The Philosophy of God

[EonsAgo]

Debates are always nice. Here is one for you peoples:
What are your beliefs? Why do you believe what you do?
Feel free to try and prove/disprove. Keep it civil yet fiery.

GO! :awe:

[Zackj191]

I belive in science more. but maybe there is something, no way of knowing.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v97/haddypack/LOL4-1.jpg

[EonsAgo]

I think of things like this:

If you pick a religion, you are essentially saying that, "This is what happened, all other religions are wrong." Therefore, all people who don't believe in the same religion as you would hypothetically go to Hell. But what if you think that anyone gets into "Heaven" regardless of religion? If so, why believe in a religion? To say "I told you so?"

I think there may be a Heaven, but some people think it would be torture to live forever. What do you think awaits us after death? Paradise? Reincarnation? Pedobear?

[Zackj191]

most religions think that they are the only one your right. but some respect other religions ideas and things, such as budddism.

[Denominator]

I don't believe in any Gods. Anything. Personally, I think Christianity is ridiculous with the whole "your life is a trial for heaven". The other religions seem a bit more logical, but I still don't believe in any supernatural beings or greater purpose.

The Bible was originally meant to explain the things that science couldn't. As science becomes more advanced and we understand more things, the more the Bible is disproven.

[Zackj191]

christianity is too crazy and intense to be a religion. i mean really? like 5 mil people killed int he crusades? wtf?

[Denominator]

christianity is too crazy and intense to be a religion.

Crazy and intense define religion.

[Zackj191]

Crazy and intense define religion.


also other words tht come to mind: relentless and costly

[Thomas]

Crazy and intense define religion.
Crazy and intense define sex. Duh.

I'm still undecided on the whole thing, but basically have a "Don't care" attitude about it.

[GodlyPerfection]

I haz my own beliefs... me and god are best bros... :) lol... anyways, I asked Null for a Debate subforum or a Debate prefix...

EDIT: nvm, he did it already...

[Zackj191]

I haz my own beliefs... me and god are best bros... :) lol... anyways, I asked Null for a Debate subforum or a Debate prefix...

EDIT: nvm, he did it already...


YAY subforums... wait? what? Anyhow i don't think that god could exist or else there would have been proof about the bible. nothing in the bible has been able to be proven. isn't it convient that jesus ressurected and so there were no bones and then he re buried his tomb so no one could find it?

[Null Parameter]

then he re buried his tomb so no one could find it?
Wait.......... when did he bury his tomb?

[Zackj191]

Wait.......... when did he bury his tomb?


He ressurected and then sealed off the doorway once again. can't remember the exact verse

[Null Parameter]

He ressurected and then sealed off the doorway once again. can't remember the exact verse
No, they went back in there and saw that the tomb was bare.

[Zackj191]

No, they went back in there and saw that the tomb was bare.


no, didn't he go walk around and they saw him and checked the tomb and the door was closed?

[Null Parameter]

no, didn't he go walk around and they saw him and checked the tomb and the door was closed?
Nope, they looked in the tomb (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2020:11-20:18&version=50).

But Mary stood outside by the tomb weeping, and as she wept she stooped down and looked into the tomb. And she saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

[Zackj191]

Nope, they looked in the tomb (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2020:11-20:18&version=50).


oh, i was wrong. but i was still correct about the part with no bones

[Null Parameter]

oh, i was wrong. but i was still correct about the part with no bones


Why would there be bones after only 3 days of decomposition?
A resurrection means that the entire body goes with him, of course there wouldn't be any.

[BabySmuggler]

I find as I get older I take a more logical look on things. I've gotten to the point where I don't try to be a good person for fear of divine retribution but for the purpose of improving others lives. Not saying I'm a saint or anything, actually I'm kind of a dick.

[Null Parameter]

Disclaimer: I am not claiming any set of beliefs here, and I probably won't. I just know my stuff and like to prove people wrong.

[BabySmuggler]

Disclaimer: He likes to prove people wrong cause he's a dickhead.

[Null Parameter]

Disclaimer: He's probably right in certain instances..........

[BabySmuggler]

Disclaimer: I feel like Ohio would be a terrible place to live.
And back on topic. Its kind of funny considering I used to go to a very Catholic school.

[Mighty Midgit]

Although I don't condone religious debates (though they can be extremely fun at times ^^), I do like the aspect of openly sharing ones beliefs, or lack there of.

(I also like writing extremely long posts...)

I do consider myself fairly religious. I go to church, study scripture, and *try* to deal justly with my fellow men (I'm working on the last part).

First off, I'll start on the topic of lack of evidence in the bible. I believe there is more than enough. All historical events concerning people, places, rulers, falls, wars, and such all have definite physical evidence. The Old Testament of the Bible is the most complete historical document of times where history was rarely written except genealogy in the lines of rulers. In the new Testament, every polito-economic event is recorded in other places than the Bible as well adding further solidity it the Bible's claims. This is all the physical aspects of the bible though.

When it comes to evidence of the spiritual in nature in the bible, many believe that there it too little evidence for proof. IMO this is a common misconception. For starters, when the Jews were escaping Egypt they had to cross the red sea right? There is evidence of the great exodus on both sides of the sea but not at the rout connecting Egypt to the Sinai Peninsula meaning that they had to have crossed the water. How would it have been possible for them to cross such a wide stretch of water to get to Sinai while being chased by Ramses without a little divine intervention?

Now onto the Tomb topic brought up by Jackj. First off is that his tomb was not hidden. We know the location where Jesus was buried after crucifixion even now. You've gotta watch the history channel more ^^. I believe that he was resurrected. If he had truly died for good, it would have been common knowledge spread everywhere and would have been recorded in many places. The fact that the tomb was left bare and the testimony of the roman soldiers posted there (yes they did testify even after being bribed no to. I think the Catholics have the document in their archives too if I am not mistaken) proves that he did leave his tomb after 3 days. If he were to have died than we definitely would have found him by now (you know how those archeologist people are).

Yes, the bible does explain many things that have little to no explanation. But BECAUSE it has no explanation, I believe the only solid document that gives explanation, The Bible.

I know Buddhism was brought up at one point and I would like to say that I have a lot of respect for them. There beliefs are based on bettering your life and the lives of others. Not only that but they are highly welcoming of all religious ideals that teach peace and prosperity. They have a belief that most ancient religion and religious ideals, in the beginning, came from the same common starting point and, as such, should be treated as equals with their beliefs. You can be of other religious and still live a Buddhist lifestyle and the 2 will be in harmony with each other. It's a major perk that that religion has which many others lack.

Ok, now time to state my beliefs.

I think a few of you know already that I am a Later Day Saint (a.k.a. LDS, Mormon, ect.). Not many people know a lot about our religion and just know that they have been told second hand so I will explain a little.

I believe in the Bible whole heatedly but also have another Testament of God and Christ called the Book of Mormon (where we get our "Mormon" nickname from). I'm pretty sure a lot of you know about the Bible so I'll explain a little about the BoM.

The Book of Mormon is a Testament of Christ that goes hand-in-hand with the Bible as they compliment each other's teachings and beliefs. It is the story of the descendants of a man named Lehi who escaped with his and 2 other families out of Jerusalem during the Reign of King Zedekiah . For those who know their Bible history, this is the period when Jerusalem was about to be conquered by Nebuchadnezzar as found in the book of Jeremiah about 600 years before the coming of Christ (BC). It tells the story of them as the traveled to what would be known as the American continents, their dealings with the lord and the history of their people. It all leads to about 400 years after Christ (AD) by which time all the righteous have become wicked and were nearly wiped out by wars. The last few who remained righteous condensed the record and a man, by name of Moroni, sealed and buried the record before his death.

The record was uncovered by a young man by the name of Joseph Smith and thus our religion was founded.

Anyway, I believe these thing to be truth to the point that I am dedicating 2 years of my life serving the lord. I will be starting next month on the 25th. (sorry, no internet except for E-mail to family so at that time it will be goodbye to this site for me)

[DeathsFriend22]

The Bible was originally meant to explain the things that science couldn't. As science becomes more advanced and we understand more things, the more the Bible is disproven.

You Really need to read this if you think the Bible is being disproven by science. (http://www.geocities.com/worldview_3/science.html)turns out, the bible is actually being proven more and more.


After reading, realize that those things were written over 3500 years ago. There was no modern science that the people who wrote the Bible were able to use.
There are so many facts that conform with modern scientific data that it's inconceivable that the people who wrote it would know such things without some kind of divine inspiration






pwnt XD

[PsychoBucket]

(I also like writing extremely long posts...)

Thanks for the warning . . . I almost read that whole thing!

[EonsAgo]

After reading, realize that those things were written over 3500 years ago. There was no modern science that the people who wrote the Bible were able to use.
There are so many facts that conform with modern scientific data that it's inconceivable that the people who wrote it would know such things without some kind of divine inspiration
The odd thing is, fundamentalists (those hardcore folks who adhere to the bible's every word) don't like science because it goes against what some of the bible says.

What White and the anti-Christian writers of the "Enlightenment" disingenuously ignored, was that modern science and the scientific method was founded on and grew up out of the Christian biblical worldview, assumptions and culture of Europe, as a result of discussion between Christian researchers and thinkers --such as Isaac Newton and Gregor Mendel.
Of course, the church was everything before the Enlightenment period. What else did they have to base their thoughts on really?

It should be noted that in Genesis 1:1, the Hebrew word for "created" ("bara") means a "creation from nothing," as something is brought into existence. A start from nothing, is a very good description of what cosmologists (such as Stephen Hawking) call a "singularity," which is the starting-point of the Big Bang. ---A singularity is: all the potential mass (matter), energy, and dimensions (including time) of the cosmos, reduced down to an infinitely small point of ZERO volume. --This same concept is brought out again in Hebrews 11:3 which declares that "the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible." The original starting-point for the universe was invisible, and had zero volume --just as the Bible teaches... as no other ancient writing does.

Furthermore: Cosmologists and physicists teach that matter, 3-dimensional space, and even time itself virtually did not exist before the Big Bang; (when God created them). Here it is fascinating to NOTE: 1Corinthians 2:7, 2Timothy 1:9, and Titus 1:2 indicate that time itself, with all its eons and ages, had a "beginning." ---NO other ancient literature (besides the Bible) states that time had a beginning!
Since most religions believe that God created everything, it would be logical to assume that there was nothing before God. The fact that the bible matches up with science in that regard is just because both are assuming nothing was ever there. Kudos to early man for using his head.

Time doesn't really exist. It is simply a method of keeping track when certain events occurred relative to whatever point in time we choose. For example, we base our years on Jesus - B.C. and A.D.
Let's say we never came up with a method of time. Time wouldn't exist then, right? The fact that the bible says time "began" then means that we ought to be keeping track of time from the beginning of the universe. Thank God Jesus came so we had a point to base our time on. And anyway, if time does "exist", what is it? It's not really a dimension or anything, because it's artificial.

It has been established that in all physical processes, every ordered system tends over time to become more disorganized, and also to lose energy in the form of heat, and to slow down; ---everything gets old and wears out, or runs down. This increasing randomness, disorder, and cooling is called "Entropy,"

We see this principle expressed in the Bible (in about 1000 BC), when it says (concerning God): "In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded. But you remain the same, and your years will never end" (Psalm 102:25-27).

So, the Bible accurately describes the modern Law of increasing Entropy, as the entire material universe relentlessly runs down and loses available usable energy, in a process of "decay."
No, what that is describing is the end of the world. It is a common belief that God will come down on Judgement Day and then we will all end up in the afterlife. That belief just happens to coincide with the fact that life is constantly appearing and then dying.

In the years 161-126 BC, the man who is said to have first started the study of astronomy, Hiparchus, counted the number of stars in the heavens, and put the number at 1,080. This number was considered to be fairly accurate 300 years later, when Ptolemy announced that the number was more like 1,056.

It wasn't until the invention of the telescope that people realized that the number of the stars was huge ...in the countless millions. The Bible didn't make the mistake of saying that the number was merely a few hundred or thousand, but rather, in about 600 BC, the prophet Jeremiah says the number is "countless as the stars of the sky and measureless as the sand on the seashore" (Jer. 33:22). However, God, who is infinite in knowledge, knows the exact number, as the Bible says, "He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name" (Psalm 147:4).
So since two guys made a mistake, all of science is now slammed with a mark of shame. "Oh, you tried to count the stars but you can't!" Here's the thing: Lets say there are 1000 marbles in a jar. I guess 300 because I only count the marbles from the side I'm looking at the jar. You guess there are "a lot". Giving an ambiguous guess doesn't mean you are right, it just means you didn't count. Another thing: science can admit when it is wrong. Religion can't, otherwise what it entails is essentially unsound.

(Some have wrongly thought that the Bible teaches a flat earth, but it does not. The Bible speaks of the "four corners" of the earth (in Rev. 7:1), but this is only a figurative way of referring to the "four points" (basic directions) of the compass ---and this same verse speaks of the "four winds," which refers to the same thing.)
"but this is only a figurative way"... Right, they would know that.

Though a piece of descriptive writing from God could not contradict actual facts of science, such facts are not among the most important things which demonstrate that a piece of literature is from God ---an encyclopedia gives many more science facts than any piece of religious writing.

--Rather, the most important "proof" is the fact of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Any facts of science are insignificant compared to this. Since Christ has risen from the dead, this gives us proof that his words are truth. This gives us proof that Christ is deity (God) in a human body, and that he is worthy of all praise and ultimate worship... and remember that Christ accepted such worship. The risen Christ himself --and his sinless life-- is the greatest fact of history... and it is the resurrected Christ who quoted most of the prophets of the Bible as authoritative, which gives God's mighty endorsement to the words of the Bible.
This completely ruined any chance of credibility that the article supposedly has. "The most important proof is the resurrection of Jesus." Well, that hasn't been proven, so it's not proof. If this event (which people outside of Christianity do not believe in) is more important than all the other things they said, none of what they said must be important. "The greatest fact of history..." um, I don't think so. That is a clear sign of bias, so that article is basically just trying to convert more people to Christianity. I can respect them, trying to prove the bible and all its miracles that no one but people back then saw, but I DON'T respect them trying to weave beliefs like that in. It's not proof at all.

All that "article" does is point out how generalizations in the bible show it is "right".

(P.S. I was a Catholic for a majority of my life (15 years), so don't think I'm an anti-religious freak. I know what the other side is about, and that's why I left.)

I believe in the Bible whole heatedly but also have another Testament of God and Christ called the Book of Mormon (where we get our "Mormon" nickname from).
So why don't other Christian sects support this book as well? Because they don't agree with it, maybe because they only want the bible. Who is right?
If you don't think it matters who is right, why believe that all those things happened without a doubt?

[DeathsFriend22]

This completely ruined any chance of credibility that the article supposedly has. "The most important proof is the resurrection of Jesus." Well, that hasn't been proven, so it's not proof. If this event (which people outside of Christianity do not believe in) is more important than all the other things they said, none of what they said must be important. "The greatest fact of history..." um, I don't think so. That is a clear sign of bias, so that article is basically just trying to convert more people to Christianity. I can respect them, trying to prove the bible and all its miracles that no one but people back then saw, but I DON'T respect them trying to weave beliefs like that in. It's not proof at all.




I think he got that wrong. The proof we have right now is that we have Jesus' tomb, and we have documents of his miracles, but we do NOT have any DNA. Why? Because he was resurrected. And that, my friend, is far more significant than any other piece of scientific data.


I also noticed you didn't address certain other aspects, such as heredity and the water cycle. How do you explain those?

[EonsAgo]

"In the breeding season of the flock I lifted up my eyes and saw in a dream that the male goats that were mating with the flock were striped, spotted and mottled. Then the angel of God said to me in the dream, 'Jacob,' and I said, 'here I am!' And he said, 'Lift up your eyes and see that all the male goats which are mating with the flock are striped, spotted and mottled, for I have seen all that Laban has been doing to you."
There is no proof that Jacob got this message from the lord, if he even got that message at all. You don't know because the bible is not necessarily based on historic facts, but writings of "wisemen" from long ago. Plus, the mind has been known to continue thinking about the day's events even as you sleep. For example, you might come up with a solution to a problem you had during the day while you are asleep.

I say this because it happened to an inventor I read about, but I forget his name. It was like a guy who made lead bullets back in the day. He had a dream about rain, and it gave him an idea to make bullets by pouring the material into/through a mold (or something) like raindrops to make a perfect circle. It made more bullets faster than making it by hand.

About the water cycle thing: All that stuff is observation. You feel the wind blowing around, you see the water fall down. It's not by some divine intervention of God that these folks found these things out. They just used their head. Today in science, do we attribute our findings to God or to our minds? Granted, we do have better technology, but one thing connects scientists today, thinkers back then, and everyone else in between: we all have our brains. Something as simple as rainfall or the wind can be observed and then written about by only using your mind. However, since religion is such a big part of some people's lives, they attribute some things to God. Like the "Miracle on the Hudson" when the plane landed in a river. Some say it was a "miracle", but I just think that the pilot was just a really good pilot. I mean, considering that planes and cars crash everyday, why would there be just one miracle like that?

I'm telling you man, that article is just using people's observations and logic from the bible to say they had all this "scientific knowledge".

[Coyote1023]

My post will be short, I prefer just to counter your whole "crazy" religion thing. That was SOME people. Think about it, EVERYTHING held and maintained by humans has been corrupted at some point, even science. The whole theory of humans crossing the (whats it called strait) into America from Asia was proven wrong by carbon dating of a human skull by some lady in Mexico, but her boss quickly covered it up and fired her, you know why? Because it went against his belief.

Now, lets look at some religions. The Jewish did persecute people, they weren't always just the ones that were killed. Early Christians were killed by them. Why? Because Christianity just said that everything that they were following was too strict, that they should loosen up a bit and worry more about others than their own riches. Wouldn't you be pissed if someone called you out?

Now lets move on to Christianity, the crusades, and indulgences. The crusades were a way for a corrupt church at the time to get some funds in the middle of the dark ages. They were losing support to the rising kings of the era. With the destruction of Constantinople and of Arab cities, the church gained a load of funds. Indulgences were written "passes to heaven" by the Pope himself, these were also for funds as they were sold to the highest bidders. You could even get one for your dead relative! Once again, a religion corrupted by mankind, though it has improved, you don't see us killing random people for money anymore (as a religion as a whole).

Now we move to Islam. They have these wars because of previously stated things. The crusades pissed em off a bit, as did the creation of Israel displacing tons of Muslim people. But most of all, it is the extremists that take the idea of the Jihad, or "struggle," out of context. They, the extremists, assume that it means to wage war against the evils of the western world. Their women cover themselves with veils and don't engage in sex until marriage. Look at us? Do you see my point?

You can't just blame religion for violence, though it has been a mask for much of it. It is man being greedy, trying to get self gain. It is man doing the violence, not the religions. Man covers up their corruption and greed with the religions, yet if you look at it, the religions themselves advocate restraining from these activities.

Now, my beliefs are simple. I am a Catholic. I believe everything in it. I believe that there are more than one way to heaven. Mostly I believe that doing good is religion and duty is to the world. I believe that Christians, Jews, Muslims, and a number of other religions have it right. As long as they are doing good, I doubt God would care if they had a few facts wrong. (:

Edit:So much for being short...

[EonsAgo]

Now, my beliefs are simple. I am a Catholic. I believe everything in it. I believe that there are more than one way to heaven. Mostly I believe that doing good is religion and duty is to the world. I believe that Christians, Jews, Muslims, and a number of other religions have it right. As long as they are doing good, I doubt God would care if they had a few facts wrong.
See that's the thing though. I used to believe that until I was like, "Wait, if I think some other religions could be right, I'm not really a Catholic." To say you are part of a religion means you are 100% in it. If not, you might as well become agnostic or something. Reiterating: being in a religion essentially says all other religions are wrong because mine must be right. Otherwise what I believe is a lie. If part of it is wrong, who is to say the rest isn't? It's not like we're talking about science here, we're talking about a religion which is base on faith, not fact.

[Null Parameter]

Now, my beliefs are simple. I am a Catholic. I believe everything in it. I believe that there are more than one way to heaven. Mostly I believe that doing good is religion and duty is to the world. I believe that Christians, Jews, Muslims, and a number of other religions have it right. As long as they are doing good, I doubt God would care if they had a few facts wrong. (:
Great minds think alike. :thumbup:

[Coyote1023]

See that's the thing though. I used to believe that until I was like, "Wait, if I think some other religions could be right, I'm not really a Catholic." To say you are part of a religion means you are 100% in it. If not, you might as well become agnostic or something. Reiterating: being in a religion essentially says all other religions are wrong because mine must be right. Otherwise what I believe is a lie. If part of it is wrong, who is to say the rest isn't? It's not like we're talking about science here, we're talking about a religion which is base on faith, not fact.

So, just because one part is wrong, the whole thing is wrong? That is the beauty of faith. It is what YOU believe. I can think whatever I want, and you know what, no one can change it without my consent. Lets just say, Catholicism is the closest thing to my views.

[Null Parameter]

For instance, I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/).......

[Zackj191]

For instance, I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/).......


NO HES FAKE!!!

[PsychoBucket]

My post will be short, I prefer just to counter your whole "crazy" religion thing. That was SOME people. Think about it, EVERYTHING held and maintained by humans has been corrupted at some point, even science. The whole theory of humans crossing the (whats it called strait) into America from Asia was proven wrong by carbon dating of a human skull by some lady in Mexico, but her boss quickly covered it up and fired her, you know why? Because it went against his belief.

Now, lets look at some religions. The Jewish did persecute people, they weren't always just the ones that were killed. Early Christians were killed by them. Why? Because Christianity just said that everything that they were following was too strict, that they should loosen up a bit and worry more about others than their own riches. Wouldn't you be pissed if someone called you out?

Now lets move on to Christianity, the crusades, and indulgences. The crusades were a way for a corrupt church at the time to get some funds in the middle of the dark ages. They were losing support to the rising kings of the era. With the destruction of Constantinople and of Arab cities, the church gained a load of funds. Indulgences were written "passes to heaven" by the Pope himself, these were also for funds as they were sold to the highest bidders. You could even get one for your dead relative! Once again, a religion corrupted by mankind, though it has improved, you don't see us killing random people for money anymore (as a religion as a whole).

Now we move to Islam. They have these wars because of previously stated things. The crusades pissed em off a bit, as did the creation of Israel displacing tons of Muslim people. But most of all, it is the extremists that take the idea of the Jihad, or "struggle," out of context. They, the extremists, assume that it means to wage war against the evils of the western world. Their women cover themselves with veils and don't engage in sex until marriage. Look at us? Do you see my point?

You can't just blame religion for violence, though it has been a mask for much of it. It is man being greedy, trying to get self gain. It is man doing the violence, not the religions. Man covers up their corruption and greed with the religions, yet if you look at it, the religions themselves advocate restraining from these activities.

Now, my beliefs are simple. I am a Catholic. I believe everything in it. I believe that there are more than one way to heaven. Mostly I believe that doing good is religion and duty is to the world. I believe that Christians, Jews, Muslims, and a number of other religions have it right. As long as they are doing good, I doubt God would care if they had a few facts wrong. (:

Edit:So much for being short...

I couldn't have said it better my self.

[Mighty Midgit]

Wow, there is a lot of good discussion going on here.


So why don't other Christian sects support [the Book of Mormon] as well? Because they don't agree with it, maybe because they only want the bible. Who is right?
If you don't think it matters who is right, why believe that all those things happened without a doubt?

This is how I see it. I'm just speaking from my own understanding:
You are partially correct. Most religions deny the Book of Mormon believing that there cant be any other written document about Christ. Most of this opinion comes all the way back from Catholics having the main religious power in the dark ages. What they said was law, and to them, the bible was the law. When the reformation happened, many different religious sects were created because people were taking the Bible and interpreting it for themselves finding what meaning it had to them. Even though they wanted to separate themselves from Catholics, they still held true to the "only Bible" belief.

Where other religions do fine with one testament of Christ, we have 2. It's like having a Philips and Flat head Screwdriver. Both work great on their own but you can do more when you can use both.

For those that are religious, you probably believe that God is God over everyone on earth right? If so, why would he only talk to people in one small area of the world? He even said "Other sheep I have which are not of this fold, Them must I see also." (I forget what scripture that is). That is just one thought of mine.

And to the question of weather I think that we LDS are right or other Christians are right, I would have to say both. Christianity is Christianity weather it be Catholic, Protestant, Reformationism, or Restorationism.

This leads to another one of you statements:

See that's the thing though. I used to believe that until I was like, "Wait, if I think some other religions could be right, I'm not really a Catholic." To say you are part of a religion means you are 100% in it. If not, you might as well become agnostic or something. Reiterating: being in a religion essentially says all other religions are wrong because mine must be right. Otherwise what I believe is a lie. If part of it is wrong, who is to say the rest isn't? It's not like we're talking about science here, we're talking about a religion which is base on faith, not fact.

The statement in bold is a rather bold statement (bad pun, I know) and I believe is incorrect. I think almost everyone who is religious here can agree with me that a majority of the people who choose a church, chose it due to it's closeness to home, family tradition, or whim, but they chose it because they, themselves, believed that they needed to be in an organization that would help them get closer to Christ and be around those with the same goal. To say that someone has to either be 100% in a religion, believing that all other religions are false, in order to say they are of that religion is, forgive my bluntness, a rather immature statement. All Christian religions teach Christianity. Doesn't this make them similar? If this is the case, saying that all other religions are 100% wrong means that you believe that parts of your religion is wrong. Unless you don't believe you own religion, only a true Atheist could honestly make a statement like this. Not even an Agnostic can make such a statement honestly and still be Agnostic.

The differences that lead to different religions to be created are, to put it simply, caused by people understanding the same passage of scripture differently than someone else. Even though understanding may varry from sect to sect, they are still teaching the same passage of scripture. Saying that one is 100% correct and the other 100% wrong is a farse' "they all draw near to me with there lips... having a form of godliness" (again I forget where the scripture is from)


And on a lighter note:
For instance, I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/).......

The FSM is amazing. I first learned of it my junior year and am a supporter of what it stands for, not the believing in a Spaghetti Monster God, but problems with trying to teach intelligent design in Biology.

It's always good for a laugh. I also have a friend who is full-blown Pastafarian.

[Denominator]

I think he got that wrong. The proof we have right now is that we have Jesus' tomb, and we have documents of his miracles, but we do NOT have any DNA. Why? Because he was resurrected. And that, my friend, is far more significant than any other piece of scientific data.

So how do you possibly know it is Jesus' tomb if you don't have evidence of Jesus. You're saying that it's Jesus' tomb because you have evidence, but you have no concrete evidence that it was Jesus there.

Reiterating: being in a religion essentially says all other religions are wrong because mine must be right. Otherwise what I believe is a lie.

To quote Stephen Roberts:

I contend that we are [all] atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours

I could not agree with this statement more. All religions contest that they are correct yet they are mutually exclusive. And they ALL turn on atheists as a coalition.

As far as I've seen, we don't have any supporters of Judaism here yet. But here's a letter written about Judaism that I think appropriately encompasses many issues:

(Dr. Laura is an American radio host who previously stated that "as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination, according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance")

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you; however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians??

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours.They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their around their temples,even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16). Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair? I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,
[name omitted]

[Mighty Midgit]

lol, epic win

[DeathsFriend22]

i challenge the skeptics (Denom and Eons) to Explain this. (http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html)

[Denominator]

i challenge the skeptics (Denom and Eons) to Explain this. (http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html)

Again, with everything Biblical, it's all hearsay.

This wondrous Event took place in the 8th century A.D. in the little Church of St. Legontian, as a divine response to a Basilian monk's doubt about Jesus' Real Presence in the Eucharist.

It took place 1300 years ago. There is absolutely no proof this actually happened beyond people saying it did.

During Holy Mass, after the two-fold consecration, the host was changed into live Flesh and the wine was changed into live Blood, which coagulated into five globules, irregular and differing in shape and size

It just "changed", eh? Sorry to seem skeptical of something simply "changing" in th 8th century.

In 1970-'71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena.

Your "eminent" professor doesn't even get a Wikipedia page.

Odoardo Linoli wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odoardo_Linoli).

In fact, I can't find any websites that list Odoardo Linoli other than religious sites. He seems to only exist in the context of the Eucharist Miracle of Lanciano. Find we a website that has Odoardo Linoli that isn't a religious website.

The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin)

Holy fuck! It's the same bloodtype! It's not like anyone else has ever had AB bloodtype before!

The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.

This is the part that really gets me. It contradicts the entire article. You are saying that this miracle has presented human flesh and suggests that it is the heart and blood of Jesus Christ. Yet you then go ahead and say that it doesn't decay, which either disproves your entire theory or requires another miracle. So, being Christian, you invoke another miracle.

I challenge the religious folk out there to explain how your dates add up:

Age of Earth according to Bible (http://www.skeptically.org/oldtestament/id15.html)
Age of Earth according to Science (http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html)

[Morphine]

Yes, the bible does explain many things that have little to no explanation. But BECAUSE it has no explanation, I believe the only solid document that gives explanation, The Bible.

Even though I'm not really interested in debating this here, the Bible is not a solid document. There is no original Bible as we know it. There is no trace of the original text and we have no idea what they said or what language it was written in. The Aleppo Codex is the oldest complete manuscript of the bible and is approximated at 920.

According to the bible that's about 5100 years after much of the first testament. And even though these outdated texts are in the current Bible they are also mixed in with text such as the stories of 'Enoch'. Not to mention, the only reason some scriptures are in the Bible and some are not is entirely by choice of man, therefore is fallible. Even if you look at different versions of the bible throughout time there are drastic differences between which content was 'allowed'.

[EonsAgo]

So, just because one part is wrong, the whole thing is wrong? That is the beauty of faith. It is what YOU believe. I can think whatever I want, and you know what, no one can change it without my consent. Lets just say, Catholicism is the closest thing to my views.
Oh, not necessarily. But here is the thing, all of what you believe may only be part of what someone else believes. In their eyes, what you believe is incomplete. Who is right?

Faith IS what you believe. However, too many religions try to homogenize their followers' beliefs and that frustrates me. I don't see the point of believing a religion someone else made. Belief is your own thing, and religion contradicts that by giving people a set of beliefs. It's not like "Here is a nice suggestion of what happened." It's more like "This is what happened. Believe it or deny it." :thumbdown:

"Gee, but Eons, I'm my own man and I pick and choose what I want to believe." Who is to say the parts of the religion you picked out, or the parts anyone else picked out, are right? The problem with the buffet-belief system is that people borrow beliefs from a religion they don't totally agree with. That's not to say you can't pick anything good out of a religion, but when it comes to believing in certain events (i.e. miracles) I don't see how people can pick and choose which ones happened. As if they know. :confused:

So. The buffet-believers. They're like "Dang, that don't sound right, so I'ma go omit that from my beliefs." But then they're still a "member" of that religion. NA-AHHHH! You now have your own beliefs. You are no longer a part of that religion, you have a different one now; your own. Don't go supportin' whatcha just denounced. ;)

[Scope]

I don't think there is a god because it makes no sense for one.

[DeathsFriend22]

This is the part that really gets me. It contradicts the entire article. You are saying that this miracle has presented human flesh and suggests that it is the heart and blood of Jesus Christ. Yet you then go ahead and say that it doesn't decay, which either disproves your entire theory or requires another miracle. So, being Christian, you invoke another miracle.

No, it doesn't contradict anything. It is living flesh and blood, but the fact that it hasn't decayed simply reenforces that it is a miracle. They didn't have the technology so long ago to preserve soething like that, and preservatives would have altered the chemicals in the flesh anyway.


I challenge the religious folk out there to explain how your dates add up:

Age of Earth according to Bible (http://www.skeptically.org/oldtestament/id15.html)
Age of Earth according to Science (http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html)
k.

Skeptically.org
ESTIMATES OF THE BIBLICAL DATE OF CREATION

k. Estimates.

Skeptically.org
Most contemporary historians establish a base date of Saul's accession to the throne of Israel to have happened 1020 BCE.

However, Bishop James Ussher, a 17th century Irish archbishop from Armagh, Ireland, estimated this date as 1095 BCE in his work: Annales Veteris et Novi Testamenti




Work backwards through the Book of Judges. Ussher computed 330 years for the duration of the rule of Judges. He based this on the intervals specified in the Hebrew Scriptures. Modern theologians believe that the "Judges" did not rule over all of Israel in a regular sequence. Instead, each Judge controlled separate tribe(s), so that their interval of rule overlapped. A modern estimate for the duration of time covered by the Book of Judges is perhaps 180 years.


First of all, the guy who wrote the article is a redundant moron. He has the above text printed twice, the reduntant text being directly under the original.

Secondly, and more importantly, he's attacking predictions made by men from the 16th and 17th centuries. They certainly didn't know how old the Earth (or the universe) really is back then.

Skeptically.org

The calculation must rely on numerous passages which state that a person was born when his father was of a certain age. But if a 30 year-old man has a son, the birth might have occurred at any time between the father's 30th birthday, and one day before his 31st birthday. Thus, on average, an error of six months is introduced with each father-son passage.

Some theologians have pointed out that there may be missing generations in Bible chronologies. The entire family tree may not be fully listed. Some "sons" are actually grandsons.


Your challenge is now destroyed by your own link. Because every single person who has tried to estimate it is subject to the unavoidable errors described in the text above, there is no possible way to find the biblical date of creation.

Another point I'd like to make before anyone brings it up is that the 7 Days in which God created the universe aren't necessarily 7 ACTUAL days. Those 7 days could be anything between a few minutes and several billion years long.


Finally, while we're on the topic of creation, science DOES conform with the Bible on this subject.

Bible - God created universe from nothing
Science - Universe made from a point of singularity.

The creation of the universe would require MASSIVE amounts of energy to take place, as shown in certain studies by CERN (http://public.web.cern.ch/public/).

Now, think logically for a moment. If you accept that there was nothing there to begin with, what in the hell could have provided such an enourmous amount of energy to create - and to provide for the expansion of - the entire universe? What could POSSIBLY do that when there is supposedly nothing that could have done it to begin with?

The answer, in the eyes of many, is God. God set it all in motion, and God will end it when he sees fit.

[Denominator]

No, it doesn't contradict anything. It is living flesh and blood, but the fact that it hasn't decayed simply reenforces that it is a miracle. They didn't have the technology so long ago to preserve soething like that, and preservatives would have altered the chemicals in the flesh anyway.

Yes, it does. You are proving that Jesus is human by proving that he is inhuman.

k. Estimates.

Estimates or not, the difference between 4500000000000 and 6013 is quite large. There's no way these dates can be anywhere near concurrent.

Your challenge is now destroyed by your own link. Because every single person who has tried to estimate it is subject to the unavoidable errors described in the text above, there is no possible way to find the biblical date of creation.

No, there is no way to find the exact date via the Bible the same as there is no way to find the exact date via geology, but we can get close enough to call them accurate. And the vast difference between the time as calculated in the Bible and by geology is rather troubling.

Another point I'd like to make before anyone brings it up is that the 7 Days in which God created the universe aren't necessarily 7 ACTUAL days. Those 7 days could be anything between a few minutes and several billion years long.

Then why are they called days? I'm fairly confident that when the Bible was written, it was the concept of days (as in 24 hours) that they were going for there.

Finally, while we're on the topic of creation, science DOES conform with the Bible on this subject.

Bible - God created universe from nothing
Science - Universe made from a point of singularity.

The creation of the universe would require MASSIVE amounts of energy to take place, as shown in certain studies by CERN (http://public.web.cern.ch/public/).

Now, think logically for a moment. If you accept that there was nothing there to begin with, what in the hell could have provided such an enourmous amount of energy to create - and to provide for the expansion of - the entire universe? What could POSSIBLY do that when there is supposedly nothing that could have done it to begin with?

The answer, in the eyes of many, is God. God set it all in motion, and God will end it when he sees fit.

It's called the big bang. Nothing needs to "have set it in motion", it just began.

[Shell]

Jews, gtfo.

That's all I've got to say. :)

[Denominator]

Jews, gtfo.

That's all I've got to say. :)

Good debating.:clap:

[DeathsFriend22]

Yes, it does. You are proving that Jesus is human by proving that he is inhuman.
Which is exactly what we're going for. The belief among Christians is that Jesus was of 2 separate natures - God and Man. The fact that it is human flesh, but has not decayed in 1300 years seems to conform with that, no?



Estimates or not, the difference between 4500000000000 and 6013 is quite large. There's no way these dates can be anywhere near concurrent.

No, there is no way to find the exact date via the Bible the same as there is no way to find the exact date via geology, but we can get close enough to call them accurate. And the vast difference between the time as calculated in the Bible and by geology is rather troubling.

No, these "estimates" are simply guesses made by a bunch of people who studied the bible. If you scroll down in your link you'll note that some people did estimate the biblical date of creation within 3 billion years of the scientific age of the universe. Given the difficulty of trying to estimate the date from the bible, such a gap is understandable.



Then why are they called days? I'm fairly confident that when the Bible was written, it was the concept of days (as in 24 hours) that they were going for there.

No, the "day" cannot really be assigned a "length" given the inexactitude with which it is used in the Genesis account. In fact, the Hebrew term that "Day" translates to is "yom", which has two meanings -

"1 day"
or
"an indefinite period of time",

In the context that it is used in Genesis, it is actually the latter. It is most certainly NOT a 24-hour day.

It's called the big bang. Nothing needs to "have set it in motion", it just began.

Wait, what!? Let's read that again.

it just began

In this statement you have completely contradicted everything you have said. To say something "just happened" is tantamount to saying that it was a miracle - something that "just happens" and that defies all logic other than that some higher power must have had a hand in it.

Not to mention that it defies all laws of science that there would be an effect without a cause. The Big Bang was the effect, so what exactly was the cause? Because there is no explanation, it must be assumed that God started the big bang.

[Mighty Midgit]

wow, a lot has happened when I was off...

hmmm... lets see.

Aahh, I'm too tired today to type anything long.

First off, the whole flesh and blood thing and it lasting untouched for that long, even though i am religious, I am rather sceptical myself. Something like that can be easily done and preserved (replacing said items) by the people involved. Besides, the priesthood power required for such an act was taken from the earth after the death of the apostles cause the world to go into apostasy. I'm not saying that it could never happen, I just don't think it could.

Ok, the subject of the universe being created is one that is theory in both religion and science. Neither can say that there end is solid fact. Again, it goes all down to what you believe. I think that both sides have part of the truth. Besides, in both of them, the universe was created from nothing right? Whats to say that the people of ancient times couldn't possibly comprehend how God started the universe and wrote it in their own understanding.

The 7 days thing is something that both science and religion will argue about for ever. In science, the passing of events that can pe persieved as time happen without question but the concept of recording time is all measurements decided upon by us humans. Someone mentioned before that the "7 day" period could have taken place over 45billion or whatever years. This could be correct or not. It's all speculation, but here is something else to think about. When discussing "days" when reference to the creation, the word used for days in the original scrips differed that what was used any other time days were mentioned. It would have been more correct to concider a "day" an "era" as it would better fit the context. The text was translated as "day" probably to make it more understanding to the people who taught and were teaching it. My religion doesn't teach this as it is my own specualtion. It is just what I personally believe. Science and the bible may both have it right, after all.

I guess I did type a bit after all. (i got a tetnis shot and my arm is killing me >.<)

happy debating ^^

[Nulls Wife]

wow, a lot has happened when I was off...


Science and the bible may both have it right, after all.




Love that line! I totally agree. I think it is hilarious that both having faith and not having faith can both be discribe of as "intense". I think way too much effort and brain power is spent trying to disprove the other one. In a sense why can't both be right? Science says evolution and the bible says creation, but why couldn't they be the same? What if the way God created the world was using evolution and the Big Bang? The bible says "days" and Science says years but if we don't know the bible's definition of the days then they could both be right.

I do realize that they both can't be right of everything (God existance for one) but I do think they both could be right on some things.

Also what is the point of other religions and thinking that only your religion is right. This is a huge issue in my life when it comes to other people judging my faith. What ever happened to good old fashioned christianity?
Unfortunatly all religions have man based rules which end up turning people away from everything all together. In fact not too long ago Null and I wouldn't have been able to get married to each other since I was raised luthern and he was raised catholic. And even for us to get married we had to jump through a lot of hoops so both churches recognized our marrige. And even though I am very religious I firmly believe that God didn't care what church we were married in or if both churches recognized it. However silly things like that turn people away from church.

Along the same lines, I truly think that it is a possibiliy that the same person is God for all religions, including christianity, budisium, ect.

Everyone is entitiled to their own thoughts or beliefs and I find it very interesting to read this debate!

[Shell]

Which is exactly what we're going for. The belief among Christians is that Jesus was of 2 separate natures - God and Man. The fact that it is human flesh, but has not decayed in 1300 years seems to conform with that, no?

I don't believe in Jesus, but I do believe, if he's real, he's supposed to be a Demigod/Half Blood (a child of God and a mortal).

[Process3pizza]

Chen Says Jews Are gay

[Denominator]

Chen Says Jews Are gay

Nicely done. You took a solid debate thread and threw a racist useless comment in the mix.

Now we know who to ignore here.

[Denominator]

Anyone believe in Ghosts (http://www.xforgery.com/forum/blog.php?b=70)?

[WoozyJoJo]

One thing I never understood about religion is how people can go around saying they're christian/jewish/etc. but still not actually know anything about their religion.

For example, to Catholics, the Pope is above all (except God). So therefore, being a very important catholic symbol, you would expect most Catholics to know the Pope's name, and yet, many people who go to church every Sunday couldn't tell you what it is.

How can you say your religion but not even know what your religion's views are? I think most people just say their religion is whatever their parent's is, regardless of whether or not they know anything about the religion itself.

My personal view on religion is that I couldn't care any less. I believe irreligious is the word. It's not that I don't believe in God, or that I do believe in God, it's just that I don't really care. And yes, I know how ignorant that sounds.

[DeathsFriend22]

My personal view on religion is that I couldn't care any less. I believe irreligious is the word. It's not that I don't believe in God, or that I do believe in God, it's just that I don't really care. And yes, I know how ignorant that sounds.

I know plenty about my religion.
The word is "Apathetic"

Im kinda disappointed that Denominator didn't reply to my last post. I enjoyed our discussion :(

[Process3pizza]

The thing about Catholics I don't understand is if the dinosuars died from the metor when did God create humans and if he created them after the dinosuars why were there dinosuars in the first place

[Null Parameter]

The thing about Catholics I don't understand is if the dinosuars died from the metor when did God create humans and if he created them after the dinosuars why were there dinosuars in the first place
How does that have anything to do with just Catholics?

[Denominator]

Im kinda disappointed that Denominator didn't reply to my last post. I enjoyed our discussion :(

Yeah, me too. I read it and didn't have the time or energy to write a decent response, and I didn't want to belittle you with a poor response. I promise to respond when I have the time and energy to write something decent and coherent.

The thing about Catholics I don't understand is if the dinosuars died from the metor when did God create humans and if he created them after the dinosuars why were there dinosuars in the first place

According to most Catholics I've confronted on this, the dinosaurs didn't actually exist, their bones are simply there to test your beliefs.

How does that have anything to do with just Catholics?

It has to do with just Catholics because, as far as I can tell, nobody on this site has stated they follow a religion far from Christianity. Unless somebody speaks up that they are Hindu, Buddist, or Jewish, I'm not going to try debating against those religions.

[DeathsFriend22]

Yeah, me too. I read it and didn't have the time or energy to write a decent response, and I didn't want to belittle you with a poor response. I promise to respond when I have the time and energy to write something decent and coherent.
k :D

According to most Catholics I've confronted on this, the dinosaurs didn't actually exist, their bones are simply there to test your beliefs.

Actually, I and several other people in my Church groups have asked the same question, and we have never gotten that response.

[Denominator]

Actually, I and several other people in my Church groups have asked the same question, and we have never gotten that response.

What response do you get?

[Nulls Wife]

According to most Catholics I've confronted on this, the dinosaurs didn't actually exist, their bones are simply there to test your beliefs.

That is interesting. I am not doubting that people have told you that, I have just never heard any Catholics say that. I have heard most Catholics explain dinosaurs as being in the garden of eden, and since the 7 "days" was not just a week then it makes sense why the dinosaurs bones are older.

[Mighty Midgit]

Also what is the point of other religions and thinking that only your religion is right. This is a huge issue in my life when it comes to other people judging my faith. What ever happened to good old fashioned christianity?
Unfortunatly all religions have man based rules which end up turning people away from everything all together. In fact not too long ago Null and I wouldn't have been able to get married to each other since I was raised luthern and he was raised catholic. And even for us to get married we had to jump through a lot of hoops so both churches recognized our marrige. And even though I am very religious I firmly believe that God didn't care what church we were married in or if both churches recognized it. However silly things like that turn people away from church.

That is very unfortunate =(
I think that being that strict would hinder a religion, not help it.


Along the same lines, I truly think that it is a possibiliy that the same person is God for all religions, including christianity, budisium, ect.

I have something to add to this statement that I think fits quite well.

"Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together, the testimony of the two nations shall run together also."

I think this adds a little backing to you statement, or maybe not. It just came to mind when I read your post.

[Nulls Wife]

I have something to add to this statement that I think fits quite well.

"Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together, the testimony of the two nations shall run together also."

I think this adds a little backing to you statement, or maybe not. It just came to mind when I read your post.


Where is this from? I like it! :)

[Mighty Midgit]

Where is this from? I like it! :)

2nd Nephi Chapter 29, verses 7-8 in the Book of Mormon.

[DeathsFriend22]

What response do you get?
My typical reply is usually something along the lines of what Holly said, if I understood her post correctly.

That is interesting. I am not doubting that people have told you that, I have just never heard any Catholics say that. I have heard most Catholics explain dinosaurs as being in the garden of eden, and since the 7 "days" was not just a week then it makes sense why the dinosaurs bones are older.

You're saying that the Dinos came first and then after an era or 2 God created man, right? That's essentially what most people will tell me. :thumbup:

[Shell]

How about we switch topics? What's wrong with my new religion, Greek?

[Denominator]

How about we switch topics? What's wrong with my new religion, Greek?

Nothing. Tell us something about it.

[Shell]

Well, there's over 189k gods, with Zeus being the head god.

If you would like to know more, please follow this link to a fantastic Wikipedia page:

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

[Nulls Wife]

You're saying that the Dinos came first and then after an era or 2 God created man, right? That's essentially what most people will tell me. :thumbup:


Exactly! Sorry it didn't make sense earlier...I usually check the forum after taking care of a sceaming 3 month old...I don't think right after that!

[Mighty Midgit]

Greek mythology is quite a hilarious drama. They may be gods but their action are quite human in nature (maybe even more so than actual humans).

One funny things about the gods though is that they envied humans just because humans were mortal.

[DeathsFriend22]

It's called Mythology for a reason. lol

[Mighty Midgit]

out of all the ancient mythologies, my favorite would happen to be Norse.

[DeathDriver86]

Oh man, this is a tight rope. But what the heck.

In my opinion, and based on personal experience, Christianity is just another form of a cult. That may sound harsh but hear this out. When I was about 7 years old, my parents split up, and my father eventually earned custody of me and my 6 year old brother. He met this woman who was a devout Christian, who saw it as her sole duty to 'save' our souls. This consisted of going to church and reading the Bible. At first it was cool, I didn't know much about any of it, and was looking forward to meeting new people and learning new things. But then the ugly side of it reared up.

The place we went to was the tpe of place you had to be born into- the people all knew each other, and frowned upon the inclusion of outsiders in their church. Thus instantly making me and my brother black sheep. Gossip gossip gossip. That's all that the people went there for. To learn about what the other peoples business was. God was the farthest thing from thier minds and it took me nearly a year to figure it out. Getting fake smiles from the people when I knew they knew that we were a broken home, our deepest secrets becoming thier lunch conversations. It would only end badly, and it did.

As we got older, I drifted away from God, while my brother(being too young at the time to really decide for himself) accepted everything thrown at him with open arms. Eventually, my step-mother(they got married) forced me and my brother to sit in the front row, so we could 'absorb' the Pastors message. If anything, it only made us stick out and gain more of the attention I didn't want. It only got worse from there.

I'm rambling and am sorry so I'll cut to the chase. Here is a few examples of what 'Christianity' entails as far as what you can and cannot do(according to the church I went to):

-You can't go to the movies
-You can't listen to music UNLESS is about God
-No TV in the house
-Women can only wear skirts, no pants
-Women cannot cut thier hair
-Men had to be clean shaven
-No tattoos
-No sex until marriage
-No drugs/alchohol
-No videogames(my personal favorite naughty thing to do)
-No swearing, fighting, amoungst family
-Must pay tithes to church every Sunday(aka, God taxes)
-Must go to Sunday School until 18 or until Pastor allows you not too
-Must say grace before meals
The list of idocy goes on...

Bottom line, everyone in that church broke at least 5 of these little laws. The Pastor played Doom on his computer after church each night for crying out loud. At first I didn't care about all this crap. These little rules were stupid...until my TV was taken, my Dreamcast smashed in front of me, my books and novels tossed in the trash, my CD's trhown away, no movies, no friends unless they went to church, nothing. I was being forced to live this way. Having a religion forced on me like it was the best thing for me. I was fortunate to have a sense of mind to know what I wanted, being an advanced thinker already, my mind was always racing with 'what ifs' and 'why'. My poor brother on the other hand, wanted to become a preacher...instead of a race car driver, which apparently was against God. I drifted apart from this 'perfect' little family and soon became the black sheep. When church people came over I was forced to stay in my room, as I was going to 'bring down the spirit'. People hated me, talked behind my back, and I even got into a fight with a kid at church because he said I was the devil himself. After he really couldn't say much of anything, and that's when life got even harder for me, but that's another discussion best left untold.

Bottom line- if a religion is forced on you, you see it's ugly side and reject it. I am no longer interested in religions, be them vast or small. My brother is now going to college to become an Evangualist, which means he wants to travel the world spreading the word of God. It angers me, but at the same time I'm glad he found something that makes him happy.

Either way, I'm nothing. I respect all your beliefs no matter what they are. But unless I ask about them, don't lecture me about how I'm doing it 'wrong'.

[Null Parameter]

I drifted apart from this 'perfect' little family and soon became the black sheep. When church people came over I was forced to stay in my room, as I was going to 'bring down the spirit'. People hated me, talked behind my back, and I even got into a fight with a kid at church because he said I was the devil himself. After he really couldn't say much of anything, and that's when life got even harder for me, but that's another discussion best left untold.
This section reminded me of Harry Potter. Oh, how I don't envy his cupboard under the stairs...........

[DeathDriver86]

This section reminded me of Harry Potter. Oh, how I don't envy his cupboard under the stairs...........

Which was contained in the novels I had to throw away. I've since replenished my collection thankfully....but grrrr.

[DeathsFriend22]

Oh man, this is a tight rope. But what the heck.

In my opinion, and based on personal experience, Christianity is just another form of a cult. That may sound harsh but hear this out. When I was about 7 years old, my parents split up, and my father eventually earned custody of me and my 6 year old brother. He met this woman who was a devout Christian, who saw it as her sole duty to 'save' our souls. This consisted of going to church and reading the Bible. At first it was cool, I didn't know much about any of it, and was looking forward to meeting new people and learning new things. But then the ugly side of it reared up.

-You can't go to the movies
-You can't listen to music UNLESS is about God
-No TV in the house
-Women can only wear skirts, no pants
-Women cannot cut thier hair
-Men had to be clean shaven
-No tattoos
-No drugs
-No videogames(my personal favorite naughty thing to do)
-No swearing, fighting, amoungst family
-Must say grace before meals
The list of idocy goes on...


Uhh wtf. I don't know what kind of church you went to but I have never encountered any rules like these. I'm from a Catholic family and we have a 360, a PS 2, a Wii, and 2 computers.
While swearing is generally frowned upon, my parents both do it occasionally. Even saying grace before meals is optional, my family only does it before dinner.

As for paying tithes, this is also optional, but greatly appreciated. The Church itself has no source of income, but they still have to pay property/utility taxes, and the priests have to be able to eat.

Sunday school is only up until the 8th grade, and even then only 3 years of it are required to get the sacrements of First Communion and Confirmation. Besides, it's not always on Sunday. You can choose which days you go to Religious Ed.

And about no sex before marriage - Yes, this is one of the rules. What's wrong with abstinence? Why is that such a bad thing?

[Denominator]

And about no sex before marriage - Yes, this is one of the rules. What's wrong with abstinence? Why is that such a bad thing?

Sex is an important part of a relationship. It really shows whether you have a close bond with that person or if there is nothing there. It relieves stress, reduces tension, and altogether is an enjoyable activity.

How do you know if the one person you're going to spend the rest of your life with is the right person for you if you've never shared the most intimate moment of your life with them?

[Nulls Wife]

In my opinion, and based on personal experience, Christianity is just another form of a cult. That may sound harsh but hear this out. When I was about 7 years old, my parents split up, and my father eventually earned custody of me and my 6 year old brother. He met this woman who was a devout Christian, who saw it as her sole duty to 'save' our souls. This consisted of going to church and reading the Bible. At first it was cool, I didn't know much about any of it, and was looking forward to meeting new people and learning new things. But then the ugly side of it reared up.

The place we went to was the tpe of place you had to be born into- the people all knew each other, and frowned upon the inclusion of outsiders in their church. Thus instantly making me and my brother black sheep. Gossip gossip gossip. That's all that the people went there for. To learn about what the other peoples business was. God was the farthest thing from thier minds and it took me nearly a year to figure it out. Getting fake smiles from the people when I knew they knew that we were a broken home, our deepest secrets becoming thier lunch conversations. It would only end badly, and it did.

As we got older, I drifted away from God, while my brother(being too young at the time to really decide for himself) accepted everything thrown at him with open arms. Eventually, my step-mother(they got married) forced me and my brother to sit in the front row, so we could 'absorb' the Pastors message. If anything, it only made us stick out and gain more of the attention I didn't want. It only got worse from there.

Bottom line, everyone in that church broke at least 5 of these little laws. The Pastor played Doom on his computer after church each night for crying out loud. At first I didn't care about all this crap. These little rules were stupid...until my TV was taken, my Dreamcast smashed in front of me, my books and novels tossed in the trash, my CD's trhown away, no movies, no friends unless they went to church, nothing. I was being forced to live this way. Having a religion forced on me like it was the best thing for me. I was fortunate to have a sense of mind to know what I wanted, being an advanced thinker already, my mind was always racing with 'what ifs' and 'why'. My poor brother on the other hand, wanted to become a preacher...instead of a race car driver, which apparently was against God. I drifted apart from this 'perfect' little family and soon became the black sheep. When church people came over I was forced to stay in my room, as I was going to 'bring down the spirit'. People hated me, talked behind my back, and I even got into a fight with a kid at church because he said I was the devil himself. After he really couldn't say much of anything, and that's when life got even harder for me, but that's another discussion best left untold.

Bottom line- if a religion is forced on you, you see it's ugly side and reject it. I am no longer interested in religions, be them vast or small. My brother is now going to college to become an Evangualist, which means he wants to travel the world spreading the word of God. It angers me, but at the same time I'm glad he found something that makes him happy.

Either way, I'm nothing. I respect all your beliefs no matter what they are. But unless I ask about them, don't lecture me about how I'm doing it 'wrong'.


Wow....I can't imagine that! I am christian and if I had been put through what you were...I would not a christian either. Serisouly to me this sounds like church on acid. There are A FEW rules that my church shares with the one you had to endure but there is no where near close to what you went through. In all reality I have never met anyone that has the same experience as you did.

Now I may be stepping on your toes...but I just need to say this. I hope that some day you understand that not all christianty is like that at all. Not all churches are cult like, I promise. The key to christianty is finding a branch that works for you.

I completely agree that NO ONE should be forced into church and if they are they will probably turn away from it eventually.

[Coyote1023]

Are (were) you a puritan? They hated the concept of fun. *See US History*

[Mighty Midgit]

The place we went to was the tpe of place you had to be born into- the people all knew each other, and frowned upon the inclusion of outsiders in their church. Thus instantly making me and my brother black sheep. Gossip gossip gossip. That's all that the people went there for. To learn about what the other peoples business was. God was the farthest thing from thier minds and it took me nearly a year to figure it out. Getting fake smiles from the people when I knew they knew that we were a broken home, our deepest secrets becoming thier lunch conversations. It would only end badly, and it did.

As we got older, I drifted away from God, while my brother(being too young at the time to really decide for himself) accepted everything thrown at him with open arms. Eventually, my step-mother(they got married) forced me and my brother to sit in the front row, so we could 'absorb' the Pastors message. If anything, it only made us stick out and gain more of the attention I didn't want. It only got worse from there.

I'm rambling and am sorry so I'll cut to the chase. Here is a few examples of what 'Christianity' entails as far as what you can and cannot do(according to the church I went to):

-You can't go to the movies
-You can't listen to music UNLESS is about God
-No TV in the house
-Women can only wear skirts, no pants
-Women cannot cut thier hair
-Men had to be clean shaven
-No tattoos
-No sex until marriage
-No drugs/alchohol
-No videogames(my personal favorite naughty thing to do)
-No swearing, fighting, amoungst family
-Must pay tithes to church every Sunday(aka, God taxes)
-Must go to Sunday School until 18 or until Pastor allows you not too
-Must say grace before meals
The list of idocy goes on...

Bottom line, everyone in that church broke at least 5 of these little laws. The Pastor played Doom on his computer after church each night for crying out loud. At first I didn't care about all this crap. These little rules were stupid...until my TV was taken, my Dreamcast smashed in front of me, my books and novels tossed in the trash, my CD's trhown away, no movies, no friends unless they went to church, nothing. I was being forced to live this way. Having a religion forced on me like it was the best thing for me. I was fortunate to have a sense of mind to know what I wanted, being an advanced thinker already, my mind was always racing with 'what ifs' and 'why'. My poor brother on the other hand, wanted to become a preacher...instead of a race car driver, which apparently was against God. I drifted apart from this 'perfect' little family and soon became the black sheep. When church people came over I was forced to stay in my room, as I was going to 'bring down the spirit'. People hated me, talked behind my back, and I even got into a fight with a kid at church because he said I was the devil himself. After he really couldn't say much of anything, and that's when life got even harder for me, but that's another discussion best left untold.

Bottom line- if a religion is forced on you, you see it's ugly side and reject it. I am no longer interested in religions, be them vast or small.

Either way, I'm nothing. I respect all your beliefs no matter what they are. But unless I ask about them, don't lecture me about how I'm doing it 'wrong'.

I'm really surprised a religion would treat you that way. I feel sorry for you. I would hate to have one religious sect ruin your feel for religion, but everyone is there own person.

As for the regulations you mentioned, some of them I agree with, some of them I think are way too strict, and I though us Mormons were strict ^^


I don't see what is wrong with seeing a movie. Movies should be welcomed by religion as long as they are not too extreme. The only thing about movies that I am against are 'R' rated movies as most of them just have useless crap put in them which is unnecessary or distracts from the main story just to make them get that rating so people will see it. And a ban on TV is a bit out there. I have never heard of a religion that banned TV. I am seriously sorry for you.

I know a music restriction is used in some religions. Mine believes in listening to wholesome music but it is up to the listener. I love to indulge in the occasional hard rock or screaming but have a soft spot for classic rock.

Now a ban on video games is really funny. And I don't think it is a naughty thing to do. Video games are a great past time, hobby, way to relieve stress, and much more. I contribute most of my high IQ to the fact that I have played video games since I could walk.

Some of the restrictions seem a little discriminatory, namely the rules that women can only wear skirts and the fact that they have to have long hair. Women can wear what they want and have whatever hairstyle they want. People have there agency.

I do believe it is good to be well groomed. I will have to be clean shaven for the next 2 years myself as I will be a missionary. The only people in my religion that are expected to be clean shaven are missionaries, the Bishop and his councilors, and higher church officials.

I agree completely with no tattoos, sex until marriage, drugs, and alcohol, and it is best to do without swearing and fighting.

Tithing is something that 90% of all churches do and it is, for the most part, voluntary. Running an establishment does cost money and tithes help pay for this. I am, however, against payed ministry. Tithes should be for the upkeep of the religion, not for the pastors' pocket. All preachers in my religion are volunteers who do it because they love the people.

I love the idea of Sunday school. Teaching kids religion at a young age helps them make good choices later on in life, for the most part anyway ^^. Sunday school for me went on until I was 12. After that the kids get moved to more in depth 1 hour Sunday school but are also introduces into other 1 hour learning groups. Girls go to Young Women classes, designed to teach them gospel principals in relation to what girls go through as teens and also get taught life lessons. Men go to whats called Priesthood Quorums to teach them lessons in respect to how they learn and grow, and also how to officiate in the offices of the priesthood. The main church service is the only thing required to go to on Sunday but most of the kids and teens choose to stay the 2 more hours for their specific classes.

Having things too strict may keep people on the strait and narrow but it is also a deterrent for many. People need to experience life in order to learn what is good and bad. Those raised in extremely strict churches and are sheltered end up hitting a wall (or having the wall hit them) when they get out into real society.

I don't want to step on any toes either. I respect your choice as you had a bad experience but don't let it get you down. There is always something for everyone when it comes to religion.

I will re-post this as I agree with her 100%:
I hope that some day you understand that not all christianty is like that at all. Not all churches are cult like, I promise. The key to christianty is finding a branch that works for you.


Now to briefly touch on the sex before marriage topic:
Sex is an important part of a relationship. It really shows whether you have a close bond with that person or if there is nothing there. It relieves stress, reduces tension, and altogether is an enjoyable activity.

How do you know if the one person you're going to spend the rest of your life with is the right person for you if you've never shared the most intimate moment of your life with them?

I do agree that sex is an important part of a relationship but should only be used to strengthen the relationship you have with your spouse. Saying that you cannot have a close bond or know if you have a close bond with someone if you don't have sex is false. You can't say that having sex proves that the other person really loves you or not. Many times, particularly when it comes to men, it is abused and is done only for the enjoyment of the man who really has little to no feelings for the girl in general. It can go the other way too, but it is not as common.

Sex is a double edged sword. Even though it may relieve stress, reduce tension, and is an enjoyable activity, it also causes those things that it's said to alleviate, especially when abused.

You can easily have a strong relationship without it and if you cant stay together unless you prove your love through sex, can you really say that your bond is all that strong.

I love the analogy that when it comes to sex before marriage, sex is like buying a hotdog at a baseball game. Sure the hotdog might be extremely delicious, it is not, however, the main reason to go to a baseball game and the baseball game can be just as good without it.

[Denominator]

I do agree that sex is an important part of a relationship but should only be used to strengthen the relationship you have with your spouse. Saying that you cannot have a close bond or know if you have a close bond with someone if you don't have sex is false. You can't say that having sex proves that the other person really loves you or not. Many times, particularly when it comes to men, it is abused and is done only for the enjoyment of the man who really has little to no feelings for the girl in general. It can go the other way too, but it is not as common.

I am not saying you can't have a close bond with someone without sex. I have really close bonds with many of my friends and my brother, and parents, etc, and haven't had sex with them. I have really close bonds with a lot of people without having sex with them.

Sex does not prove love. You don't have to have sex to prove you love somebody. But at the same point, if you're really attracted to somebody physically, emotionally, and mentally, it is a wondrous thing.

I wholeheartedly agree that when (if) sex us abused it is bad. But you're making an assumption that often sex is purely for the man. If it is consensual between both parties, then is is something amazing and great for both of you.

Sex is a double edged sword. Even though it may relieve stress, reduce tension, and is an enjoyable activity, it also causes those things that it's said to alleviate, especially when abused.

Then why is it auto-banned by God? I understand the downsides and everything, but God and religion just say no to it from the start.

You can easily have a strong relationship without it and if you cant stay together unless you prove your love through sex, can you really say that your bond is all that strong.

Again, I agree. If you're staying together just to have sex, or if you can't be together without fucking all the time, then you have a problem. Unless all you want to do is fuck, but then that's not love and likely not going to lead to marriage, in which case it does not apply to this discussion.

I love the analogy that when it comes to sex before marriage, sex is like buying a hotdog at a baseball game. Sure the hotdog might be extremely delicious, it is not, however, the main reason to go to a baseball game and the baseball game can be just as good without it.

That's a shitty analogy.

Sex is like a new car. Sure, the new car might be just right and everything when you see it, look at it, and talk to the owner about it, but you really don't know until you take it for a test drive. The car might be a good car that you enjoy driving, but it could be brutal to drive, and if you wait until after you buy it you could end up taking the bus.

[Mighty Midgit]

I am not saying you can't have a close bond with someone without sex. I have really close bonds with many of my friends and my brother, and parents, etc, and haven't had sex with them. I have really close bonds with a lot of people without having sex with them.

lol, I was talking about a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship there. I didn't think that was needed to be stated ^^


Sex does not prove love. You don't have to have sex to prove you love somebody. But at the same point, if you're really attracted to somebody physically, emotionally, and mentally, it is a wondrous thing.
I do agree with this


I wholeheartedly agree that when (if) sex us abused it is bad. But you're making an assumption that often sex is purely for the man. If it is consensual between both parties, then is is something amazing and great for both of you.
I know this. I was using men as an example before mainly because I wouldn't completely know things from the girls point of view ^^


Then why is it auto-banned by God? I understand the downsides and everything, but God and religion just say no to it from the start.
No sex before marriage was never just a ban on it because God felt is was bad. The no sex before marriage has always been a way of protecting the people who are not emotional or otherwise ready for the responsibility that may accompany having sex. Accidents happen from time to time and the people have to cope with it, many times making their life a lot harder. I'm not saying that all younger people who chose to have sex are not ready if something happens or that they don't know how to take protective measures against something happening. And if your an adult and you believe you are ready to shoulder anything that may arise from this than there isn't really much problem especially if you plan on getting married later on anyway. My belief is that if you can save even a few people from increased burden or even having their lives ruined (as, rarely, this does happen) than I think it is a great thing.




Sex is like a new car. Sure, the new car might be just right and everything when you see it, look at it, and talk to the owner about it, but you really don't know until you take it for a test drive. The car might be a good car that you enjoy driving, but it could be brutal to drive, and if you wait until after you buy it you could end up taking the bus.
So your saying that you don't know person is right unless you give them a "Test Drive"? This seems a little off as well ^_^ And the only reason to have a car is to drive it. This is not the case for a relationship with another person. You are not in the relationship mainly to "drive" the other person. It's hard coming up with a good analogy for this subject...

[Denominator]

lol, I was talking about a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship there. I didn't think that was needed to be stated ^^

I figured as much, but thought I'd point it out anyways.

No sex before marriage was never just a ban on it because God felt is was bad. The no sex before marriage has always been a way of protecting the people who are not emotional or otherwise ready for the responsibility that may accompany having sex. Accidents happen from time to time and the people have to cope with it, many times making their life a lot harder. I'm not saying that all younger people who chose to have sex are not ready if something happens or that they don't know how to take protective measures against something happening. And if your an adult and you believe you are ready to shoulder anything that may arise from this than there isn't really much problem especially if you plan on getting married later on anyway. My belief is that if you can save even a few people from increased burden or even having their lives ruined (as, rarely, this does happen) than I think it is a great thing.

So you end up with a blanket rule over everyone to protect the few that are weak? That would be like saying "nobody is allowed to eat potato chips because it makes some people fat and they don't know how to control themselves." Or "nobody is allowed to drive a car because some people have crashed." Which is my issue with it.

So your saying that you don't know person is right unless you give them a "Test Drive"? This seems a little off as well ^_^ And the only reason to have a car is to drive it. This is not the case for a relationship with another person. You are not in the relationship mainly to "drive" the other person. It's hard coming up with a good analogy for this subject...

There is no good analogy for this. Like all analogies, they're a little bit off.

But at the very least, it's an interesting discussion.

[EonsAgo]

So your saying that you don't know person is right unless you give them a "Test Drive"? This seems a little off as well ^_^ And the only reason to have a car is to drive it. This is not the case for a relationship with another person. You are not in the relationship mainly to "drive" the other person. It's hard coming up with a good analogy for this subject...
Well, if you married someone without dating them, you're very likely to have rough times. :scared:

Question sirs: Why do some feel a need to be part of a religion? Is it just the afterlife? Or like what?
Another: Do you wholeheartedly believe in your religion? When you have doubts, what do you do? Ignore them?

[DeathsFriend22]

It's more of a feeling of "connection" to God that draws many to religion. Besides, believing that it's not really over when you die helps alleviate the fear of death that many paople have without it.


Denominator, there's no "Autoban" on sex, just sex before marriage. You shouldn't need to take a "test drive" before you marry anyway, which is why the whole "car" analogy is shitty. If you really do have a strong relationship with someone, shouldn't you already know them well enough to make the choice if they're the right one for you without aving sex first?

[EonsAgo]

I used to be a wholehearted Catholic.

Even now, I still feel there is a God... maybe somewhere. But I don't know why I have to agree with all the stories religions tack onto God in order to get to "heaven".

If I can be virtuous (without a religion), I ought to be able to get into heaven.
If I can go to heaven by just being virtuous, then religion is not really necessary.

[Denominator]

Denominator, there's no "Autoban" on sex, just sex before marriage. You shouldn't need to take a "test drive" before you marry anyway, which is why the whole "car" analogy is shitty. If you really do have a strong relationship with someone, shouldn't you already know them well enough to make the choice if they're the right one for you without aving sex first?

If you're close enough to someone that you're going to marry them, then why is there an arbitrary line that you cross? Why is it okay to have sex when you're married, but not okay when you're not?

[Mighty Midgit]

Well, if you married someone without dating them, you're very likely to have rough times. :scared:

you didn't read the entire discussion did you... we were not talking about dating, but having sex before marriage. lol, of course you need to date the person ^^

And yes, Denominator, it is quite an interesting discussion ^^

[Nulls Wife]

So you end up with a blanket rule over everyone to protect the few that are weak? That would be like saying "nobody is allowed to eat potato chips because it makes some people fat and they don't know how to control themselves." Or "nobody is allowed to drive a car because some people have crashed." Which is my issue with it.


So...I am just wondering, if you don't think it is needed to protect the weak, what do you plan on telling your children about sex some day? Even though I agree with you, in a sense, that at a certian point sex is very important in a relationship even if you aren't married, there is no way I am going to teach Karly that it is ok to have sex just because she is in a relationship. I plan on teaching her to wait till she is married and then hopefully she will wait until she is old enough and be with someone she loves.

[Mighty Midgit]

So...I am just wondering, if you don't think it is needed to protect the weak, what do you plan on telling your children about sex some day? Even though I agree with you, in a sense, that at a certian point sex is very important in a relationship even if you aren't married, there is no way I am going to teach Karly that it is ok to have sex just because she is in a relationship. I plan on teaching her to wait till she is married and then hopefully she will wait until she is old enough and be with someone she loves.


It's nice to have a mother's point of view.

[Denominator]

So...I am just wondering, if you don't think it is needed to protect the weak, what do you plan on telling your children about sex some day? Even though I agree with you, in a sense, that at a certian point sex is very important in a relationship even if you aren't married, there is no way I am going to teach Karly that it is ok to have sex just because she is in a relationship. I plan on teaching her to wait till she is married and then hopefully she will wait until she is old enough and be with someone she loves.

I don't know entirely know what I'll tell them yet. But I believe that every person is ready when they're ready, and there is no definite time that a person is ready, like God says (marriage). Similar to the whole abortion debate - there is a definite line at birth that defines the beginning of life, but what makes life start then and not earlier?

I am likely going to tell my children that there is no definite time that you become ready, but warn them of the repercussions of sex before you're ready, and I hope I'll have taught them well enough before that it's not a good idea to run around and have sex with everyone, but rather when you're ready with a person you're in a committed relationship with.

I guess the issue I see is that every person is different, and every person is ready to have sex at a different time. But religion sets a definite time that you are ready. If you're married at 16, does that necessarily mean that you're ready to have sex at 16? You might not be ready until you're 20, but now the church is saying it's okay. And now, Midgit, when you talk about men taking advantage of women, what of older men in arranged marriages to younger women? Maybe the girl isn't ready, but now the church says it's okay for him to have sex with her, so what's to stop it now? Why is this okay when two unmarried people that are ready to have sex isn't?

[Nulls Wife]

I guess the issue I see is that every person is different, and every person is ready to have sex at a different time. But religion sets a definite time that you are ready. If you're married at 16, does that necessarily mean that you're ready to have sex at 16? You might not be ready until you're 20, but now the church is saying it's okay. And now, Midgit, when you talk about men taking advantage of women, what of older men in arranged marriages to younger women? Maybe the girl isn't ready, but now the church says it's okay for him to have sex with her, so what's to stop it now? Why is this okay when two unmarried people that are ready to have sex isn't?


Good point my friend...good point! I think people concentrate on kids having sex too early and forget that some people are "forced" into sex before they are ready.

However it would be nice if we could find a way to teach kids how to know when they are ready...instead of being guilted into it, doing it because their friends are or various other nonsense reasons.

[Denominator]

However it would be nice if we could find a way to teach kids how to know when they are ready...instead of being guilted into it, doing it because their friends are or various other nonsense reasons.

I totally agree. However, that will never happen unless religion says it's okay to have sex before marriage. And we all know that will never happen.

The only way to teach them that is to teach when it is okay, and no matter what anyone says the church will always come out and say "marriage or sin", etc, etc, etc.

[TheGrimPeeper28]

This is retarded. Debating is such a horrible waste of effort and time that I can't believe I just read 10 pages of this bullshit. >_>

To me, there is no point to debating religion. One way or another, each side's opinion will never be able to be fully proved or disproved and the debaters are, more often than not, too biased to their own side of debate that no matter what anyone else says, their opinion will never be changed.

I just find the entire matter of it idiotic. It has no purpose, but I suppose it does not really matter because just my few words wont change the fact that people enjoy picking apart others' posts for false minuscule details to disprove the other only for the sake of arguing.

Truly, my belief, or hope I should say, is that everyone just stop uselessly debating trivial things such as religion and all agree on following the basic morals accepted by society because that is the true point of religion other than to explain the complexity of the afterlife.

[Mighty Midgit]

I know nothing really good comes from religious debate. Everyone has their beliefs and you can't really do anything about that.

The reason I like this topic is that you get to see what people's beliefs are and see who has similar beliefs with you. You also get into some fairly deep discussions such as the sex before marriage that we have been talking about for the past 2 pages or so.

If you have people with a good mindset that can stay level headed, a religious debate is quite enjoyable ^_^

when you talk about men taking advantage of women, what of older men in arranged marriages to younger women? Maybe the girl isn't ready, but now the church says it's okay for him to have sex with her, so what's to stop it now? Why is this okay when two unmarried people that are ready to have sex isn't?

You seem to think that people take religious doctrine as solid fact with no liquid aspects to them. I agree that there are varying aspects depending on the situation. In times like these it is between you and God to determine what the best choice should be.

I have always been against arranged marriage. In the case of an older man marrying a much younger girl, if he forces her into sex before she is ready, I would consider that itself is a sin no different than rape. If the husband doesn't respect the fact that she is not ready than he is failing in his role as the husband. Sex should never be forced on anyone regardless of weather they are married or not. However, if the girl truly thinks she is ready, than it is between the girl, her husband, and god. That is, after all, what personal revelation is for. In a case like this, if she is not ready, I am against it and truly believe it a sin, even in the bonds of marriage.

[Nulls Wife]

If you have people with a good mindset that can stay level headed, a religious debate is quite enjoyable ^_^

I have always been against arranged marriage. In the case of an older man marrying a much younger girl, if he forces her into sex before she is ready, I would consider that itself is a sin no different than rape. If the husband doesn't respect the fact that she is not ready than he is failing in his role as the husband. Sex should never be forced on anyone regardless of weather they are married or not. However, if the girl truly thinks she is ready, than it is between the girl, her husband, and god. That is, after all, what personal revelation is for. In a case like this, if she is not ready, I am against it and truly believe it a sin, even in the bonds of marriage.

I could never agree with you more! I have been thinking about what demoninator said all night and this morning you took the words right out of my mouth.

[Null Parameter]

I have always been against arranged marriage. In the case of an older man marrying a much younger girl, if he forces her into sex before she is ready, I would consider that itself is a sin no different than rape. If the husband doesn't respect the fact that she is not ready than he is failing in his role as the husband. Sex should never be forced on anyone regardless of weather they are married or not. However, if the girl truly thinks she is ready, than it is between the girl, her husband, and god. That is, after all, what personal revelation is for. In a case like this, if she is not ready, I am against it and truly believe it a sin, even in the bonds of marriage.
I completely agree, except in the case of Anal Sex...

[Denominator]

This is retarded. Debating is such a horrible waste of effort and time that I can't believe I just read 10 pages of this bullshit. >_>

If you think it's retarded, why did you bother reading all 10 pages?

To me, there is no point to debating religion. One way or another, each side's opinion will never be able to be fully proved or disproved and the debaters are, more often than not, too biased to their own side of debate that no matter what anyone else says, their opinion will never be changed.

We all know that. I know that Midgit is really religious, and that Null's Wife is partly religious, but we still debate over it to better understand each other's beliefs and our own beliefs. I've never thought about what I'll teach my children before yesterday, and it's an interesting thought that I'm still mulling over. I like to think I know a substantial amount about religion, but having never truly been that religious there is a lot that I don't know, and a lot of wrong views I've had. It's good to fix these wrong views, and better learn about the other people.

I know I'm not likely to change anyone's views. But the point is we have different views, and it's intellectually stimulating to discuss them.

I just find the entire matter of it idiotic. It has no purpose, but I suppose it does not really matter because just my few words wont change the fact that people enjoy picking apart others' posts for false minuscule details to disprove the other only for the sake of arguing.

For the most part, we haven't picked apart posts. Arguing that the other person said "we" instead of "I" in some context is useless. We've been arguing the major points and beliefs put up by others.

Truly, my belief, or hope I should say, is that everyone just stop uselessly debating trivial things such as religion and all agree on following the basic morals accepted by society because that is the true point of religion other than to explain the complexity of the afterlife.

This statement is contradictory. We can't agree on basic morals accepted by society because people of different religions have different basic morals (see the discussion of sex before marriage). So in attempting to agree on the basic morals, we run into issues with religion - and religion is certainly no trivial thing. Go tell the Pope that and see what he says.

You seem to think that people take religious doctrine as solid fact with no liquid aspects to them. I agree that there are varying aspects depending on the situation. In times like these it is between you and God to determine what the best choice should be.

Quite often, in my experience, people will take religious doctrine as solid fact. This happens mostly when you contest their views, whether or not they truly believe everything to be true.

But here is the part that gets me if you don't take it all as solid fact. What makes you believe this part over here if you don't believe this other part over there?

I have always been against arranged marriage. In the case of an older man marrying a much younger girl, if he forces her into sex before she is ready, I would consider that itself is a sin no different than rape. If the husband doesn't respect the fact that she is not ready than he is failing in his role as the husband. Sex should never be forced on anyone regardless of weather they are married or not. However, if the girl truly thinks she is ready, than it is between the girl, her husband, and god. That is, after all, what personal revelation is for. In a case like this, if she is not ready, I am against it and truly believe it a sin, even in the bonds of marriage.

I agree arranged marriage is not fair, and that the example is at the far end of the spectrum. But I know, for example, that I personally wasn't mature enough to have sex until I was 21, and my girlfriend was at 18. So take into account that if we got married when she was 18 and I was 20, "God" now says we're allowed to have sex, even though I wouldn't have been ready, despite the fact she was.

My issue is that God says it's okay to have sex after you're married, whether you're ready or not. It's similar to the legal drinking age - some people are ready to drink when they're 16, others not until they're 25. But there is an arbitrary line that says when you can and can't drink. The difference is that it's not a hard line like drinking - it's arbitrarily defined by when you get married.

I could never agree with you more! I have been thinking about what demoninator said all night and this morning you took the words right out of my mouth.

I decided to quote you so it wasn't like I overlooked your post. And now I'm going to go off on a tangent along these lines, comparing evolution to religion.

In the US, the average age of marriage for men is 26.7, and for women 25.1. So for purposes of discussion, I'm going to say the average age of marriage is 26. Men reach their reproductive peak by 22, women don't reach it until 35. Evolutionarily speaking, this is prime. Because, evolutionarily speaking, humans shouldn't be monogamous. Look at the closest related primates to humans - chimpanzees, gorillas, and bonobos, all are polyandrous, and chimps and bononbos are polygynous. Go slightly further off the evolutionary relatedness and you get orangutans, also polyandrous. Next relatedness are gibbons and siamangs, who are monogamous. So you have to go quite a ways back evolutionarily to find monogamous primates.

But how does that relate to sex and sexual peaks? Evolutionarily speaking, the male is out there to pass his genes along as often as possible. His job is to fuck everything that moves. And the best way to accomplish this to to make him sexually strongest at the time he is physically strongest, to increase competition between healthy males and prevent unhealthy, old males from reproducing. Makes sense for males.

However, females wait until they are older. Much older. Human females hit their sexual peak between 35 and 40. Again, evolutionarily, this makes sense. When the female is at this age, they are most likely to have a stable setup with a male(s?) who is going to protect them. Conditions are optimal for raising offspring. Which is why chimps and bonobos and gorillas have the social systems they do. In large polygamous societies, the females have the best environment to get the best male to reproduce with and the rest of the males to protect her and her infant. Males, on the other hand, fuck everything they see when they can and pass their genes along.

Evolutionarily speaking, humans should be polygamous. It is up to the males to protect the females and allow them access to good resources, in exchange to the possibility of reproducing. We have a saying in primatology, and in never fails to be true. Females map themselves on resources, while males map themselves on females.

But how does this relate to sex before marriage? Well, go back to the numbers. A man's sexual peak, his prime reproductive age, comes and goes a full 4 years before he gets married. This means his chances of producing a healthy, viable offspring decrease as he gets older. So evolutionarily speaking, sex before marriage is a very good idea. However, in this sense it brings along the worst kind of STD - an unwanted child.

I will agree that this argument is very far-fetched and has a lot of issues. I can even point some of them out a little further down. However, I find it interesting in the date mismatch between marriage and reproductive peak.

Issues?

1) Society has changed, and in most cases families are not stable enough to begin reproducing at such an early age. (Parker and Holly being a nice counter-example)

2) I am saying that evolution calls for polygamy - which I disagree with. I believe that the emotional and mental connection we share with our partner as humans goes beyond that of other primates, and thus is detrimental to our mental and emotional health.

3) I did not address the women's reproductive age being so late. It supports my point that a woman may not be ready for sex even after marriage.

4) Sex and reproduction are different.

I guess my point with this is that, evolutionarily speaking, we as humans are physically ready for sex around 12-15 years old. We are generally emotionally ready around 16-22 years old. However, religious doctrine has set a boundary, and that without even an age boundary. Religion simply says "marriage". Going by statistics, that is at 26, at least 4 years after we are ready to have sex, sometimes as much as 10. But marriage could occur later, meaning more time lost, or earlier, before we are ready.

I am not saying there shouldn't be a time that we recommend you to be ready for sex, or say "no sex before X". I simply have an issue with the ambiguity of "marriage".

I completely agree, except in the case of Anal Sex...

Anal sex is illegal in Canada. Unless you're 18 or married, and both parties consent.

Again, here is my issue with marriage. Granted, the law requires consent, but why is it okay to have anal sex before 18 if you're married, but not unless you're 18 if you're not married.

Here is the law (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-46//20090317/en?command=home&caller=SI&fragment=anal&search_type=all&day=17&month=3&year=2009&search_domain=cs&showall=L&statuteyear=all&lengthannual=50&length=50).

I imagine the US has a similar law, but 21 instead of 18.

[Null Parameter]

Anal sex is illegal in Canada. Unless you're 18 or married, and both parties consent.

Again, here is my issue with marriage. Granted, the law requires consent, but why is it okay to have anal sex before 18 if you're married, but not unless you're 18 if you're not married.

Here is the law (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-46//20090317/en?command=home&caller=SI&fragment=anal&search_type=all&day=17&month=3&year=2009&search_domain=cs&showall=L&statuteyear=all&lengthannual=50&length=50).

I imagine the US has a similar law, but 21 instead of 18.
I only read this part, because I'm lazy....

A) I was completely kidding.
B) I'm pretty sure that there is no such law in the US.

[Denominator]

A) I was completely kidding.
B) I'm pretty sure that there is no such law in the US.

A) I know. I just happened to know that law and thought it would be an amusing way to make a point.
B) I can't find any reputable source online to tell me what the US laws are. Although I did find out that it is illegal to have sex with a porcupine in Florida.

[DeathsFriend22]

B) I can't find any reputable source online to tell me what the US laws are. Although I did find out that it is illegal to have sex with a porcupine in Florida.

Lol i heard about that before.

Anyways, my question now for you, Denominator, is this:

If you're not emotionally ready for marriage, how in the hell are you ready for sex, which, as you say, is your most intimate moment?

[Denominator]

If you're not emotionally ready for marriage, how in the hell are you ready for sex, which, as you say, is your most intimate moment?

You're not. But that's my point with marriage. Why is it that religious doctrine claims that at marriage you're ready for sex, but before that you're not, when marriage is an arbitrary date?

[DeathsFriend22]

well, for one, sleeping around (one night stands) is (are) immoral anyways. If you're ready for that kind of commitment, what's wrong with having to get married first? All marriage does is strengthen the bond you have, and even could help prepare the couples to "do it".

(^lol. I dunno why "do it" makes me laugh.)

This is why your "test drive" analogy is so poor, by the way. You shouldn't marry just to have sex.

[EonsAgo]

This is retarded. Debating is such a horrible waste of effort and time that I can't believe I just read 10 pages of this bullshit.
Everyone has a different opinion of fun.
Debating is not about winning, it's about learning (even if it's just someone else's point of view).

Some people think it's fun to spam. I'd like to think that this thoughtful debate is worth more than trash.

EDIT: Oh, Denom already handled this post. Sorry. I just saw this and clicked reply.

[Denominator]

well, for one, sleeping around (one night stands) is (are) immoral anyways. If you're ready for that kind of commitment, what's wrong with having to get married first? All marriage does is strengthen the bond you have, and even could help prepare the couples to "do it".

I agree sleeping around and one night stands are immoral. I brought up the whole primate thing because it correlates evolutionarily, but I don't believe in one night stands or sleeping around just to get laid all the time.

There is nothing wrong with waiting to get married before you have sex, if that's what you want. Again, if that's your decision and you have a reason to do so, then go for it. But how will getting married strengthen your bond? Perhaps this is just my view on it (and I'd really like the Nulls to comment here since, as far as I know, they're the only married people here), but to me marriage is simply that step going from being together to saying to the world that you are taken forever. When I think about getting married, I don't believe it changes my bond with the person. It just "formalizes" it.

But why do I need to wait until I'm married to have sex? If you truly believe that you are going to marry the person, and feel a close enough bond with them, what is the issue? Why is it against religion?

Also, have you seen the average cost of a wedding? In Canada, a wedding costs between 20 and 30 thousand dollars. The average income for a person under 25 in the United States (working full time) is just under $20 thousand a year. No wonder nobody gets married early.[/QUOTE]

[EonsAgo]

This is why your "test drive" analogy is so poor, by the way. You shouldn't marry just to have sex.
Well, that analogy extends far beyond sex don't you think? Dates are sort of like "test-drives", so his analogy works out in the end.

When I have time, I'll bring up some real good info. I put all these tabs in a book called "Mental Floss: The History of the World". If someone finds this book to not be credible between now and that later post, please tell me. So I don't look like a big idiot later. :)

As far as I know though, it's pretty accurate.

[Nulls Wife]

There is nothing wrong with waiting to get married before you have sex, if that's what you want. Again, if that's your decision and you have a reason to do so, then go for it. But how will getting married strengthen your bond? Perhaps this is just my view on it (and I'd really like the Nulls to comment here since, as far as I know, they're the only married people here), but to me marriage is simply that step going from being together to saying to the world that you are taken forever. When I think about getting married, I don't believe it changes my bond with the person. It just "formalizes" it.

I don't know what Null's opinion is on this but personally this is a really difficult question, and personally my answer is yes and no. Do I think standing on the alter with Null made our bond stronger, no. Do I think the fact I went from calling him my boyfriend to calling him my husband made our bond stronger, no. However, just the other day we were discussing how we love each other more now then the day we got married. The one thing about getting married that did strengthen our bond was promising to be together forever, not that we had not said that to each other before, but saying vows did make it seem like there was no way we would ever break up. I think what made our bond the strongest was living together, buying our first house, creating life, watching Karly be born...I wouldn't add our wedding to the top 5 things that made our bond the strongest. Definatly top 10 though.

[Time Glitch]

There is no evidence of God, at least there never has been any presented to me.

Therefore, I do not believe in it. However, I do believe in organized chaos, and that everything ends up fine in the end. Putting your faith in God, and putting your faith in the natural order of the universe could be construed as the same thing, but I choose to not look at it like that.

Science > Religion.

[DeathsFriend22]

I agree sleeping around and one night stands are immoral. I brought up the whole primate thing because it correlates evolutionarily, but I don't believe in one night stands or sleeping around just to get laid all the time.

There is nothing wrong with waiting to get married before you have sex, if that's what you want. Again, if that's your decision and you have a reason to do so, then go for it. But how will getting married strengthen your bond? Perhaps this is just my view on it (and I'd really like the Nulls to comment here since, as far as I know, they're the only married people here), but to me marriage is simply that step going from being together to saying to the world that you are taken forever. When I think about getting married, I don't believe it changes my bond with the person. It just "formalizes" it.


Well, when I envision this in my head, it sems as though breaking up with someone while you're just dating would be a lot easier to do than to break up with someone when you're married.

I mean, sure, if you're engaged or something, it shouldn't matte, because you don't have any intention (hopefully) of breaking up anyway. But it always seems like there's a greater chance for someone to break up with the other before making promises to stay together forever.

I'm pending a better response to the rest of your post now, as I don't currently have an answer. It may be a while.

[EonsAgo]

Hrm, I'm going to take a little sidestep here, if you all don't mind.

Well. I have this big issue with Christianity: Why all the sects? If it's all for the same God, why can't we just all hold hands and pray? This obsession with details seems to be overriding the fact that all these sects are for one god. Then you get all the priests bemoaning the fact that there are so few parishioners and a lack of priests. Gee, how about getting over the details and joining together? Mmm.

Yeah, there can be big differences in beliefs. I just don't see why different groups stay aloof. Tis silly. :p

EDIT: Yeah, I know. This was just kind of a ranty thing.
|
V

[Mighty Midgit]

Well. I have this big issue with Christianity: Why all the sects? If it's all for the same God, why can't we just all hold hands and pray? This obsession with details seems to be overriding the fact that all these sects are for one god. Then you get all the priests bemoaning the fact that there are so few parishioners and a lack of priests. Gee, how about getting over the details and joining together? Mmm.

This was addressed earlier on. Basically, people interpret the same passage of scripture different ways and believe that they have it right and others don't. They want to spread their personal interpretation to everyone else. It's basically an arrogance thing. I prefer religions that accept that every other religious sect is right in their own aspect as it is, after all, the same scripture.

[Letol]

Here's my way of thinking. I believe that there is a god, I believe there is a heaven (heaven as in a place sort of like Earth but everyone is good, explained in this sentence), but I believe that instead of hell you are reincarnated until you become good enough of a person to go to heaven. Either that or you're stuck on Earth for a long ass time... Anyways, new souls are created when there is a baby born but all the people who are being reincarnated already have new bodies... blah blah blah words words words you guys get the point. Those are the basics of my beliefs.

Oh yeah, and I don't care what religion you are, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.

[Denominator's GF]

Crazy and intense define religion.

Wrong.

Not everyone who believe in a higher power of some sort, are no extremists.

Further, it angers me that everyone seems to put a blanket sterotype on people who believe in some kind of religion.

Religulous, good movie. Horribly biased, absolutely.
Not everyone goes to Christain Festivals where they dance around like idiots and talk in, "tongue."

End.

[Fluffysushi]

There is no evidence of God, at least there never has been any presented to me.

Therefore, I do not believe in it. However, I do believe in organized chaos, and that everything ends up fine in the end. Putting your faith in God, and putting your faith in the natural order of the universe could be construed as the same thing, but I choose to not look at it like that.

Science > Religion.

Sorry just to jump in on this...

Many people in the scientific community have striven to prove biblical events have happened. This is most commonly known with Chariots at the bottom of the Red Sea, Ruins of Jericho, Etc.

I am really disappointed when people try to say science and religion try to disprove each other... in fact most of our greatest physicists were very spiritual.

As to my personal take on God, I would have to go into depth on how many times circles apper in nature (the Circles are everywhere!)

[DeathsFriend22]

Sorry just to jump in on this...

Many people in the scientific community have striven to prove biblical events have happened. This is most commonly known with Chariots at the bottom of the Red Sea, Ruins of Jericho, Etc.


I'm intrigued ; did they actually find anything in those searches?

[xFr1ct10nx]

Sorry just to jump in on this...

Many people in the scientific community have striven to prove biblical events have happened. This is most commonly known with Chariots at the bottom of the Red Sea, Ruins of Jericho, Etc.

I am really disappointed when people try to say science and religion try to disprove each other... in fact most of our greatest physicists were very spiritual.

As to my personal take on God, I would have to go into depth on how many times circles apper in nature (the Circles are everywhere!)

I'm with Time Glitch on this.
Though you say this, the fact that they have been proven right is a very small percentage.

I'm sorry, here are my views, feel free to critisize.

Personally I do not believe there is a god. Hearing that you must be "oh God, he's Athiest" Which is not true. Athiest means (pretty much) that you do not believe in a god or spiritual beings. I have seen much more evidence in the past few months no doubt that ghosts and other spirits exist than I have ever seen in my life of any god.

My views, well I take many views from many religions. Mainly from Budism. Like try being nice to everybody and not worrying if you do stuff wrong the first time. I think that waiting for sex before marriage is a very good thing to uphold, though I don't think you will go anyplace bad if you don't follow it. I think Karma is a good thing to keep in mind, kind of like paying a debt that you owe to someone for not being kind or nice. I think reincarnation is a more logical way to think of religion. Since I believe in "Spirits" I think that once you die, your spirit goes onto a "Waiting period" to be judged. If you have made up your debts then you're reincarnated into a healthy being, if you hadn't...opposite.

DISPROVING MAINLY CHRISTIANITY(big subject of attack apparently) as well as judaism(many of these facts are scientific since that's the other half of stuff that I believe in).
-Moses parting the red sea=Bullshit, not possible
-Jesus' resurrection=Bullshit, not possible
-Bible's rules=Bullshit, mostly
-Jesus' existance=Believable, but all the stuff about him is bullshit
-Heven or Hell=Bullshit, reincarnation ftw.

Therefore, technically I am Agnostic...with many Athiestic, Scientific, Buddist, and Governmental ideals.

Keep in mind though, the one thing US Government doesn't understand is pure Athiesm. They think that all people should believe in something no matter what. They think of Atheism as apatheticness, the same thing they see in people who don't vote basically.

[DeathsFriend22]

DISPROVING MAINLY CHRISTIANITY(big subject of attack apparently) as well as judaism(many of these facts are scientific since that's the other half of stuff that I believe in).
-Moses parting the red sea=Bullshit, not possible
-Jesus' resurrection=Bullshit, not possible
-Bible's rules=Bullshit, mostly
-Jesus' existance=Believable, but all the stuff about him is bullshit
-Heven or Hell=Bullshit, reincarnation ftw.


You can't disprove any of that. At all. The thing is that you're looking at this from a purely scientific standpoint. What you fail to realize is that God can do anything, and therefore everything up there is possible.

The problem with science and reason is that, with them, you can explain matter (for example), but you can't explain the existence of matter. In science, there is no why. Faith explains that why. Science will never be able to.

[Denominator]

You can't disprove any of that. At all. The thing is that you're looking at this from a purely scientific standpoint. What you fail to realize is that God can do anything, and therefore everything up there is possible.

No, but you cannot prove it either. For it two be considered science, you have to be able to repeat it.

This is the key. If you came up with a scientific proof that God, or a God, did/does exist, good for you. But unless you can repeat the results, and prove that God exists twice, then you don't have science. Then, if somebody else can prove God exists using the same method, I'll believe in God.

The problem with science and reason is that, with them, you can explain matter (for example), but you can't explain the existence of matter. In science, there is no why. Faith explains that why. Science will never be able to.

Faith doesn't explain it either. "God did it" is never an explanation. Because throughout the Bible, and throughout historical records of God doing something, God always gives an explanation. Look at the flood, the banishment of Adam and Eve, or the killing of Jesus. Sure, "God may have done it", but that doesn't explain anything. Saying "well, he's God, and he did it" is equivalent to saying "we don't know". The difference is that the scientific community is willing to state that they don't know how matter came into existence, while the religious community can't stand not knowing, so they make up a reason.

[xFr1ct10nx]

Denoms got the right idea. "God did it" is no explanation. IF he exists then yes it could be. However once we figure out, IF we figure out his existance then we must figure out how he is able to do it. Saying "God did it" is just pure idiocracy.

[DeathsFriend22]

No, but you cannot prove it either. For it two be considered science, you have to be able to repeat it.

This is the key. If you came up with a scientific proof that God, or a God, did/does exist, good for you. But unless you can repeat the results, and prove that God exists twice, then you don't have science. Then, if somebody else can prove God exists using the same method, I'll believe in God.



Faith doesn't explain it either. "God did it" is never an explanation. Because throughout the Bible, and throughout historical records of God doing something, God always gives an explanation. Look at the flood, the banishment of Adam and Eve, or the killing of Jesus. Sure, "God may have done it", but that doesn't explain anything. Saying "well, he's God, and he did it" is equivalent to saying "we don't know". The difference is that the scientific community is willing to state that they don't know how matter came into existence, while the religious community can't stand not knowing, so they make up a reason.

It's not that we can't stand not knowing, we believe God actually did it - therefore we do know.

Maybe the reason you can't prove God exists is because He created the universe by such scientific means that anything you see that he created can be explained away by science.

Let's put you in a hypothetical situation for a second:

What if you died and faced God, and he asked you why you didn't believe in Him in your lifetime? What would you say to Him?

[xFr1ct10nx]

If God created everything then how? How is he able to create matter if matter cannot be created nor destroyed?

Further more, this realating to more stuff towards the Jewish god. Why was God not there for the Jews in the Holocaust, or any of the Jewish discriminatory attacks? Why was the Christian God not there to help the blacks during the time of slavery. How did God let the whites go 'Unpunished' for being so mean and discriminating the blacks?

[DeathsFriend22]

If God created everything then how? How is he able to create matter if matter cannot be created nor destroyed?

Matter can be created with energy.

We know from the CERN experiments that it requires massive amounts of energy to create even a few atoms of matter. Now, what could have possibly generated enough energy to create the entire universe when there was nothing to generate it in this first place? God.








Further more, this realating to more stuff towards the Jewish god. Why was God not there for the Jews in the Holocaust, or any of the Jewish discriminatory attacks? Why was the Christian God not there to help the blacks during the time of slavery. How did God let the whites go 'Unpunished' for being so mean and discriminating the blacks?

First: The Jewish God and the Christian God are one and the same - the difference is that Jews don't believe in Jesus like Christians do.

Second: The Germans lost the war and hitler committed suicide, correct? Justice was served all in good time.

Third: LOLWAT? You realize that the Africans sold their own people into slavery, right? it's not as if we invaded them and started stealing people to be slaves in the New World.

Fourth: If everything was like that all the time, you wouldn't ever notice such acts of discrimination - The only reason you do is because you have a comparison to how things were and how they "should be".

[xFr1ct10nx]

Second: The Germans lost the war and hitler committed suicide, correct? Justice was served all in good time.

Correct but after, probably I'd say 10 years after it started(the discrimination of Jews because of Hitler started a few years before the war) Why didn't he save them sooner?


Third: LOLWAT? You realize that the Africans sold their own people into slavery, right? it's not as if we invaded them and started stealing people to be slaves in the New World.

That was for the slaves in America. Britain and other European countries had slaves too, many, before the revolutionary war; hundreds of years before that. Some were taken by force, where was he then?

[Fenian Bhoy]

well im Catholic and i fully believe in God but my beliefs are weird the now because God was meant to cure disease but has he cured the millions of people who died of cancer but i like this discussion

[Coyote1023]

If God controlled everything, then what would be the point of existing? Here are some truths for you. Nothing can exist without its other half, its reciprocal. Without evil in the world, no one could do good. Without light there couldn't be "dark," without justice there couldn't be injustice. Without rich, there couldn't be poor. God created everything, yes I believe that, and any crazy scientific formula that you come up with or theory on how it was created, good for you! You discovered God's means. But further than that, how DID it start then, why does the world exist, why are we here, why are we different from "other" animals. Why is it just NOW that we have this technology, why? Can you answer ANY of those with science, I think not. Science can only prove things that can be observable, repeatable, and demonstrable. None of which apply to origins. Try all you want, but you won't get anywhere. You might as well go off and find the end of Pi.

Now, onto where God is for all of these things:
To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.

18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.

19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."

20 Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.

21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.

22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.


Now you all may think I am insane and say: "That can't happen, you're an idiot." But the truth is, its a story told from man to man, and much of it is symbolic meaning. The Bold parts are import things that I will address.

So to start: We were idiots and were greedy and took the only thing we couldn't have. We disobeyed got and would now be punished. We were immortal, probably in a way somewhat like God, and were given the ability to die for a punishment. Now we look and see that God supplied clothing for Adam and Eve, how nice, it is kind of like a fatherly thing caring for his children, even after they screw up. We know the difference between good and evil, it is in your heart, you know it when you do something wrong, just many people have managed to ignore it. And the final part: Guarding the EAST gate. What else happens in the east? The sun rises, it is a metaphor for life or rebirth. Basically it is saying that you won't life forever and that your only way back into the kingdom will be through death.

[Fenian Bhoy]

Most of us still are ignorant and greedy it will be the downfall of man we have to change our ways

[Denominator]

It's not that we can't stand not knowing, we believe God actually did it - therefore we do know.

But you still don't know. If you were to say "God flooded the earth and killed everyone", I would ask "why?", to which you would respond "to kill all the immoral people." This is the issue I have - in everything "God" does, he gives a reason. He talks to a special person and explains his reason for his actions, and why he's doing it.

So "God did it" is not an explanation, because if God truly did it there would be proof. Shaky proof, but at least proof.

Maybe the reason you can't prove God exists is because He created the universe by such scientific means that anything you see that he created can be explained away by science.

So you're saying that Science proves God exists because God created Science? Again, I ask for some semblance of proof.

Let's put you in a hypothetical situation for a second:

What if you died and faced God, and he asked you why you didn't believe in Him in your lifetime? What would you say to Him?

Okay, I'll go for this for the time being.

I would explain the lines of evidence supporting his existence, and the lines of evidence supporting a lack of his existence. Then, being a logical and thoughtful creature that he created, I applied my knowledge to both lines of evidence and came up with the most likely scenario - that God did not exist. As such, I was not going to live my life based on the "facts" of the Bible so that God would not punish me after I die.

He would likely say, as most religious people do when I explain this to them, "That's why you have to believe. It's called faith for a reason.

My response, as always, is that I do not wish to live my life on belief. I prefer to base my decisions on fact. And, were I to face God, I would likely point out at this time that he had created me, and it was thus his fault for making me think the way I do.

If I were to face God, I would own up to my actions. I would not apologize for them, and if he were to send me to this hypothetical hell then I would live with it. It is not, however, a fear I have to live with now, so it doesn't bother me.

If you're really interested in this whole "Man of Science/Man of Faith" issue, I definitely recommend watching the TV show LOST. There is a great theme running through the entire series of Faith vs Science. Along with that, it's a great show.

Matter can be created with energy.

We know from the CERN experiments that it requires massive amounts of energy to create even a few atoms of matter. Now, what could have possibly generated enough energy to create the entire universe when there was nothing to generate it in this first place? God.

Or the Big Bang.

Second: The Germans lost the war and hitler committed suicide, correct? Justice was served all in good time.

How is that justice?! At all?

The Hitler genocide was responsible for the deaths of at least 15 million people. Not only Jews, but Gypsies, Homosexuals, etc. How is it possibly justice that Hitler commits suicide in the end? Want to consider how many Nazi soldiers not only followed orders, but supported Hitler's regime?

Hitler is quoted as stating that he wanted the Jews to suffer as they die. It wasn't enough for him to just kill them, he needed to agonize them first.

IF there were a fair God that wanted to prevent the death of millions of people, he would have. But the Christian God has proven time and time again that he is not a fair god. He asks for sacrifices, he kills people, and he is never there to save people. He is a jealous God. And he only ever talks to one person, one prophet at a time.

Not to mention Hitler survived at least 5 assassination attempts during and prior to World War II. If there was ever a time for justice or to attempt a stop on the genocide, it was at one of those. Yet Hitler survived them all.

Third: LOLWAT? You realize that the Africans sold their own people into slavery, right? it's not as if we invaded them and started stealing people to be slaves in the New World.

So? There is still plenty of blame and justice to be served there. We're discussing whether or not God should have intervened in unjust circumstances, and whether Americans came and took slaves or Africans sold slaves is irrelevant, the point is that people were being exploited.

[xFr1ct10nx]

Thanks for supporting that Denom I couldn't have said it better myself.

The Big Bang is a massive explosion of energy in which as you said Deathsfreind would create matter. But to my knowledgethat would be the only instance that I have ever seen or heard about it.

n the matter of faith, I would HIGHLY recommend the book Night, about a holocaust survior who pretty much loses his faith. A holocaust survivor came to both my little brothers middle school as well as my school and told us that he ad completely lost faith in Judaism, BECAUSE GOD WAS NOT THERE. He is now Atheist as he had told us.

[Denominator]

Now you all may think I am insane and say: "That can't happen, you're an idiot." But the truth is, its a story told from man to man, and much of it is symbolic meaning. The Bold parts are import things that I will address.

Here's the issue I have with this:

It's a story.

The Bible is a story. Hands down, everybody knows that. So why has a story become truth? The story has been handed down for generations, and has been edited many times. So many of the "facts" in it have been made up by an editor looking to write a better story. Which means they're not facts at all.

Here's part two of the issues. The dates. James Ussher calculated the age of the Bible according to significant dates and genealogy (similar to this (http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm)). He came up with the exact point of creation on October 23, 4004 BC. That makes the earth, according to the Bible, 6013 years old.

Let's ignore the fact that the estimated age of the Earth, according to radiocarbon dating of old rocks, sits at 4.6 billion years old. Let's instead look at some comparable data, using the stuff I work with (I'm an archaeologist).

I am currently, as I type this, holding a stone tool that I know to be at least 7686 years old. How do I know this? It was discovered in situ below a soil horizon of Mazama ash, known to be from the volcanic eruption of Mount Mazama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Mazama) in 5677 BC. This is known from radiocarbon dating.

So we know that people were in North America 7686 years ago. But the Bible says that the earth wasn't created until 6013 years ago. There is my major problem with the Bible. And if I can't trust one of the critical components of the Bible and religion, then I can't trust any of the Bible and any of religion.

[Coyote1023]

Here's the issue I have with this:

It's a story.

The Bible is a story. Hands down, everybody knows that. So why has a story become truth? The story has been handed down for generations, and has been edited many times. So many of the "facts" in it have been made up by an editor looking to write a better story. Which means they're not facts at all.

Here's part two of the issues. The dates. James Ussher calculated the age of the Bible according to significant dates and genealogy (similar to this (http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm)). He came up with the exact point of creation on October 23, 4004 BC. That makes the earth, according to the Bible, 6013 years old.

Let's ignore the fact that the estimated age of the Earth, according to radiocarbon dating of old rocks, sits at 4.6 billion years old. Let's instead look at some comparable data, using the stuff I work with (I'm an archaeologist).

I am currently, as I type this, holding a stone tool that I know to be at least 7686 years old. How do I know this? It was discovered in situ below a soil horizon of Mazama ash, known to be from the volcanic eruption of Mount Mazama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Mazama) in 5677 BC. This is known from radiocarbon dating.

So we know that people were in North America 7686 years ago. But the Bible says that the earth wasn't created until 6013 years ago. There is my major problem with the Bible. And if I can't trust one of the critical components of the Bible and religion, then I can't trust any of the Bible and any of religion.

You have a few flaws:

1- God's "days" may not be the same as ours

2-Nice October 23, that's my Birthday, coincidence, I think not!

3-"In addition, 14C dating has also been calibrated back to more than 30,000 years before the present using uranium-thorium (isochron) dating of corals [Bard, et al, 1990] and [Edwards, et al, 1993]. While it is unlikely that 14C will be useful for objects older than 50,000 years"
Look at that, 4.6 billion? That's just a little bit over 50,000 now isn't it?

[Denominator]

God's "days" may not be the same as ours

Then why use the term days? Days shows up other places in the Bible, and is meant as one 24 hour period. So why are God's days so drastically different from ours?

Plus, he created us in his likeness. I think it's safe to presume that if we are the same as God, we share the same time sense as him, or at least close enough.

It's not like we're talking a short time period here. The difference we're talking is about 4.6 billion years. If we were to go by this theory of separate time scales, one of God's "days" would be a little over 657 million human years.

Nice October 23, that's my Birthday, coincidence, I think not!

Actually, it was "likely the night before October 23".

Look at that, 4.6 billion? That's just a little bit over 50,000 now isn't it?

Sad face... quote pyramids are disabled...

My point remains. Just because radiocarbon dating is a little bit inaccurate over 50,000 years won't account for a difference of 4.6 billion. At that time scale, unless you have an inaccuracy of nearly 100%, the problem still exists. This is also why I brought in the shorter time scale, because the inaccuracy is not present yet the problem still exists.

Not to mention, isochron dating essentially verified the radiocarbon dating at 4.55 billion years, with a lower limit of 3.8 billion years. So the inaccuracy of C14 is irrelevant.

[DeathsFriend22]

Then why use the term days? Days shows up other places in the Bible, and is meant as one 24 hour period. So why are God's days so drastically different from ours?

Plus, he created us in his likeness. I think it's safe to presume that if we are the same as God, we share the same time sense as him, or at least close enough.

It's not like we're talking a short time period here. The difference we're talking is about 4.6 billion years. If we were to go by this theory of separate time scales, one of God's "days" would be a little over 657 million human years.


*sigh*

Denominator, haven't we been through this before? the Hebrew word Yom (translated into "days") can mean a 12 hour day, a 24-hour day, or an indefinite period of time (an era). Therefore, the days DO NOT necessarily mean one solar day, or a 24-hour period.

read (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html)

[Denominator]

*sigh*

Denominator, haven't we been through this before? the Hebrew word Yom (translated into "days") can mean a 12 hour day, a 24-hour day, or an indefinite period of time (an era). Therefore, the days DO NOT necessarily mean one solar day, or a 24-hour period.

read (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html)

Yes, we've been through this before, and I still don't buy it. Here's why:

1) It's semantics. The word "day" is almost always used to define a 24 hour period. In the instances in which it isn't, it defines a 12 hour period. In fact, all definitions of "day" from dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/day) suggest a relatively short period of time.

2) According to the Bible, God made us in his likeness. So it seems entirely ridiculous that he would take 13.5 billion years to make the Universe (I use this time because he created light and dark at the same time) and then change time. Using this time range, God's days are now almost 2 billion years long each. That's a drastic change from 24 hours that we now call days.

3) I can see the point if the time change in question is a minor difference, such as a couple of thousands of years. But we are talking in the range of billions of years here. You're using one term to define two very different time ranges.

4) The Bible was originally written by somebody. At some point, some human wrote the story, or the original manuscript, or whatever. Why would he use the term "day" to define an indeterminate period of time? Why not just come out and say "long time"? Furthermore, why bother dividing the days at all? If each day is an indeterminate amount of time, then what's the point of having seven of them?

5) As I understood it (and I may be wrong), one of the big selling points of God being all powerful was that it only took him seven days to create the universe, the earth, and everything within. It seems to counter this if you are now giving him an "indeterminate amount of time" to do it in. By comparison, the Big Bang took mere seconds.

I also know this is a point that can never be resolved, because both theories are equally right. The word used can be used to define both definitions, so it can support both theories. It all comes down to my belief that the word means 24 hour period, and thus supports my belief that God does not exist, and your belief that the word means indeterminate amount of time, and therefore proves that God does exist. Without consulting the people that wrote the book, there is no way of solving this.

[xFr1ct10nx]

5) As I understood it (and I may be wrong), one of the big selling points of God being all powerful was that it only took him seven days to create the universe, the earth, and everything within. It seems to counter this if you are now giving him an "indeterminate amount of time" to do it in. By comparison, the Big Bang took mere seconds.
Miliseconds actually.

Wait a second, I have never heard of this story about God creating Light and Dark. Please explain.

Secondly, How did you come to the number of 13.5 Billion?

[DeathsFriend22]

While I do agree with what you've said at the end of that post, I still find it fun to debate this point.

Yes, we've been through this before, and I still don't buy it. Here's why:

[quote]1) It's semantics. The word "day" is almost always used to define a 24 hour period. In the instances in which it isn't, it defines a 12 hour period. In fact, all definitions of "day" from dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/day) suggest a relatively short period of time.
Yeah, but that's the English definition. The original text was in Hebrew, and the word was yom, which can mean an indefinite period of time as well as a literal day.

2) According to the Bible, God made us in his likeness. So it seems entirely ridiculous that he would take 13.5 billion years to make the Universe (I use this time because he created light and dark at the same time) and then change time. Using this time range, God's days are now almost 2 billion years long each. That's a drastic change from 24 hours that we now call days.

Physical, solar days and spiritual days could be two entirely different things. When God created us in his likeness, it basically means he gave us souls.

Mind you, nothing in the Bible specifically defines a "day".

3) I can see the point if the time change in question is a minor difference, such as a couple of thousands of years. But we are talking in the range of billions of years here. You're using one term to define two very different time ranges.

No, an indefinite period of time can range from anywhere between a few minutes and billions of years.


4) The Bible was originally written by somebody. At some point, some human wrote the story, or the original manuscript, or whatever. Why would he use the term "day" to define an indeterminate period of time? Why not just come out and say "long time"? Furthermore, why bother dividing the days at all? If each day is an indeterminate amount of time, then what's the point of having seven of them?

To explain in a relatively chronological order the creation of the universe and of the Earth itself.

5) As I understood it (and I may be wrong), one of the big selling points of God being all powerful was that it only took him seven days to create the universe, the earth, and everything within. It seems to counter this if you are now giving him an "indeterminate amount of time" to do it in. By comparison, the Big Bang took mere seconds.


There's no reason it couldn't take him a while to make the universe and still not be all powerful. Nor have I ever heard that as a selling point that God was all-powerful. I have heard, however, an explanation that he showed he was all-powerful simply by creating the universe.


I also know this is a point that can never be resolved, because both theories are equally right. The word used can be used to define both definitions, so it can support both theories. It all comes down to my belief that the word means 24 hour period, and thus supports my belief that God does not exist, and your belief that the word means indeterminate amount of time, and therefore proves that God does exist. Without consulting the people that wrote the book, there is no way of solving this.

Except that the 24-hour theory is clearly wrong, because it contradicts science. The thing is, that when most people attack the bible, Genesis is one of the main points to bring up. It's because they focus on the stereotypical "young-earth" creationist theory. People tend to ignore all of the other christian interpretations of the Bible.

[Denominator]

Miliseconds actually.

Technically, the Universe is still expanding, or to put it in other terms, being created. However, since it grows based on it's current size, it grew fastest when it was smallest.

Wait a second, I have never heard of this story about God creating Light and Dark. Please explain.

Really? According to Genesis, the first thing God did was create light. I guess technically he didn't create dark. In fact, all he did on the first day was create light.

Secondly, How did you come to the number of 13.5 Billion?

This site (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html) explains how it's done, although they come up with 12.8. My 13.5 comes from my geology textbook.

While I do agree with what you've said at the end of that post, I still find it fun to debate this point.

That is the point of the debate.


Yeah, but that's the English definition. The original text was in Hebrew, and the word was yom, which can mean an indefinite period of time as well as a literal day.

I think it's fair to say that most of the people (if not all) that partake in this debate have read the English version of the Bible. At the very least, any person that has been brought up to believe the English version is taught that the Earth was created in 7 days, not 7 indeterminate amounts of time.

So, even if the original meant indeterminate amounts of time, the current means days. I will come back to this point.

Physical, solar days and spiritual days could be two entirely different things. When God created us in his likeness, it basically means he gave us souls.

That's your interpretation. I've also heard it interpreted as God made us look like him and think like him. That's where I get the time-sense issue from.

Mind you, nothing in the Bible specifically defines a "day".

Nope, the Bible is very vague and very open for interpretation.

No, an indefinite period of time can range from anywhere between a few minutes and billions of years.

Yes, I understand that. I am just saying there is a big difference in what we're arguing about. It's not like we're two old ladies at a supermarket arguing over pennies, we're talking billions of years. It's a really big difference.

To explain in a relatively chronological order the creation of the universe and of the Earth itself.

Then why not have one indeterminate amount of time with the creations in chronological order?

There's no reason it couldn't take him a while to make the universe and still not be all powerful. Nor have I ever heard that as a selling point that God was all-powerful. I have heard, however, an explanation that he showed he was all-powerful simply by creating the universe.

I would assume he was. I'm basing that fifth point off what I remember from church, and I haven't gone in a solid 10 years. It's a shaky point, but that was what I was taught.

Except that the 24-hour theory is clearly wrong, because it contradicts science. The thing is, that when most people attack the bible, Genesis is one of the main points to bring up. It's because they focus on the stereotypical "young-earth" creationist theory. People tend to ignore all of the other christian interpretations of the Bible.

How does it contradict Science?

As for ignoring other interpretations, it is simply at the there is one main interpretation circulated around. Unless you're looking for other interpretations, which most atheists aren't, you're not going to be exposed to them.

[Denominator]

So, even if the original meant indeterminate amounts of time, the current means days. I will come back to this point.

I figured this point deserves it's own post.

It's a known fact that the Bible has been rewritten multiple times and translated thousands through hundreds of different languages. So how true is it?

If we are taking this book as pure and absolute truth, then it is fair to believe that what is written in it is the pure and absolute truth, and has always been such.

But the above point counters this. Already, in translating the book once, we find a MAJOR discourse. Despite what the original meant, the current means something different. And that is a major problem.

Then we add in the added bits. The New Testament is exactly what it says it is, new. It was added to the Bible hundreds of years after the Old Testament was written. So where did it come from? Who wrote it? What makes it Biblical?

So I come back to what I have said before.

It's a Story

I contend that the Bible is entirely made up. My basis for this is outlined above, but to make it concise:

1) It was written well after the events it describes occurred.

2) It has been edited many times.

3) There have been portions added, and, conceivably, removed.

4) It has been translated many times.

What makes the Bible true, after all these years?

[xFr1ct10nx]

Technically, the Universe is still expanding, or to put it in other terms, being created. However, since it grows based on it's current size, it grew fastest when it was smallest.
umm, I guess you're right about that, though they believe it will eventually start caving back in instead of expanding. And I meant that it was initially created in miliseconds. Kinda besides the point but reinforcing your decision :)

[DeathsFriend22]

I think it's fair to say that most of the people (if not all) that partake in this debate have read the English version of the Bible. At the very least, any person that has been brought up to believe the English version is taught that the Earth was created in 7 days, not 7 indeterminate amounts of time.

So, even if the original meant indeterminate amounts of time, the current means days. I will come back to this point.

well, I was taught the English version, and I never believed they were seven actual days.


That's your interpretation. I've also heard it interpreted as God made us look like him and think like him. That's where I get the time-sense issue from.

Actually, it is the teaching of the Catholic Church that our souls are what are described as made in His image. I don't know what church you went to, but we're arguing with each other over 2 completely different interpretations.

Nope, the Bible is very vague and very open for interpretation.
Yes. Yes it is.


Yes, I understand that. I am just saying there is a big difference in what we're arguing about. It's not like we're two old ladies at a supermarket arguing over pennies, we're talking billions of years. It's a really big difference.

It's not as if the Bible says "Earth was created 6000 years ago". Nor does it say exactly how old the universe is. There is no difference because there's nothing to compare.

Then why not have one indeterminate amount of time with the creations in chronological order?
I dunno. Ask the guy who wrote it, or God.



I would assume he was. I'm basing that fifth point off what I remember from church, and I haven't gone in a solid 10 years. It's a shaky point, but that was what I was taught.

Again; I was never taught that. What church was this?


How does it contradict Science?

As for ignoring other interpretations, it is simply at the there is one main interpretation circulated around. Unless you're looking for other interpretations, which most atheists aren't, you're not going to be exposed to them.

Well, actually, the Catholic Church mainly teaches the day-age interpretation, and not the others. Atheists are usually exposed to the people who wrongly believe that the universe is young and the days are to be taken literally - mainly because those like me and the catholic Church are never arguing this point, because we agree that the universe was created long before that.



I figured this point deserves it's own post.

It's a known fact that the Bible has been rewritten multiple times and translated thousands through hundreds of different languages. So how true is it?
No, it was translated to each language from Hebrew - or so I would assume.

If we are taking this book as pure and absolute truth, then it is fair to believe that what is written in it is the pure and absolute truth, and has always been such.

But the above point counters this. Already, in translating the book once, we find a MAJOR discourse. Despite what the original meant, the current means something different. And that is a major problem.

It depends on how you look at it. I see the "days" as an understandable flaw in the translation - after all, yom does have several meanings and it is used as a literal day in the New Testament and elsewhere in the Bible.


Then we add in the added bits. The New Testament is exactly what it says it is, new. It was added to the Bible hundreds of years after the Old Testament was written. So where did it come from? Who wrote it? What makes it Biblical?

Well, the belief is that the Bible is an Inspired work - that is, those who wrote it had divine inspiration. Since God remembers everything, it is believable that if you accept that the Bible is indeed an inspired work, then it is true.


So I come back to what I have said before.

It's a Story

2) It has been edited many times.

3) There have been portions added, and, conceivably, removed.

These are the points I haven't yet addressed - I will adress them as one, because editing and adding/removing portions are essentially the same thing.

Portions that have been added have also been regarded as inspired works. parts that have been removed are those that the Vatican Council deems less significant than others, because otherwise the Bible would be far too long - that is, longer than it already is.

[xFr1ct10nx]

Ok ngl, everything you just said there was without a doubt, demonstrativly wrong.

well, I was taught the English version, and I never believed they were seven actual days.
You never believed that there was seven days? Excuse me? You were the one who originally said in this discussion that it was created in seven days.

Portions that have been added have also been regarded as inspired works.
Inspired works? Yes, that may be true, but that doesn't mean that the works that were added actually happened. How do you know that they did? Just the that bible said so is your answer probably.

because otherwise the Bible would be far too long - that is, longer than it already is.
Good, that would just mean more bullshit to fight about.

[DeathsFriend22]

You never believed that there was seven days? Excuse me? You were the one who originally said in this discussion that it was created in seven days.

Bullshit. Here's me on PAGE 5, when this topic originally came up.
Another point I'd like to make before anyone brings it up is that the 7 Days in which God created the universe aren't necessarily 7 ACTUAL days. Those 7 days could be anything between a few minutes and several billion years long.


Inspired works? Yes, that may be true, but that doesn't mean that the works that were added actually happened. How do you know that they did? Just the that bible said so is your answer probably.

and that anything added is reviewed by the Cardinals of the church, who are regarded as infallible on religious matters, and thereby can determine whether it's truly an inspired work or not.

Good, that would just mean more bullshit to fight about.

Whether the Bible is bullshit or not is your opinion. By the way, about 60% of the world disagrees with you, and much of the rest aren't allowed to have a religion.

[Coyote1023]

Ok, settle down now. Friction don't be calling all this "bullshit." I am sorry but saying that is just arrogant, disagreeing with it is one thing, but that is just and insult and I am disappointed that you would even ACT like that.

Now onto the points:

1-The First Testament was first written in Hebrew. Saul/Paul was a Roman citizen and wrote rewrote it, along with the second testament in Latin. Then later, during the Reformation, it was rewritten in many other languages (and many more when the first type machine was made). Yes, that means that I believe not the entire thing, every last word should be taken for EXACTLY what it is. People make mistakes, one of the most important theories behind Christianity. This is where language barriers mess things up. Whoever rewrote genesis probably used the WRONG meaning for the Hebrew word. OH NO!!! Lets just disregard the ENTIRE thing then, right? It is all Bullshit now that we have one translation error, GOD CAN'T EXIST, we fucked up his words, he definitely can't exist now, GREAT LOGIC! High fives for everyone!

2- Seven days, lets see, don't we all use metaphors and things that that to order things and give stuff meaning. Seeing as we were made in God's image, maybe he does too. Oh and what a coincidence, Jesus used metaphors too! Now, if you look at the Jewish culture, they all follow these traditions, it is a way of showing their appreciation to God. So, the "Seven days" was a way to follow this. "On the Seventh day God rested." And so the Jewish people will too. It is like an older sibling that you look up to, you want to be the same as them. So stop taking it so literally, it is just a representation.

3- So now we can't add new stories to the Bible? Oh I'm sorry caring person who gave their life to help starving children in Africa, you should have been born 2000 years ago so that your life's story could be in the Bible. Sucks to be you! It is faith! Why would they throw a Bullshit story in? There is no point! If you say it is a lie then you obviously think the rest of it is, so why add more stories, they aren't trying to convince anyone.

Ok it is a story. But Every theory behind it is true, no matter how twisted it became because of human communication, the core idea remains. Now I don't care if you believe in my God or not. Just don't be a Dumbass and actually work to make the world better. And no, your life may not matter, maybe nothing will happen after death, but that doesn't mean any of you need to be fucking idiots and ruin the world for the rest of us trying to make it better. Because lets face it. God doesn't care what you believe, if you are a good person down here, you are going to make it to heaven. You may have some learning, but hey, he can't hold a grudge, you did good.

[Denominator]

Yes. Yes it is.

Which is why I have difficulties with it. It is supposed to be taken as absolute truth, yet there is so much open for various interpretations.

It's not as if the Bible says "Earth was created 6000 years ago". Nor does it say exactly how old the universe is. There is no difference because there's nothing to compare.

No, the Bible doesn't state the age of the Earth. But regardless of how old the Earth is in either scenario, there are a number of very large discontinuities. The two big ones that I can think of right now are dinosaurs (which don't appear in the Bible), and the fact that according to the Bible man is as old as the Earth.

I dunno. Ask the guy who wrote it, or God.

I really, really wish I could. But the guy who wrote it is 2000 years dead, and I don't believe God actually exists. Maybe you could ask on my behalf ;)?

Again; I was never taught that. What church was this?

Presbyterian. In Texas.

No, it was translated to each language from Hebrew - or so I would assume.

I have no proof otherwise and don't have time to look it up right now, but I assume otherwise. Here's my hypothetical reasoning:

Dude from Jerusalem has a Bible. He takes it to Europe on his vacation. French dude thinks it's cool and translates it to French. Hebrew dude goes back to Jerusalem. Now French dude meets German dude, who likes the Bible too. Now he translates it from French to German.

I would assume that most of the Bibles now are from one copy, but say the original Hebrew one was lost at some point, and they translated it back to Hebrew from German. Stuff would get messed up.

It depends on how you look at it. I see the "days" as an understandable flaw in the translation - after all, yom does have several meanings and it is used as a literal day in the New Testament and elsewhere in the Bible.

That's why I see it the way I see it. The word translates one way in one place so it logically follows that it would translate similarly in another place.

Well, the belief is that the Bible is an Inspired work - that is, those who wrote it had divine inspiration. Since God remembers everything, it is believable that if you accept that the Bible is indeed an inspired work, then it is true.

I was under the impression that the Bible was the truth, not an inspired work.

Portions that have been added have also been regarded as inspired works. parts that have been removed are those that the Vatican Council deems less significant than others, because otherwise the Bible would be far too long - that is, longer than it already is.

But that's what I mean. You have mortal humans editing the work of God! How is it still considered God's word when Pope Random X can simply decide to take stuff out, or add stuff in that he thinks makes people more religious?

Ok ngl, everything you just said there was without a doubt, demonstrativly wrong.

You never believed that there was seven days? Excuse me? You were the one who originally said in this discussion that it was created in seven days.

Inspired works? Yes, that may be true, but that doesn't mean that the works that were added actually happened. How do you know that they did? Just the that bible said so is your answer probably.

Good, that would just mean more bullshit to fight about.

Friction, I understand you don't believe in God or anything, but you can still have decent debates and conversations without being an ass.

and that anything added is reviewed by the Cardinals of the church, who are regarded as infallible on religious matters, and thereby can determine whether it's truly an inspired work or not.

But isn't one of the doctrines of the Bible that humans are inherently fallible?

1-The First Testament was first written in Hebrew. Saul/Paul was a Roman citizen and wrote rewrote it, along with the second testament in Latin. Then later, during the Reformation, it was rewritten in many other languages (and many more when the first type machine was made). Yes, that means that I believe not the entire thing, every last word should be taken for EXACTLY what it is. People make mistakes, one of the most important theories behind Christianity. This is where language barriers mess things up. Whoever rewrote genesis probably used the WRONG meaning for the Hebrew word. OH NO!!! Lets just disregard the ENTIRE thing then, right? It is all Bullshit now that we have one translation error, GOD CAN'T EXIST, we fucked up his words, he definitely can't exist now, GREAT LOGIC! High fives for everyone!

You don't need to be condescending either, Coyote.

The way the word translates in the English version, and the way I understand it, means something very different than what it was originally written to mean, or what it means in Hebrew. That is a very large problem.

2- Seven days, lets see, don't we all use metaphors and things that that to order things and give stuff meaning. Seeing as we were made in God's image, maybe he does too. Oh and what a coincidence, Jesus used metaphors too! Now, if you look at the Jewish culture, they all follow these traditions, it is a way of showing their appreciation to God. So, the "Seven days" was a way to follow this. "On the Seventh day God rested." And so the Jewish people will too. It is like an older sibling that you look up to, you want to be the same as them. So stop taking it so literally, it is just a representation.

I don't believe Jesus ever existed as the Bible says he did. I don't trust that Jesus said what he did, or did what he did, because our only source is the Bible.

The problem with the metaphor theory is that it isn't presented as a metaphor. It's presented as the truth.

3- So now we can't add new stories to the Bible? Oh I'm sorry caring person who gave their life to help starving children in Africa, you should have been born 2000 years ago so that your life's story could be in the Bible. Sucks to be you! It is faith! Why would they throw a Bullshit story in? There is no point! If you say it is a lie then you obviously think the rest of it is, so why add more stories, they aren't trying to convince anyone.

No, you can't add stories to the Bible! It's the Bible, it's supposed to be God's word! If that's the case, why is Mormonism wrong according to Catholicism? Joseph Smith was visited by God and wrote a story about it. But did he not meet Catholic standards?

If you're basing your life off the Bible as truth, and what God has said, then you have an issue because it is being edited by men.

Ok it is a story. But Every theory behind it is true, no matter how twisted it became because of human communication, the core idea remains. Now I don't care if you believe in my God or not. Just don't be a Dumbass and actually work to make the world better. And no, your life may not matter, maybe nothing will happen after death, but that doesn't mean any of you need to be fucking idiots and ruin the world for the rest of us trying to make it better. Because lets face it. God doesn't care what you believe, if you are a good person down here, you are going to make it to heaven. You may have some learning, but hey, he can't hold a grudge, you did good.

It's a story that is taken a pure truth. That's a big issue, and my main point here. You can't go on saying that this is God's word and every word is truth, then say that it's only a story, because that contradicts itself.

How are atheists working to ruin the world for the rest of [you]? Last time I checked, most Scientists are atheists, yet they continually work to do wondrous things as fix food shortages, cure diseases, and help the genetically handicapped.

We're not trying to ruin anything for you (at least I'm not), and most atheists I know don't push their beliefs on anyone else. When was the last time someone came and knocked on your door trying to tell you to not believe in God? For the most part, like religious folks, atheists are content to believe what they believe and get on with their lives.

[kingj125]

I do not believe in any god from any religion (a.k.a. Atheist). I think it's just unlogical that there is a guy that lives in sky, letting good people live up there when there dead.

And plus, if there is a guy (a.k.a. God) who has the power to make Earth have world peace and stuff like that, then why does the US have all these wars? Why is Africa a such a horrible country (no offense)? and why is Iran likely planing to bomb some major building someplace where lots of people live, like in New York?

does anyone else agree with me on what I am saying?

[American10]

eh, im not a god hater or anything but i don't believe in any religion or god really. Not even heaven or hell. Only way I will change is if i actually see something.

Also i agree with you king.

[xFr1ct10nx]

I do not believe in any god from any religion (a.k.a. Atheist). I think it's just unlogical that there is a guy that lives in sky, letting good people live up there when there dead.

And plus, if there is a guy (a.k.a. God) who has the power to make Earth have world peace and stuff like that, then why does the US have all these wars? Why is Africa a such a horrible country (no offense)? and why is Iran likely planing to bomb some major building someplace where lots of people live, like in New York?

does anyone else agree with me on what I am saying?
Not really. Like I have said earlier it's illogical to not have beliefs. I do agree that a God is illogical. Techniacally no one is truly Athiest, since you can't have any beliefs from any religion. By beliefs I mean like morals and stuff that is important to you(like Abstinance and not hurting people).

Oh sorry to Denominator and Deathsfriend for being an ass on friday, I was really pissed and other stuff that contributed to that was not helping at all.

[Ganye]

Debates are always nice. Here is one for you peoples:
What are your beliefs? Why do you believe what you do?
Feel free to try and prove/disprove. Keep it civil yet fiery.

GO! :awe:

I'm just gonna go with this, since I don't wanna get into the whole Christian debate thing. I've done it far too many times now...

Personally, I'm kind of my own religion, in the sense that I don't believe in a central "higher being," but I also don't hold the creationist belief of "There was big boom, then we evolved from algae and shit (VERY briefly paraphrased)." So it that sense, I am slightly Atheist-Agnostic, but I also borrow morals from various "religions," like Buddhism (While really not a religion), LaVeyan Satanism*, Muslim, etc.

Personally, I feel that just saying "I'm a Christian" or "I'm Jewish" is like saying "I'm Jewish, so everyone else is wrong." Now, yes, you're central religion may be Judaism, but just saying your Jewish makes it sound like you believe in Judaism, and only Judaism, which is why I say that I'm five different religions. Quite frankly, there's just too many close tie-ins, or loopholes, or wrongs for one, central religion, and it just seems arrogant for someone to believe in something, and then pretend like there's nothing wrong with that belief, even after someone provides solid proof of a small hole, and you act like you're being prosecuted.

That was a rather jumped thought... Also, no offense to anyone who's Jewish or Christian, those were just the religions I could think of.

*Before I start being accused of being a Devil-worshipper, I'm just going to point out one thing: LaVeyen Satanism has absolutely nothing to do with the Devil: Satan is Hebrew for "the opposer; the accuser". However, throughout various translations (seeing as how the Bible was originally Hebrew [First Testament]...), "Satan" became synonymous in the English language for "Devil," which leads people to think that Satanism of any kind is the worship of the Devil. Not only is that not what LaVeyen Satanism is about, there's also nothing wrong with actual "Devil-worship" (Luciferinism [sp?]), it's just that Christianity/Judaism, the long-prominent religion(s) throughout the world, has portrayed it as such, and placing vast amounts of execution on Satanist of any kind. Satanism is then further prosecuted under the assumption that Satanism is "evil," especially in the way of rituals, which are generally not only not based on anything evil, but actually based upon Pagan rituals, especially those of seasons and solstices. Then there's the whole "anti-Christian" bullshit, which is totally twisted, considering very, VERY few groups of Satanists are anti-Christian by practice, and even those that are are only so because of the racism towards them.

And, just because I haven't really explained what LaVeyan Satanism is, I'll just give a brief synopsis: LaVeyan Satanism is, essentially, just the belief of Satan (read: "the opposer; the accuser") as a "force of nature," in the sense of "primal" human nature and "instincts," which is vastly reflected upon their "rules" and "ideas," such as "Satan is indulgence rather than abstinence." Mostly, it's just a lot of different philosophical ideals, mostly focusing on the darker side of things. It's a lot more than that, but I don't feel like going in-depth.

Yes, I know, this thread's a couple weeks dead, but I like the idea.

[aMoeba]

I do not believe in any god from any religion (a.k.a. Atheist). I think it's just unlogical that there is a guy that lives in sky, letting good people live up there when there dead.

And plus, if there is a guy (a.k.a. God) who has the power to make Earth have world peace and stuff like that, then why does the US have all these wars? Why is Africa a such a horrible country (no offense)? and why is Iran likely planing to bomb some major building someplace where lots of people live, like in New York?

does anyone else agree with me on what I am saying?

I'd say nice job pulling a strawman argument.

To make it simple for you:

God = makes man perfect, says do not eat this fruit!

Man = perfect, then eats fruit. God makes them unperfect

Now we have everything we brought upon ourselves.

God is not a "guy." God doesn't live in the sky either. Good people don't go to heaven. You're saying "since God is powerful, why doesn't he stop stuff?" Its like saying "because Russia is fighting Israel, we should help Israel just because we can."

Iran likely to bomb some place? What kind of argument is this? Its pathetic. How about you enter an argument with something that happened, not something that might happened. Hell, God MIGHT as well just nuke the earth. I'm not saying he will - just saying its possible. Oh, how about Russia blows up all of china. I'm not saying they did - just thats its possible. I'm not saying you're a moron or anything - but its possible.

[Denominator]

Here's a really really good post from a similar debate in a different forum, definitely worth reading:

Some have established God as Fictional. The fact that not everyone believes that doesnt mean its not true.

Reality does not = the number of people that believe something, it just is. Either there is a God or there isnt. But I dont care if every last person on earth believes in him, if hes not there, he isnt there.

The only proof you have that hes there is that someone told you he was there. Again, doesnt make it true. As far as atheist propaganda...atheists just dont believe in God. Most could not care less if others do. The propaganda award goes to the religious Im afraid, who typically make it their mission, if not crusade, to make people believe in their God. Why cant you see that?

Speaking of propaganda...read the title of this thread :D

But look, I dont blame you. You have a hard case to sell, and many competing theories, religions and stories, not to mention common sense and actual logic, which really does dictate a lack of supernatural beings... so go forward with your crusade, convince all that you can convince, because eventually, there will be so few on your side, that youll need every one you can get. Besides, if you dont have all your friends telling you you are right, you might start to honestly question your beliefs...and we all know how slippery that slope is, dont we?

Like the pathological liar, you cant afford for a second not to believe in a story so grand or unbelievable at face value, even for a second. If you did, you know what would happen. Thats why many fight so hard in their campaign....they need to convince themselves.Wow, Fitz. You seem so convinced that I don't think there's any point rehashing all my previous posts on the subject. A few things though:

- As much as atheists claim that they "aren't an organization" and that it's "impossible to call yourself a non-Santa believer" or whatever, they are very much a group and I do see them spreading their beliefs (at least on the Internet) much more than the religious. Why do you think the term "weak atheist" was invented? So that the agnostics could find a group to be part of and a banner to rally behind. Truly intelligent people acknowledge that they don't know whether God exists and that putting too much effort into one side is probably a waste of time.

- If the only proof I had was being told God exists (a common unbased assumption constantly being flung at believers) there's no way I'd believe it. I tend to only trust myself (obviously you have no way of knowing that, and can continue to live in your false world of theistic sheep if you like). My belief revolves primarily around the cosmological argument. So the usual shallow jokes against Christians don't work.

- Take away all the straw men and unbased assumptions, and you'll find that very, very few atheists actually know what they're talking about. There's really a "herd mentality" about it, just like religion. Want to talk about mass delusion? How about the fact that atheists don't even KNOW that they have beliefs? The reason Christianity is used as a target is so atheism looks reasonable in comparison (although, in the usual atheist fashion, it is constantly distorted and oversimplified). :roll:

Well, if your assuming im part of some herd mentality, or mass delusion, or not intelligent enough to understand the argument, you are mistaken. Further, I make no attempt to convince you not to believe in God. I think its great that you can keep your faith. Unless you want to do something foolish with it, that affects others, I wish you the best, and hope your faith stays with you and that it enriches your life. I further truly hope there is a God. I hope you get to meet him.

I have been as much as a believer as anyone at times of my life, and never imagined Id lose my faith. I didnt try to or want to. I simply cant fully believe in God. Its as simple as that. I look around, and judge things as unbiased as I can, and even with the desire to believe, but still cannot fully do so. The main reason is that God, very well could be invented by man. There is no question about that. There are so many examples of it, that I need not mention one. The fact that it was invented long ago, and that the same stories are told means nothing to me. I know what the human imagination is capable of. The ONLY real difference between the Christian God, and all the other stories of other Gods, is the number of people who believe in him. IF, the christian God believers were killed, and some other religion took its place, we would be having this discussion about a different God, with a similar set of rules perhaps, but a completely different story.

One of the main problems with the human psyche is that it has a protective system that simply does not like too much change. When there is a current belief, the subconscious tries very hard to protect that belief. There are numerous examples, and religion is one of them. Its why people find it hard to change. The brain certainly can change, but it takes alot of work. It is simply set up to follow a routine, and really does prefer structure to some extent. Dont argue the many examples that this isnt true, because I know all of them. Im only referring to its inherent and basic programming if you will.

What this means is that if a person tries to unbelieve, the brain fights it. The human brain is absolutely brilliant. It knows more than the person who owns it usually. It understands that if a person believes in something, and has to question that, that it can cause emotional distress, emotional uncertainty, and even trauma. It protects itself, by encouraging us to keep the status quo, until something major happens, especially something bad. Now, you may very well have opened up your mind to all the possibilities, and looked around at all the other religions, the other ideas of what and who God is, and what God has done, including those who maintain that He is fictional, and still come to the conclusion, that a Christian God, is the only God that makes sense, to the point of believing that with all of your fiber. Well thats great.

Unfortunately, throught history, extended and short, there are so many examples of people who believe in so many things that are not true, that I know, that beliefs do not necessarily mean anything. I know that even my beliefs do not always mean anything. That is why I question them, and am not afraid to entertain other possibilities. Even as a christian, it really is insane to suggest theres no way that a billion people believing in another religion might not be correct. Of course they might be. If I was born where they were, and had people tell me the same thing, I would believe them too.

So, if you want to look down on athiests, and presume they are less intelligent than you for some reason, thats fine. If you want to define them in one little bundle and stereotype them, thats fine. I simply dont care what you do. It makes no difference to me what you believe. I think anyone who tries to convince someone to either believe, or not believe is actually guilty of a lie of sorts, because they really actually have no idea if there is a God, or if there isnt. If there is a God, and an atheist convinces a believer not to believe, they are guilty of a sin. If there is no God, and a person convinces a person to spend their life worshiping him, they have sinned too.

My Goal is never to convince anyone of anything, only to share my ideas. If your goal is to actually convince someone of something, then be my guest, but if you really are as intelligent as you seem to be implying, you should realize how ridiculous that venture is, especially on a forum like this.

I post here, because the title says "logic dictates that there is a God." and I happen to think its ridiculous. Also, I have no fear that I will change anyones ideas, or that a believer will question his beliefs, which is why I post here. I would never, ever, ever have this conversation anywhere else, where I might actually influence someone, and take the risk of changing their beliefs in a Higher Power, when I have absolutely no proof whatsoever that HE or She may or may not exist. The conversation is for fun essentially. Surely everyone in here knows all of this on a basic level?

I do find it funny that you say most atheists dont know what you are talking about though. The term atheist simply means a person that does not believe in a higher power. The non-atheist, is someone who does. Now, for me to say that every single person who believes in a higher power doesnt know what they are talking about, includes you, hindus, muslims, wicans, baptists, protestants, jews, catholics, all christians in general, and every other religion that has a higher power as thier belief.

Now, as an intelligent person, to lump all of those people into one group is utterly ridiculous, and one who does so, would actually be the one who didnt know what they were talking about. What Ill assume you mean by atheist, are the ones that you see talking about it, and arguing that there is no God. Certainly you cant be including all the ones that never speak on the subject, but are simply atheists, because they dont believe in a higher power. Certainly you cant mean that they have no idea what they are talking about...since essentially, they arent talking.

So, continue to assume you know everything, and have it all figured out, and do not question your beliefs. I know its a hell of a lot easier that way. But dont jump up on an altar and profess this to everyone else, and pretend you know they are wrong. If there is no God, and all atheists that dont believe in him are correct, then that makes you a complete idiot. Since this is just as likely and just as unprovable as there being a God, you might want to acknowledge that. I mean, theres no way you can ever be proven wrong, but that doesnt mean that you arent. What it does mean, is that you really dont know, and pretending to is just silly. Certainly saying that those who dont believe the same thing are less intelligent, is well...not intelligent.

[Coyote1023]

Well, that was a little one sided, john9blue is and idiot who doesn't know what he is talking about and AAFitz is a formidable debater...

In all actuality I don't really agree with evangelism. I believe that you should let people think what they want, I am sure that in the eyes of God, if you were a good person in your life, then it won't matter what you believe.

[Denominator]

Well, that was a little one sided, john9blue is and idiot who doesn't know what he is talking about and AAFitz is a formidable debater...

It also helps that john9blue is standing up for his beliefs and defending the entirety of what he bases his life upon, while AAFitz is simply poking holes in both sides of the argument.

I more posted that because I really like AAFitz's stance on not trying to influence people. It's an interesting take on both sides - theists and non-theists alike.

In all actuality I don't really agree with evangelism. I believe that you should let people think what they want, I am sure that in the eyes of God, if you were a good person in your life, then it won't matter what you believe.

Exactly. IF there happens to be a God(s) and I end up standing in front of him/her/they at the end of my life, I am fairly confident, based on everything I have read about him/her/them that he/she/they will be more than forgiving of my sins due to the fact that he/she/they created me. After all, in that case, it's not my fault at all that I am the way I am. He/she/they made me that way.

[Coyote1023]

As long as you don't go around exploiting everyone and work in a just way to better the world and help others along the way, I am sure no one would have a problem.

[Saucycarpdog]

I hope this doesnt offend anyone but I dont follow any serious belief , I think why should you follow anything just what someone says, I believe you should just live your life the way you want without limitations and philosophys. Just go out and have fun, like this :pikachu::bday::google:

[MultiLockOn]

Wouldn't it be better to believe in God, and end up not being one, then not believing in one, and end up being one?

[Denominator]

Wouldn't it be better to believe in God, and end up not being one, then not believing in one, and end up being one?

I disagree.

Scenario 1. Living your life according to God and then it turns out he doesn't exist

You have given up many opportunities in your life. Let's say you are the extreme devout religious person. First off, you won't have sex until marriage. That means you have likely passed your sexual prime by the time you first get laid. You won't ever have enjoyed alcohol or drugs. You won't have won the lottery because you won't have ever bought a ticket. You won't have ever won any money because you won't ever have gambled.

You won't have ever wondered what our purpose is or what it all means. You have lived your life based on a single premise, unquestioned, and when it ends, you will be sorely disappointed. Or you would be, except it just ends. You can't be disappointed because you're dead and there's nothing more.

Chances are, you're not a scientist. That's not to say other career opportunities weren't better suited for you, but that does say that you closed a bunch of doors early on in your life. You have a lifelong determined set of morals, prejudices and biases.

That's not to say you haven't lived a full life, but you've lived your life setting it up for the next step, the afterlife, which turns out not to exist at all.

Scenario 2. Living your life not according to God, and it turns out there is one

You've lived recklessly according to the principles of evolution and natural selection. You've had wild parties with lots of sex with lots of people in an effort to further your genes.

You question everything told to you. You pride yourself on your logic and your ability to figure shit out on your own.

However, you also live your life on one basic premise. That this all means nothing and you are just out to have the most fun possible. You don't need to set anything up for the afterlife because there is no afterlife.

Then when you die, it turns out you're wrong. Priding yourself on your logic, you stand in front of God at your judgement and explain to him that he did indeed make you the way you are, and it is in fact his fault for making you disbelieve everything. After all, you were created to question everything and you went ahead and did that. If the Christian God is as forgiving as he claims to be, you move on to heaven and the afterlife.




Obviously, I'm a bit biased toward the Atheist side, but that's the way I see it.

[Coyote1023]

I will go with the "all things in moderation" thing...

[Saucycarpdog]

My personal view on religion is that I couldn't care any less. I believe irreligious is the word. It's not that I don't believe in God, or that I do believe in God, it's just that I don't really care. And yes, I know how ignorant that sounds. This is probably me too. I do not belong to any religion but I am not Athiest. I really just dont care, if there is a god, well then theres a god and I am fine with that but I just dont put much of that value into my life. But I still know that you should always be a good person:D

By the way has anyone heard this belief http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism its pretty weird

[DeathsFriend22]

Scenario 2. Living your life not according to God, and it turns out there is one
Then when you die, it turns out you're wrong. Priding yourself on your logic, you stand in front of God at your judgement and explain to him that he did indeed make you the way you are, and it is in fact his fault for making you disbelieve everything. After all, you were created to question everything and you went ahead and did that. If the Christian God is as forgiving as he claims to be, you move on to heaven and the afterlife.


Or, God discards your argument, saying "The logical choice would have been to believe in me anyways, as you had nothing to lose in doing so. Why should I forgive you for your refusal to believe in me?" He then proceeds to send you to hell. The End.

[Denominator]

Or, God discards your argument, saying "The logical choice would have been to believe in me anyways, as you had nothing to lose in doing so. Why should I forgive you for your refusal to believe in me?" He then proceeds to send you to hell. The End.

Then why, God, did you provide me with so much evidence supporting that you don't exist?

I did not refuse to believe in God. In fact, for a long time I believed quite strongly that God existed and followed the Bible. But then I started looking at the evidence and thinking about it, and decided the opposite way.

In fact, if there were suddenly new strong evidence for his existence, I would question my lack of belief and at least objectively look at said evidence.

[aMoeba]

I disagree.

Scenario 1. Living your life according to God and then it turns out he doesn't exist

You have given up many opportunities in your life. Let's say you are the extreme devout religious person. First off, you won't have sex until marriage. That means you have likely passed your sexual prime by the time you first get laid. You won't ever have enjoyed alcohol or drugs. You won't have won the lottery because you won't have ever bought a ticket. You won't have ever won any money because you won't ever have gambled.

You won't have ever wondered what our purpose is or what it all means. You have lived your life based on a single premise, unquestioned, and when it ends, you will be sorely disappointed. Or you would be, except it just ends. You can't be disappointed because you're dead and there's nothing more.

Chances are, you're not a scientist. That's not to say other career opportunities weren't better suited for you, but that does say that you closed a bunch of doors early on in your life. You have a lifelong determined set of morals, prejudices and biases.

That's not to say you haven't lived a full life, but you've lived your life setting it up for the next step, the afterlife, which turns out not to exist at all.


I'll have to disagree. I'm a Christian and I've seen alcohol and drugs destroy my relative's lives, and I would never want that to happen to me. Furthermore, I don't see the point in wasting my virginity with someone I don't truly love. About gambling... meh. I play cards, and sometimes I make small bets with friends. No big deal.

I wonder what our purpose is, and in fact, according to Christianity, we know what our purpose is.

Why can't we be a scientist? I'm getting my major in Cellular Biology. What doors were closed? Drug dealing? Prostitution? I can't think of much else.

I live my life happier when I make good choices according to what I believe. If you know what I believed, then you would realize that I'm not some door to door false preaching ignorant Christian. Though there are a lot that are, sadly.
I feel good when I endorse others, help others, give to others, etc.

[Denominator]

I'll have to disagree. I'm a Christian and I've seen alcohol and drugs destroy my relative's lives, and I would never want that to happen to me. Furthermore, I don't see the point in wasting my virginity with someone I don't truly love. About gambling... meh. I play cards, and sometimes I make small bets with friends. No big deal.

I agree - drugs and alcohol in excess can and will destroy lives. But I also know many religious people that simply won't drink at all because of their beliefs.

I totally understand not losing your virginity to someone you don't truly love. But love and marriage are not necessarily synonymous terms.

I wonder what our purpose is, and in fact, according to Christianity, we know what our purpose is.

Touche. You have in fact been told of your purpose.

Why can't we be a scientist? I'm getting my major in Cellular Biology. What doors were closed? Drug dealing? Prostitution? I can't think of much else.

How can you possibly be a Cellular Biologist and still believe in God?! Have you not done the fruit fly experiment and seen evolution?

Cellular Biology provides some of the most powerful evidence for evolution, and subsequently, evidence against the presence of a God.

How do your career views not conflict with your personal views?

I live my life happier when I make good choices according to what I believe. If you know what I believed, then you would realize that I'm not some door to door false preaching ignorant Christian. Though there are a lot that are, sadly.
I feel good when I endorse others, help others, give to others, etc.

So do I. Which is why I respect you. You came here and said "This is what I believe and why", and questioned why I believed what I do. That I can respect. What I cannot respect would be if you came in here and said "You should believe this."

[Coyote1023]

I agree - drugs and alcohol in excess can and will destroy lives. But I also know many religious people that simply won't drink at all because of their beliefs.

There are extremes on both ends. I assume that you are responsible when you drink, then there are the idiots that kill others by driving under the influence and those that with even the site of it shudder. All things in moderation.

I totally understand not losing your virginity to someone you don't truly love. But love and marriage are not necessarily synonymous terms.

Meh, this is just opinion. There is a difference between sex before marriage and sleeping with everyone in your town.

How can you possibly be a Cellular Biologist and still believe in God?! Have you not done the fruit fly experiment and seen evolution?

Cellular Biology provides some of the most powerful evidence for evolution, and subsequently, evidence against the presence of a God.

How do your career views not conflict with your personal views?

Quite simple. God made every animal perfect right? Right, so he gave them the ability to adapt, big deal Now we go to the evolution part. Maybe God uses all of the scientific laws that your science has proven as the means of his creation. Maybe he made the animals of the earth through evolution. Maybe the Big Bang was how he created the sky, stars, and Earth. None of these theories really counter religion. It is just the radicals on both sides freaking out.

So do I. Which is why I respect you. You came here and said "This is what I believe and why", and questioned why I believed what I do. That I can respect. What I cannot respect would be if you came in here and said "You should believe this."

I hate it when people try to convert others. I was uncomfortable at church when my priest told us to go out and spread the good news and evangelize the world. I just hate that.

[Denominator]

Meh, this is just opinion. There is a difference between sex before marriage and sleeping with everyone in your town.

Yes, but what is the difference between having sex with someone you love before marriage and someone you love after marriage?

It's just an arbitrary boundary.

Quite simple. God made every animal perfect right? Right, so he gave them the ability to adapt, big deal Now we go to the evolution part. Maybe God uses all of the scientific laws that your science has proven as the means of his creation. Maybe he made the animals of the earth through evolution. Maybe the Big Bang was how he created the sky, stars, and Earth. None of these theories really counter religion. It is just the radicals on both sides freaking out.

So God is simply manipulating everything all the time? Then why does it say in the Bible that he created everything at the beginning?

I hate it when people try to convert others. I was uncomfortable at church when my priest told us to go out and spread the good news and evangelize the world. I just hate that.

The worst are the door to door people.

[Coyote1023]

Yes, but what is the difference between having sex with someone you love before marriage and someone you love after marriage?

It's just an arbitrary boundary.

Exactly. I was saying the second of the 2 were bad.


So God is simply manipulating everything all the time? Then why does it say in the Bible that he created everything at the beginning?

Because no one knew about physics or chemistry back then...


The worst are the door to door people.

Oh Mormans, lol.

[Denominator]

Because no one knew about physics or chemistry back then...

But God created things in an unchanging way. Yet we know that things change over time. It's already been shown that the average height of humans has increased over the last 2000 years.

[UndoingChales]

its a risky subject to speak about, and the whole, "christianity is stupid" and "religions are crazy" is just wrong. Religion is the basis of most of our morals and gives hope to many people. Whether God or gods exist is over any of our heads, but religion is still a large part of many of your own lives even if you are atheist. I also believe radical thinking is a terrible way to go about things like Catholic's belief that Earth is just a place to be judged, but my religion, Lutheran, believes in God's forveness and focuses on that God is not meant to punish you, but bring you hope. I myself am not a strong supporter of Heaven just because living forever scares the shit out of me, but it is comforting to think that you're loved one is in a state of bliss after he/she dies.

[Coyote1023]

But God created things in an unchanging way. Yet we know that things change over time. It's already been shown that the average height of humans has increased over the last 2000 years.

Citation please? Where in the bible does it say "Unchanging"

[aMoeba]

I agree - drugs and alcohol in excess can and will destroy lives. But I also know many religious people that simply won't drink at all because of their beliefs.


Sure.

I totally understand not losing your virginity to someone you don't truly love. But love and marriage are not necessarily synonymous terms.

People get married because they love each other. Some get married for tax benefits, but I'd say that's the wrong reason.


Touche. You have in fact been told of your purpose.

K.

How can you possibly be a Cellular Biologist and still believe in God?! Have you not done the fruit fly experiment and seen evolution?

Cellular Biology provides some of the most powerful evidence for evolution, and subsequently, evidence against the presence of a God.

How do your career views not conflict with your personal views?

Cellular Biology doesn't purposefully study evolution. If I wanted to learn about evolution, I'd do phylogenetics or paleontology. Cellular Biology more so focuses on cell functions and viruses, etc.

[FledgelingFenix]

I personnaly believe that god doesnt exist and the big bang didnt happen either. my theory is that god is just a simple answer to explaining things for Example " I'm sick I was punished by the gods" But in reality what really cause sickness of course viruses, germs etc... Anyway i do believe that evolution was thamatically correct. Then when we die i got 3 theories for death I personnaly thing our bodies rot and decompose thats it done, or we walk as ghost, and the last possible theory is heaven(very doubtful though)

[Boston]

While I used to go to church every Sunday, I haven't been in years. I still believe in God and all that stuff though, and I have a "relationship" so to speak with him.

[Coyote1023]

How did either of your posts help this debate... in any way.

[PsychoBucket]

Debates are always nice. Here is one for you peoples:
What are your beliefs? Why do you believe what you do?
Feel free to try and prove/disprove. Keep it civil yet fiery.

GO! :awe:

How did either of your posts help this debate... in any way.

Well actually that is exactly what the original post asked for . . . if anything your post did not help this debate... in any way.

As for me, I used to go to church every Sunday, but I haven't gone in a while. I believe that the stories in the Old Testament (Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark) are just stories. I believe that they were created to teach a lesson, not to be thought of as real events.

[Coyote1023]

Oh wow, I thought Denom started this...

I stand corrected, carry on.

[DeathsFriend22]

Then why, God, did you provide me with so much evidence supporting that you don't exist?

I did not refuse to believe in God. In fact, for a long time I believed quite strongly that God existed and followed the Bible. But then I started looking at the evidence and thinking about it, and decided the opposite way.

In fact, if there were suddenly new strong evidence for his existence, I would question my lack of belief and at least objectively look at said evidence.

Where is said evidence that God doesn't exist?

Answer: There is none. This evidence is only relative to your point of view.

[Nulls Wife]

How can you possibly be a Cellular Biologist and still believe in God?! Have you not done the fruit fly experiment and seen evolution?

Cellular Biology provides some of the most powerful evidence for evolution, and subsequently, evidence against the presence of a God.


Just because the bible doesn't mention evolution doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There is undeniable evidence that proves evolution occurs, not many things would be alive on this earth if they didn't adapt and evolve. However, there is no proof for me to believe that humans evolved from apes either. To me evolution that is proven does not turn one species into another, it changes a species to make it adapt to the world.

And I agree with Coyote, I believe, why couldn't God have created the world with the intention evolution, used the Big Bang to create things, or used science to explain things?

[Shell]

Unlike many, I actually believe in the Greek gods and goddesses. Yes, that may sound odd, but it's really what I believe in. If there were some Greek religious church or whatever around me, I would convert. Oh, I wasn't sure if I posted this already or not. So if I did, sorry.

[BabySmuggler]

Like a lot of people I used to be a devout Christian. I attended catholic school for my first 11 years then I switched to a public school. After a while I began to think for myself and start to question my beliefs. Now I am unsure of what I believe in. I don't want to consider myself an Atheist because it seems to be a bit of a cold world without any God to believe in but on the other hand it might be a good thing. In my opinion the world would be a better place if people treated others kindly out of the good in their hearts rather than for a fear of divine retribution.

[aMoeba]

1) Like a lot of people I used to be a devout Christian. I attended catholic school for my first 11 years then I switched to a public school.

2) After a while I began to think for myself and start to question my beliefs. Now I am unsure of what I believe in. I don't want to consider myself an Atheist because it seems to be a bit of a cold world without any God to believe in but on the other hand it might be a good thing. In my opinion the world would be a better place if people treated others kindly out of the good in their hearts rather than for a fear of divine retribution.

1) Catholic =/= Christian. HUGE mistake.

2) In fear of divine retribution? Are you kidding me? Someone's obviously misinformed. You're already guaranteed Heaven the first time you get saved, there's no reason to get fearful of "divine retribution" so to speak.

[Nulls Wife]

1) Catholic =/= Christian. HUGE mistake.



Do you honestly think Catholics are not Christian?

[aMoeba]

Do you honestly think Catholics are not Christian?

There's a big difference between the two. Christians are non - denominational (following exactly the Bible), and Catholics are denominational (essentially basing their beliefs off of the Bible, but twisting things to their liking, different per denomination). For example, Catholics pray to Mary, the mother of Jesus. No where in the Bible does it say to pray to Mary. In fact, it says to pray to Jesus. That's just one of many.

[Nulls Wife]

There's a big difference between the two. Christians are non - denominational (following exactly the Bible), and Catholics are denominational (essentially basing their beliefs off of the Bible, but twisting things to their liking, different per denomination). For example, Catholics pray to Mary, the mother of Jesus. No where in the Bible does it say to pray to Mary. In fact, it says to pray to Jesus. That's just one of many.

I see your point, I don't agree but I see where you are coming from. I view Christianty as a blanket term for all those who believe in Christ. The way you use the term Christian there are very few Christians. Every religion is based on their interpertation of the bible, Catholics, Lutherans, and Baptists included.

Now to correct what you believe about praying to Mary. I am Missouri Synod Lutheran and married to a Catholic and have had many fights with my extrememly devout Catholic mother in law. Until I met Null I also believed they prayed to Mary. However I have now learned from Null's family and numerous others that they pray to Jesus. They just tallk to Mary and other saints and ask them to pray for them, just like you would ask a neighbor or friend to pray for you when you are sick or whatnot.

[aMoeba]

I see your point, I don't agree but I see where you are coming from. I view Christianity as a blanket term for all those who believe in Christ. The way you use the term Christian there are very few Christians. Every religion is based on their interpertation of the bible, Catholics, Lutherans, and Baptists included.

Now to correct what you believe about praying to Mary. I am Missouri Synod Lutheran and married to a Catholic and have had many fights with my extrememly devout Catholic mother in law. Until I met Null I also believed they prayed to Mary. However I have now learned from Null's family and numerous others that they pray to Jesus. They just tallk to Mary and other saints and ask them to pray for them, just like you would ask a neighbor or friend to pray for you when you are sick or whatnot.

There's plenty of Christians the way I use the term. In fact, you could look at many huge churches out in America, and many of them are non denominational. Sure as a baptist, methodist, presbyterian, or catholic, you can call yourself a Christian. Does than mean you are? Not necessarily. Sure they abide under the prime idea of Christianity, but the Bible itself doesn't condone extra rules and regulations which were not intentionally pre written in the Bible.

[BabySmuggler]

1) Catholic =/= Christian. HUGE mistake.

2) In fear of divine retribution? Are you kidding me? Someone's obviously misinformed. You're already guaranteed Heaven the first time you get saved, there's no reason to get fearful of "divine retribution" so to speak.

No.
Catholic=Christian
Christian≠Catholic

Christian is a broad term. It refers to all of those who believe in the New and Old Testament including Catholic, Protestant, Methodist, Lutheran, etc.

And when I say retribution I do not say directly. That is more along the lines of Karma which applies to Buddhism and Hinduism. What I mean by retribution is the worry of not getting into Heaven. The fear that if you do not live life properly you will go to Hell.

You're already guaranteed Heaven the first time you get saved, there's no reason to get fearful of "divine retribution" so to speak.
If you're already guaranteed Heaven what is the purpose of Hell? Or even Purgatory for that matter?

[aMoeba]

No.
Catholic=Christian
Christian≠Catholic

Christian is a broad term. It refers to all of those who believe in the New and Old Testament including Catholic, Protestant, Methodist, Lutheran, etc.

And when I say retribution I do not say directly. That is more along the lines of Karma which applies to Buddhism and Hinduism. What I mean by retribution is the worry of not getting into Heaven. The fear that if you do not live life properly you will go to Hell.

Yep. Christian refers directly to the people who belief in the New and Old Testament. You got that right. You're also saying:

a=b
b=/=a

Do you know what some parts of the Testaments say? To abide in the word, and not make up extra rules.

Denomination = division
God/Christ = unity

They are not the same thing. At. All. You also don't have to live life well to go to Heaven. Just salvation, nothing more, nothing less. Although, it is best that you do get saved and continue to act as a Christian.


If you're already guaranteed Heaven what is the purpose of Hell? Or even Purgatory for that matter?

You're guaranteed Heaven if you get saved... :neutral:

Purgatory is Catholic..

[BabySmuggler]

Define "getting saved." Does this mean receiving one or more of the Sacraments?

[Null Parameter]

Purgatory is Catholic..
Purgatory doesn't exist anymore in the Catholic belief system.

[aMoeba]

Define "getting saved." Does this mean receiving one or more of the Sacraments?

Receiving and accepting/believing that Christ is God and died on the cross to take your sins.

Purgatory doesn't exist anymore in the Catholic belief system.

Thanks for the correction. Catholicism is more sensible without it.

[Nulls Wife]

Receiving and accepting/believing that Christ is God and died on the cross to take your sins.



I guess that still doesn't answer the question for me. Technically I was baptized and confirmed is that considered receiving and accepting/believing in your opinion?

If so, I feel like there is some flaw in your logic.... because I have recieved the sacrement and accept and believe that Chris is God and died on the cross to take away your sins (which I do) doesn't mean I can go be a drunk drug addicted murder that sleeps with anything that walks and assume God is going to instantly forgive me without asking. I firmly believe that you still need to be a good person and ask for forgiveness.

[aMoeba]

I guess that still doesn't answer the question for me. Technically I was baptized and confirmed is that considered receiving and accepting/believing in your opinion?

If so, I feel like there is some flaw in your logic.... because I have recieved the sacrement and accept and believe that Chris is God and died on the cross to take away your sins (which I do) doesn't mean I can go be a drunk drug addicted murder that sleeps with anything that walks and assume God is going to instantly forgive me without asking. I firmly believe that you still need to be a good person and ask for forgiveness.

Confirmed? What is this "confirmed?" By the way, baptism isn't required for salvation. However, its good.

I hope you don't believe Chris is God.. ;)

Anyways. Here's what I said 2 posts ago: You also don't have to live life well to go to Heaven. Just salvation, nothing more, nothing less. Although, it is best that you do get saved and continue to act as a Christian.

Once saved always saved. "The Lord will never forsake us." "His mercies are new every morning." On and on, and even the scriptures with eternal life. That should be enough.

[Nulls Wife]

Confirmed? What is this "confirmed?" By the way, baptism isn't required for salvation. However, its good.

I hope you don't believe Chris is God.. ;)

Anyways. Here's what I said 2 posts ago:

Once saved always saved. "The Lord will never forsake us." "His mercies are new every morning." On and on, and even the scriptures with eternal life. That should be enough.

No Null is not God!

Confirmation is a renewal of your baptism that says that you are making the choice to believe and become a member of the church body. Instead of just being baptized when you have no say in the matter.

I believe the once saved always saved, however in your opinion what do you have to do to be saved? I guess I just don't understand that yet.

What is the point of forgiveness if you never need it?

[aMoeba]

No Null is not God!

Confirmation is a renewal of your baptism that says that you are making the choice to believe and become a member of the church body. Instead of just being baptized when you have no say in the matter.

I believe the once saved always saved, however in your opinion what do you have to do to be saved? I guess I just don't understand that yet.

What is the point of forgiveness if you never need it?

Confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord and died on the cross to take your sins away.

Why must you be baptized to join the church? Jesus IS the church, abide in him and you are a member. Not all people are baptized when they can't make choices, anyway. They're not even necessarily baptized in the first place, because they couldn't make the choice on their own.

The point of forgiveness is simple: Repenting. Asking Jesus to forgive you of your sins. Although Jesus did that, you still sin. "His mercies are new every morning" just shows that he is willing to forgive you all the time.

[Nulls Wife]

Confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord and died on the cross to take your sins away.

Why must you be baptized to join the church? Jesus IS the church, abide in him and you are a member. Not all people are baptized when they can't make choices, anyway. They're not even necessarily baptized in the first place, because they couldn't make the choice on their own.

The point of forgiveness is simple: Repenting. Asking Jesus to forgive you of your sins. Although Jesus did that, you still sin. "His mercies are new every morning" just shows that he is willing to forgive you all the time.


Why does Jesus get baptized if he does not want/need us to do it? We have always believed that Jesus wants us to be baptized. Most people that go to my church were baptized as a baby or small child, not saying they can't later that is just when it is normally done. We believe baptisim is when the original sin you are born with is washed away. Babies can't make the choice to believe in Jesus yet so their parents make the choice that they believe by baptizing them.

That doesn't answer my question, why do you need to ask forgivness if you do not need forgiveness to get into heaven.

[aMoeba]

1) Why does Jesus get baptized if he does not want/need us to do it? We have always believed that Jesus wants us to be baptized. Most people that go to my church were baptized as a baby or small child, not saying they can't later that is just when it is normally done. We believe baptisim is when the original sin you are born with is washed away. Babies can't make the choice to believe in Jesus yet so their parents make the choice that they believe by baptizing them.

2) That doesn't answer my question, why do you need to ask forgivness if you do not need forgiveness to get into heaven.

1) Baptism is, yes, essentially, leaving behind the old man and coming out new. I'm saying Baptism is ADVISED, not necessary. You're not going to go to hell if you're saved but not baptized. Their parents don't necessarily make the choice for them. Someone else can't make a choice for you. Besides, people who die without ever having a choice to ever go to Heaven already go there.

2) Salvation warrants Heaven. Repentance warrants the washing away of sin. That's all there is to it.

[Dow]

I hope you don't believe Chris is God.. ;)
Who the fuck is Chris? This guy sounds like a dick :P

[aMoeba]

Who the fuck is Chris? This guy sounds like a dick :P

It was a spelling mistake she made :p

[Dow]

It was a spelling mistake she made :p

so whats up aMeoba? Havent debated religion with you in a while. Is prosper still bitching about atheism over at FH?

[aMoeba]

so whats up aMeoba? Havent debated religion with you in a while. Is prosper still bitching about atheism over at FH?

No, he stopped quite a long time ago. Allow me to check. His last post there was 2 weeks ago, I believe.

[Phoenix of Wei]

I'm just going to put in a small input of my thoughts. In the Christian religion, it seems as though god has a change of tactics moving from the old testament to the new. The mood of his work changes from a more sarcastic, sour relationship with Humans to a loving and forgiving theme. It's very easy to spot, and this has really got me thinking that maybe, even if there is a divine being, people just copied off of one guy's idea to teach good morals and fables with lessons to remember. You know, as a volume of education. As times changed, people needed to take a different approach to get to others.

[Floppy]

Regardless of what religion you partake in, is it really right to exile and shun entire cultures people for not sharing your beliefs? Is it justified to fight against men, women, and children in the name of whichever god you believe in? Also, since when is genocide going to send you to a divine heaven? Plus, is the funding to slow or stop medical and scientific reseach really at all necesary? That's like being the kid who cheated to win things in your grade school days. As you can probably tell, I am religionless, and very relieved that I don't need to play a part in these wicked paths to god...

[Dow]

No, he stopped quite a long time ago. Allow me to check. His last post there was 2 weeks ago, I believe.

Haha. Thank god. (Pun intended)

[Fenian Bhoy]

what has that got too do with religion ^, please stay on topic next time this is a good debate.

[aMoeba]

I'm just going to put in a small input of my thoughts. In the Christian religion, it seems as though god has a change of tactics moving from the old testament to the new. The mood of his work changes from a more sarcastic, sour relationship with Humans to a loving and forgiving theme. It's very easy to spot, and this has really got me thinking that maybe, even if there is a divine being, people just copied off of one guy's idea to teach good morals and fables with lessons to remember. You know, as a volume of education. As times changed, people needed to take a different approach to get to others.

The Bible specifically says "God never changes."

[Denominator]

The Bible specifically says "God never changes."

Yet the way people worship him has changed very drastically over the last 2000 years.

[aMoeba]

Yet the way people worship him has changed very drastically over the last 2000 years.

So?

And I'm also assuming you've been around to notice?

Psalms (a book specifically about songs says "Sing a new song."

[Denominator]

So?

And I'm also assuming you've been around to notice?

Psalms (a book specifically about songs says "Sing a new song."

It doesn't bother you to know that the Crusades, during which thousands of people were killed, were run on the same principles you find in the Bible today?

[DeathsFriend22]

There's a big difference between the two. Christians are non - denominational (following exactly the Bible), and Catholics are denominational (essentially basing their beliefs off of the Bible, but twisting things to their liking, different per denomination). For example, Catholics pray to Mary, the mother of Jesus. No where in the Bible does it say to pray to Mary. In fact, it says to pray to Jesus. That's just one of many.


I like how you say it's Catholicism that's bad and has changed rather than whatever religion you happen to be. Catholicism was founded by Jesus himself. "Christianity" did not emerge for almost 1500 years later.

There are denominations of Christianity, yes, such as Mormon, Puritan, or Orthodox. The fact that they broke off from the Church only means that they were the ones who wanted change in the first place.

And since when do we twist shit to our liking? While it doesn't specifically say "Pray to Mary" in the Bible, Mary just so happens to be the Mother of God. There's no reason we shouldn't pray to her.



Yep. Christian refers directly to the people who belief in the New and Old Testament. You got that right. You're also saying:

a=b
b=/=a


Wow. Fail more plz.

Let's say I said "Every Muslim is a terrorist."

Your reply (Or someone else's) would be "What are you talking about? That's not true!"

And I would say "Okay, fine, but every damn terrorist just so happens to be Muslim."

So:

Terrorist = Muslim
Muslim =/= Terrorist.

Which means that a=b but b=/=a could be true. There's a mathematical term for this, I forget what it is.


Denomination = division
God/Christ = unity

They are not the same thing. At. All. You also don't have to live life well to go to Heaven. Just salvation, nothing more, nothing less. Although, it is best that you do get saved and continue to act as a Christian.

You're guaranteed Heaven if you get saved... :neutral:


Wait, so, according to your beliefs:

If a guy were to get baptised, then he could go rape and kill 200 women, eat 22 babies and commit suicide, and still go to heaven. I smell bullshit.

My Catholic beliefs:
You only get saved because you lived your life well. Which, by the way IS MADE CLEAR IN THE BIBLE!!!


So wait, which religions have twisted the Word of God again? Oh, yeah. Yours.



Also, I won't be here tomorrow, so I won't be able to reply until Sunday to any response given. You have plenty of time to think of a response between then and now :)

[aMoeba]

It doesn't bother you to know that the Crusades, during which thousands of people were killed, were run on the same principles you find in the Bible today?

Sure the prime idea, but those were Catholics, not Christians.

1) I like how you say it's Catholicism that's bad and has changed rather than whatever religion you happen to be. Catholicism was founded by Jesus himself. "Christianity" did not emerge for almost 1500 years later.

There are denominations of Christianity, yes, such as Mormon, Puritan, or Orthodox. The fact that they broke off from the Church only means that they were the ones who wanted change in the first place.

And since when do we twist shit to our liking? While it doesn't specifically say "Pray to Mary" in the Bible, Mary just so happens to be the Mother of God. There's no reason we shouldn't pray to her.





2) Wow. Fail more plz.

Let's say I said "Every Muslim is a terrorist."

Your reply (Or someone else's) would be "What are you talking about? That's not true!"

And I would say "Okay, fine, but every damn terrorist just so happens to be Muslim."

So:

Terrorist = Muslim
Muslim =/= Terrorist.

Which means that a=b but b=/=a could be true. There's a mathematical term for this, I forget what it is.




3) Wait, so, according to your beliefs:

If a guy were to get baptised, then he could go rape and kill 200 women, eat 22 babies and commit suicide, and still go to heaven. I smell bullshit.

My Catholic beliefs:
You only get saved because you lived your life well. Which, by the way IS MADE CLEAR IN THE BIBLE!!!


So wait, which religions have twisted the Word of God again? Oh, yeah. Yours.

I'll be as calm as possible when replying to this post, but most of what you just said is purely idiotic bantering.

1) Bullshit. Christianity is the raw belief of the New Testament and Old Testament. Catholicism is essentially a similar belief with extra crap that the Bible doesn't include. Christianity was around ever since Jesus died on the cross, a DIVISION of something cannot come BEFORE the thing it is DIVIDED BY. Jesus said "I AM THE CHURCH, ABIDE IN ME." That's EXACTLY what Christianity does. In a later verse, it says "I am the vine, and my father is the vine dresser. Those who abide in me are like good fruit, who grow, and those who do not abide in me (the church, Christianity) are like branches who wither away."

Like I said earlier, the church IS Christ. Christianity is inherently the CHURCH. Why would you want change? How can you even call yourself better? The basis of your beliefs even tells you NOT to change anything! How silly!

You twist shit to your liking all the time. What you call "sacraments" are not all required by the Bible. You can praise God however you want, you don't have to have someone else pray for you (I'm going by multiple denominations, not just catholicism), you don't have to preach door to door, etc. There is no denomination that follows the Bible and teachings of Christ the closest. That's because the Bible teaches against denominations, period. Look at the apostles and disciples in the Bible. Were they ever known as Methodist, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Baptist, Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, etc? No! And neither should you! Or any other Christian for that matter. Yet you will have a majority of "Christians" segregate themselves within these dividing denominations because their minds are not right, and they are ignorant of what the Bible commands.

(1 Corinthians 1:10-13) Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

There is no Methodist, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Baptist, Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, Jehovah Witness, Mormon, etc church in Heaven. There is only ONE temple in Heaven. In the Bible, all the churches were only known by their location, not by any denomination or "type." And that is how it should be today. Nondenominational churches only known by their location. Such as, if I live in Jacksonville, "Jacksonville Christian Church," or if I live in Baltimore, "Baltimore Christian Church," --- NOT "First Baptist Church" or "Trinity Pentecostal Church."

Just cause it isn't included doesn't mean we can't? That's so lame of you to say. The Bible doesn't say you can't pray to your computer, so you might as well. The Bible surely doesn't say you can't pray to your Xbox 360 and TV, but you can go ahead and do so, I mean c'mon, its not like the Bible says you can't, so you might as well!

2) There's an enormous hole in your logic, though. A person who practices terrorism is a terrorist. What is terrorism? I'll rip this straight from wiki: Terrorism is a policy or ideology of violence[1] intended to intimidate or cause terror[2] for the purpose of "exerting pressure on decision making by state bodies."[1] The term "terror" is largely used to indicate clandestine, low-intensity violence that targets civilians and generates public fear. Thus "terror" is distinct from asymmetric warfare, and violates the concept of a common law of war in which civilian life is regarded. The term "-ism" is used to indicate an ideology —typically one that claims its attacks are in the domain of a "just war" concept, though most condemn such as crimes against humanity.

So no, not all terrorists are muslim either.

3) Your ideas are based off the Bible as well, you should know that. The only way to lose your salvation is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

Really? Its made clear in the Bible? Would you also like to know what else is made clear in the Bible? Acts 16:30-31
Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Romans 1:16-17
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God salvation to every one that believeth.... As it is written, The just shall live by faith.
Romans 3:20
By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight.
Romans 3:28
A man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Romans 4:2
For if Abraham were justified by works he hath whereof to glory?
Romans 4:13
For the promise ... was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Romans 5:1
Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 10:9
If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Galatians 2:16
A man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ.
Galatians 3:11-12
The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith.
Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.
Titus 3:5
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.


Oh yeah, and please, I beg you, try harder next time. Make a more educated post, will you?

[Denominator]

Sure the prime idea, but those were Catholics, not Christians.

To be addressed below.

1) Bullshit. Christianity is the raw belief of the New Testament and Old Testament. Catholicism is essentially a similar belief with extra crap that the Bible doesn't include. Christianity was around ever since Jesus died on the cross, a DIVISION of something cannot come BEFORE the thing it is DIVIDED BY. Jesus said "I AM THE CHURCH, ABIDE IN ME." That's EXACTLY what Christianity does. In a later verse, it says "I am the vine, and my father is the vine dresser. Those who abide in me are like good fruit, who grow, and those who do not abide in me (the church, Christianity) are like branches who wither away."

Like I said earlier, the church IS Christ. Christianity is inherently the CHURCH. Why would you want change? How can you even call yourself better? The basis of your beliefs even tells you NOT to change anything! How silly!

You twist shit to your liking all the time. What you call "sacraments" are not all required by the Bible. You can praise God however you want, you don't have to have someone else pray for you (I'm going by multiple denominations, not just catholicism), you don't have to preach door to door, etc. There is no denomination that follows the Bible and teachings of Christ the closest. That's because the Bible teaches against denominations, period. Look at the apostles and disciples in the Bible. Were they ever known as Methodist, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Baptist, Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, etc? No! And neither should you! Or any other Christian for that matter. Yet you will have a majority of "Christians" segregate themselves within these dividing denominations because their minds are not right, and they are ignorant of what the Bible commands.

(1 Corinthians 1:10-13) Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

There is no Methodist, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Baptist, Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, Jehovah Witness, Mormon, etc church in Heaven. There is only ONE temple in Heaven. In the Bible, all the churches were only known by their location, not by any denomination or "type." And that is how it should be today. Nondenominational churches only known by their location. Such as, if I live in Jacksonville, "Jacksonville Christian Church," or if I live in Baltimore, "Baltimore Christian Church," --- NOT "First Baptist Church" or "Trinity Pentecostal Church."

Just cause it isn't included doesn't mean we can't? That's so lame of you to say. The Bible doesn't say you can't pray to your computer, so you might as well. The Bible surely doesn't say you can't pray to your Xbox 360 and TV, but you can go ahead and do so, I mean c'mon, its not like the Bible says you can't, so you might as well!

Here is where you are wrong. Catholicism is one sect of Christianity.

Christianity is the entirety of the populace that believe in the Christian God and Jesus Christ. That includes Methodists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Baptists, Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Catholics, and Presbyterians, and a bunch of others as well.

So DeathsFriend is right. Being Catholic does make you Christian, but being Christian does not make you Catholic.

Which is why your above point is irrelevant.

[Denominator]

Apologies for the double post, but I didn't want to this to get lost.

Oh yeah, and please, I beg you, try harder next time. Make a more educated post, will you?

Don't flame. That line was clearly trolling and flaming and just plain trying to piss him off.

I didn't report your post, but if you do it again I will.

[aMoeba]

To be addressed below.



Here is where you are wrong. Catholicism is one sect of Christianity.

Christianity is the entirety of the populace that believe in the Christian God and Jesus Christ. That includes Methodists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Baptists, Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Catholics, and Presbyterians, and a bunch of others as well.

So DeathsFriend is right. Being Catholic does make you Christian, but being Christian does not make you Catholic.

Which is why your above point is irrelevant.

My above point is not irrelevant at all.

I've addressed many times that Catholicism is a denomination of Christianity. No need to re state this.

The next thing you say is where you are wrong. Christianity itself is Christianity, everything you said after that are sects/denominations of Christianity, where they take Christianity (like how you would take an animal) and change it to their liking (pretty much natural selection).

There's no way you can be Catholic = Christian and Christian =/= Catholic. It just doesn't work. You're basically saying "Well, I'm a Catholic, so I'm Christian. But then again, because I'm Christian, I'm not a Catholic." The two things are different, they cannot at any time be the same thing, because Christian naturally means that you are non-denominational, not that you are every denomination.


Don't flame. That line was clearly trolling and flaming and just plain trying to piss him off.

I didn't report your post, but if you do it again I will.

Trolling? No, not at all. You think I have all the time in the world to deal with un educated posts who could have simply been informed by google? I'm giving him advice, I'm not flaming him at all. I'm not trying to piss him off either, I'm trying to tell him to get educated on the subject before he argues it like he knows it. If that's wrong - then go ahead and report me. Oh and of course he is happily strolling through fields of joy while calling my religion ripped bullshit. I feel appreciated.

[Denominator]

My above point is not irrelevant at all.

I've addressed many times that Catholicism is a denomination of Christianity. No need to re state this.

The next thing you say is where you are wrong. Christianity itself is Christianity, everything you said after that are sects/denominations of Christianity, where they take Christianity (like how you would take an animal) and change it to their liking (pretty much natural selection).

There's no way you can be Catholic = Christian and Christian =/= Catholic. It just doesn't work. You're basically saying "Well, I'm a Catholic, so I'm Christian. But then again, because I'm Christian, I'm not a Catholic." The two things are different, they cannot at any time be the same thing, because Christian naturally means that you are non-denominational, not that you are every denomination.

Yes, your point is irrelevant because you clearly stated that my Catholicism and Christianity are different, when you are now agreeing that they're not.

And you're missing the point of the = argument.

EVERY Catholic is Christian because Catholicism is a sect of Christianity.

But not every Christian is Catholic.

Look at it this way:

All staff members of XForgery are members of XForgery. But not every XForgery member is a staff member.

Christian is a blanket term.

[aMoeba]

Yes, your point is irrelevant because you clearly stated that my Catholicism and Christianity are different, when you are now agreeing that they're not.

And you're missing the point of the = argument.

EVERY Catholic is Christian because Catholicism is a sect of Christianity.

But not every Christian is Catholic.

Look at it this way:

All staff members of XForgery are members of XForgery. But not every XForgery member is a staff member.

Christian is a blanket term.

Did I not just state that Christianity referred to non-denominational?

[Denominator]

Your entire argument counteracting my point about the Crusades and how faith has changed over time was this:

Sure the prime idea, but those were Catholics, not Christians.

Which, in accordance with your other points to DeathsFriend, says that you believe Catholics and Christians are different.

So are you changing your point of view on that or are you just going to leave yourself contradicted?

[aMoeba]

Your entire argument counteracting my point about the Crusades and how faith has changed over time was this:



Which, in accordance with your other points to DeathsFriend, says that you believe Catholics and Christians are different.

So are you changing your point of view on that or are you just going to leave yourself contradicted?

Catholics and Christians ARE two different things. I fail to see my contradiction. Care to elaborate?

[Denominator]

Catholics and Christians ARE two different things. I fail to see my contradiction. Care to elaborate?

Here:

My above point is not irrelevant at all.

I've addressed many times that Catholicism is a denomination of Christianity. No need to re state this.

The next thing you say is where you are wrong. Christianity itself is Christianity, everything you said after that are sects/denominations of Christianity, where they take Christianity (like how you would take an animal) and change it to their liking (pretty much natural selection).

There's no way you can be Catholic = Christian and Christian =/= Catholic. It just doesn't work. You're basically saying "Well, I'm a Catholic, so I'm Christian. But then again, because I'm Christian, I'm not a Catholic." The two things are different, they cannot at any time be the same thing, because Christian naturally means that you are non-denominational, not that you are every denomination.



Trolling? No, not at all. You think I have all the time in the world to deal with un educated posts who could have simply been informed by google? I'm giving him advice, I'm not flaming him at all. I'm not trying to piss him off either, I'm trying to tell him to get educated on the subject before he argues it like he knows it. If that's wrong - then go ahead and report me. Oh and of course he is happily strolling through fields of joy while calling my religion ripped bullshit. I feel appreciated.

and here:

Did I not just state that Christianity referred to non-denominational?

You keep stating that they are different, yet whenever I call you on it you say that Catholicism is part of Christianity.

[aMoeba]

Here:



and here:



You keep stating that they are different, yet whenever I call you on it you say that Catholicism is part of Christianity.

Just because Catholicism is a denomination, does not make them the same thing.

[DeathsFriend22]

You're right, I don't think there should be multiple denominations. There should be one; The original Catholicism. I call your religion "ripped bullshit" because it is. Catholicism is the one true form of Christianity.

Since Denom already has 1 and 2 covered, I'll do number 3.



3) snip

Here's a nice Parable of Jesus from the Bible for you:

The Parable of the Wheat and Tares

(Matthew 13:24-30)
Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:

But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.

So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?

He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?

But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

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

Interpretation: The people who are good (The wheat) will be saved, while the bad people (The weeds) will be sent to hell.

I think that about covers it. See you in a week

[Artifex]

Ha, knew it, this thread just proves that the world would be better off without any form of religion.

[aMoeba]

You're right, I don't think there should be multiple denominations. There should be one; The denomination of Christianity, Catholicism. I call your religion "ripped bullshit" because it is. Catholicism is the one true form of Christianity.

Are you absolutely kidding me? If you even bothered reading what I had said, you'd know that a DIVISION of something, cannot come BEFORE it. Therefore Catholicism is "ripped bullshit" as you would say.

How is it possible to say Catholicism is a true form of Christianity? Christianity is NON DENOMINATIONAL! Get it through your head!

Plus, you just disregard all the points you can't seem to argue. Did you totally forget that denomination = division and Christ = unity? There is no denomination of Christ! Only the one church, Christ, which is Christianity. Christianity isn't ripped off of anything, you said it yourself. You layed out a big contradiction for yourself. Calling Catholicism a sect of Christianity then saying Christianity is ripped! Oh my Lord!


Since Denom already has 1 and 2 covered, I'll do number 3.


I'd much rather have you defend yourself, rather than Denom, who actually only covered 1, and if anything, covered a very small portion of 1, semantics at best.



Here's a nice Parable of Jesus from the Bible for you:

The Parable of the Wheat and Tares



Interpretation: The people who are good (The wheat) will be saved, while the bad people (The weeds) will be sent to hell.

I think that about covers it. See you in a week

That parable is saying that when it is Judgment day, the people who have done wrong will go to Hell, and those who have done right will go to Heaven. And in the Bible, those who do right probably refers to those who have been saved, thus doing right.

Its fine if you give me one parable, but one parable (its a parable, it can be interpreted so many ways) doesn't outlaw a plethora of literal verses.

Ha, knew it, this thread just proves that the world would be better off without any form of religion.

Excuse me? I hope you're being satire. You go on to prove nothing. Without any religion, morals wouldn't exist. I could argue objective morality for hours but regardless, your post has no place.

Especially considering there's no such thing as "no religion."

[Denominator]

Since we're clearly getting nowhere and you're being so ambiguous with your terms, I'm going to go ahead and stop repeating myself.

Instead, I'm going to point out how wrong you are here:

Excuse me? I hope you're being satire. You go on to prove nothing. Without any religion, morals wouldn't exist. I could argue objective morality for hours but regardless, your post has no place.

Especially considering there's no such thing as "no religion."

No, he doesn't prove anything, but neither do you. You pretty much just insulted every Atheist everywhere. I know for a fact that I do not belong to any religion, and I have morals.

Morals are subjective though, as we've seen in this thread. Your definition of morals is different from mine since you've stated that as long as you've been saved your lifestyle is irrelevant. So where do you get your morals from?

There cannot be such a thing as no religion because religion has been created. 2000 years ago, before the Bible was written, there was no religion as we know it.

[Nulls Wife]

Are you absolutely kidding me? If you even bothered reading what I had said, you'd know that a DIVISION of something, cannot come BEFORE it. Therefore Catholicism is "ripped bullshit" as you would say.

How is it possible to say Catholicism is a true form of Christianity? Christianity is NON DENOMINATIONAL! Get it through your head!



I think what Deaths Friend was saying is since Jesus started the original Catholicism therefore it was the original everything. Catholicism in the begining was not a division of anything because it was Christianity. Jesus told the apostles to go spread his word and what they taught was what was later titled Catholicism. You two are arguing over something you agree with. AMoeba says Jesus is the church and calling it Christianity and Death agrees Jesus is the church and calls it Catholicism.

[aMoeba]

Since we're clearly getting nowhere and you're being so ambiguous with your terms, I'm going to go ahead and stop repeating myself.

Instead, I'm going to point out how wrong you are here:



1) No, he doesn't prove anything, but neither do you. You pretty much just insulted every Atheist everywhere. I know for a fact that I do not belong to any religion, and I have morals.

2) Morals are subjective though, as we've seen in this thread. Your definition of morals is different from mine since you've stated that as long as you've been saved your lifestyle is irrelevant. So where do you get your morals from?

3) There cannot be such a thing as no religion because religion has been created. 2000 years ago, before the Bible was written, there was no religion as we know it.

1) You don't have to belong to a religion for there to be objective morals. And I didn't insult an atheist. If there was anybody I insulted, it was Death, and he's not an atheist.

2) Morals are not subjective. Think about this: Subjective morality. Its a paradox. Think about it. I'm not saying your life is irrelevant once you've been saved, clearly you can't understand what I'm saying after I've said it many times. Let me put it simply, and if you don't understand this, I don't know what I can do:

-Getting saved gets you into Heaven
-You cannot lose your salvation

I get morals from the Bible, namely the origination of such book, Jesus and God.

3) There was religion before 2000 years ago. Namely Judaism and Zoroastrianism. There were even Egyptian gods.

I think what Deaths Friend was saying is since Jesus started the original Catholicism therefore it was the original everything. Catholicism in the begining was not a division of anything because it was Christianity. Jesus told the apostles to go spread his word and what they taught was what was later titled Catholicism. You two are arguing over something you agree with. AMoeba says Jesus is the church and calling it Christianity and Death agrees Jesus is the church and calls it Catholicism.

Yes but the terminology is different. While I argue Christianity, he says Catholicism. The reason I say Christianity is because it stays true to what the original Holy Bible says, and since Catholicism is a division of Christianity, and Jesus says "Make no divisions of me" is why I believe that Christianity is the correct terminology.

As I said earlier, no one in the Bible referred to themselves as "Catholics." Because Catholics currently don't abide by everything the Bible says, it would be wrong to say that the original church was Catholicism. The church that believes everything about the Bible, Christianity, cannot be ripped, per se. The fact that Catholicism has even the slightest differentiations between the original beliefs makes it a division.

[GladiateSmiths]

Alright, I'm coming into this debate pretty late, but I read all of it, and these are all posts throughout the discussion that I wanted to respond to. Let it be known that I'm arguing as an atheist.

I think there may be a Heaven, but some people think it would be torture to live forever. What do you think awaits us after death? Paradise? Reincarnation? Pedobear?

In my opinion, total unconsciousness.

I don't believe in any Gods. Anything. Personally, I think Christianity is ridiculous with the whole "your life is a trial for heaven". The other religions seem a bit more logical, but I still don't believe in any supernatural beings or greater purpose.

The Bible was originally meant to explain the things that science couldn't. As science becomes more advanced and we understand more things, the more the Bible is disproven.

I couldn't agree more with the last paragraph. We've explained so many of the natural occurrences, is God really necessary anymore?

Great minds think alike. :thumbup:

Aha! You said you wouldn't be stating beliefs, but by saying you agreed with him, you indirectly stated some of what you believe.

I don't think there is a god because it makes no sense for one.

Wow! I'm convinced now.[/sarcasm]

Why doesn't it? Because you just basically said that a huge percentage of the world had no sense, without backing it up.

According to most Catholics I've confronted on this, the dinosaurs didn't actually exist, their bones are simply there to test your beliefs.

I've heard that very rarely, but when I do, I laugh. These are the people who are still denying evolution. I love that they can deny the existence of hundreds of species because it doesn't fit with their big book of fables.

That is interesting. I am not doubting that people have told you that, I have just never heard any Catholics say that. I have heard most Catholics explain dinosaurs as being in the garden of eden, and since the 7 "days" was not just a week then it makes sense why the dinosaurs bones are older.

Dinosaurs in the garden? Now that I haven't heard. Though I haven't been around too long. That does make sense though. More so than completely denying their existence. I still don't see the logic in God creating dinosaurs to rule the Earth for a long time before wiping them all out. What, did He just snap his fingers and they were gone?

-Long life story-

Wow... That's rough. I've heard of religion being that strict, and it just makes me happy that I was born into an atheistic family.

I love the analogy that when it comes to sex before marriage, sex is like buying a hotdog at a baseball game. Sure the hotdog might be extremely delicious, it is not, however, the main reason to go to a baseball game and the baseball game can be just as good without it.

That is a good analogy. I like it.

Question sirs: Why do some feel a need to be part of a religion? Is it just the afterlife? Or like what?
Another: Do you wholeheartedly believe in your religion? When you have doubts, what do you do? Ignore them?

I just quoted this to tell you that you ask great questions.

I totally agree. However, that will never happen unless religion says it's okay to have sex before marriage. And we all know that will never happen.

The only way to teach them that is to teach when it is okay, and no matter what anyone says the church will always come out and say "marriage or sin", etc, etc, etc.

I agree. The church needs to update some teachings.

1. This is retarded. Debating is such a horrible waste of effort and time that I can't believe I just read 10 pages of this bullshit. >_>

2. To me, there is no point to debating religion. One way or another, each side's opinion will never be able to be fully proved or disproved and the debaters are, more often than not, too biased to their own side of debate that no matter what anyone else says, their opinion will never be changed.

3. I just find the entire matter of it idiotic. It has no purpose, but I suppose it does not really matter because just my few words wont change the fact that people enjoy picking apart others' posts for false minuscule details to disprove the other only for the sake of arguing.

4. Truly, my belief, or hope I should say, is that everyone just stop uselessly debating trivial things such as religion and all agree on following the basic morals accepted by society because that is the true point of religion other than to explain the complexity of the afterlife.

I numbered your paragraphs to make them easier to respond to.

1. Debating is not a waste of time or effort. Like someone said, it's intellectually stimulating. Debates have been around since the beginning of time, and will be for the rest of the existence of the human race. Isn't it only natural that we question what our fellow human beings believe, if we do not share that belief?

2. I, and everyone else entering the debate of religion, should know that nobody fully wins. And we're not trying to. This debate really just lets you learn about other's beliefs as well as your own. You can feel more strongly about your own beliefs if you defend them in a heated debate. Nobody should go into this debate with the intent to get people on your side.

3. We're on a forum site. If this is how we want to spend our leisure time, who are you to judge it? It's not pointless. It's socialization, and as I said above, intellectually stimulating, reinforces your beliefs, and is overall a fun way to spend time.

4. Well... I have nothing else to say beyond what I have.

Hrm, I'm going to take a little sidestep here, if you all don't mind.

Well. I have this big issue with Christianity: Why all the sects? If it's all for the same God, why can't we just all hold hands and pray? This obsession with details seems to be overriding the fact that all these sects are for one god. Then you get all the priests bemoaning the fact that there are so few parishioners and a lack of priests. Gee, how about getting over the details and joining together? Mmm.

Yeah, there can be big differences in beliefs. I just don't see why different groups stay aloof. Tis silly. :p

EDIT: Yeah, I know. This was just kind of a ranty thing.
|
V

I definitely see where you're coming from, you make a great point.

Wrong.

Not everyone who believe in a higher power of some sort, are no extremists.

Further, it angers me that everyone seems to put a blanket sterotype on people who believe in some kind of religion.

Religulous, good movie. Horribly biased, absolutely.
Not everyone goes to Christain Festivals where they dance around like idiots and talk in, "tongue."

End.

I didn't think it was biased. He grew up in a religious family. He's seen what it's like to be a member of the church, without the crazy things he also touches upon.

As to my personal take on God, I would have to go into depth on how many times circles apper in nature (the Circles are everywhere!)

Lolwhut? What does God have to do with geometry?

Since I believe in "Spirits" I think that once you die, your spirit goes onto a "Waiting period" to be judged. If you have made up your debts then you're reincarnated into a healthy being, if you hadn't...opposite.

I love the idea of reincarnation, I think it's funny (sorry if I'm kinda stepping on your beliefs here). Basically everyone who believes in reincarnation is relinquishing their individuality. So nobody is their own person? It's just 6 billion "spirits" that have been waiting since the beginning of time? Because initially there were two people, Adam and Eve, yes? That takes two spirits. Then, a child is born. By your beliefs, he needs a spirit, because as he is born, there's a spirit reincarnated in him. So, in this instance, from the beginning of time there's a shitload of spirits on reserve waiting for the population to grow. Then, once we hit a certain population, the spirits just cycle through bodies and into newborns? But there's no way to predict the population at any one time. We may need 7 billion separate spirits at some point. That just logically means that there must be more spirits than are being used that are on reserve. Then why would an old spirit be reincarnated, we have extras just sitting there.

I'm sorry, my logical thinking won't let me accept this.

The problem with science and reason is that, with them, you can explain matter (for example), but you can't explain the existence of matter. In science, there is no why. Faith explains that why. Science will never be able to.

Of course faith explains why. Because an all-powerful being, who apparently just "is, was, and always will be" (which apparently needs no explanation. Wtf?), said one day, "hey, I'm gonna make this matter thingy and make splode and universe and stuff". What was God doing before then? Just existing?

1. It's not that we can't stand not knowing, we believe God actually did it - therefore we do know.

Maybe the reason you can't prove God exists is because He created the universe by such scientific means that anything you see that he created can be explained away by science.

Let's put you in a hypothetical situation for a second:

2. What if you died and faced God, and he asked you why you didn't believe in Him in your lifetime? What would you say to Him?

Numbered parts are what I'm responding to.

1. Contradiction within the sentence. You believe God did it therefore you know. Wait a second... Your belief just turned into absolute surety. Doesn't work, uh uh. You believe He did it, therefore you think, you do not know. You never know.

2. I would say something similar to Denominator. I didn't see any evidence, any reason, no reason to believe you existed. Is this my fault? Couldn't you just work your magic and prove yourself to me?

Ok it is a story. But Every theory behind it is true, no matter how twisted it became because of human communication, the core idea remains. Now I don't care if you believe in my God or not. Just don't be a Dumbass and actually work to make the world better. And no, your life may not matter, maybe nothing will happen after death, but that doesn't mean any of you need to be fucking idiots and ruin the world for the rest of us trying to make it better. Because lets face it. God doesn't care what you believe, if you are a good person down here, you are going to make it to heaven. You may have some learning, but hey, he can't hold a grudge, you did good.

God doesn't care what I believe, I'll make it to heaven because I'm good? But I don't think God exists, or heaven, so that point is irrelevant. My grin as I type this is ear to ear, such that there is no smiley to express it.

And why is it that anyone who questions religion is a "fucking idiot ruining the world for the good people"? Is it not in our nature to question? Why do we have to be the bad guys?

I do not believe in any god from any religion (a.k.a. Atheist). I think it's just unlogical that there is a guy that lives in sky, letting good people live up there when there dead.

And plus, if there is a guy (a.k.a. God) who has the power to make Earth have world peace and stuff like that, then why does the US have all these wars? Why is Africa a such a horrible country (no offense)? and why is Iran likely planing to bomb some major building someplace where lots of people live, like in New York?

does anyone else agree with me on what I am saying?

I am atheist, but I have to address this guy's post. It made me laugh.

First, I think a lot of people already addressed the whole "bad stuff, suffering in the world thing". Basically, God didn't want us to be holding his hand all the time.

And also, Africa is a horrible country? Unless you mean South Africa, then Africa is a continent.

Wouldn't it be better to believe in God, and end up not being one, then not believing in one, and end up being one?

Nope. Because according to a lot of people in this debate, God doesn't care what I believe as long as I'm a good person. Besides, I'm not going to just become a believer in the hope that it pays off. If I'm going to be a believer, I should full well be committed. And to me, the whole thing just doesn't make sense, so I can't just change because one side is more profitable. I'd be living a lie.

Or, God discards your argument, saying "The logical choice would have been to believe in me anyways, as you had nothing to lose in doing so. Why should I forgive you for your refusal to believe in me?" He then proceeds to send you to hell. The End.

Nothing to lose? Very funny. A) All of the "fun" things Denominator mentioned. B) Every last shred of what I believe in. I can't wrap my head around the concept of God, but I should believe in him anyway? That's against my nature.

Cellular Biology doesn't purposefully study evolution. If I wanted to learn about evolution, I'd do phylogenetics or paleontology. Cellular Biology more so focuses on cell functions and viruses, etc.

Don't viruses evolve? Lol.

Ha, knew it, this thread just proves that the world would be better off without any form of religion.

Nay. Religion helps a lot of people through tough times. If anything, it's helped us learn as well.

[Denominator]

First off, I want to thank you and congratulate you on reading all or most of the thread. It's nice to see someone new jump in who actually knows what's been discussed so far and adds comments to it.

Secondly, how refreshing it is to see another atheist here! Especially one willing to debate. As far as I can remember, every other atheist that's posted here came in, stated their beliefs, and left, without countering any points.

I do, however, have some qualms with some of what you posted.

Wow... That's rough. I've heard of religion being that strict, and it just makes me happy that I was born into an atheistic family.

I have not heard of many people being born into atheist families. Generally speaking, atheism is rather new, so it tends to be heralded by people in our generation, and I am guessing the percentage of atheists will grow through future generations (if there are future generations - December 21, 2012 is coming rather quickly).

I didn't think it was biased. He grew up in a religious family. He's seen what it's like to be a member of the church, without the crazy things he also touches upon.

It was horribly biased, the same way documentaries like Fahrenheit 911 and Supersize Me are biased. He only shows the parts in which he really emphasizes his points and has the upper hand in the debates.

Plus, if you watch it with the commentary on, he states right out that it is biased. But that's how you make the point. If you question absolutely everything then people are going to notice.

I love the idea of reincarnation, I think it's funny (sorry if I'm kinda stepping on your beliefs here). Basically everyone who believes in reincarnation is relinquishing their individuality. So nobody is their own person? It's just 6 billion "spirits" that have been waiting since the beginning of time? Because initially there were two people, Adam and Eve, yes? That takes two spirits. Then, a child is born. By your beliefs, he needs a spirit, because as he is born, there's a spirit reincarnated in him. So, in this instance, from the beginning of time there's a shitload of spirits on reserve waiting for the population to grow. Then, once we hit a certain population, the spirits just cycle through bodies and into newborns? But there's no way to predict the population at any one time. We may need 7 billion separate spirits at some point. That just logically means that there must be more spirits than are being used that are on reserve. Then why would an old spirit be reincarnated, we have extras just sitting there.

I'm sorry, my logical thinking won't let me accept this.

You know, I've never really thought about reincarnation this way. But after reading and re-reading your post it makes more and more sense.

Reincarnation specifically states that there are a limited number of spirits available. Which leads to two very specific problems. The first is that there is a time when you have more spirits than bodies and a bunch of the spirits are in limbo. The second is that there will come a time when you have more bodies than spirits, in which case I don't know what happens. Are there simply zombies being born? Or do we then start creating new spirits?

What was God doing before then? Just existing?

There was no before then. God created time.

And why is it that anyone who questions religion is a "fucking idiot ruining the world for the good people"? Is it not in our nature to question? Why do we have to be the bad guys?

Because, unfortunately, a large number of prominent atheists are the bad guys. There are a bunch of guys like Bill Maher running around stepping on people's toes and questioning their beliefs on their turf. Which does make atheists the bad guys.

I look at it this way. Anyone who isn't Mormon doesn't like the Mormons coming and knocking on their door to tell them about Mormonism. So anyone who isn't atheist doesn't like the atheists coming into a church or going to holy grounds complaining about how it doesn't make sense.

Even though we disagree, there still has to be respect for each other. Personally, I believe the religious people (and again I use the Catholic church as the spearhead for my argument because it is the most prominent) proclaiming that everyone needs to follow their beliefs to get into heaven are more at fault here. Atheists don't tell you what to believe, they simply ask that you think and question what you believe individually, rather than following the masses.

[DeathsFriend22]

I R BAK

now to continue our argument.

Are you absolutely kidding me? If you even bothered reading what I had said, you'd know that a DIVISION of something, cannot come BEFORE it. Therefore Catholicism is "ripped bullshit" as you would say.

How is it possible to say Catholicism is a true form of Christianity? Christianity is NON DENOMINATIONAL! Get it through your head!

Plus, you just disregard all the points you can't seem to argue. Did you totally forget that denomination = division and Christ = unity? There is no denomination of Christ! Only the one church, Christ, which is Christianity. Christianity isn't ripped off of anything, you said it yourself. You layed out a big contradiction for yourself. Calling Catholicism a sect of Christianity then saying Christianity is ripped! Oh my Lord!


Wow. You've totally misunderstood me. Here are my points laid in an order in which even you (hopefully) can understand. ;)

1. Christ created the Catholic Church. NOT Christianity. You can't rip anything from

2. Christianity came to be when people began to break from the Catholic Church. Before then, "Christianity" did not exist.

3. By today's definition, "Christianity" means one who believes in Christ. Because Catholics believe in Christ, it can be said that Catholics are also Christian.

4. Christianity as its own religion, however, is ripped and twisted from the Catholic Church, as I will demonstrate below.



That parable is saying that when it is Judgment day, the people who have done wrong will go to Hell, and those who have done right will go to Heaven. And in the Bible, those who do right probably refers to those who have been saved, thus doing right.

Its fine if you give me one parable, but one parable (its a parable, it can be interpreted so many ways) doesn't outlaw a plethora of literal verses.

Fine then. I looked up the first of your bible quotes. Guess what I found out? You completely threw it out of Context; Here's Romans 1:18-32, which just happens to be directly after your first quote. Funny how you forgot to read this part:


Romans 18-32
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

I also would like to point out that your very same quote (Romans 1:16-17) says those who are Just(As in, righteous) by faith you will be saved. It does NOT say that those who have been saved are saved forever.

Also, by saved I mean saved by YOUR definition. The Catholic definition of saved means to make it into Heaven, and to do so you have to live a good life.

As I said earlier, no one in the Bible referred to themselves as "Catholics." Because Catholics currently don't abide by everything the Bible says, it would be wrong to say that the original church was Catholicism. The church that believes everything about the Bible, Christianity, cannot be ripped, per se. The fact that Catholicism has even the slightest differentiations between the original beliefs makes it a division.

How can you say that when it's clear that Christianity didn't arise until around 700 years ago at the earliest? Christianity came from the Catholic Church. And, until you can prove these differentiations, you can stop saying that we're the ones who have changed.

Plus, no one in the Bible referred to themselves as "Christian" either. So your point is moot.

To the Atheists:
When I'm done with AMoeba, I'll continue my discussion with you. I prefer to take this easier opponent first. Thank you.

[GladiateSmiths]

First off, I want to thank you and congratulate you on reading all or most of the thread. It's nice to see someone new jump in who actually knows what's been discussed so far and adds comments to it.

Thanks. It actually took me all of last night and this morning to read it, and I enjoyed it thoroughly.

Secondly, how refreshing it is to see another atheist here! Especially one willing to debate. As far as I can remember, every other atheist that's posted here came in, stated their beliefs, and left, without countering any points.

I noticed that. Believe me, I'm here to stay. ;)

I have not heard of many people being born into atheist families. Generally speaking, atheism is rather new, so it tends to be heralded by people in our generation, and I am guessing the percentage of atheists will grow through future generations (if there are future generations - December 21, 2012 is coming rather quickly).

My mother was born an atheist, and she's 47. My dad's family was religious I think, but he's not now. I know less about his side. I've always been atheist. I've never participated in any religious practices. I've never gone to church, I've never prayed, I've never said grace at a dinner table.

It was horribly biased, the same way documentaries like Fahrenheit 911 and Supersize Me are biased. He only shows the parts in which he really emphasizes his points and has the upper hand in the debates.

You have a point, and I agree, you're right. I guess what I meant was that he wasn't biased, but the movie definitely was, and that was the initial argument after all.

You know, I've never really thought about reincarnation this way. But after reading and re-reading your post it makes more and more sense.

Reincarnation specifically states that there are a limited number of spirits available. Which leads to two very specific problems. The first is that there is a time when you have more spirits than bodies and a bunch of the spirits are in limbo. The second is that there will come a time when you have more bodies than spirits, in which case I don't know what happens. Are there simply zombies being born? Or do we then start creating new spirits?

It's a good principle, the whole karma thing, but reincarnation just doesn't make sense logically. It's a major flaw in the concept.

There was no before then. God created time.

I'm not familiar with much of the bible stories, as I've never read any of them, so thank you for the correction.

[aMoeba]

0.1) Wow. You've totally misunderstood me. Here are my points laid in an order in which even you (hopefully) can understand. ;)

1. Christ created the Catholic Church. NOT Christianity. You can't rip anything from

2. Christianity came to be when people began to break from the Catholic Church. Before then, "Christianity" did not exist.

3. By today's definition, "Christianity" means one who believes in Christ. Because Catholics believe in Christ, it can be said that Catholics are also Christian.

4. Christianity as its own religion, however, is ripped and twisted from the Catholic Church, as I will demonstrate below.





4.1) Fine then. I looked up the first of your bible quotes. Guess what I found out? You completely threw it out of Context; Here's Romans 1:18-32, which just happens to be directly after your first quote. Funny how you forgot to read this part:



I also would like to point out that your very same quote (Romans 1:16-17) says those who are Just(As in, righteous) by faith you will be saved. It does NOT say that those who have been saved are saved forever.

5) Also, by saved I mean saved by YOUR definition. The Catholic definition of saved means to make it into Heaven, and to do so you have to live a good life.



6) How can you say that when it's clear that Christianity didn't arise until around 700 years ago at the earliest? Christianity came from the Catholic Church. And, until you can prove these differentiations, you can stop saying that we're the ones who have changed.

7) Plus, no one in the Bible referred to themselves as "Christian" either. So your point is moot.

To the Atheists:
When I'm done with AMoeba, I'll continue my discussion with you. I prefer to take this easier opponent first. Thank you.

0.1) Insults don't work (hypocritical?)

1) Christ = Christianity. Here's a few things the Bible says:

Jesus: I AM the church
Jesus: I am
Jesus: Whoever divides his house on me shall surely fall

2) Christianity began immediately after Christ's death and resurrection......

3) New International Version (©1984) James 2:19
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.

Believing in Christ doesn't mean anything. I have referred to Christianity in this thread multiple times as non - denominational. Please STOP your nonsense.

4) Christianity cannot be ripped from itself. Christianity is the full belief of the New Testament. Catholicism is different. Here's a few brief rundowns of Catholicism (some may be overlapping, my mistake):

Before we get to specific problems with Catholic doctrine, let's review how this bloodthirsty organization treated a man who simply wanted to get the Bible into the hands of the common people. In the late 1300s John Wycilf translated the scriptures from the Latin Vulgate. Some 40 odd years after his death, the Catholic religion dug up his bones and burned them calling him an arch-heretick. In the 1500's William Tyndale sought to translate the Bible into the language of the common people, English. He could not gain approval from the Catholic religon so he worked as an outlaw on the run in Europe, translating the Bible. He was eventually captured, condemned and executed in 1536. It is because of people like these men, Tyndale and Wycliffe, that we have the scriptures today. If the Catholic religion had its way, we'd still be in ignorance about the Bible and enslaved to the pope. Time fails me here to tell of other marytrs like John Hus, John Rogers, etc. who were killed by popish persons.

I'll list the catholic tradition first and then what the Bible has to say about the matter.

* * * *
CATHOLIC TRADITION - Call priests father, e.g., Father McKinley.

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS -

Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
* * * *
CATHOLIC TRADITION - Forbidding the priesthood to marry.

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS -

1) It is devilish to forbid God's people to marry when He has given marriage to be received with thanksgiving.
1 Timothy
4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

2) Peter was married (remember the pope is supposedly continuing the apostolic line through Peter).

Matthew
8:14 And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.

Mark
1:30 But Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her.

Luke
4:38 And he arose out of the synagogue, and entered into Simon's house. And Simon's wife's mother was taken with a great fever; and they besought him for her.

3) Paul, a great apostle, remained single; however he made it very clear that he could marry if he wanted to.

1 Corinthians
9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

* * * *
CATHOLIC TRADITION - Mary never had other children after the Lord Jesus. A perpetual virgin.

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - Mary and Joseph indeed had children. They were the Lord's half brothers and sisters for their father was Joseph and mother was Mary.

Matthew
13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
Mark
6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

* * * *
CATHOLIC TRADITION - Mary is the queen of heaven.

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - Worshipping the queen of heaven (which is not the Mary of the Bible) is worshipping another god and it provokes the Lord to anger.

Jeremiah
7:17 Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem?
7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.
7:19 Do they provoke me to anger? saith the LORD: do they not provoke themselves to the confusion of their own faces?
* * * *
CATHOLIC TRADITION - Mary is the mother of God.

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - Mary is the mother of the earthly Jesus, not God. Jesus pre- existed from everlasting as God (see John 1:1). When He came to redeem mankind, He laid aside His glory and was made like unto sinful man so that He could take our punishment (Hebrew 2:9). God has no mother. He has lived from everlasting which means He had no beginning.

Isaiah
43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
Psalm
93:2 Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting.

Micah
5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler [Jesus] in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Philippians
2:6 Who [Jesus], being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

* * * *
CATHOLIC TRADITION - Pope called Holy Father.

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - The term Holy Father is only found one time in the entire Bible. It was when Jesus prayed before He and His disciples went to the garden of Gethsemane. He referred to God the Father as Holy Father. It is blasphemy to call a man by God's name

John
17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
* * * *
CATHOLIC TRADITION - Purgatory, nuns, popes.

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - None of these is mentioned in the Bible. It is a sin to add to the Bible.

Proverbs
30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
The pope is a man who takes upon himself honor which belongs to no human being. Even the very name by which he allows himself to be called (Holy Father) is highly presumptuous and blasphemous (see above).

One does not need the pope to determine what God's will is. The Bible says that God has given the Holy Ghost to each believer and that He (the Holy Ghost) guides and leads us into all truth. All a believer needs is the Bible and the Holy Ghost to know the will of the Lord. Popery has been treacherous, but worse, each pope has been the blind leading the blind. Jesus said that both will fall into the ditch. Catholics, come out of this system that cannot save and know Jesus for youself, intimate and up-close.

NOTE: Purgatory is supposedly a place where a person is purified of sins--even popes supposedly go there. The Bible says that Jesus Christ is the one that purifies us of our sins. Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.... When a person dies their eternal home is sealed--heaven or hell--no in between. Hebrews 9:27 ...it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.

* * * *
CATHOLIC TRADITION - Venerating/worshipping images. Pope bows to statues of Mary, people worship the eucharist and have statues/candles in their homes and churches.

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - It is idolatry to venerate images. We are not even supposed to make them.

Exodus
20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God...
* * * *
CATHOLIC TRADITION - The mass. Through transubstantiation, the wafer/host and the wine supposedly become the actual blood and body of Jesus Christ when the priest prays over them.

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - Jesus died once for sins, never to be repeated. He sits on the right hand of God and does not reappear in the mass as a mass of blood and flesh.

Hebrews
10:12 But this man [Jesus], after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
10:15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
John
19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

1 Corinthians
11:24 And when he [Jesus] had given thanks, he brake it [bread], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come (not for the forgiveness of sins or to receive Jesus).

* * * *
CATHOLIC TRADITION - Saved, in part, by good works.

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - Good works are the fruits that grow out of being saved. They do not make you saved. An apple does not make its tree an apple tree, it was already an apple tree before any apples appeared. When you see the apples; however, you know what kind of tree it is. If a person is saved, he will shew forth good works because he has the spirit of Christ in him. The good works don't make him saved only the blood of Jesus can do that.

I John
1:7b ...the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
Acts 16:31b
...believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.

Romans
3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

What about James 2:20 "faith without works is dead"?

The kind of faith that saves is a faith that shows forth the works of God. Even devils believe in Jesus and tremble (James 2:19). Many people believe in Jesus but they won't follow Him. They have a faith, but not the kind that saves. If a person has true faith in Jesus, the Holy Ghost dwells in him and will cause good works will show forth in his life. The good works confirm the faith by which the person was saved. James 2:21-23 uses Abraham as an example. Abraham believed God so when God asked him to sacrifice his son Isaac, Abraham, out of his faith in God, offered up Isaac.

* * * *
CATHOLIC TRADITION - The church is founded on Peter.

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - (I redefined this) Jesus didn't literally build the church on Peter, but the meaning of the name Peter (which is "rock"), if you remember the parable of building your foundation on sand and stone.

1 Corinthians 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.


* * * *
CATHOLIC TRADITION - Confessing sins to a priest. Petitioning saints and Mary.

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - We are to confess our sins and needs to God alone.

I John
1:9 If we confess our sins, he [God] is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Matthew
6:9, 12 After this manner...pray ye: Our Father... forgive us....

1 Timothy
2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus [not Mary, not saints, not priests, not the pope];

I John 2:1, ...And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

moar:

1. Source of Authority. With respect to the Bible, Catholics accept the apocryphal books in addition to the 66 books of the Protestant Bible. They also accept tradition and the teaching of the Catholic Church as authoritative and at least equal to that of the Bible (cf. Mk. 7:8,9,13; Matt. 15:3,6,9; Col. 2:8). With respect to papal infallibility, Catholics believe that ecumenical councils of bishops and the pope are immune from error when speaking ex cathedra about faith and morals (i.e., "from the chair" -- by sole virtue of position or the exercise of an office). (And by "infallible," Catholics mean much more than merely a simple, de facto absence of error -- it is positive perfection, ruling out the possibility of error. For more on infallibility, see notes on Vatican II below). In actuality, Roman Catholicism places itself above Scripture; i.e., it teaches that the Roman Catholic Church produced the Bible and that the pope is Christ's vicar on earth. Catholics also maintain the belief in sacerdotalism -- that an ordained Catholic priest has the power to forgive sins (cf. 1 Tim. 2:5).

2. Jesus Christ. Catholicism teaches that Christ is God, but they, nevertheless, do not believe that Christ's death paid the full penalty for sin; i.e., they believe that those who qualify for heaven must still spend time in purgatory to atone for sin (cf. Jn. 19: 30; Heb. 10:11,12).

3. Mary. The Catholic Church gives honor and adoration to Mary that the Scriptures do not; she is readily referred to as "holy," the "Mother of God," and has been dubbed the "Co-Redemptrix," thereby making her an object of idolatrous worship (e.g., the rosary has ten prayers to Mary for each two directed to God). In 1923, Pope Pius XI sanctioned Pope Benedict XV's (1914-1922) pronouncement that Mary suffered with Christ, and that with Him, she redeemed the human race. And Pope Pius XII officially designated Mary the "Queen of Heaven" and "Queen of the World." Catholics claim not only that Mary was perfectly sinless from conception, even as Jesus was (doctrine of Immaculate Conception, proclaimed by Pope Pius IX in 1854), but that the reason she never sinned at any time during her life was because she was unable to sin (cf. Lk. 1:46,47; Rom. 3:10,23; 5:12; Heb. 4:15; 1 Jn. 1:8,10). Catholics also believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin (cf. Ps. 69:8; Matt. 1:24,25; 13:54-56; Mk. 6:3; Jn. 7:5), and that she was assumed, body and soul, into heaven (doctrine of Assumption of Mary, declared ex cathedra by Pope Pius XII in November of 1950 -- that Mary was raised from the dead on the third day after her death, and anyone who refuses to believe this has committed a mortal sin). The consequence of all this veneration of Mary, in effect, establishes her authority above Christ's -- Rome says, "He came to us through Mary and we must go to Him through her." All this is so obviously idolatrous, one wonders why Catholics take offense when their religious affections are called cultic.

4. Salvation. Catholics teach that a person is saved through the Roman Catholic Church and its sacraments, especially through baptism; they do not believe that salvation can be obtained by grace through faith in Christ alone, but that baptism is essential for salvation. Catholics believe that no one outside the Catholic Church can be saved (Unum Sanctum) (cf. Jn. 5:24; Eph. 2: 8,9; Gal. 2:21; Rom. 3:22,23). (See also The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism and the New Catholic Catechism (paras 819 and 846.) They also believe that one's own suffering can expiate the sin's of himself and of others, so that what Christ's suffering was not able to achieve, one can achieve by his own works and the works of others (Vatican II).

5. Sacraments. Catholics have seven sacraments: baptism, confirmation, Eucharist (mass), penance/reconciliation (indulgences), extreme unction (last rights), marriage, and orders (ordination). Although not even formally decreed until the Council of Florence in 1439, the Council of Trent later declared all to be anathema whom do not hold Rome's position that it was Christ Himself who instituted these seven sacraments! (The idea behind the sacraments is that the shedding of Christ's Blood in His death upon the cross is of no value unless it is somehow dispensed and applied "sacramentally" by the Catholic priesthood.) Although Catholics believe that the first five sacraments are indispensable for salvation (because without any one of them, a mortal sin has been committed), baptism is considered the most important. Catholics believe that a person enters into the spiritual life of the Church through baptism; i.e., baptismal regeneration -- that a person can be saved through baptism (actually, 'on the road to salvation,' because Catholics never know exactly when they are saved). They practice infant baptism because they believe baptism erases original sin (cf. Jn. 3:18).

6. The Mass. Unknown in the early church, the mass did not become an official doctrine until pronounced by the Lateran Council of 1215 under the direction of Pope Innocent III, and reaffirmed by the Council of Trent. The Church of Rome holds that the mass is a continuation of the sacrifice that Christ made on Calvary -- in effect a re-crucifixion of Christ over and over again in an unbloody manner (cf. Heb. 9:22; 1 Jn. 1:7). They believe that by this means Christ offers Himself again and again as a sacrifice for sin (cf. Heb. 7:27; 9:12,25,26; 10:10,12,14,18), and that this sacrifice is just as efficacious to take away sin as was the true sacrifice on Calvary. Catholics thus teach the doctrine of transubstantiation (meaning a change of substance) -- that the bread and wine (at communion) actually become (by the power of the priest!) the body and blood of Christ, which is then worshiped as God Himself! Indeed, the sacrifice of the mass is the central point of Catholic worship, as evidenced by the fact that those abstaining from attending mass are considered to have committed a mortal sin.

7. Purgatory. Though of pagan origin, the doctrine of purgatory was first conceptualized in the professing church in the second century; the Roman Church proclaimed it as an article of faith in 1439 at the Council of Florence, and it was confirmed by Trent in 1548. The Catholic Church teaches that even those "who die in the state of grace" (i.e., saved and sins forgiven) must still spend an indefinite time being purged/purified (i.e., expiated of sins/cleansed for heaven). (Technically, this "purging" can occur in this life rather than in purgatory itself, but as a practical matter, purgatory is the best the average Catholic can hope for.) Some Catholics will admit that the doctrine of purgatory is not based on the Bible, but on Catholic tradition (which, by Catholic standards, is equally authoritative) (cf. Jn. 5:24; Lk. 23:43; 1 Jn. 1:7,9; Phil. 1:23). (Others teach that it is based upon the interpretation of several Scriptural texts -- 1 Cor. 3:15; 1 Pe. 1:7; 3:19; Matt. 12:31.) They teach that those in purgatory can be helped by the prayers and good works of those on earth (which would include the "purchase" of masses and/or other indulgences), but they are not certain how these prayers and works are applied (cf. 2 Pe. 1:9; Heb. 1:3; Jn. 3:18; 19:30; 2 Cor. 5:6-8).

8. The Church Councils. There have been three major Roman Catholic Councils: Council of Trent (1545-1563), Vatican I (1869-1870), and Vatican II (1962-1965). The last Council, Vatican II, offered no new doctrines nor repudiated any essential teaching of the Roman Church; it referred to Trent dozens and dozens of times, quoted Trent's proclamations as authority, and reaffirmed Trent on every hand. Even the New Catholic Catechism (1992/1994) cites Trent no less than 99 times! There is not the slightest hint that the proclamations of the Council of Trent have been abrogated by Rome. At the opening of the Second Vatican council, Pope John XXIII stated, "I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent," and all of the Catholic leaders who attended Vatican II signed a document containing this statement. (The current pope, Pope John Paul II, has even cited the Council of Trent as authority for his blasphemous position on Mary.):
4.1) I'm sorry but are you [I]kidding me? I think, honestly, this is the DUMBEST thing I've ever heard in ANY debate, EVER. Do you REALLY think we do ALL THAT? I have NO respect for you anymore. AT ALL. You totally insulted everything I believe because of your tiny mind not being able to learn or comprehend anything, and being completely misinformed. I BELIEVE THE BIBLE! And honestly, I try to debate intelligently, but when a completely idiotic post like this comes in, I don't even know why you bothered clicking "quote" to debate me! You take me as a total idiot, and what's funny, is that you're the one entirely mis informed about the opposing beliefs!

5) Oh wait, this debate is still going?

The Catholic definition of saved is utterly wrong. You should've learned at least one thing before twisting the Bible:

Gal. 2:16, "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."

Eph. 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. 9Not by works, lest any man should boast."

Gal. 2:16, "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."

Rom. 11:6, "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."

Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,"

6) Christianity is non - denominational. It came right after Christ's death and resurrection (re - stating myself here)

7) Funny you should say that. The first part of Acts is written by Peter, who you claim is also a disciple Christ built his church on. You are wrong.

Acts 11:26 When he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. It happened, that for a whole year they were gathered together with the assembly, and taught many people. The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.

extra crap:

I wasn't going to bother continuing to debate you ( I'm honestly getting tired of this huge misconception of Christianity in the head of yours) but you insulted me and for that I can't sit here and let you continue to act as if you are correct.

And for all other debaters (who read this far) don't bother arguing for this guy. That counts for you, denom.

Don't viruses evolve? Lol.

In a host cell, no.

In other cases, yes, but they don't evolve into other things. They just evolve in general.

[MultiLockOn]

http://i487.photobucket.com/albums/rr233/Se7enthSnipe/Aetheism.jpg

[Artifex]

MultiLockOn, stop posting that, because, while it may summarize some atheists it doesn't summarize all.

I feel like I can't participate in this debate, even though I've read the whole thing because I feel like I might have missed something somewhere. But I would like to know why people keep resorting to personal insults?

[MultiLockOn]

MultiLockOn, stop posting that, because, while it may summarize some atheists it doesn't summarize all.

I feel like I can't participate in this debate, even though I've read the whole thing because I feel like I might have missed something somewhere. But I would like to know why people keep resorting to personal insults?
Somehow, I really don't think this debate has ever convinced anyone, is convincing anyone, nor will it convince anyone. Partly due to things like that which I did, yeah, I know it was a dick move. Obviously Atheists will remain unbelieving and Christians likewise in their own sense. The only thing I honestly see coming out of this is anger, and I'm sure many people such as myself have been insulted multiple times throughout it. It hurts a Christian a lot more than it does an Atheist.

[aMoeba]

It hurts a Christian a lot more than it does an Atheist.

Not me. I'm big man. Roar.

I'm srs

I see no need to get angry over being insulted. However, as much as I may may take offense, I'm not going to get hurt over it.

[Artifex]

I'm srs

I see no need to get angry over being insulted. However, as much as I may may take offense, I'm not going to get hurt over it.

I really wish more people understood that, it's whats throwing the world to hell when I can't even say merry christmas to someone during the holidays because I might 'hurt' them, because they are insulted that I said something that was intended to be nice.

[Denominator]

I'm not going to bother trying to contradict all your Bible quotes. It's simply too daunting of a task.

I wasn't going to bother continuing to debate you ( I'm honestly getting tired of this huge misconception of Christianity in the head of yours) but you insulted me and for that I can't sit here and let you continue to act as if you are correct.

Did you notice that you are the only one on this forum that sees the difference between Christianity and Catholicism this way? You've managed to do an incredible thing, and actually get both an Atheist and a Theist arguing against you.

In other cases, yes, but they don't evolve into other things. They just evolve in general.

Then what the hell do they evolve to? You can't just "evolve in general". Once you evolve, you're a different thing.

http://i487.photobucket.com/albums/rr233/Se7enthSnipe/Aetheism.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c71/SeanIncense/jesus.jpg

[MultiLockOn]

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c71/SeanIncense/jesus.jpg


Now that's just gone a tad too far. You should be ashamed ;), especially since your wearing a supporter rank.

How do I get Supporter? There are several ways to get Supporter, and we will take you through all of them.


Being Helpful
For those who are just generally good people, who always help others and give to XForgery without looking for anything in return.

If you fit in this category, we might see it necessary to grant you Supporter; but we don't take this lightly, and telling somebody that their map was good doesn't equate to helping the community.

This is for the shining individuals amongst you.

[Artifex]

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c71/SeanIncense/jesus.jpg

Where'd you find that? Or did you make it?

Multi, he didn't go too far, you went too far. You started it by posting the atheism one mocking atheism, he rebutted by posting one mocking Christianity.

[aMoeba]

1) Did you notice that you are the only one on this forum that sees the difference between Christianity and Catholicism this way? You've managed to do an incredible thing, and actually get both an Atheist and a Theist arguing against you.



2) Then what the hell do they evolve to? You can't just "evolve in general". Once you evolve, you're a different thing.


1) Whether or not I'm the only that noticed is questionable, however I am the only one to bother debating it. Also, I don't know if I should regard that as a compliment or not, seeing the way you said it.

2) Not exactly. A virus can adapt. That doesn't mean its something entirely different. Think of it like the common cold becoming powerful to where there is no cure. The virus basically built resistance against the cure (adapted). A virus doesn't turn into anything else, they remain as a virus, whereas fatty acids have evolved into all organic life (evolution).


As for the other argument going on, both of those renditions of atheism and Christianity are drastically incorrect.

[MultiLockOn]

Where'd you find that? Or did you make it?

Multi, he didn't go too far, you went too far. You started it by posting the atheism one mocking atheism, he rebutted by posting one mocking Christianity.
As I posted on your page, that's completely different scenarios. And I've already explained why.

[Denominator]

Somehow, I really don't think this debate has ever convinced anyone, is convincing anyone, nor will it convince anyone. Partly due to things like that which I did, yeah, I know it was a dick move. Obviously Atheists will remain unbelieving and Christians likewise in their own sense. The only thing I honestly see coming out of this is anger, and I'm sure many people such as myself have been insulted multiple times throughout it. It hurts a Christian a lot more than it does an Atheist.

Debates do many things:

1) It makes you question your own beliefs.

2) It gives you a better understanding of the people you are debating with.

3) It allows you to understand the other side of the argument.

It does hurt Theists more than Atheists. It's a simple fact. It happens because you are defending something you believe in, whereas we are defending something we don't. That's the nature of it.

I really wish more people understood that, it's whats throwing the world to hell when I can't even say merry christmas to someone during the holidays because I might 'hurt' them, because they are insulted that I said something that was intended to be nice.

Personally, that's bullshit when people get offended. I say "Merry Christmas" all the time because it's a holiday I celebrate. My Christmas has none of the religious undertones, and I only celebrate it because it's a national holiday, but it's still there. It's called Christmas, and you wish people a merry one. It's not a hard concept, and I don't understand why people get offended.

Where'd you find that? Or did you make it?

First off, I did not make it. It was posted in an Atheist forum I am a part of. I've had it for about 6 months now, but refrained from posting it because it's offensive.

Now that's just gone a tad too far. You should be ashamed, especially since your wearing a supporter rank.

My Supporter rank should have nothing to do with anything.

Amazingly, Multi, you managed to piss me off. I've seen that image posted many times before, and it doesn't anger me at all. I question religious beliefs - all religious beliefs, just Christianity is the one that comes up most often - and I've seen both images many times. They are both derogatory and offensive and attacking in nature.

So why did I post it? Because you've been making personal attacks all night. And you felt the need to post the Atheist one not just once, but twice. As if it wasn't offensive enough the first time around.

So yeah, I'm going to go ahead and throw it back in your face.

1) Whether or not I'm the only that noticed is questionable, however I am the only one to bother debating it. Also, I don't know if I should regard that as a compliment or not, seeing the way you said it.

My point was, you have Atheists, Theists, and Agnostics contesting it. You have 3 conflicting parties arguing against you.

2) Not exactly. A virus can adapt. That doesn't mean its something entirely different. Think of it like the common cold becoming powerful to where there is no cure. The virus basically built resistance against the cure (adapted). A virus doesn't turn into anything else, they remain as a virus, whereas fatty acids have evolved into all organic life (evolution).

Then it's not evolution. It's adaptation. You just defined your terms, and you previously used evolution incorrectly. If a virus doesn't change into something else (which it can, and does), then it doesn't evolve.

[aMoeba]

Then it's not evolution. It's adaptation. You just defined your terms, and you previously used evolution incorrectly. If a virus doesn't change into something else (which it can, and does), then it doesn't evolve.

As you would say, Evolution is a blanket term. Adaptation is a huge part of evolution. Its called natural selection.

Please show me an instance where a virus has changed into something else.

[MultiLockOn]

My Supporter rank should have nothing to do with anything.

Amazingly, Multi, you managed to piss me off. I've seen that image posted many times before, and it doesn't anger me at all. I question religious beliefs - all religious beliefs, just Christianity is the one that comes up most often - and I've seen both images many times. They are both derogatory and offensive and attacking in nature.

So why did I post it? Because you've been making personal attacks all night. And you felt the need to post the Atheist one not just once, but twice. As if it wasn't offensive enough the first time around.

So yeah, I'm going to go ahead and throw it back in your face.


All I'm saying is that Supporter rank is exactly that, it means your a Supporter. Your much more mature than most of the community here, that I know, so I expected you to remain somewhat calm, however, it's not like I blame you for getting angry. And for the fourth time now, it's a different story when making a remark about atheism than it is to Christianity. I can't stand this thread, I don't think I've honestly been this angry in quite some time.

[Denominator]

As you would say, Evolution is a blanket term. Adaptation is a huge part of evolution. Its called natural selection.

Please show me an instance where a virus has changed into something else.

Yes, adaptation is a part of natural selection and natural selection is a part of evolution. However, you cannot ever adapt enough for it to be evolution. The key condition is that your offspring will not have any of the adaptations that you acquired.

The key is mutations. Mutations occur all the time. Every human born is born with mutations. That's why we have such things as Down's Syndrome. On a large enough scale, and given the right environmental conditions such that natural selection can act on these mutations, evolution occurs. That is why evolution does not occur in humans anymore - the weak survive just as well as the strong because we allow them to. Think back to cavemen times - anyone born with Down's Syndrome would die, and the mutations would not be very viable.

However, in something such as a virus, this still occurs. The common flu is a prime example. The reason you have to go and get a flu shot every year is because the virus evolves. In a time span of under a year, the virus has evolved such that your body is no longer immune to it.

How does this happen? It's simple. Each time a virus replicates itself using a host cell, it mutates. Sometimes a small amount, sometimes a large amount. So the flu from 2007 has a set of DNA and RNA that it runs around with. As it infects people, it replicates itself, and mutations occur. But the problem with the common flu is that once you've had it, your body knows how to defeat it. So you either get it and die, or you get it and become immune. Which then means all those 2007 flu viruses running around have nobody to infect. Except the ones that have already mutated enough to be 2008 flu viruses, which are now genetically different enough that they can attack a person that is immune to the 2007 flu virus.

The common flu must mutate or it goes extinct. In fact, it goes extinct almost every year and we have a different virus - slight, albeit, but different - every year. Because it evolves.

Want it on a grander scale? Look at HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. HIV mutates and evolves so fast that your own body cannot keep up with it. That's why there is no cure.

Here it is, all explained (http://www.college.ucla.edu/webproject/micro12/m12webnotes/viralevolution.htm).

[Denominator]

All I'm saying is that Supporter rank is exactly that, it means your a Supporter. Your much more mature than most of the community here, that I know, so I expected you to remain somewhat calm, however, it's not like I blame you for getting angry. And for the fourth time now, it's a different story when making a remark about atheism than it is to Christianity. I can't stand this thread, I don't think I've honestly been this angry in quite some time.

Explain to me how it is different, because that I don't see.

Your image attacked my beliefs as much as mine did yours. That was why I posted it. I would never have posted that image if yours hadn't gone up first.

[MultiLockOn]

Explain to me how it is different, because that I don't see.

Your image attacked my beliefs as much as mine did yours. That was why I posted it. I would never have posted that image if yours hadn't gone up first.
Look at the visitor message I left you.

[Denominator]

Look at the visitor message I left you.

I'm going to post it here to save everyone else the time going to my VM wall. If you want me to remove it, just let me know and I will.

Well, the whole idea of Christianity is to develop a relationship with Christ. So when someone makes a remark about my religion, I take it a lot more personal. It's like if someone was to tell you that your mom was fat, or a whore. It really hits home, or at least it does with me. Thats why I don't like debates about religion.

My only suggestion, in that case, would be to stay out of this thread. Because I do question your religion, I question all religions. And I am content for people to question my "religion", be it evolution or the big bang or gravity if they want.

[MultiLockOn]

I'm going to post it here to save everyone else the time going to my VM wall. If you want me to remove it, just let me know and I will.



My only suggestion, in that case, would be to stay out of this thread. Because I do question your religion, I question all religions. And I am content for people to question my "religion", be it evolution or the big bang or gravity if they want.
Big Bang Theory has been proven incorrect.
EDIT: HELLZ YESH Here's what I was talking about when I said everything is made out of sound. This theory has been started by Albert Einstein, and is slowly being proven correct. Which verifies what the bible says "God said_______" and it was.

http://www.superstringtheory.com/

[Artifex]

Stop quoting the bible already, I've told you that it isn't fact, you can't quote something that is so easily discredited if you want to use it to back your argument.

[MultiLockOn]

Stop quoting the bible already, I've told you that it isn't fact, you can't quote something that is so easily discredited if you want to use it to back your argument.
Alright, you've obviously missed the whole point I'm trying to make. I'm proving the bible correct with the link provided, and vice versa.

[aMoeba]

Yes, adaptation is a part of natural selection and natural selection is a part of evolution. However, you cannot ever adapt enough for it to be evolution. The key condition is that your offspring will not have any of the adaptations that you acquired.

The key is mutations. Mutations occur all the time. Every human born is born with mutations. That's why we have such things as Down's Syndrome. On a large enough scale, and given the right environmental conditions such that natural selection can act on these mutations, evolution occurs. That is why evolution does not occur in humans anymore - the weak survive just as well as the strong because we allow them to. Think back to cavemen times - anyone born with Down's Syndrome would die, and the mutations would not be very viable.

However, in something such as a virus, this still occurs. The common flu is a prime example. The reason you have to go and get a flu shot every year is because the virus evolves. In a time span of under a year, the virus has evolved such that your body is no longer immune to it.

How does this happen? It's simple. Each time a virus replicates itself using a host cell, it mutates. Sometimes a small amount, sometimes a large amount. So the flu from 2007 has a set of DNA and RNA that it runs around with. As it infects people, it replicates itself, and mutations occur. But the problem with the common flu is that once you've had it, your body knows how to defeat it. So you either get it and die, or you get it and become immune. Which then means all those 2007 flu viruses running around have nobody to infect. Except the ones that have already mutated enough to be 2008 flu viruses, which are now genetically different enough that they can attack a person that is immune to the 2007 flu virus.

The common flu must mutate or it goes extinct. In fact, it goes extinct almost every year and we have a different virus - slight, albeit, but different - every year. Because it evolves.

Want it on a grander scale? Look at HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. HIV mutates and evolves so fast that your own body cannot keep up with it. That's why there is no cure.

Here it is, all explained (http://www.college.ucla.edu/webproject/micro12/m12webnotes/viralevolution.htm).

I'm pretty sure I made it clear that I agree that viruses evolve. However, you still didn't state what they evolve into. I also stated that they evolve, "adapt" to avoid a cure - and that's basically all you said. If you're agreeing with me, again, thanks.