|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted December 14, 2011 02:24 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
They interpret the religious texts different, but that is not the fault of the religion but of the people. Because man (woman) is flawed, but men (women) are also individuals.
That is a very serious error in judgement. See, the nature of a religion is, that people have faith in it. However, what happens, if a Religion isn't CLEAR? If it CAN be interpreted? Worse, if it's not free of contradictions? IF IT'S NOT PREFECT?
Because religions CLAIM to be exactly that. THE TRUTH!
I have faith in Christ, not in Christianity. 
Anything can be interpreted and twisted. The Bible was written by the Spirit of God through people and you can only receive the proper interpretation of passages through revelation of the Spirit. All of the Bible is not meant for everyone, only for those "who have ears to hear." If you are a person who is hostile towards religion you are are not honestly a truth seeker and will not find the truth. There are other reasons for not understanding passages, such as a believer not yet being spiritually mature enough. A newborn babe in Christ must be suckled with milk for a while before he is ready for the meat.
Saying a religion is not true because someone can twist words to mean something else is one of the most preposterous things I have ever read. God communicated to mankind in human words and human words can be twisted by devious or ignorant people.
Quote:
Luk 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.
Quote:
4) Religions are based on FAITH.
Like atheism is. Particular like religious atheism, those who say there is no god and no religion is true without having the slightest bit of evidence for their claims.
Quote:
5) The flaw is, that each and every Religion claims to be true in an absolute way, but ISN'T - if it was there would be no contradiction and no room for error.
Based on that claim religion demand FAITHFUL (as in, blind trust), that is, ABSOLUTE followship.
Christianity does not demand blind faith. There is nothing blind about Christian faith. Read chapter 11 of the book of Hebrews please. Atheism does demand blind faith, I'll grant you that.
Quote:
A true believer KNOWS that what he believes is true.
I know certain things I believe are true. Like Jesus Christ is God. I know from my spiritual experiences with God certain things.
However, when you make the statement, "There is no god" or "no religion is true" there is absolutely NO way you can know either of those statements. You are making statements of faith while condemning religious people for doing the same.
Quote:
So I repeat - the error is the concept of religion.
No, the error is the false concept of religion that you preach.
Quote:
In other words: the time and countries when THE CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY (THE CHURCH) actually RULED compares quite well with the time and countries where COMMUNISM (THE PEOPLE'S PARTY) ruled.
Christianity has never ruled a nation. Christianity can't rule a nation because it is about an individual voluntarily submitting himself to the rule of God and being reborn. The New Testament is concerned with the kingdom of God, not any kingdom of man. Communism can be forced down your throat, Christianity can't be.
I would point out that everywhere communism has ruled there have been plentiful mass murders and people are generally treated like crap.
Quote:
Luk 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
Quote:
On first look Christianity is missing that. But only on first look. On second look, if you take a look at the philosophical aspect, it's the same, only the other way round: here the idea is to change the world starting on the individual and social level, which would lead to changes on the political and economical level by force, since people were different (better).
Wrong again. The Bible says the world system will not be saved, only the believers will be.
Quote:
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Quote:
BOTH used "agitators" to spread their truths.
There are no "agitators" in Christianity. There are preachers who preach the good news of Christ.
In atheism there are certainly a number of agitators, particularly in the anti-theism denomination.
Quote:
The irony is, that the actual utopias are not so much different from each other. The basic Christian idea, to love each other, would, enacted, ultimately lead to a society in which private property - material goods and gain - would have no value in any real sense. People would work for the pleasure of doing so, in lively communion and friendship with their neighbours, SHARING all material things, praising the Lord and His Glory and thankful for that everything turned out so well, while it would be the same thing in the ultimate classless society, everyone sharing everything, praising THEMSLVES because they MADE everything turn out so well. (Just as a note: These utopias are of course BOTH rather debatable, and the fact THAT they are, constituate a flaw already, and quite a significant one, so we don't need to discuss the utopias here).
Nah, Christianity has NOTHING in common with communism.
Christianity teaches that if a man will not work he should not be given food to eat. Everyone is to work and eat their own bread, not bread provided to them by the community. The Bible teaches that hard work leads to a profit and being a slacker leads to poverty. And of course, the Bible teaches charity, not welfare.
Quote:
2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
2Th 3:12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.
There's lots more comments I'd like to make but I simply don't have the time.
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 14, 2011 09:58 AM |
|
|
Bak allow me a last few words to close this:Quote:
@JJ
I don't think Marxism is trying to explain the world. Not by what I consider explaining the world, certainly.
I said it is based on a PHILOSOPHY, trying to exxplain "the world", that is, why the world is (or was) the way it was. Historical Materialism. Marxism as an ideology is basically a consequence of this explanation for why things are the way they are, and it's an understandable consequence as well.
I get the strange feeling that your background here is a bit lacking on factual info.
Quote:
Finally, you're mentioning the revolution. Of course you are, it's the key thing about communism. The great revolution. Everything's to happen after a revolution, an inherently violent and coercive medium, which would (and did) force people into a completely different way of life, declaring everything they and their families achieved null and void. My family survived one.
And there we are - personal experience. A lot of people have (had) rather stunning personal experiences with Christians and the differences between theory and practise as well. Not to mention the consequences of capitalism, not only in other not so lucky parts of the world, but even in their most advanced part. Guess how many people lost their home in the US when the last crisis hit, 4 years ago? Communism is young in comparison with Christianity, so its fresher. Still, there were times when the Christian belief was brought to the world with fire and sword. Peaceful? Not that I know of.
Let's not forget, that democracy has seen a rather bloody birth as well, on both sides of the Atlantic, but I see no one complaining about that one.
Quote:
All in all, I'm not sure I understand the correlation to Christianity. I'm not saying there's no philosophy in Marxism; I'm just calling it primitive, short-sighted and irresponsible, except for a few carefully selected excerpts that were used to help found moderate, democratic socialist principles.
And I'm saying there isn't much philosophy in Christianity either. Mvass named a couple of sucky things even in the new testament (the old is beyond sanity anyway). But even the main thing, the love thing, is, in my eyes rubbish. Make it RESPECT instead of love, and it might make sense. Or make it the other way round, what you DON'T want to be done to you, don't do that to anyone yourself.
But love thy neighbour like yourself? That's just not possible. Do you think it's happenstance that the actual doings of so many people calling themselves Christians, when overlaid with the yardstick of that commandment, sound more cynical than every phrase the communist leaders spat into the face of their peoples? They would even torture out of love for their neighbours, to save their souls, because they hate the sin, but love the sinner.
It's warped and twisted, and whoever says, that's human fault is a fool, because the failure is already in the theory: how can you command something that is impossible and against human nature and expect a different result? You CANNOT love everyone; if you love everyone, it will just mean that you have the same feeling against everyone, and then the word starts to lose its meaning.
Quote:
Christianity really didn't have any implications on the economy that I'm aware of. Aside from frowning upon loansharking (whereas only the Catholic Church went so far to actually forbid people to do it).
Christian belief would threaten the foundations of the Roman Empire - slavery. That's another thing they have in common with Marxism/Communism. They were a threat for the ruling economic forces.
Quote:
I'm not sure I have anything else to discuss on this subject with a guy to whom philosophy and religion are mutually exclusive.
There is a reason why they are named differently. Look at Corribus' post again. You know what your problem is, Bak? And not only yours. You like this Jesus guy, because compared with the rest of the lot he IS something - maybe even enough to look up to him. But most of the other stuff isn't really your thing. So you dismantle the religion and point to the philosophical dimension and to the vision of Jesus.
However, when we talk of Jesus, the question is, do you believe he is the son of God who died for the people to be saved and redeemed, because if you don't, he said, your place is deep down.
Everything else is pretty irrelevant, because you could just as well point to this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucius
who was half a millenium earlier at that.
For the ad hominem stuff... I really do believe you resort to that only to somehow distract from the fact that you are lacking a well defensible position here - whether you have been debating religion here for a long time or not. I'm not even sure, you dig what religion and faith really means - that is understandable in these scientific times, because we are educated NOT to believe, but to look under the hood. Elodin does, though.
There is your problem.
But, hey, let's not take this too serious here. I'm of the opinion that, IF you have faith in something, it should be something really, really good. Something you'd be looking forward to. After all, if it would come true, you'd be right and saved yourself a lot of worry. If not - why suffer from it, before it actually happens? 
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted December 14, 2011 02:25 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 14:29, 14 Dec 2011.
|
Alright, but this is the last one.
Mate, in the end, like I said, my personal experience with communism is tied to something that is in the very nature of it - the reality of a very practical idea of the revolution. The inquisition and the crusades are not the reality of Christian teachings or what Christ was saying we should do. They're based solely on... well, I can't even say what, other than the Church lying to illiterate people about what God wants. They didn't have any basis in the New Testament. That's the main difference I'm trying to explain to you. And Christ even told us to beware of those who might misuse his teachings and get to power through them, he warned us not to idolize those folks hence making them stronger and giving them a firmer hold of us, because that's not what his teachings are about. Marx, Engels and the rest either failed to see what their teachings would invariably lead to, or didn't want to see, or didn't care. Things like the dictatorship of the proletariat were seen as a logical step between today's society and the utopia. Seriously, communists?
Revolutions may be regarded as a necessary evil in practice sometimes, if there is no hope for evolution and things are really grimmer the way they are without it. But they are an evil, and we need to treat them as such. Especially when they lead to things as questionable (both in theory and practice) as communism.
I can't agree with your point about threatening slavery, though I understand why you can, and here's why. A communist may see that as a similarity between Christianity and communism because, to a communist, the abolition of personal property, making everyone materially "equal" and fulfilling other red ideals is equivalent to the emancipation of slaves. To anyone else, it's not the same, because they think the changes the communists want to bring the world don't have a valid ethical basis (valid meaning being ethically right), and are therefore simply economical in nature, whereas abolishing slavery did and was a matter of what are viewed as objective human rights.
It's not that religion isn't my thing. I like religion. Sort of. The gist of it is that I realize the human factor in it, and that it can be wrong, and that God (as an actual being, pantheistic soul of the universe, philosophical concept of Good, whatever - I don't believe God's actual form has that much of an impact on this subject) most certainly isn't about making us follow things blindly and unquestioningly. I think it's about discovering and figuring things out for ourselves; with the help of others, sure, but not as dogmatically as some would like. We most certainly haven't reached our pinnacle of progress and thought on the matter yet (I hope so, at least), so there's no reason why we shouldn't work on things we've got, which includes thinking about religion. You can believe, for example, that the Bible was inspired by God and that it's not entirely infallible because it was still written and shaped by humans living in an age a lot different from ours. Even if that wasn't true, the possibility would make it worth exploring. Also, when you see how many teachings that were right and applicable then are just as right and applicable now, you get the feeling that those things are part of the core, that they're a pretty solid basis for exploring other objective truths or ethics. The Bible's not the only source of that, I agree that people like Confucius often contributed no less to our pool of knowledge, truth and general, well, goodness - I don't exclude that various authors and thinkers may have received inspiration from the same source that Jesus and the crew did (that kind of inner spark that perhaps lies in every man equally, though not everyone is able to channel it like that. You've got to admit it at least sounds helluva romantic). But Jesus' teachings were at that point closer and more available to slaves and the rest who turned into the first Christians and later spread it across Europe, so they have a special place in our civilization.
It's not about believing in something cause if it's true you're going to Heaven and if it's not you don't lose anything. I download mp3s off the internet, I'm going to Hell at any rate. I can as well dabble in metaphysics while I'm at it.
I do believe Jesus was the son of God. As awkward as it sounds, I'm pretty sure of that, while I'm absolutely uncertain about God's form or what he actually is. Does that sound at least a bit logical? No, I guess it doesn't. Somehow, in whatever way I think about God, it seems completely plausible for me to think that Jesus was his son. Maybe not as... physically as a lot of folks think the Bible meant, though.
And no, I really did put that ad hominem in for the lulz. Seriously. To be honest, I think my positions are actually more easily defensible than yours (yours lately more taking the form of an attack on other people's, anyway), with the notable exception that it's not my goal to defend them, as instead of that, I'm trying to explain them; a bit too much, perhaps, so I probably leave a hole or two behind every time, for people to nitpick about. Making me have to explain things again. But it's not too much of a problem if I have the time.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 14, 2011 02:51 PM |
|
|
I see now, that our ideas and opinion are as different as black and white. Indeed, I don't see any logic in yours, but instead a lot that I would - for myself - characterize as unreflected, vague and biassed.
No sense to discuss that further, though.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted December 14, 2011 02:58 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 15:05, 14 Dec 2011.
|
I know. I told you I was right and you were wrong, like, 2 pages ago, but nooo.
Just out of curiosity, what was the thing that finally made you give up hope? MP3s?
Actually don't answer that. Then I'll have to answer again which is what has been going on for pages now.
Get it. Pages. Like ages, but... never mind.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 14, 2011 03:52 PM |
|
|
Why not?
It's the sum of the paragraph that starts with "I can't agree with your point" and the description of what you belief - which is exactly what I described to you a couple of pages earlier. You cherry-pick stuff from the Bible and fill in the blanks that you cannot identify with, explaining it away with a human element of possible error ... that's a pretty arbitrary way. I'm really not intending to offend you, but this attitude is pretty common. A lot of people really want to believe in something "higher", because that would be so comforting, and while they are surrounded by the icons and relics of Christianity - which means, they experience and learn it since childhood, a lot of the stuff written in the Bible isn't really appealing to them: nowadays we are a bit more enlightened than we used to be, and we have also learned that things are relative.
Their conclusion is, there must be some kind of error involved.
Also, "true faith" is the decline generally because of that.
In other ords, you belong to the majority of people who really... umm... crave or desire the consolation of a "higher power" or "higher order", but since we all ate too much from the apple of knowledge, the old beliefs have too many snags to take them at face value now.
Leaving many with an unfulfilled desire of consolation and the task to search (actively or passively) for "something".
I'm not going to debate that. As I (seriously) said: if you have to believe in something, believe in something NICE, otherwise, why bother.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 14, 2011 04:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I think it's about discovering and figuring things out for ourselves;
If I may ask (for once) without provoking a sarcastic reponse that tries to paint me as an elitist: to what "things" are you referring?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted December 14, 2011 04:23 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 16:26, 14 Dec 2011.
|
@JJ
That is surprisingly correct, to an extent, though I disagree with a few implications it seems you're making.
Anyway, you're constantly talking about "true faith" and religion as something that, by definition, ought to be devoid of common sense or evolution. I don't. On the contrary. I believe Christianity depends on it.
I think I believe in nice stuff.
@Corribus
Everything.
Sounds a bit short, doesn't it. Well that's pretty much what you get when you make me tell people something without sarcasm involved.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 14, 2011 04:43 PM |
|
|
Someone with true faith knows that there is God and Jesus is his son who dies for us and he will live again after he dies and so on... the same way we common people know that there is a rather big universe around us with billions of suns and stuff.
See - we actually have faith in what the scientists and schools and books tell us. We form a picture based on that info, without actually being able to comprehend the scale and the vastness of it, without verifying it. We accept it as "knowledge", knowledge that involves some faith.
In earlier times it was the same thing with religion. People read about it or got it told by authorities they trusted and filed it away as cerin knowledge. Faith.
A bit like ... the third Indy movie, the one with Sean Connery as his dad. In the end he has to cross an invisible bridge - he has to have faith in its existance, even though virtually nothing gives a hint it might be there. He has faith in what he has learned, though, and makes the step into emptiness.
Many people are forced to be Agnostics by logic and ration - they don't have it in them to put that away and have faith in something that makes no sense to them. Although a lot of them would, I'm sure, rather like to have something they could have faith in, because that makes things somewhat easier.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted December 14, 2011 04:53 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 16:56, 14 Dec 2011.
|
This agnostic theism thingie may be something to think about, though.
Also we should probably leave Sean Connery out of this because our weapons SHOULD have a limit on awesomeness. Else I'd use the Hunt for the Red October as an argument against communism and we'd end up throwing James Bond villains at one another.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 14, 2011 06:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
we'd end up throwing James Bond villains at one another.
That might be fun, actually. I start with Gert Fröbe as Auric Goldfinger.
Anyway. Agnostic theism, yeah. That's like saying, it's completely dark, but I know there must be a lamp somewhere. It's just that I'm not going to find it, since it's completely dark.
That said, this may be the right thread to ask a question myself.
I've never understood what's supposed to be compellingh about monotheism. It's counter-intuitive, right? Is there any example for the existance of only ONE unique element somewhere? It's always at least two, and reducing everythingh to ONE element doesn't solve anything, but makes this one thing only wondrous.
Two forces, however, make much more sense -not good and evil, but simply two forces - who may actually birth something like creation by simply combining, mixing, intermingling or whatever.
So I would like to hear opinions: what is actually speaking FOR one deity?
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted December 15, 2011 12:26 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I start with Gert Fröbe as Auric Goldfinger.
You won before we started, damn you.
Anyhow, me having drank a few this evening, I believe I've figured out how to reply to your latest religious question in the best possible manner.
Quote:
Is there any example for the existance of only ONE unique element somewhere?
Penis.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
GunFred
Supreme Hero
Sexy Manticore
|
posted December 15, 2011 12:52 AM |
|
|
Sorry to butt in again but I was talking to my friend yesterday and he said something about Jesus being born outside of marriage and wondered if he would end up in hell. I thought of this thread and decided to ask the christians here. Do children born outside of marriage end up in hell, was Jesus a "special" case or were Jesus mom and god married?
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted December 15, 2011 02:00 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You cherry-pick stuff from the Bible and fill in the blanks that you cannot identify with, explaining it away with a human element of possible error ... that's a pretty arbitrary way. I'm really not intending to offend you, but this attitude is pretty common.
And you continually claim the Bible says stuff it does not and does not say things it says....that's a pretty common attitude among anti-theists though.
Personally, the only ones I've seen cherry picking the Bible have been people who are hostile to the Bible. Taking verses out of context in an attempt to make the Bible seem to say things it does not. A common anti-theist tactic.
Quote:
A lot of people really want to believe in something "higher", because that would be so comforting, and while they are surrounded by the icons and relics of Christianity - which means, they experience and learn it since childhood, a lot of the stuff written in the Bible isn't really appealing to them: nowadays we are a bit more enlightened than we used to be, and we have also learned that things are relative.
A lot of atheists really want to believe that there is nothing "higher" because they don't like the idea of being accountable to anyone for their actions or don't like the idea that all people are equals. It is comforting to them to think that they are one of the "elites" who "knows" God does not exist and that they are thusly superior to almost everyone who ever lived.
Oh, I disagree that society has "learned that things are relative." I've yet to see any laws saying when it is ok to rape babies and no one has yet presented me with a scenario that would make baby rape moral.
Quote:
In other ords, you belong to the majority of people who really... umm... crave or desire the consolation of a "higher power" or "higher order", but since we all ate too much from the apple of knowledge, the old beliefs have too many snags to take them at face value now.
Leaving many with an unfulfilled desire of consolation and the task to search (actively or passively) for "something".
I'm not going to debate that
Hmmmmm. in other words you belong to the minority of people who really....um.... hate or despise the idea of a "higher power" and have shut your mind to that possibility despite the impossibly of a self-creating universe?
It is interesting that you claim to know the truth while condemning people of other religions for saying they know the truth.
Another interesting thing is the studies that show atheists tend to be mad at God, a being they claim does not exist. The conclusion is that they are "throwing a temper tantrum" like a spoiled child because of an unfilled desire. Others are just too lazy to search for God.
I'm not going to debate that.
Quote:
As I (seriously) said: if you have to believe in something, believe in something NICE, otherwise, why bother.
If you are not going to believe in something true, why bother? Seriously. Known sciences proves something can't come into being from absolute nothing without a cause and the only rational causeless cause is God. Seriously, get with reason and logic.
It is nice to know God exists and that the faithful will live with him forever.
You seem to be claiming it would be nice if people were just worm food. Strange.
Quote:
Someone with true faith knows that there is God and Jesus is his son who dies for us and he will live again after he dies and so on... the same way we common people know that there is a rather big universe around us with billions of suns and stuff.
Many atheists with their "true faith" "know" that there is no God and that Jesus could not have been the Son. You seem to be a very deeply religious man, JJ.
Quote:
See - we actually have faith in what the scientists and schools and books tell us. We form a picture based on that info, without actually being able to comprehend the scale and the vastness of it, without verifying it. We accept it as "knowledge", knowledge that involves some faith.
Then why on earth would you believe in the silly notion that the universe created itself out of a steady state of absolute nothing in contradiction of what known science would indicate is possible? 
Believers accept science but unlike atheists don't dogmatically reject the spiritual side of life. We thus have a much greater comprehension of the vastness of life.
Quote:
Many people are forced to be Agnostics by logic and ration - they don't have it in them to put that away and have faith in something that makes no sense to them. Although a lot of them would, I'm sure, rather like to have something they could have faith in, because that makes things somewhat easier.
There is nothing logical or rational about agnosticism. Quite the contrary and doubly so for atheism.
I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
Theism is the only rational position for one who is familiar with science and the world around him.
Quote:
I've never understood what's supposed to be compellingh about monotheism. It's counter-intuitive, right? Is there any example for the existance of only ONE unique element somewhere? It's always at least two, and reducing everythingh to ONE element doesn't solve anything, but makes this one thing only wondrous.
Actually, God being the Supreme Being it makes since that he is One. There can only be one who is supreme. But that is rational and logical....
God is not an element. God made the elements.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted December 15, 2011 02:04 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Sorry to butt in again but I was talking to my friend yesterday and he said something about Jesus being born outside of marriage and wondered if he would end up in hell. I thought of this thread and decided to ask the christians here. Do children born outside of marriage end up in hell, was Jesus a "special" case or were Jesus mom and god married?
Why on earth would a child go to hell for anything his parents did? No, children of unwed mothers don't go to hell for being the child of an unwed mother.
Oh, Mary and Joseph were married (the "betrothal" was a stage of marriage in Hebrew custom.) God did not have sex with Mary, read the first chapter of the book of Luke. God's power overshadowed Mary, causing the conception. The child in her womb was God himself, not an offspring of God.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 15, 2011 08:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I start with Gert Fröbe as Auric Goldfinger.
You won before we started, damn you.
Anyhow, me having drank a few this evening, I believe I've figured out how to reply to your latest religious question in the best possible manner.
Quote:
Is there any example for the existance of only ONE unique element somewhere?
Penis.
Isn't that a perfect example for one of TWO unique elements, which, if coming together, creating something new?
|
|
GunFred
Supreme Hero
Sexy Manticore
|
posted December 15, 2011 10:44 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Sorry to butt in again but I was talking to my friend yesterday and he said something about Jesus being born outside of marriage and wondered if he would end up in hell. I thought of this thread and decided to ask the christians here. Do children born outside of marriage end up in hell, was Jesus a "special" case or were Jesus mom and god married?
Why on earth would a child go to hell for anything his parents did? No, children of unwed mothers don't go to hell for being the child of an unwed mother.
Oh, Mary and Joseph were married (the "betrothal" was a stage of marriage in Hebrew custom.) God did not have sex with Mary, read the first chapter of the book of Luke. God's power overshadowed Mary, causing the conception. The child in her womb was God himself, not an offspring of God.
Thanks for the answer. It did sound a little fishy that the children would end up in hell even for christianity. God must truly be a man among men for being able to impregnate women with his awesome.
I better convert to christianity or I might end up like these guys.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKrtbUinWOU
Also want to add that I think Elodin has the wrong idea about atheists and science. Most atheists(western) are probably more or less agnostic and would say that no one can truly know anything to a 100%. Religious evidence is pretty much none existant and that is why it is safe to assume that religion is false while facts backed up by science are more likely to be true because there are clues that points towards it. That makes religion and fanatical atheism all about faith while science and atheism all about good guesses based on information from an atheists perspective. Atheism, and science is therefore not blind faith unless you refuse to be openminded about truth and possibilites. Only brainwashed people(fanatics of both religion and atheism) claim that they know something to be 100% absolute true and leaving no room for errors. I call myself an atheist but I have a hard time to believe in stuff others call scientific truth like the big bang theory, time travel/warp or that nothing can travel faster than light. It just does not sound logical to me and how can I truly know if there was even a holocaust along with WW2 or that the earth is round(it looks flat from down here)? It is best if people just accept that they can not know anything for sure and assume what seem most likely to them.
____________
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted December 15, 2011 01:54 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 13:57, 15 Dec 2011.
|
Quote:
Isn't that a perfect example for one of TWO unique elements, which, if coming together, creating something new?
Pfft.
Homophobe.
What about those little lanterns on the heads of those evil looking deep fish thingies then.
 <- evil looking deep fish thingie
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 15, 2011 02:12 PM |
|
|
Yeah, well, you could have simply taken a nose, so if it's really necessary to get more specific...
What I mean is the creator aspect. If we assume the existence of a supreme deity we do it to explain creation. This SINGULAR force has supposedly created the know universe and everything else beside it.
Aren't singular forces not somewhat in opposition to our findings in that department? Are things not always created by more than one force? Wouldn't it be more logical to assume two (or even more) forces that combined to create things?
Is ONE force really enough to create something really different or separate from itself?
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 15, 2011 03:19 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 15:26, 15 Dec 2011.
|
Quote:
If you are not going to believe in something true, why bother? Seriously. Known sciences proves something can't come into being from absolute nothing without a cause and the only rational causeless cause is God. Seriously, get with reason and logic.
loool! you make absolutely no sense. 
first you say that "Known sciences proves something can't come into being from absolute nothing without a cause" and then you claim that according to that, the only rational explanation is something without a cause, come out of absolute nothing, called God
Quote:
Is ONE force really enough to create something really different or separate from itself?
wouldn't that be permanency actually? kinda like, if you push some stuff, and there would be absolutely no other force acting on it, it would cause perpetual movement, no?
but a conflict between 2 forces causes modifications, like if you throw something on a wall and it breaks, the force you applied to the projectile entered in conflict with the force of the wall, well, I'm not sure exactly if it is called a force.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
