that the Puritans and Seperatists during the begginning of the revolutionary war, had beliefs besides of the Anglican Church and the Christian Church? It just seems like they worshiped in the same way, eventhough they were different realigions.

Hiei

October 25th, 2006, 12:42 am

EDIT: sorry, I read your argument wrong.

October 25th, 2006, 03:12 am

http://youtube.com/watch?v=y_EKHK1C2IE

Two words: FUCKING HELL. Those people who brain wash others, no matter how much I preach against these kind of comments, should just be gagged or somthing to shut them up. They preach that being diffrent earns people the right of death and that all that matters is religion. Thats how all those wars and hate crimes start; they even said "this means war" multiple times in the trailer itself.

Asuka

October 25th, 2006, 04:08 pm

Now tell me, ChristNme17, what evidence do you have for your god and religion, and why should we choose it over thousands of other ones?

The bible, and if that isn't good enough, look in your school history book. Are you going to sit there and tell me that there never was a man named Jesus who created Christianity? Are you going to tell me that millions of people died in the crusades for a god that was not there? Even though MANY people saw Jesus preform miracles? People SAW Jesus Christ rise from the dead in three days. His apostles have WRITTEN that Jesus appeared before them, even though they were in a locked room with no other entrance, and he was supposed to be dead. There is the evidence. What evidence do you have that this is NOT true? other than your opinion of course. You can sit there all day and point at all the faults in the bible, and the faults of god, but I'm afraid you will never have any evidence that there is no God.

Nightmare

October 25th, 2006, 06:23 pm

Asuka

October 25th, 2006, 07:22 pm

Unfortunately for you, the burden of proof is upon YOU, for making the positive claim that there is a God. Secondly, no, the bible is not good enough for me. There are many bizarre stories, contradictions, and falsehoods in the bible which make it an unreliable source. For example, the claim that humans were created on the 6th day (which many Christians pass off as metaphorical) is one. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all give different accounts and perspectives of Jesus-and even have at times have even witnessed events completely differently!

Also, why should we accept the bible as proof for religion, rather than the Koran for the Muslim religion? I'm not going to get into a huge debate over whether or not Jesus existed, but I don't believe there is much proof that he did exist, if any at all. But why don't you humour me and bring to the table some evidence that he did (rather than just telling me to look at history books.)

The bible is not evidence of God-it was written by man. Millions of people have died or are tortured in many other countries (China for the religion Falun Gong is a good example.) Millions of Jews died as well. Does that mean their religion is correct? Sorry, but massive deaths do not prove a God. It merely shows religion as a bad thing. If anything, such things like the Crusades and the Salem Witch Trials should show how horrible of an influence Chrisitanity has been. All I see you doing is just using your own bible as support. Just as easily I could use the Koran to fight for every Muslim.

I do have evidence that there is no God. An all-loving God can not performing an unloving act. God doesn't exist. A perfectly moral God can not perform an immoral act. God doesn't exist. An omnipotent God does not need to do anything to accept or allow something to happen. God doesn't exist. I know God doesn't exist just as I know that square-circles don't exist.

You don't have to look at the christian bible! Look at any bible! I'm here to prove the A God does exsist. I'm not here to claim a certain religion is the right one. Fine, look at the Koran, I don't care. It's all the same proof to me, it's all about one god or another. And questioning whether or not Jesus even exhisted is simply ignorance, I'm not forcing a religion upon you by saying a man exhists. If he never exhisted then why were there crusades? Or any other historical christian based thing. Thousands of christians dieing is well enough proof for me that Jesus exhisted.

Oh, and you don't even need to look in a history book, just look at years. What is this year? 2006 ANNO DOMINI. Which is a phrase from Latin meaning "In the Year of our Lord" Tell me nightmare, why does a great majority of people think its 2006 years into the year of the lord if these aren't the years of our lord? What year do you think it is? When you date your school or work papers, what date do you use?

October 25th, 2006, 08:40 pm

I do have evidence that there is no God. An all-loving God can not performing an unloving act. God doesn't exist. A perfectly moral God can not perform an immoral act. God doesn't exist. An omnipotent God does not need to do anything to accept or allow something to happen. God doesn't exist. I know God doesn't exist just as I know that square-circles don't exist.

This is an interpertation of why you think a god doesn't exist. Please clarify with hard logic.

Also, squares are circles. They just don't have a standard smooth arc between each foci.

@Asuka: I use CE. Also the literal translation for Anno Domini is Yearly Rule.1 (http://archives.nd.edu/latgramm.htm) It has nothing to deal with Jesus. That was something learned and then accepted.

That's my $0.02. Also, both of you are starting to attack each other's character. Please stop.

Asuka

October 25th, 2006, 08:44 pm

Dark Bring

October 25th, 2006, 08:52 pm

I'm here to prove the A God does exist.No problem. Now, where are the proofs for the existance of A God?

And questioning whether or not Jesus even existed is simply ignorance,How is that ignorance? Do tell.

If he(Jesus) never existed then why were there crusades?LOL. The Crusades were sanctioned by the Pope, not by Jesus.

Thousands of christians dying is well enough proof for me that Jesus existed.So, why is your proof not good enough for the rest of us? Millions of people dying in suffering is well enough proof for me that God doesn't exist. Why is my proof not good enough for you? I think this particular 'proof' of yours and mine are actually 'opinions'.

Oh, and you don't even need to look in a history book, just look at years. What is this year? 2006 ANNO DOMINI. Which is a phrase from Latin meaning "In the Year of our Lord" Tell me nightmare, why does a great majority of people think its 2006 years into the year of the lord if these aren't the years of our lord? What year do you think it is? When you date your school or work papers, what date do you use?Hah! I can tell that you've been itching to use this particular argument here ever since you've heard it from somebody else. Unfortunately, I have been itching to use the particular counter-arguement to this arguement ever since I heard of both! Behold!

How can you claim that 'a great majority of people think that its 2006 years into the year of the lord', if all of us are merely following the Gregorian calendar? Just because the Gregorian calendar is a product of the Catholic Church, doesn't mean that the people that use the Gregorian calendar are believers of Christ! Surely you don't mean to claim that everybody that follows the Gregorian calendar is a Christian, right?

Also, squares are circles. They just don't have a standard smooth arc between each foci.LOL! C'mon M, if you didn't know that Nightmare was going by the Euclidean definitions, well, now you do. XD

In Euclidean geometry, a circle is the set of all points in a plane at a fixed distance.
In Euclidean geometry, a square is a polygon with four equal sides, four right angles, and parallel opposite sides.

Asuka

October 25th, 2006, 09:02 pm

No problem. Now, where are the proofs for the existance of A God?

How is that ignorance? Do tell.

LOL. The Crusades were sanctioned by the Pope, not by Jesus.

So, why is your proof not good enough for the rest of us? Millions of people dying in suffering is well enough proof for me that God doesn't exist. Why is my proof not good enough for you? I think this particular 'proof' of yours and mine are actually 'opinions'.

Hah! I can tell that you've been itching to use this particular argument here ever since you've heard it from somebody else. Unfortunately, I have been itching to use the particular counter-arguement to this arguement ever since I heard of both! Behold!

How can you claim that 'a great majority of people think that its 2006 years into the year of the lord', if all of us are merely following the Gregorian calendar? Just because the Gregorian calendar is a product of the Catholic Church, doesn't mean that the people that use the Gregorian calendar are believers of Christ! Surely you don't mean to claim that everybody that follows the Gregorian calendar is a Christian, right?

1) Thats what I'm here trying to explain bud

2) I purposefully said ignorance so it would be a non-offensive term. I simply meant it in that, it has been commonly taught at school, whether or not you believe Jesus was god is your own accord, if you wan't ill bring my history book home tomorrow and quote where it says stuff about Jesus. Btw, I got to a private school, not a catholic schoo.

3) Why do you think the pope came about buddy?

4) I respect what you say, if millions people dieing is proof he doesn't exsist, fair on you. But they died because they believed that he did.

5) Well firstly, i didn't here it from someone else, I simply thought of it, i guess great minds think alike. And secondly, ask yourself, how did the Gregorian Calender come to be? And since it came to be, why have we followed it instead of casting it out in the name of that is was founded from a religion we do not believe in?

October 25th, 2006, 09:12 pm

EDIT: @M Yes, but B.C. Does stand for Before Christ, and i purposefully said "A phrase meaning" because it is meant to be taken, Yearly Rule by God, that is, if you really want to take it in literal terms. And if it simply means, Yearly Rule with nothing to do with Jesus, then why did it com to be right when Jesus died? I'm going to die if you tell me it was a coincidence

Oh it's no coincidence. I'm not denying that Christians have had quite a hold on the world today. BC is, in fact, short for "Christos" which is greek for Christ, which literally means Anointed One.

If you really dive deep into the Gregorian calendar's history, you'll see that it was created by Christians as an adaption off of the Julian Calendar, created by Julius Caesar, which was in use until the 20th century. The Julian Calendar also had the predecessor of the Roman Calander, which was created way back in 753 BCE, and was based on lunar cycles.

Dark Bring

October 25th, 2006, 09:23 pm

1) Thats what I'm here trying to explain budCool, at your own time.

2) I purposefully said ignorance so it would be a non-offensive term. I simply meant it in that, it has been commonly taught at school, whether or not you believe Jesus was god is your own accord, if you wan't ill bring my history book home tomorrow and quote where it says stuff about Jesus. Btw, I got to a private school, not a catholic schoo.What? Commonly taught at school? For your information, a private school in the UK is not a common school to begin with. Do you also support evolution? Is that not also commonly taught at school?

3) Why do you think the pope came about buddy?The pope was originally chosen by those senior clergymen resident in and near Rome. Where did you think the pope came from? Also, please don't call me 'buddy', because you are not my 'buddy', and I do not want to be your 'buddy'.

4) I respect what you say, if millions people dying is proof he doesn't exist, fair on you. But they died because they believed that he did.I daresay that a lot more people died without believing in the existance of Jesus Christ.

5) Well firstly, i didn't here it from someone else, I simply thought of it, i guess great minds think alike. And secondly, ask yourself, how did the Gregorian Calender come to be?Like I said, the Gregorian calendar was decreed by Pope Gregory XIII. And if you really want to know, it was first proposed by the Calabrian doctor Aloysius Lilius. The Gregorian calendar is a direct modification of the Julian calendar, which was introduced by Julius Caesar in 46 BC.

And since it came to be, why have we followed it instead of casting it out in the name of that is was founded from a religion we do not believe in?Because most of us are more concerned with more practical matters? Just because we celebrate Christmas doesn't mean that we believe in Christ and/or Santa Claus, but for most of us Christmas is simply a time of the year to get together with the family. Similiarly, the Gregorian calendar is a useful timetable, simply because virtually everybody uses it! You do use the roman names for the months of the year, right? Does that mean that you are a believer of the Religio Romana? Of course not.

septermagick

October 25th, 2006, 11:10 pm

Not everyone uses BC. As M showed there is BCE (Before Commen Era) and CE (Commen Era). This was used to put religion out of history so it wouldn't be biased. =/

Why only one god? Many people believe in and worship several gods (Pagans, Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, etc.)

Nightmare

October 26th, 2006, 03:19 am

You don't have to look at the christian bible! Look at any bible! I'm here to prove the A God does exsist. I'm not here to claim a certain religion is the right one. Fine, look at the Koran, I don't care. It's all the same proof to me, it's all about one god or another.

Asuka, I don't quite believe we are on the same page. Please read what I said carefully in the following:

Now tell me, ChristNme17, what evidence do you have for your god and religion, and why should we choose it over thousands of other ones?

I admit I can't prove that there isn't a god that exists. I'm merely asking for proof that the Christian god exists. For evidence. Not for a god, but for the god, the god of the bible. I don't have enough time to go through every god of every religion, hehe. For now, Christianity is more than enough for me, and it is what I am educated on.

And questioning whether or not Jesus even exhisted is simply ignorance, I'm not forcing a religion upon you by saying a man exhists. If he never exhisted then why were there crusades? Or any other historical christian based thing. Thousands of christians dieing is well enough proof for me that Jesus exhisted.

Thousands of people die have died countless times for their beliefs. Your very own bible points this out in the book "Joshua", as Joshua conquers city after city for having different beliefs. Jews have died in the holocaust for their beliefs. There was the Trojan War as well. Tell me, do you really think that massive deaths prove anything? Christians have taken or adopted many concepts from other religions. Like December 25th for example. It used to be a day for pagans. Hmmm....how coincidental. There are plenty of other historically based things from other religions as well. It doesn't mean those religions are correct any more than Christianity.

Don't you have any proof other than the bible or mere speculation that you can bring to the table as proof of Jesus?

Oh, and you don't even need to look in a history book, just look at years. What is this year? 2006 ANNO DOMINI. Which is a phrase from Latin meaning "In the Year of our Lord" Tell me nightmare, why does a great majority of people think its 2006 years into the year of the lord if these aren't the years of our lord? What year do you think it is? When you date your school or work papers, what date do you use?

The main problem with AD and BC is that it wasn't even made until centuries after the supposed death of Jesus by Dionysius Exiguus, and even then it wasn't widely used until centuries after it was made. That doesn't prove Jesus existed at all-more rather, it was only put into affect and then borrowed by many cultures and countries from a Christian pope.

Also, both of you are starting to attack each other's character. Please stop.

I don't feel that we are doing this, and I don't believe Asuka does either. I thank you for your concern, but if one of us starts to be a little offensive, I'm sure Asuka will let me know, or I Asuka.

This is an interpertation of why you think a god doesn't exist. Please clarify with hard logic.

Also, squares are circles. They just don't have a standard smooth arc between each foci.

Dark Bring already clarified things, but if it would help, perhaps I could use the "married bachelor" example instead.

October 26th, 2006, 03:50 am

I'm afraid I can't see where I'm attacking his character, could you please specify where so I can stop. I really wanna try to keep this as clean as possible, so yeah. Oh and Nightmare, if I am getting a bit offensive, or it seems im writing in anger, please tell me and specify where so I can stop.

EDIT: @M Yes, but B.C. Does stand for Before Christ, and i purposefully said "A phrase meaning" because it is meant to be taken, Yearly Rule by God, that is, if you really want to take it in literal terms. And if it simply means, Yearly Rule with nothing to do with Jesus, then why did it com to be right when Jesus died? I'm going to die if you tell me it was a coincidence

But your also ignoiring the many other ways of telling years, most of which are older and more accurate.

Don't you have any proof other than the bible or mere speculation that you can bring to the table as proof of Jesus?

The Da Vinci Code, lol.

What happens when there is a god though? Does it even matter. He is there, were all here.

Asuka

October 26th, 2006, 04:28 pm

@Dark bring

Cool, at your own time.

What? Commonly taught at school? For your information, a private school in the UK is not a common school to begin with. Do you also support evolution? Is that not also commonly taught at school?

The pope was originally chosen by those senior clergymen resident in and near Rome. Where did you think the pope came from? Also, please don't call me 'buddy', because you are not my 'buddy', and I do not want to be your 'buddy'.

I daresay that a lot more people died without believing in the existance of Jesus Christ.

Like I said, the Gregorian calendar was decreed by Pope Gregory XIII. And if you really want to know, it was first proposed by the Calabrian doctor Aloysius Lilius. The Gregorian calendar is a direct modification of the Julian calendar, which was introduced by Julius Caesar in 46 BC.

Because most of us are more concerned with more practical matters? Just because we celebrate Christmas doesn't mean that we believe in Christ and/or Santa Claus, but for most of us Christmas is simply a time of the year to get together with the family. Similiarly, the Gregorian calendar is a useful timetable, simply because virtually everybody uses it! You do use the roman names for the months of the year, right? Does that mean that you are a believer of the Religio Romana? Of course not.

1) Woah, major typo there, I meant to say "I go to a public school, NOT a catholic school." And it is commonly taught, last year I remember in history going over how the death of jesus greatly influenced the actions and actions taken against the Roman Empire.

2) I am under the influence that St.Peter was the first founded Pope, influenced by Jesus Christ, a christian. Also, I apologize for calling you "buddy", I suppose I was getting a bit too heated and full of myself. My apologizes.

3) I'm talking about the crusades here. On either side, they all believed a man named jesus exsisted, either they were fighting because they believed he was son of god, or they were fighting because they believed he wasnt.

4) What do popes lead?

5) Agreed, I retract my statements made about the calender, good job debating against it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

@ Nightmare

I don't quite believe we are on the same page. Please read what I said carefully in the following:

I admit I can't prove that there isn't a god that exists. I'm merely asking for proof that the Christian god exists. For evidence. Not for a god, but for the god, the god of the bible. I don't have enough time to go through every god of every religion, hehe. For now, Christianity is more than enough for me, and it is what I am educated on.

Thousands of people die have died countless times for their beliefs. Your very own bible points this out in the book "Joshua", as Joshua conquers city after city for having different beliefs. Jews have died in the holocaust for their beliefs. There was the Trojan War as well. Tell me, do you really think that massive deaths prove anything? Christians have taken or adopted many concepts from other religions. Like December 25th for example. It used to be a day for pagans. Hmmm....how coincidental. There are plenty of other historically based things from other religions as well. It doesn't mean those religions are correct any more than Christianity.

Don't you have any proof other than the bible or mere speculation that you can bring to the table as proof of Jesus?

The main problem with AD and BC is that it wasn't even made until centuries after the supposed death of Jesus by Dionysius Exiguus, and even then it wasn't widely used until centuries after it was made. That doesn't prove Jesus existed at all-more rather, it was only put into affect and then borrowed by many cultures and countries from a Christian pope.

1) Okay, my bad, I should have read better >.< I'm not going to debate as to why people should choose Christiany above other all other religions. I was more looking for saying that a God DOES exist, have a spiritual life is very important, it doesn't matter what you believe in, as long is you believe in something, that is what counts. At least, that is what my view on things are, please don't debate that, I won't fight it.

2) I agree, they have all died because they believe in something, since so many people believe in one god or another, how can there not be a single god?

3) "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man. When Pilate condemned him to be crucified, those who had come to love him did not give up their affection for him." Josephus, Antiquities 18.63-64 Oh, and the man who wrote this was a Jew.

4) Okay, as stated above, I retract all my statements concerning B.C. and A.D.

Dark Bring

October 26th, 2006, 04:45 pm

@Dark bring

1) Woah, major typo there, I meant to say "I go to a public school, NOT a catholic school." And it is commonly taught, last year I remember in history going over how the death of jesus greatly influenced the actions and actions taken against the Roman Empire. ???@_@???
Btw, I got to a private school, not a catholic school.

Wait, in which subject was that taught? What's the name of the exam board for that subject? Also, you won't be taught that if you were in public schools in Asia. How do you know if that particular subject is commonly taught? Lastly, and this is very important, is a commonly taught subject always correct?

2) I am under the influence that St.Peter was the first founded Pope, influenced by Jesus Christ, a christian. Also, I apologize for calling you "buddy", I suppose I was getting a bit too heated and full of myself. My apologizes.No problem, happens to me all the time.

3) I'm talking about the crusades here. On either side, they all believed a man named Jesus existed, either they were fighting because they believed he was son of god, or they were fighting because they believed he wasn't.Hmm, I was under the impression that the Crusades were Pope-sanctioned military campaigns typically characterized as being waged against pagans, heretics, Muslims or those under the ban of excommunication.

4) What do popes lead?Catholics?

Asuka

October 26th, 2006, 05:17 pm

???@_@???

Wait, in which subject was that taught? What's the name of the exam board for that subject? Also, you won't be taught that if you were in public schools in Asia. How do you know if that particular subject is commonly taught? Lastly, and this is very important, is a commonly taught subject always correct?

No problem, happens to me all the time.

Hmm, I was under the impression that the Crusades were Pope-sanctioned military campaigns typically characterized as being waged against pagans, heretics, Muslims or those under the ban of excommunication.

Catholics?

1) Alright, lemme clear things up. I go to a Public School, not a Private School. I was taught that in the class World History/Geography. I am assuming the information is correct, considering this is school curriculum. Did you doubt your teacher when he taught you about algebra or physics or any classes?

2) Cheers

3) And what of the taking over of the Holy Land, which was that about?

4) Exactly, which means that the calender was founded by someone who DID believe in Jesus Christ, it also wasn't so far ahead of Jesus's time that things were unclear of whether or not he existed.

Dark Bring

October 26th, 2006, 06:17 pm

1) Alright, lemme clear things up. I go to a Public School, not a Private School. I was taught that in the class World History/Geography. I am assuming the information is correct, considering this is school curriculum. Did you doubt your teacher when he taught you about algebra or physics or any classes?Firstly, when I was in Asia, I was not taught about Jesus in school. At all. Only Christian and International schools teach that in Asia, and both are very outnumbered by the public and government schools which do not teach that subject. You have yet to back up your claim that this particular subject is 'commonly taught'.

Secondly, there is a huge difference between the sciences and the arts, though you should know that by now. Whatever that is taught in sciences can be re-ascertained by repeating the experiments involved, and these experiments will consistently produce the same results as they did so many years ago. However, arts is a subject of perspectives, and people can have many different perspectives of the same historical event.

Also, history is written by the victor and the ruler, and as the children in China and Korea are being raised on a mix of actual history and propaganda, so are the children of the religious raised on a mix of truth and fiction.

Thank goodness Galileo didn't believe in the curriculum of the Roman Catholic Church.

3) And what of the taking over of the Holy Land, which was that about?
Since you are convinced that the Crusades somehow proves the existence of Christ, why don't you tell me of the significance of the Holy Land in the Crusades?

4) Exactly, which means that the calender was founded by someone who DID believe in Jesus Christ, it also wasn't so far ahead of Jesus's time that things were unclear of whether or not he existed.Ha, so much for my thinking that you would drop that argument, but your resistance only makes my ??? harder!

The Gregorian calendar was a direct modification of the Julian calendar, which was introduced by Julius Caesar in 46 BC. BC. BC. Doesn't that mean "Before Christ" to you? How could Julius Caesar have believed in Jesus Christ 46 years before Christ was born? Now, here's why the Catholics made those modifications to the Julian calendar!

The Catholics devised the Gregorian calendar both because the mean year in the Julian Calendar was slightly too long, causing the vernal equinox to slowly drift backwards in the calendar year, and because the lunar calendar used to compute the date of Easter had grown conspicuously in error as well!

Note that the lunar calendar was not a Catholic or Christian invention! Pagan religions have been using the lunar calendar long before the rise of Christianity. Is it possible that the Catholic were actually pagans? Sacrilegious!

Asuka

October 26th, 2006, 07:07 pm

Firstly, when I was in Asia, I was not taught about Jesus in school. At all. Only Christian and International schools teach that in Asia, and both are very outnumbered by the public and government schools which do not teach that subject. You have yet to back up your claim that this particular subject is 'commonly taught'.

Secondly, there is a huge difference between the sciences and the arts, though you should know that by now. Whatever that is taught in sciences can be re-ascertained by repeating the experiments involved, and these experiments will consistently produce the same results as they did so many years ago. However, arts is a subject of perspectives, and people can have many different perspectives of the same historical event.

Also, history is written by the victor and the ruler, and as the children in China and Korea are being raised on a mix of actual history and propaganda, so are the children of the religious raised on a mix of truth and fiction.

Thank goodness Galileo didn't believe in the curriculum of the Roman Catholic Church.

Since you are convinced that the Crusades somehow proves the existence of Christ, why don't you tell me of the significance of the Holy Land in the Crusades?

Ha, so much for my thinking that you would drop that argument, but your resistance only makes my ??? harder!

The Gregorian calendar was a direct modification of the Julian calendar, which was introduced by Julius Caesar in 46 BC. BC. BC. Doesn't that mean "Before Christ" to you? How could Julius Caesar have believed in Jesus Christ 46 years before Christ was born? Now, here's why the Catholics made those modifications to the Julian calendar!

The Catholics devised the Gregorian calendar both because the mean year in the Julian Calendar was slightly too long, causing the vernal equinox to slowly drift backwards in the calendar year, and because the lunar calendar used to compute the date of Easter had grown conspicuously in error as well!

Note that the lunar calendar was not a Catholic or Christian invention! Pagan religions have been using the lunar calendar long before the rise of Christianity. Is it possible that the Catholic were actually pagans? Sacrilegious!

1) They didn't teach us about jesus, they taught us that a man named jesus was born who created Christianity that greatly unfluenced the Roman Empire. Am I wrong by this? Please tell me, I'm actually interested in what ya'll have to say because I'm learning lots.

2) I was actually asking you in a question, not a "I want to know what you think on it so I can retaliate". At the moment, I'm under the influence that the crusades were to Jeruselem (sp??) to take back the holy land that God granted the Israelites. Didn't the pope order Jeruselem to be taken over because that was where christianity was born/Jesus died? At least, thats what I think. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

3) Kay, I'm completely dropping it now, I thought i was going somewhere.

Nightmare

October 26th, 2006, 07:18 pm

3) "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man. When Pilate condemned him to be crucified, those who had come to love him did not give up their affection for him." Josephus, Antiquities 18.63-64 Oh, and the man who wrote this was a Jew.

I believe that Rook Hawkins makes some very good points here in this link: http://www.atheistnetwork.com/viewtopic.php?t=3275&start=0

Why don't you respond some to some of the points he makes?

Asuka

October 26th, 2006, 07:30 pm

If you would please post here the points you would like me to respond to, it would help me out alot, because then I know exactly what you want, and I know exactly where to start. Cheers

Dark Bring

October 26th, 2006, 07:45 pm

1) They didn't teach us about jesus, they taught us that a man named Jesus was born who created Christianity that greatly influenced the Roman Empire. Am I wrong by this? Please tell me, I'm actually interested in what ya'll have to say because I'm learning lots.Heh, that bit about "a man named Jesus" was definitely left out in the Chinese and Malaysian textbooks. Instead, those textbooks hold the view that "Christianity greatly influenced the Roman Empire". Not many Asian countries feel secure in admitting that Christianity is a powerful power to be reckoned with, and not because God is on the side of the Christians.

2) I was actually asking you in a question, not a "I want to know what you think on it so I can retaliate". At the moment, I'm under the influence that the crusades were to Jerusalem (sp??) to take back the holy land that God granted the Israelites. Didn't the pope order Jerusalem to be taken over because that was where Christianity was born/Jesus died? At least, thats what I think. Please correct me if I'm wrong.I am not your history teacher, and I'm not going to give you the answers to your own homework - I presume that your internet access has other uses besides visiting Ichigo's. Also, war is rarely a simple business.

Asuka

October 26th, 2006, 09:01 pm

Okay, so am I wrong in either of my points? I am not sure what your getting at.

Neko Koneko

October 27th, 2006, 06:35 pm

Western schools commonly teach about Christianity because Christianity is the dominant religion in these parts, not because they are affiliated with the religion. A lot of things you see in daily life are based on Christian values.

Dark Bring

October 27th, 2006, 06:52 pm

Similarly, Eastern schools do not commonly teach about Christianity because Christianity is not the dominant religion in Asia.

@ Asuka: War is rarely as straightforward as the politicians claim it to be, and the Crusades were no different.

October 27th, 2006, 08:22 pm

Even so, there are some good reasons for many Asian schools to do so. One of them is to understand the religion, because Christianity causes many major things in history to happen.

Neko Koneko

October 27th, 2006, 09:24 pm

Yeah, but not that much in Asia. Still, I agree on the fact that it's always a good thing to learn about other religions and cultures. I learnt about Islam in secondary school and it was quite interesting and helped me learn about the Islamic culture a bit more.

October 28th, 2006, 01:41 am

I totaly concur* with Angelic; I think once you learn of others culture at such a young age, the time where your less judgemental twords others, hate goes down. And on top of that your less ignorant twords others who aren't like yourself.

*I used concure the right way this time

Jaso

October 28th, 2006, 11:15 pm

leonheart

October 28th, 2006, 11:39 pm

what do ipods have to do with jewish people -.-

Neko Koneko

October 29th, 2006, 07:11 am

I'm surprised at the lack of knowledge of Religion in todays society. There was a black christian in my class and everyone thought that he was a muslim and talked to him very slowly. I felt so bad. He understood English fine, he was native English and even if they did stereotype him as muslim (which is bad!) there is no reason to presume he can't understand English!!! :cry:

Every time I post I'm going to quote something I have heard related to Religion.

Today, is one by another ill-educated classmate:

1 - "Do Jewish people have I-Pods?"

But people didn't talk slowly because they thought he was muslim, he's black so they thought he was a foreigner who didn't speak English. The way you tell it sounds like your class thinks muslims are stupid or something. Well, if they were, Iran wouldn't be able to build nuclear reactors, lol.

But yeah, skin colour tells you nothing about someone's religion. America has churches full of swinging black people, lol. Well, they're known for having more interesting times at church than the average Christian. I'm kinda jealous, lol.

I just wish people were more tolerant. I can make jokes about Christianity and nothing will happen. Make a joke about islam and they all explode and want to blow up your country. Where's the love? In the end God and Allah are the same anyway, Islam was created after Muhammed met Abram who told him about it.

And sorry if I got names wrong, they differ between Dutch and English sometimes. Hope it's clear who I'm talking about nonetheless.

ME411

October 29th, 2006, 11:10 pm

can i ask why jewish people wouldnt have ipod?

Neko Koneko

October 29th, 2006, 11:22 pm

It's quite a stupid thing to mention in a thread like this cos it has no relevance to anything. Of course jews have I-pods, it's not like they live on Mars.

Every time I post I'm going to quote something I have heard related to Religion.

Please don't.

October 30th, 2006, 02:58 am

But people didn't talk slowly because they thought he was muslim, he's black so they thought he was a foreigner who didn't speak English. The way you tell it sounds like your class thinks muslims are stupid or something. Well, if they were, Iran wouldn't be able to build nuclear reactors, lol.

And have Calculus as a standard class for Sophmores? [true fact for a school in Israel/Pakistan[depending on who you talk too, lol]].

Jaso

November 1st, 2006, 07:58 pm

It's quite a stupid thing to mention in a thread like this cos it has no relevance to anything. Of course jews have I-pods, it's not like they live on Mars.

Please don't.

I was showing the ignorance of some people in my class (in that case). I don't know why he said it... he was just... ignorant. On further investigation I found that when he drew a Jewish person in RE the person was wearing a black wide shallow hat... curly beard sixe of the moon, holding a pitchfork and there was a farm in the backround. He was also saying "Bud-bud". I was... Shocked. I think racism is closely linked with sectarianism and I think that it is just pure ignorance.

It disgusts me.

#2:- "Why did God make flies?"

Neko Koneko

November 1st, 2006, 08:11 pm

#2:- "Why did God make flies?"

Someone has to discard of the poo lying around everywhere right? Without insects we wouldn't last for very long. Don't underestimate their importance, how annoying they might be.

Jaso

November 1st, 2006, 08:13 pm

... I suppose thats one way of looking at it...

Nightmare

November 1st, 2006, 08:49 pm

Sorry for the long wait, Asuka! Let's start with the credibility of Eusebius. For one, this passage of Flavius Josephus was not mentioned until at least 3 centuries later. Eusebius admitted to forging works. Not only that, but Eusebius was the first to find this-it wasn't found any of the early copies of Josephus' work! There is a lot more that I see to discredit your quote from Josephus, but for now I believe this will be enough-at least to start.

Asuka

November 5th, 2006, 09:29 am

"A Christian author by the name of Origen wrote around the year 240. His writings predate the earliest quotations of the Testimonium. In his surviving works Origen fails to mention the Testimonium Flavianum, even though he does mention the less significant reference by Josephus to Jesus as brother of James, which occurs later in Antiquities of the Jews (xx.9), and also other passages from Antiquities such as the passage about John the Baptist. Furthermore, Origen states that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ" (Cels, i 47) "he did not accept Jesus as Christ" (Comm. Matt., x 17)," (wikki)

November 6th, 2006, 12:52 am

Someone has to discard of the poo lying around everywhere right? Without insects we wouldn't last for very long. Don't underestimate their importance, how annoying they might be.

Why did god make Dinos to only not save them/kill them?

:O their dead?! no way!

Meer

November 6th, 2006, 12:53 am

Last time I checked alligators were still alive. :mellow:

November 6th, 2006, 05:28 am

Yeah, but the lord says that gators are really just mammals and that scientist are all wrong.

pifish

November 6th, 2006, 06:57 am

And where does he say that? Or were you just trying to be funny?

Neko Koneko

November 6th, 2006, 11:01 am

Alligators aren't dinosaurs either.

cody/mccollaum

November 6th, 2006, 05:34 pm

Does the Bible talk about when the devil was cast to the earth, and where at? I haven't been studing latly but I know alot on scripures.

cody/mccollaum

November 6th, 2006, 05:38 pm

Yesterday I learned that 1 Earth day to God is a 1,000 Years in Heaven.

Celeste©

November 6th, 2006, 06:22 pm

weee a religion thread, lol I do not beleive in any religion that's known right now, i created my own cause I find that yes there is things that I do beleive in the bible, and theres some things too that just do not mkae any sense so why should I say I'm in that religion when I don't beleive it all. Therefor, my own beleifs are 100% what I beleive in which make what I beleive in ideal for me :) . If anyones intressted in my theories please pm me and i'll be happy to share them with you but I don't think putting them on here will change anything it will only bring me to another low. People reject things they don't know or beleive and I'm not ready to have my beleifs rejected severly.

Jaso

November 6th, 2006, 06:37 pm

Yesterday I learned that 1 Earth day to God is a 1,000 Years in Heaven.

A.) thats rubbish. 1 day is simply a passage of time - and even if it wasn't anywhere near 24 hours I doubt it would become such a rounded number

and

B.) Don't double-post. The edit button was made so that you could cut short, correct, add on or alter the text that was originally entered. They didn't make it for fun - use it.

November 6th, 2006, 08:22 pm

Does the Bible talk about when the devil was cast to the earth, and where at? I haven't been stud[y]ing lat[e]ly [and] I know [a lot] on scrip[t]ures.

That is left out of the Bible Canon, though I don't know if actual "Holy texts" exist on this subject. It's kinda similar to the Dead Sea Scrolls, they tell you bits of the information, but don't give you the whole document (taking account that a good deal of the scrolls decayed). If you want to find out more about pre- Human days outside of the creation, you'll need to research the hierarchy of angels, and how they came to be -- slightly taboo talk in this day and age.

cody/mccollaum

November 6th, 2006, 10:27 pm

leonheart

November 7th, 2006, 12:34 am

Does the Bible talk about when the devil was cast to the earth, and where at? I haven't been stud[y]ing lat[e]ly [and] I know [a lot] on scrip[t]ures

It's in Revelation chapter 12: This talks about the war in heaven.

Neko Koneko

November 7th, 2006, 08:08 am

sir jaso, Why is it so hard to belive 1 day one Earth is 1,000 years in heaven? For God created time and God is time I belive. Do you know any thing about spiritual gifrs? If not look up Zech.4:6, Acts 1:8;6:8.
their are diversitys of gifts, dont belive me turn to 1 Corinthians 12:4-11.
If any one has any Questions I will try to search them up and give you an answer.

Even if so, who told you that 1 Earth day is 1000 years in heaven? (Damn, heaven must be so boring x_x )

And on top of that, do you have any proof? Oh wait, Christians never have proof for what they say, sorry, forgot about that one XD

meim

November 7th, 2006, 11:18 am

It won't be boring, maybe everyone in heaven moves really slow. They say one word a day.

Noir7

November 7th, 2006, 04:49 pm

Like those treants in LOTR?

Anyway, another thought. I don't know much about the bible, but what is mentioned about the rest of the universe? There are countless of other planets and galaxies, stars and whatnot -- did God create those too? Or did he simply create Earth?

Celeste©

November 7th, 2006, 04:59 pm

cody/mccollaum

November 7th, 2006, 07:02 pm

Even if so, who told you that 1 Earth day is 1000 years in heaven? (Damn, heaven must be so boring x_x )

And on top of that, do you have any proof? Oh wait, Christians never have proof for what they say, sorry, forgot about that one XD

No one told me I read it in the bible some where. Heaven isn't boring because it's never silent everything is in counstaint motion thats what I read and others have told me. Don't belive everything yuo hear about God or his word Because their is a lot of false witnesses out their just read and search for the ansers in a concordance of a bible.:lol:

Toshihiko

November 7th, 2006, 07:06 pm

If you speak to god it is called prayer, if he speaks to you it is schizophrenia

cody/mccollaum

November 7th, 2006, 07:12 pm

what is schizophrenia?
we just call it a message from the lord( I don't get affended be anything so feel free to talk.)

Jaso

November 7th, 2006, 08:04 pm

Oh, well now that we have permission... <_<

Oh, and you seriously need to invest in some grammar lessons. We corrected your paragraph last time but I think every one of your posts has been flawed in some way...

what is schizophrenia?
we just call it a message from the lord( I don't get affended be anything so feel free to talk.)

- All sentences start with a capital letter and end in a form of final punctuation (. ! ? ... : :-).

- Names are proper nouns. Use capital letters when using these words. I am Jaso, not "jaso". Respect other people by attaining their status worthy of recognition as a proper noun.

- You do not put a full stop within a parenthial pair of brackets. You put the full stop (or "period") after the brackets.

Here is an example of how to implement these rules.

I bought a manga book today, and it is in perfect condition (except for a smudge on the cover). I think that my brother, Isaac, smudged it when he picked it up from the book shop for me.

Class dismissed.

cody/mccollaum

November 7th, 2006, 08:25 pm

okay, I will start using proper grammer.But this post is meant to talk about religion you could of pm me this stuff.

Asuka

November 7th, 2006, 08:37 pm

Thats one of the reasons why I do not beleive in only one god. Well, there soo many things in the religion thats just plain stupid it's pathetic... like for an example the religion (in some) says that people can't kill other people, that same sex relationships aren't suppose to exist, that sex shouldn't happen before marriage, that suicide condemns one in hell ect... but if "God" created us to be this way, why isn't in okay for us to do so? If you pogram a robot to do something it will do the exact same thing as it's suppose to do, not reble.

God created us to worship him, but not because god told us to, but because he wants us to want to worship him. He could have programmed us like robots, but instead he gave us free will to do what we pleased.

Also, if you would please refrain from saying things in my religion are "just plain stupid", I find it offensive because chances are you are probably just ignorant of its meaning and instead of trying to understand it you just blatantly cast it aside as stupid and below you. Please keep those comments to yourself, thank you. This is a topic about debating religion, not flaming it. As you said so yourself
People reject things they don't know or beleive and I'm not ready to have my beleifs rejected severly. I respect your beliefs, please respect mine.

Celeste©

November 8th, 2006, 04:29 am

God created us to worship him, but not because god told us to, but because he wants us to want to worship him. He could have programmed us like robots, but instead he gave us free will to do what we pleased.

Also, if you would please refrain from saying things in my religion are "just plain stupid", I find it offensive because chances are you are probably just ignorant of its meaning and instead of trying to understand it you just blatantly cast it aside as stupid and below you. Please keep those comments to yourself, thank you. This is a topic about debating religion, not flaming it. As you said so yourself I respect your beliefs, please respect mine.

I'll excuse myself for what I've said, but I do beleive it is. Even I think my own is stupid it makes no sense it's not proovable it is debatable but we'll never know what we worship and whats the point of it all. Is it only a waste of time? Where does it lead to? Why do we never get answers? I think my religion is stupid why wouldn't you think the same about yours. Theres nothing thats prooven. And I'm just here to converse my comments are mine alone I would keep them to myself but that would mean that I won't be writing this down right now. But, you've got to note that I didn't say the religion is stupid. Things are, and don't tell me that you follow everything in there at the lettre cause if you do then I'll be fully sorry but I simply said some things which I think is true and that alot of people would agree with me on that.

Thank you for the comment,
If you've got more to say please PM me we'll talk there.
Cel.

November 8th, 2006, 05:05 am

And where does he say that? Or were you just trying to be funny?

Don't know really. Jesus told me in my dream :shifty:

Neko Koneko

November 8th, 2006, 10:17 am

Noe one told me I read it in the bible some where. Heaven isn't boring because it's never silent everything is in counstaint motion thats what I read and others have told me. Don't belive everything yuo hear about God or his word Because their is a lot of false witnesses out their just read and search for the ansers in a concordance of a bible.:lol:

You warn me about unreliable sources and you get your info from other people and a 2000 year old book that was written by people? And who says the bible is right?

A Dutch Comedian once said this:
Christians always claim that when they say something it's true because "it has been written". That's why I carry a little booklet in which I've written "there is no God." So when I meet a Christian and we get into a discussion and he'll say "What I say is true because it's written" I show him the booklet and say: "Oh, that's funny cos here it says..."

cody/mccollaum

November 8th, 2006, 01:31 pm

You warn me about unreliable sources and you get your info from other people and a 2000 year old book that was written by people? And who says the bible is right?

A Dutch Comedian once said this:
Christians always claim that when they say something it's true because "it has been written". That's why I carry a little booklet in which I've written "there is no God." So when I meet a Christian and we get into a discussion and he'll say "What I say is true because it's written" I show him the booklet and say: "Oh, that's funny cos here it says..."

Okay i fthe Bible is false how come we have found Noah's ark, ark of the cubnate, Psalms 23 in the desert, or even the Egyptian army in the river were they got swollowed up by the sea I done some studing last night. What about you?:)

Dark Bring

November 8th, 2006, 01:42 pm

Okay if the Bible is false how come we have found Noah's ark, ark of the cubnate, Psalms 23 in the desert, or even the Egyptian army in the river were they got swallowed up by the sea I done some studying last night. What about you?:)Please provide us with some internet links to the materials which back up your claims.

P.S. I heard that some geologists discovered a huge underground cavity in Japan, and they reckon from their ultrasound readings that if it was emptied of all the sand and silt and muck, the cavity is actually a massive hollow sphere!

cody/mccollaum

November 8th, 2006, 01:49 pm

I will give me some time though.
I agree with Asuka on the whole faith part. You just need more of an open mind or something like that. You can't see air, But you can see the effects,does that mean their is no such thing is air? No.
You can't see God, but you can see his effects.I understand where all of you are coming from I use to be just like you. Until... I gave up in trying to understand and started to belive in God.
Pm me if you have any more radical questions I will try to give you some answers.

Asuka

November 8th, 2006, 04:32 pm

I'll excuse myself for what I've said, but I do beleive it is. Even I think my own is stupid it makes no sense it's not proovable it is debatable but we'll never know what we worship and whats the point of it all. Is it only a waste of time? Where does it lead to? Why do we never get answers? I think my religion is stupid why wouldn't you think the same about yours. Theres nothing thats prooven. And I'm just here to converse my comments are mine alone I would keep them to myself but that would mean that I won't be writing this down right now. But, you've got to note that I didn't say the religion is stupid. Things are, and don't tell me that you follow everything in there at the lettre cause if you do then I'll be fully sorry but I simply said some things which I think is true and that alot of people would agree with me on that.

Thank you for the comment,
If you've got more to say please PM me we'll talk there.
Cel.

Things in my religion are not stupid, things in any religion are not stupid. Just because they are not understood or proven doesnt mean they are stupid. Religion is based on faith, you shouldn't have to have it be proven to believe in it.

Neko Koneko

November 8th, 2006, 04:44 pm

I will give me some time though.

I other words, you're talking kaka.

cody/mccollaum

November 8th, 2006, 05:42 pm

NO what is your problem just have faith in God its so easy you don't have to under stand everything. I found some stuff about earlier at www.bible.com
just look for current events.

Asuka

November 8th, 2006, 06:00 pm

This isn't a thread for converting.

cody/mccollaum

November 8th, 2006, 07:05 pm

This isn't a thread for converting.

Yes, your right this thread is to talk about religion not converting others. Just one Question. Why do none belivers in any religion have a hard time making a dission? Theirs only one way to heaven and that is to ask jesus in your heart. Some people say through the blood of jesus though.
:think:

Jaso

November 8th, 2006, 07:17 pm

Yes, your right this thread is to talk about religion not converting others. Just one Question. Why do none belivers in any religion have a hard time making a dission? Theirs only one way to heaven and that is to ask jesus in your heart. Some people say through the blood of jesus though.
:think:

First of all, what is a dission?

Second - Even being a Catholic, I have to condemn what you just said. Why do "non-believers" (use Atheist please) have a hard time making a [decision]? Because, if making a decision then they will have to consider many things. You don't just go onto the internet and say:

"Hmm... well, Judaism is quite popular at the moment... lets go with that!"

They have to consider what traditions and ground morales suit them. Basically, all world religions have the same morals: These all result in the ideal world. No killing, stealing or raping.

Also, you do not know anything of heaven. You do not know the mechanics of heaven nor do you even know if it exists. Nobody does. You beleive it exists. As do I. But it is the job of neither of us to tell people to

"ask [Jesus] into your heart".

They will do so if they feel they want to. Many don't even believe in Jesus. What happens to them? Are they all sent to Hell? No, for God is willing to forgive. Personally, I don't see what there needs to be forgiven, but that is what scripture interpretation says.

If you don't even beleive in Heaven, Hell or God thats fine too. I'm sure that you will find inner peace. ^_^

N.B. And if you are a Christian, at least have the decency to spell Jesus with a capital letter. It's a name! <_<

cody/mccollaum

November 8th, 2006, 07:23 pm

Jaso

November 8th, 2006, 07:27 pm

HanTony

November 8th, 2006, 07:29 pm

^ you are only as condemned as you feeling guilty.

cody/mccollaum

November 8th, 2006, 07:42 pm

^ you are only as condemned as you feeling guilty.

I agree with you.

And so what have been trying to increase my speed while improving my spelling and grammer thats all.Sir Jaso you misspelled please
responding you
Yes if they don't convert. I do follow the Bible rules and do my bet to abide by it. You can't live off one scripture for long you have to be prestistant with the word of God.

Asuka

November 8th, 2006, 07:50 pm

Well Sir Jaso, In the bible it talks abuot heaven in Matt. 6:20; luke 10:20;john 14:2-3
Is called faith where is yours?
Your wrong because befor Jesus acended into heaven he told the deciples to teach the gossiple to every nation starting there.People need to know the truth or their damned.
So are you going to reply or what? I am Curious what you have to say.

Dude, he stated he was catholic. He believes in that stuff, why are you accusing him of not when all he is trying to do is get the point across to you that we don't need people like you comming here and judging everyone. God said to spread the word, but for our sake, please don't preach here. If somebody really wanted to convert to a religion, they sure as hell won't start here, nobody here is interested in converting to a religion, if somebody is, do yourself a favor and start somewhere better than here.

Moving On

@Celestec, I'm curious as to what in my religion (christianity) you find "Just plain stupid".

cody/mccollaum

November 8th, 2006, 07:56 pm

I agree with you.

And so what have been trying to increase my speed while improving my spelling and grammer thats all.Sir Jaso you misspelled please
responding you
Yes if they don't convert. I do follow the Bible rules and do my bet to abide by it. You can't live off one scripture for long you have to be prestistant with the word of God.

Dude, he stated he was catholic. He believes in that stuff, why are you accusing him of not when all he is trying to do is get the point across to you that we don't need people like you comming here and judging everyone. God said to spread the word, but for our sake, please don't preach here. If somebody really wanted to convert to a religion, they sure as hell won't start here, nobody here is interested in converting to a religion, if somebody is, do yourself a favor and start somewhere better than here.

Moving On

@Celestec, I'm curious as to what in my religion (christianity) you find "Just plain stupid".

You all took it in the wrong way I am not trying to convert anyone besides that was my dad just on here he typed that above. I just want to know what you all belive in I don't care if your any religion or not. And I was Catholic to I am fimiliar what they belive in, I'm not stupid.

Asuka

November 8th, 2006, 08:02 pm

I believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

cody/mccollaum

November 8th, 2006, 08:09 pm

Wow I am impressed with you So do I. And every thing your wrote that I read is so very true.

Neko Koneko

November 8th, 2006, 08:36 pm

No, you think it's true because it's your faith. A Muslim or Atheist won't think it's true at all.

Asuka

November 8th, 2006, 08:39 pm

Of course, nobody is denying(sp?) that are they?

November 8th, 2006, 08:50 pm

I love it when Christians say you just need to have faith and you'll believe in God.

To clarify exactly what faith is...

Main Entry: faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
synonym see BELIEF
- on faith : without question <took everything he said on faith>.1 (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=faith)

In other words, the concept of faith is a believe in something that may or may not exist... Thus you have confidence in something that may or may not exist. I know that I cannot have faith in something that is so unsteady as God, but I do know that there are others out there that do have faith in Christianity and God.

I can't put it to words very well, but I think that "having faith" only hurts whatever effects a believer wants to convey when explaining things in relation to Christian thought. Mainly because we, those that do not believe in Christianity think that that faith is exactly what blinds someone else of the truth. Adam and Eve did ingest of the Tree of Knowledge, therefore why exactly do we want to be blinded of the truth again?

Celeste©

November 8th, 2006, 08:51 pm

Things in my religion are not stupid, things in any religion are not stupid. Just because they are not understood or proven doesnt mean they are stupid. Religion is based on faith, you shouldn't have to have it be proven to believe in it.

ok... I hope you know what i mena at least. This ends here.

HanTony

November 8th, 2006, 08:53 pm

my faith is with science, but even that is theories and predictions. lol.

Neko Koneko

November 8th, 2006, 10:01 pm

Of course, nobody is denying(sp?) that are they?

Well, he made it sound like he was.

Hiei

November 8th, 2006, 10:56 pm

And what about Bhuddists? They thank no God. They worship no-one. But the nicest people that I have met have been Bhuddists. Are they condemned?

Your being too ambiguous. Some buddhists do believe in a god (not exactly god itself, but they recognize buddha as their major icon.)

To further decrypt buddhism, there are many subtypes of buddhism with different philosophies and different ideals.

Buddhism is not one religion; it breaks into subcategories which alltoghether defines buddhism as a whole.

ME411

November 9th, 2006, 12:05 am

isn't catholicism a sect of Christianity? the only difference (i think) is that one of them believes in saints

November 9th, 2006, 12:08 am

Pleas proof-read your posts. You have not made ONE post without mispelling a thing.

In response to that post:

I know. I have studied The Bible. But guess what? Not everyone follows The Bible! In fact, a minority of the world do! What about Jews? They follow the Tohra[h] [sp?]. Do we ignore that? And what about Bhuddists? They thank no God. They worship no-one. But the nicest people that I have met have been Bhuddists. Are they condemned?

By George, is a persons character is measured by his spelling, then were both very low.

The oldest and the ways of the Buddha stated there was no god though. There were, how ever, higher spirits, though a giant majority of those that Buddha spoke of could have been part of his story tellings. Personally, if I had to go Buddhist, I would go the Theravada way because its less spiritual based then the other sects.

M, its a bit annoying when you toss around dictonary meanings to words. I'm on your side, but its just words. One cannot describe many things and words meanings on everyday means sometimes have different meanings from the "official" ones. Its like describing color or taste to the blind or tasteless [?].

Dark Bring

November 9th, 2006, 12:52 am

M, its a bit annoying when you toss around dictonary meanings to words. I'm on your side, but its just words. One cannot describe many things and words meanings on everyday means sometimes have different meanings from the "official" ones. Its like describing color or taste to the blind or tasteless [?].That's only because you have a limited vocabulary, and without that, you will not be able to delicately manipulate a language to accurately express the subtle nuances of your opinions or emotions. Observe M's finesse in expressing himself, like a surgeon wielding the scalpel with precision and with efficiency. However, that comes not without years of practicing. Then, there are those who crudely use languages as one would swing a club or chop with a cleaver, and more often than not their frustrated attempts to convey the whirling turmoil of emotions within them terminate in an abrupt and primitive "Fuck you!". It is almost like the blind or the tasteless trying to describe colors or flavors.

Hiei

November 9th, 2006, 03:52 am

Personally, if I had to go Buddhist, I would go the Theravada way because its less spiritual based then the other sects.

The Theravada way? Is that the one where one should chase his/her desires and dreams and never give up? (part of it.)

leonheart

November 9th, 2006, 04:05 am

Pleas[e] proof-read your posts. You have not made ONE post without mis[s]pelling a thing.

In response to that post:

I know [becuase] I have studied The Bible(fragmented sentence)(don't open a sentense with "but")[,] [b]ut guess what? Not everyone follows The Bible! In fact, [only] a minority of the world [does]! What about Jews? They follow the [Torah]. Do we ignore that? And what about [Buddhists]? They thank no God [and] [t]hey worship no-one[,] [b]ut the nicest people that I have met have been Bhuddists. Are they condemned?

-.- maybe you should proof read your posts too? i don't see you making any perfect posts with no spelling/grammatical errors. i'll correct this post of yours seeing how you like to correct others. and don't for a second think i'm saying i can ;) and i don't care my posts have grammatical errors i'm just showing you your's isn't perfect.

And what about [Buddhists]? They thank no God [and] [t]hey worship no-one
this is false for Buddhists worship and thank Buddha(s)

EDIT: haha i just noticed RD already mentioned it -.- i should learn to read more carefully

Neko Koneko

November 9th, 2006, 03:34 pm

Your being too ambiguous. Some buddhists do believe in a god (not exactly god itself, but they recognize buddha as their major icon.)

Buddha isn't a God and he was once alive.

cody/mccollaum

November 9th, 2006, 05:42 pm

-.- maybe you should proof read your posts too? i don't see you making any perfect posts with no spelling/grammatical errors. i'll correct this post of yours seeing how you like to correct others. and don't for a second think i'm saying i can ;) and i don't care my posts have grammatical errors i'm just showing you your's isn't perfect.

this is false for Buddhists worship and thank Buddha(s)

EDIT: haha i just noticed RD already mentioned it -.- i should learn to read more carefully

I so thank you very much for doing that.
If anyone knows what Asian people beleif in can some one fill me in?

Jaso

November 9th, 2006, 05:56 pm

You all took it in the wrong way I am not trying to convert anyone besides that was my dad just on here he typed that above. I just want to know what you all belive in I don't care if your any religion or not. And I was Catholic to I am fimiliar what they belive in, I'm not stupid.

Your dad? I may beleive in Christ, but not any of your games. Cody, it was you and do not lie. If you aren't stupid, how come you can't construct a simple sentence? And so what if I spelt "please" wrong? That was one word out of 1000. Don't be a hypocrite.

If you aren't trying to convert, why do you keep preaching about the "only" way to get to heaven? It is rubbish. And we are getting tired of your acts. Oh, and I would have assumed your father could spell better than you. If that was your father, which I know it wasn't, then I strongly suggest that he

A. Stops logging on to his childs account and talks to children and...

B. Go to school. You cannot even get a basic job without basic literacy skills.

Oh, and thanks for the back-up Asuka ^_^.

Neko Koneko

November 9th, 2006, 06:27 pm

People like Cody wreck religion threads. So Cody, please don't post anymore, I now see where the other religion threads went wrong.

Jaso

November 9th, 2006, 07:04 pm

Neko Koneko

November 9th, 2006, 07:19 pm

^_^ Thanks Angelic ^_^

Anyway, I have been learning about Islam. I actually found that it is quite similar to Christianity (or vice versa). I think that it really doesn't matter what your religion is, as they all have the same base morales.

Islam is based on Christianity, actually. Muhammed based Islam upon stories he heard from Christians he had met.

Jaso

November 9th, 2006, 07:24 pm

...really?

November 10th, 2006, 06:11 am

The Theravada way? Is that the one where one should chase his/her desires and dreams and never give up? (part of it.)

Maybe, but not from what I have heard. Theravada is just finding inner peace [no matter how dumb that sounds]. Its based on the principles of Buddha's teachings, such as to end suffering you must limit your physical belongings for there is always somethings better, and to want more causes suffering. Stuff that are more thought out then blunt.

-.- maybe you should proof read your posts too? i don't see you making any perfect posts with no spelling/grammatical errors. i'll correct this post of yours seeing how you like to correct others. and don't for a second think i'm saying i can ;) and i don't care my posts have grammatical errors i'm just showing you your's isn't perfect.

this is false for Buddhists worship and thank Buddha(s)

EDIT: haha i just noticed RD already mentioned it -.- i should learn to read more carefully

Partially true. Some people worship the Buddha [I say the Buddha because the great one, Siddhartha Gautama, is the greater of the Buddhas] like a god, but he himself said he is no god and that we should worship ourselves and his teachings.

Theres a difference between icon and god. Then when you get into Buddhism theres a difference between Buddhistava, Devity[deity], Spirit and Buddha.

That's only because you have a limited vocabulary, and without that, you will not be able to delicately manipulate a language to accurately express the subtle nuances of your opinions or emotions. Observe M's finesse in expressing himself, like a surgeon wielding the scalpel with precision and with efficiency. However, that comes not without years of practicing. Then, there are those who crudely use languages as one would swing a club or chop with a cleaver, and more often than not their frustrated attempts to convey the whirling turmoil of emotions within them terminate in an abrupt and primitive "Fuck you!". It is almost like the blind or the tasteless trying to describe colors or flavors.

I agree with you.

Nightmare

November 10th, 2006, 12:31 pm

Yesterday I learned that 1 Earth day to God is a 1,000 Years in Heaven.

I don't know where you learned that, but it is incorrect. For a day on earth to be 1000 years in heaven implies that time actually exists in heaven. This is simply untrue, because heaven has and will exist for eternity. Where did you hear this false information?

Okay i fthe Bible is false how come we have found Noah's ark, ark of the cubnate, Psalms 23 in the desert, or even the Egyptian army in the river were they got swollowed up by the sea I done some studing last night. What about you?

There have been so many claims that we "found Noah's ark". Why should we take it for real? People claim that, give us all this "evidence", and then we later find out it's simply untrue. You need to give us your sources. You can't expect to get anywhere in a debate if you say "we have this evidence" and you aren't able to show the evidence. So what about us? Well, your failure to give us sources works in our favor.

You can't see air, But you can see the effects,does that mean their is no such thing is air

You see, while we can't see the air, we can still physically feel the air. We can hear it rustle against objects and trees. We know it has mass, for when we blow up a balloon, it has weight. Your god yet has to appear before anyone in regards to any of their senses, so why should we believe in it? There is no credible evidence for your god, yet there are mountains of evidence for air.

Until... I gave up in trying to understand and started to belive in God.

In other words, you gave up attempting to rationalize and decide to follow something that was not rational. Didn't God give you a brain to think with? If you aren't using it, aren't you demeaning God? Why would you try to follow something that makes no sense? This is why I will not become a Christian-Christianity attempts to shut off your brain so that you may follow the religion. People like you encouraging me to not think don't help.

Theirs only one way to heaven and that is to ask jesus in your heart.

Do you believe God is omnipotent? If so, why isn't God able to let us into heaven without Jesus?

believe in Jesus. What happens to them? Are they all sent to Hell? No, for God is willing to forgive.

Wrong. The bible explicitly states that non-believers go to Hell. God may forgive, but if you die a non-believer, you are going to Hell.

Jaso

November 10th, 2006, 01:15 pm

THat story was misenterpreted and was not of a literal meaning.

Nightmare

November 10th, 2006, 02:13 pm

I'm not quite following you. You just claimed that non-believers could still go to heaven. What story was misinterpreted and not of literal meaning, and what does that have to do with non-believers going to Hell?

cody/mccollaum

November 10th, 2006, 05:37 pm

Nightmare I read it in a book about time and heaven.

Neko Koneko

November 10th, 2006, 05:53 pm

And you blindly assume that book, written by a human being who's never seen heaven with his own eyes, is correct?

musicangel820

November 10th, 2006, 06:05 pm

I think they're talking about a part of the bible that says that to God a day is like a thousand years and a thousand eyars is like one day, which from my understanding just means that time is meaningless to God..

cody/mccollaum

November 10th, 2006, 06:46 pm

Basicly Yes time is meaningless to God.

Jaso

November 10th, 2006, 07:02 pm

Cody, we passed that topic ages ago; thats why you can't post on this Religion thread - Angelic said no!

cody/mccollaum

November 10th, 2006, 07:33 pm

Okay, then what is the new topic?

Neko Koneko

November 10th, 2006, 08:26 pm

Cody, you were asked before not to participate in this topic anymore.

HanTony

November 10th, 2006, 08:30 pm

Cody seems the most religious person using this sight so its only fair that he should be alloud to defend his religion. shame on you all.

Asuka

November 10th, 2006, 08:39 pm

November 10th, 2006, 09:24 pm

Cody seems the most religious person using this sight so its only fair that he should be alloud to defend his religion. shame on you all.

I, too, doubt that statement. Cody seems to be more along the lines of a 12 year old that doesn't have a firm standing on social logic yet.

----

The bible like to contradict itself, now doesn't it.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%2012:7;&version=31;) So everyone shall go to God in the end.
John 5:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%205:28-30;&version=31;) So only those that are good go to God in the end. All others are condemned.
Psalm 115: 17,18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20115%20:17-18;&version=31;) So only those that praise God go to heaven, and others go to hell.

Also Acts 2: 29, 34 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:%2029-34;&version=31;) reference that you enter limbo until the third coming of God, as foretold.

Toshihiko

November 10th, 2006, 10:18 pm

C'mon you guys let's not start flaming...

M Leave the kid alone, naive thoughts breed the most determined religious devotees. Mostly because ignorance is easy to manipulate... but eh...

musicangel820

November 11th, 2006, 01:42 am

I find that hard to believe HanTony considering he doesn't even know very much about it. He couldn't even recognize the Nicene Creed and was utterly amazed when I posted it. So Cody, please do not post in this topic, there are plenty of other Christians who have more knowledge of it and are able to post more mature responses that state sources.

@Sir Jaso, No non-believers can enter heaven. The bible clearly states that if a man does not accept god on earth, God will not accept him into heaven.
The Nicene Creed is some catholic thing, its supposed to be like a summary of what catholics believe in but there's some stuff in there that might not be exactly true, like the line that says the catholic church is the true church, and a lot of people (rightfully so) disagree with catholicism... Protestants would probably laugh at it if they read it (and so would people who have actually read the bible)

And non-believers can enter heaven on a technicality. Like if you die 5 seconds after you're born, you'd go to heaven. I think a good way to put it is that you're judged based on what you know, and you only get punished is you willingly reject God. So if you live in antartica and have never heard of any kind of religion God wont hold you responsible

@M: Read the end of the Ecclesiastes chapter
Line 14: For God will bring every deed into judgment,
including every hidden thing,
whether it is good or evil.

Everyone goes to God to be judged. Like, if you're on trial you don't sit at home and have the judge call you with the verdict, you're actually in the courtroom. It doesn't say everyone stays with God.

Dark Bring

November 11th, 2006, 01:02 pm

The Nicene Creed is some catholic thing, its supposed to be like a summary of what catholics believe in but there's some stuff in there that might not be exactly true, like the line that says the catholic church is the true church, and a lot of people (rightfully so) disagree with catholicism... Protestants would probably laugh at it if they read it (and so would people who have actually read the bible)Oh, really? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed)

And non-believers can enter heaven on a technicality. Like if you die 5 seconds after you're born, you'd go to heaven. I think a good way to put it is that you're judged based on what you know, and you only get punished is you willingly reject God. So if you live in antartica and have never heard of any kind of religion God wont hold you responsibleWhat about the other good Muslims and Buddhists who've heard of your Christian God, but decided to reject Him in favour of their own religious idols? They go to Hell, right?

@M: Read the end of the Ecclesiastes chapter
Line 14: For God will bring every deed into judgment,
including every hidden thing,
whether it is good or evil.

Everyone goes to God to be judged. Like, if you're on trial you don't sit at home and have the judge call you with the verdict, you're actually in the courtroom. It doesn't say everyone stays with God.Your quotation is pointless. Why? Because even if God "will bring every deed into judgment", a non-believer will still go to Hell. I've never heard of the Christian God pardoning any non-believers that has explicitly rejected him. If there are any such precedents, do enlighten us.

leonheart

November 11th, 2006, 04:27 pm

Your quotation is pointless. Why? Because even if God "will bring every deed into judgment", a non-believer will still go to Hell. I've never heard of the Christian God pardoning any non-believers that has explicitly rejected him. If there are any such precedents, do enlighten us.

I don't quite understand the part where you said "I've never heard of the Christian God pardoning any non-believers that has explicitly rejected him. If there are any such precedents, do enlighten us" I don't think you are able to "hear of" something like that, its not like when someone dies they come back and tell people all about their trip to hell/heaven @_@

Dark Bring

November 11th, 2006, 05:06 pm

I don't quite understand the part where you said "I've never heard of the Christian God pardoning any non-believers that has explicitly rejected him. If there are any such precedents, do enlighten us" I don't think you are able to "hear of" something like that, its not like when someone dies they come back and tell people all about their trip to hell/heaven @_@Heh, so tell me, how does the Christians/Muslims/Buddhists know that people go to Hell or Heaven after they die?

leonheart

November 11th, 2006, 05:46 pm

Thats just where they believe they will go when they die, and for the people of that religion they'll think themselves to be right.

C0Y0TE

November 11th, 2006, 07:10 pm

Heh, so tell me, how does the Christians/Muslims/Buddhists know that people go to Hell or Heaven after they die?

We don't. Admittedly most of of our religions are based on a set of ideas set forth by a prominent religious figure (Muhammed, Christ, Siddhartha Guatama). Truth be told, we build beliefs on these ideas and no one can tell you for sure whether you have been moral or immoral. In fact, I have noticed Catholic funeral rites are quite vague in stating a person's moral standing after they died.

Both convicted murderers and charitable individuals have the same rites, because we trully can't tell you if the murderer is damned or kind man saved. Religions can give you an idea of your moral standing, but its only God's, Allah or you own righteous soul's place to examine your actions and judge you accordingly.

Dark Bring

November 13th, 2006, 02:22 am

We don't.Exactly. However, my original point was that there are no official claims of people of another religion being pardoned by the Christian God, which was a reply to musicangel820's post above.

Paradox

November 13th, 2006, 08:20 pm

I don't really get much into this topic because I really don't like to get flamed or to flame others, but I have to post a very good quote I found.

"We are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -S. Roberts

Neko Koneko

November 13th, 2006, 08:43 pm

"We are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -S. Roberts

*quotes in signature* thanks for that one.

Hiei

November 14th, 2006, 12:06 am

Buddha isn't a God and he was once alive.

Sorry, I probably stated my idea the wrong way.

I do agree that Buddha was once alive, I have never disagreed with that.

As for Buddha being a god, I didnt mean for it to be like that. What I meant, was that some forms of buddhism look upon Buddha as a symbol or icon, not really as a god (although some forms actually do consider Buddha a god. Take my grandparents for examle; they follow a certain form of Buddhism thats not like traditional Buddhism you hear universally. My grandmother prays to Buddha everyday and she discusses how in her certain sect of Buddhism they focus goals as their primary thing, where they shall let nothing stop their goals (as long as its good.) and that if one does bad deeds, Buddha would look upon them and judge them and deliver the equal punishment upon them through missed oppourtunities in life, or some result that equals their bad deed.)

C0Y0TE

November 15th, 2006, 12:52 pm

Exactly. However, my original point was that there are no official claims of people of another religion being pardoned by the Christian God, which was a reply to musicangel820's post above.

That is also true. The very first Commandent (of the Ten that have universally been accepted by most Christians) states that no man should have no other gods but Him. But what defines God, what sets Him apart from other gods? Are YHWH, Allah and God one in the same or different entities because of their name (they are the same) When Moses first met God, God referred to himself NOT BY WHAT HE IS CALLED, but instead BY WHAT HE DOES. "I am that which is","I am what saves", etc.

My point is the universal principle and actions that God has identified himself with can be seen in many other religions around the world. To deny God, I think, is to deny the love and beauty of this world to destructive tendencies. Therefore, I am in no place to say that Bhuddists, Hindu, various islander religions or any dicsiples of other religions are damned for all eternity.

November 22nd, 2006, 01:07 am

Now, if the Koran a retelling of the Old Testament, or is it just something off on its own?

Dark Bring

November 22nd, 2006, 12:32 pm

To deny God, I think, is to deny the love and beauty of this world to destructive tendencies.It is obvious that this is not true, unless you are saying that all who deny God embrace their destructive tendencies, because there are many people that reject God and embrace the love and beauty of this world.

Milchh

November 22nd, 2006, 02:04 pm

Hmm, reading through this last page :

Christians (being one myself) are mainly taught and given stories how to life THe life that leads to eternal life.

As an un-biast (sp?) researcher, I think the religions that don't have ties to Christianity are "corrupt" but I don't shun them. Sure, to us they have weird belifs--then again, so do we to them.

Also, doens't like Buddism and other religions kind of teach of how to live? Not mainly go to heaven? Just a simple question--and I don't need biast remarks or how it's the best religion. Keep those to yourself.

Neko Koneko

November 22nd, 2006, 02:13 pm

If you're a Christian then you can't be unbiased about religion.

Milchh

November 22nd, 2006, 02:27 pm

Orly?

In which ways? How? (Asking) - All Ears btw.

Neko Koneko

November 22nd, 2006, 02:55 pm

What's orly? =_=

And if you were raised in a Christian way, you can never look at other religions without comparing them to your own.

November 22nd, 2006, 03:02 pm

Orly?

In which ways? How? (Asking) - All Ears btw.

First Commandment.

"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments."

And there you have it. If you look to understand other religions, you violate the first rule of being a Christian, because to understand you need to actually practice other religions to understand them.

Milchh

November 22nd, 2006, 03:10 pm

Kay--but I see no fault in knowing their most basic thing. Like,

Buhhdism is about _____. That's it.

November 22nd, 2006, 03:36 pm

But that's not understanding a religion. That is just knowing about it.

Milchh

November 22nd, 2006, 03:38 pm

Well, nevermind then--you seem to keep stretching it out.

Dark Bring

November 22nd, 2006, 03:55 pm

Kay--but I see no fault in knowing their most basic thing. Like,

Buhhdism is about _____. That's it.So what's the most basic thing about Christianity?

Neko Koneko

November 22nd, 2006, 03:57 pm

Believe in God or you'll go to hell.

Jaso

November 22nd, 2006, 03:58 pm

Thats pretty much everything about Christianity

Celeste©

November 22nd, 2006, 04:08 pm

Until "God" shows his face I'll never beleive in him.

Milchh

November 22nd, 2006, 05:43 pm

Believe in God or you'll go to hell.

Even as a Christian, I think that's the most BASIC thing about it. :lol:

November 22nd, 2006, 07:24 pm

Back a while ago, I did a small research project on Religion in schools. Might as well post it in this thread.

Mies T. Rutle (obviously my assumed name)
Professor Stephanie Irwin
ENG 102-04
04 April 2006

A Sacred Teaching
http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/4387/humanistei1.png

In the darkness of Greek creation myth there is a bird with black wings, [Kaos]. This bird is making a golden egg from which the God of Love is coming. One of the shells from the egg becomes the sky, which is also called Uranus, while the other shell becomes the earth, Gaia. (qtd. in Birgersdotter and Vinnars par. 14)
Mythology has been taught in schools for many decades as a form of classical literature. Yet, religion has been a taboo for quite some time. A young Jeff Archer recalls his experience of prayer in school: “Their prayer differed from that of the Protestants, which added a line to the Catholic version. When the Catholics stopped, the few Protestants in the class would continue under skeptical eyes…” (par. 3). Religion both complements and determents learning in school caused by differences in opinions, and by the interpretation of open ended data.

Because of equality issues similar to the above, the United States Government decided to remove religion from schools in its entirety: McCollum v. Board of Education, 1948 (“Supreme” par. 4). While it did remove many of the controversies of the many different Sacred Practices this multicultural country has, it left a gaping hole in the teachings of religion. History books started to limit the amount of religious material down to one percent when you pass the 1750s (Nord par. 11); health and sex education completely omit any form of religion in sexuality, marriage, abortion and homosexuality; religious literature are completely avoided, with the soul exception of the Iliad and Odyssey; and teachers are afraid to even mention the horrid “R” word while in class. Needless to say, completely removing religion does not cure segregation like in Archer’s story; it merely shifts the weight to a different scale.

Ever since McCollum v. Board of Education in 1948, religion taught in schools has been an issue. She (McCollum) was an atheist mother that disliked the idea of having religion taught in public schools. By a 6-1 vote, the Supreme Court decided in favor of her. Religion was no longer a part of public schools. (“Supreme” par. 4)

After that case, a whole slew of cases were to follow; Engel v. Vitale, which led to the removal of prayer in government agencies; Abington Township School District v. Shempp, which banned bible verses and the Lord’s Prayer in schools; Board of Education v. Allen, which stopped government funding of private schools (targeting the Parochial ones); Epperson v. Arkansas, which prohibited the teaching of evolution buy right of the Establishment Clause and free exercise of religion; Lemon v. Kurtzman, which stopped all government assistance to religious schools; and quite a few others. (“Supreme” pars. 4-6)

By keeping religion and school separate, it respects the several diversities found in different religions (Doerr par. 4). One such issue is how the world was created. There are some people whom believe that it was done by the Higher Being. Others seem to think the world was born from a gigantic explosion. Yet another feels that Gaia, the spirit of the Earth, has always existed and there is no such thing as the beginning of time, just a point when human consciousness reached a point where things could be remembered. It would take a standard 9 week quarter just to teach but a fraction of all the different “beginnings”.

As for teaching religion, that is a difficult issue. The Supreme Court stated that it is a good idea to teach a fair, balanced, objective, neutral, academically correct method to religion; the issue is finding a teacher that educated efficiently as such. Very seldom do teachers have the knowledge to teach the basics of certain religions; even if found, the teacher would likely have some form of a religious preference. Textbooks are not readily available for student use—educators have yet to determine on exactly how to teach religion to a student. (Doerr pars. 11-17) Even if these issues are properly addressed, can all thirty-six major religions of the world be taught inside one class period? (“religion” par. 29).

Now, religion in schools is not just a bad thing. Many good things—things that a student can benefit from—could happen. First, would be to educate. Though the claims of how difficult it would be to implement are true, just think of how much a student would benefit from better understanding another’s viewpoint in religion. It offers a huge doorway to “reversal of positions” when talking to someone of a different religion. (Nord par. 20)

Another is to teach morals and values. Other than the social engineering done by parents to their offspring, religion offers a strong method for positive morals and values (Nord par. 20). Just look at any Holy Scripture and view it from a philosophical point of view. There is no slew between right and wrong, but the scriptures take great pains to explain what is right, and what is wrong (“religion” par. 35).

It is clear that the government is attempting to follow the separation of church and state principle, but the issues keep arising. Clear points are posed on both sides of the argument just like a see-saw; balancing back and forth upon one foci (the government) with agnostic on one end, and sacred people on the other. Even if the agnostic were to be removed, the many disputes between religions will remain. Holy Wars have been going on since the first time a quill hit a piece of parchment, why would it stop now?

So, who exactly is right? The two different positions are presented on the polar sides of interpretation (like the teaching of Religion in Schools; one says it’s very possible, the other says that it is not). Even so, they both address good points that make sense. By removing religion from school it gives positive attributes to desegregation. By adding religion to schools, it gives positive attributes to philosophy and humane practices. But until a decision is agreed upon by both sides, the question will remain unanswered.

Works Cited

Archer, Jeff. “School Prayers Are Unfair to Students”. Religion in America. William Dudley, Ed. Opposing Viewpoints Series. Greenhaven Press, 2002. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Mott Community Library. 4 April 2006. <http://galenet.galegroup.com/>.

Birgersdotter, Asa and Maris-Therese Nilsson Vinnars. “Myths”. 24 Sept. 1999. 1 April 2006 <home.swipnet.se/gabi/myths.htm>.

Doerr, Edd. “Public Schools Should Not Include More Religion in the Curriculum”. Religion in America. William Dudley, Ed. Opposing Viewpoints Series.

Greenhaven Press, 2002. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Mott Community Library. 4 April 2006 <http://galenet.galegroup.com/>.

Nord, Warren A. “Public Schools Should Include More Religion in the Curriculum”. Christian Century July 14-21 (1999). Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Mott Community Library. 4 April 2006 <http://galenet.galegroup.com/>.

"Religion." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 4 Apr 2006, 13:02 UTC. 5 Apr 2006, 04:42 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion&oldid=46918995>.

“Supreme Court Decisions on Religious Liberty”. About 4 Apirl 2006 <atheism.about.com/library/decisions/indexes/bl_l_SchoolsIndex.htm>.

methodx

November 27th, 2006, 12:14 am

I'm thinking that I am the first to have read all of that. And the funniest part is that M wrote a whole essay that I could actually understand. Guess I'm not so dumb after all.

Ah, where to begin. Well. First I'd like to state that 6-1 is a pretty impressive vote in my opinion. Anyhow, I suppose that by "teaching" you mean teaching them what religion is, rather than teaching them a religion. That would be silly. In that case, I still think completely removing religion from education is pretty irrational. Who's to say that people will segregate and discriminate against others if they merely know religion exists? It is a possibility, but, if taught in the correct manner, it shouldn't happen at all. Besides that, religion is a considerably important part of day to day life for many people around the world; as well as the basis for a lot of matters, events and issues around the world. Not teaching people about religion would make them so very blind to so many things. I'm sure we're not all intent on raising an blissfully ignorant society, because eventually reality's gonna hit them hard and they'll be at a loss.

crap. brain fart. must think harder and come back later.

Dark Bring

November 27th, 2006, 12:52 am

It is a possibility, but, if taught in the correct manner, it shouldn't happen at all.So tell us, how do you propose to teach about religion "in the correct manner"?

November 27th, 2006, 01:19 am

The whole issue with ``correct manner'' is that there isn't. Everyone views religion differently. What happens if a teacher lectures something slightly different from what parents view, and their child repeats it. Obviously the parents are going to correct the child, forcing their ideas on them, and then approach the teacher.

Think it similar to a person that refuses to go into a Catholic church where a female is at the head. Stupid, no? But there are quite a few old believers that think Women brought sin into the world and have no right to preach about religion. Conflict. You can even compare it to the Holy Knights of Ku Klux Klan, too. They were Christian based, yet they thought that (excuse the somewhat harsh word) colored skin was a sign of Satan.

The list goes on and on. This is why you don't see religion in (most) schools. If they can't serve even one religion properly, how can they equally distribute it amongst the several hundreds of religions out there.

methodx

November 27th, 2006, 10:34 pm

Ah yes, I suppose you are correct, now that I think about it clearly. I am beginning to resent my try at Devil's Advocate. It never really works out for me.
In religion there are strict followers and then their are followers thst aren't so strict. A good friend of mine is a prime example of a strict Christian. At one point, I had taken the oppurtunity to volunteer at a Buddhist temple, seeing that it would be the right thing for a good citizen to do. Not wanting to be lonely there, I tried to convince her to come with me. Then she absolutely-point-blank refused to come with me and/or enter a Buddhist temple. I find this silly. How is she disobeying her religion, merely by performing a good deed/ act of good citizenship at a Buddhist temple? It wasn't as if she was converting or anything, and wouldn't it be a show of exceptence and/or non-faith-as-an-ism? And then I recall an incident where she tried to convince me to come to her church and "introduce" me to the Lord; of which she disguised as a chance to come play Halo 2 with her church buddies. Silly it was.

Milchh

November 28th, 2006, 01:00 am

@M - I just hope that you don't tell others than Christianity are haters of the black-skinned people. They were extremeists (sp?) in that way of race.

November 28th, 2006, 01:22 am

Oh, not at all. I only used the KKK as an example of how different views of Christianity exist; similar -- I'm using that lightly -- to Al-Qaeda and Islam. Every religion has a chink in there history.

wired_LAIN

December 1st, 2006, 03:09 am

I'm an athiest, and I was wondering about the reasons why those of you who are religious believe in a god (With the exceptions of religions like Buddism, which is almost more of a philosophy than a religion).

Often when I ask religious people to prove to me that their "god" (or gods) exists, they turn the question back on me and say that I cant disprove the existance of a god. This, however, is not an argument for the existance of a god, because its equally impossible to disprove the existance of Flying spagehtti monsters, unicorns, or tooth faries. The inability to disprove a god provides no reason whatsover to believe in one.

So in my opinion, the believers of god must be able to prove the existance of a god if any rational human being is to be convinced that a god exists. I have never heard any solid logical reasons for why a god would exist, and so I do not believe in one.

Some of you may argue that religion can't be treated in such a rational manner, but that doesn't make sense to me. As an individual who is currently not alligned with any major religion, the only way for me to make a decision is through logic. How else am I supposed to decide? I can't just put every major religion on a roulette wheel and spin it.

I think the reason why so many people are so ardant about their beliefs is that they're brought up in religious families. I know many people who are firmly catholic, but guess what? If those people had been brought up in a muslim family, they would be muslim. If they were brought up in a hindu family, they would be hindu. It makes no sense to me that people often say things like "christian child" or "muslim child" because how is a child supposed to know anything about the universe and humanity's place in it? Maybe if more children were brought up in a non-religious enviorment and allowed to make their own decisions about what to believe in, then atheism would have more support than it does today. (70% of the US population would not vote for an atheist, and something like 60% believe that atheists have no morals)

leonheart

December 1st, 2006, 04:06 am

I was brought up in an Athiest family, but i became christian by choice. :mellow:

wired_LAIN

December 1st, 2006, 05:21 am

Would you mind sharing the reasons why you converted? That was my intended question (sorry if it got lost in my semi-rant towards the end :heh:

*edit* smily came out wrong

leonheart

December 1st, 2006, 10:30 pm

well i was just curious about that religion, and decided to try it. After attending church for a while i felt i can connect with i, i guess.

All the christian people i know seem to always be happier and live a fuller life than mostother people i know. They don't swear as much, their topic of discussion aren't always revolving around a girl's chest or whats in her pants, and they are just more friendly (IMO) than the majority of my non-christian friends.

*Note that was my observation before i became christian.
and my best friend is an Athiest

wired_LAIN

December 2nd, 2006, 02:29 am

Hmm.. I dunno. I had exactly the opposite experience. Most of the atheists I know are very intellegent and you can actually talk about a lot of interesting things and get great responses from them. And plus, if you're atheist, you dont believe in an afterlife, so you know that this is the one and only life you get. Thus I would think that that provides a lot of incentive to live life to the fullest, rather than believing that some sort of paradise awaits us after we die.

I think there are Christians (or Jews or Muslims or whatever) who have good personalities and those who have bad ones, and the same with atheists. I mean, there are always people who'll say stupid things, and I don't think that changes with the religion that you believe in. (Although imo, most Atheists tend to be more logical than religious people, for example, I'd say the largest group that makes up Atheists would be scientists and engineers)

You still haven't answered my question though. Just because Christians seem nicer than most people provides no reason to believe in a god. Maybe believing in a god makes some people happier, but that doesnt change the fact that there is no rational reason to believe in one.

December 2nd, 2006, 02:51 am

From a Humanist point of view:

Just like Greek Mythology, Religion exists to explain the unexplained. Most are horribly terrified of death, and wish it not to exist. To counteract that fear, humanity manifested an idea of the afterlife. Christian theory evolved aspects of the afterlife, and applied them into sociocultural settings that give a concept to life, maps on how you can go about that life, and constructed in story form to education and aid the task of remembering the large quantity of information.

People believe in Religion for hope and understanding. Religion exists because people wish it to, thus God exists because people wish him to exist.

People in the General Chat often hear me talk about Collective Unconscious and personal existence. The fact of the matter is that if someone thinks something exists, it does to that person. If several people believe something exists, then it becomes a theory. If everyone believes it exists, then it is law. Christians believe God exists, therefore S/He exists.

Christians label the belief of God as Faith. Faith is belief in something that is unfounded, undefined, or unable to prove. Maybe you've heard the phrase "If you have faith, God will help you". Collect these thoughts and you'll see that phrase is based purely on ''faith'' and ''hope''. It's up to you to define exactly what that means.

wired_LAIN

December 2nd, 2006, 03:03 am

If what you're saying is the only justification for the belief in a religion, than a logical person should not believe in any religion and the people who do are delusional. (note the IF. I'm still open to other arguements for religion)

This is illustrated through a very simple example: Lets say that theres a person who is in a hospital and will die soon because of a terminal illness. The person would gain hope and peace of mind if the doctor says that he'll live, but that doesn't change the fact that he will die.

Belief may provide hope and understanding, but that doesn't mean that its true. We shouldn't just believe in something because it comforts us.

As to your second point, I disagree.
<quote>The fact of the matter is that if someone thinks something exists, it does to that person. If several people believe something exists, then it becomes a theory. If everyone believes it exists, then it is law.</quote>

This is false. A theory must be based on evidance. It doesn't matter how many people believe in it. If there is no supporting evidance, then it is an unconvincing theory, and there is absolutely no reason why I should believe it. If everyone believes I am white, it doesn't change the fact that I am not white. It can be proven that I am not white by taking my skin pigment and analyzing it.

You say
<quote> Faith is belief in something that is unfounded, undefined, or unable to prove.</quote>

It makes no sense to believe in anything based entirely off of Faith (or at least your definition of it). If I tell you to believe in the Flying spaghetti monster, because of faith you would not be convinced. Where does this "faith" come from? Do I wake up one day and believe in god? I dont think so. I assume that most people have reasons why they believe in whatever religion they're in, and I'm interested in learning those reasons.

Finally, the burdon of proof is on the religous. As I said earlier, "you can't disprove the existance of god" is not an arguement for the existance of god. You say that Faith is belief in something that you are unable to prove. So why does a Christian believe in his God rather than the Zeus? The existance of the god of the Bible and Zeus is equally unprovable, so what is the reason that someone believes in one over the other?

December 2nd, 2006, 04:17 am

Especially when people gain comfort at the expense of millions of peoples lives.

LAIN, I think when M meant "it exist when one thinks so" it wasn't literal in the physical world, but true to the persons mind. Because God isn't as "physical" as death of a human, God can exist in your mind [thats why Buddha said everyone can be god :D]

leonheart

December 2nd, 2006, 04:55 am

You still haven't answered my question though. Just because Christians seem nicer than most people provides no reason to believe in a god. Maybe believing in a god makes some people happier, but that doesnt change the fact that there is no rational reason to believe in one.

I did answer the question. I converted because most of the christians i know all have a better personality than most athiests (at least in my area i guess) i want to see if i can improve mine too through it. (this is just a really vague answer i guess, i can't really explain the real reason i converted XD its hard to put into words)

So why does a Christian believe in his God rather than the Zeus? The existance of the god of the Bible and Zeus is equally unprovable, so what is the reason that someone believes in one over the other?
you can say the same about other religions: why doesn't Hindus believe in Zeus?

Every religion will believe in its own god, or else how can it be called a religion

wired_LAIN

December 2nd, 2006, 05:28 am

Right, I wasn't just talking about christians, I was talking about all religions. Thats my point. If faith is why people believe in god, than why would you believe in one god over another?

Toshihiko

December 2nd, 2006, 06:00 am

The Old Testament and the Koran share several important stories, tales that are essential to the central beliefs of both faiths, and yet members of these two faiths have had a lasting hatred that dates back to the formation of Islam in early seventh century, CE, and possibly even as far back as the story of Isaac and Ishmael. The differing ideologies of these two belief systems can be clearly seen in the differences between similar stories in the two major religious texts of these religions.

Although the basic plot lines and characters of these stories (specifically those of Moses/Musa, Noah/Nuh, and Abraham/Ibrahim) are similar, the point of view and even the major message of the texts varies, sometimes immensely. The major similarity between the works (and the one factor that separates both from Christian belief), is that the God of both texts is a cold, distant, absolute God. The constructive differences between the Old Testament and the Koran are the most easily noticeable separation of the texts, and no actual reading is required in order to see this. While the Old Testament is divided into more-or-less prose narrative, using the classic sentence/paragraph structure, or sometimes (as in the case of Psalms) into lengthy lyrical poetry, the Koran is set in a more poetic string of often only loosely related verse-statements that rapidly shift from subject to subject and from story to story.

This difference influences the styles of the works, as well. Aside from the double creation story in Genesis, the Old Testament generally only tells each story once, and the stories are organized into an (at least hypothetical) order of chronological basis. In the Koran, stories are often told in segments, which are mentioned in several different places and often only in passing. For instance, mention of Noah occurs in at least five separate surah (books) of the Koran: The Cattle, (6:84), The Holy Prophet (11:25, 32, 36, 42-48), The Children of Israel (17:3, 17), Marium (19:58), and Nuh (71:1, 21-26) but his story is never fully recounted. By contrast, Noah is only rarely mentioned after Genesis in the Old Testament, and in most cases, he is only mentioned in recounts of genealogies.

The Koran's lack of a total retelling of the story of Noah gives a clue to the world of the Koran. Mustafa is writing to a group of people already familiar with the tale. The Koran is addressed to a group of people already well-versed in the stories of the Old Testament. The same is true of the stories of Moses and of Abraham, although in all of these stories lies an underlying sense of the total failure of the Jews. In the Koran, the Jews are the cast-off, the once-favored race of God, who are no longer protected by his love. The Koran also contends that Abraham was not, in fact, a Jew at all, but a Muslim. (3:67) The favored son of Abraham is another discrepancy between the books; the Old Testament favors Isaac, while the Koran argues that Ishmael, being firstborn, is the favorite of Abraham.

The Koran was therefore a response to Jewish tradition by the other line of Abraham. Muslims claim to be descendants of Ishmael, and further claim that the Jews lost their place in God's eye by failing time and again to live up to his commands (these failures are a theme throughout the Old Testament). The stories of the Koran were intended to reawaken a sense of identity in the people of Ishmael, to recall them to the ways of God, and to reestablish a dynasty that had been lost in the two thousand years or so between Ishmael (~1600 BCE) and the writing of the Koran

compliments of abraham's ('http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Abraham's%20Favored%20Ones')

And coyote to say that god is love and beauty would in fact go against what he is. He is construed as everything good and bad, simply that in everything that he does is justified. god cultivates beauty in his morals, but is also the cause of a lot of suffering done in his name. You cannot see anything as only embodying good because perspective changes that, it's like glorifying hitler and making the world accept it

Edit: and M| If you're thinking about ever saying singular holiness in humanity I will kill you and myself >> lol