Religion

[Diego]

1)There is, somewhere in the world or maybe not yet on the world, a religion or combination of religions that is perfectly true. Do you agree?

If this also includes a lack of supernatural beliefs, then yes.

2)Assuming you do, can it be said that the only reason a person would not join that religion is because they fear to give something up. Do you agree with this as well?

No.

3)Assuming the above two things are true, it could be said that it's better to give that something up and join the religion. Do you agree?

Again, no.

[Pie]

Diego, this is a hypothetical question.

Hypothetically, if there is a relligion, or belief or whatever, that is beond reasonable doubt compleatly true, that the only reason someone wouldn't join this religion or belief is becaus he/she dosen't want to give up his/her oun lifestile in trade for this new religion.

you know what, jesus died, and rose again. Nobody can doubt that. Its finished.

[Diego]

I disagree. There can be other reasons for not following that religious belief.

And many historians doubt Jesus existed in the first place, so I'm unsure of where are you getting your information from.

[Pie]

hehehehh HAHAHAHAH!!!!

Doubt jesus existed.

Do i really have to go get the information, or are you willing to look back throuought this topic?

(Edit:

Anyway I decided to post this http://www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/

Jesus didn't live. HAH.)

Profe that jesus did die and rais frome the daid you say? His desiples saw it and they died for believing it, thus making it imposibal for them to be lying when they saw it.

[Diego]

There are no contemporary sources that make mention of Jesus. Christian writings mention Jesus, but they were written several years after his supposed death. The earliest secular historian mentioned in your website, Flavius Josephus, was born years after Jesus's passing. One can't help but wonder, why did it take so long for anyone to notice Jesus? Usually, a crucified man would appear in several copies of Rome's tidy legal records, as well as receive recognition by contemporary historians, at the very least as a madman cultist. Yet nothing is apparent until at least a few decades after his death--it seems far too convenient and fitting with the idea of a myth-turned-legend-turned-man.

Besides, the death of the Apostles is meaningless. Plenty of terrorists die believing in Allah, but that doesn't make Islam real.

[Pie]

Okay, first. can you find any other documents that have built up myths and legands about them that have SUCH A SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME frome the actual event to the writing of the documents? I mean, such other things such as, plato's writings, writings about ceasers conquerings of france(what is now adays france) have 900 years between the actual events and the documenting of them.

You cannot say to me that such a large mith was made in those few decades.

Also, There is a difference between those who myrter for alla and the dysiples myrtering themselves. And this is:What they saw.

If you are martyrd for continuing to believe that you saw jesus crist rising frome the dead, that means you are telling the truth about what you saw. THEY ACTUALLY SAW jesus crist rising frome the dead. They didn't see some guy climing out of a cave saying he saw alla, or they didn't see some preater preaching about jesus. THEY SAW JESUS.

Must I go over this again?

[formerly known as hf]

Must I go over this again?

No, because you've already been shown, and have even shown yourself, how your arguments hold no water, but you continue to flog the long dead donkey...

[Pie]

*Shakes his head* this is what nalaris was talking about. Without REASONABLE doubt, you got nothin on jesus. And that's all I care about. Dang, I'v seen people put on life without parol with less evidence than this. And yet YOU seem to be to... may I say BRAINWASHED, ether that or you refuse to beleav anything els than what science sais. *Sigh* And this is what I ment when I said that this will do nothing.

Now, there is a reason behind this. It is the reason of stubbornes. Pride. Stuck up-ness. You'r too upidy with your oun life that you can't see anything differen't.

Now, before in this topic, someone said something about "being able to tell who would be a cristian." And I say, your right. Becaus there are MANY signs of becoming a cristian. One of them is poverty. Yes, being poor. Another one is meeknes. And being humble. And being compleatly and UTTERLY broken before god. And THIS Is why FORMER, and I repeat FORMER Drug addicts become cristians. Becaus they have been broken, and humbled. they have thrown away there pride. Now, when you find yourself in a slump, maby your about to be evicted, maby you have had a looong time adiction, I DON'T KNOW. When you are in a slump, when YOU have been humbled, when YOU have bee Meeked, Only then will I be willing to start up this thread again.

and still, yall got notin on jesus.

[Lychee]

Pie says-
Now, before in this topic, someone said something about "being able to tell who would be a cristian." And I say, your right. Becaus there are MANY signs of becoming a cristian. One of them is poverty. Yes, being poor. Another one is meeknes. And being humble. And being compleatly and UTTERLY broken before god. And THIS Is why FORMER, and I repeat FORMER Drug addicts become cristians. Becaus they have been broken, and humbled. they have thrown away there pride. Now, when you find yourself in a slump, maby your about to be evicted, maby you have had a looong time adiction, I DON'T KNOW. When you are in a slump, when YOU have been humbled, when YOU have bee Meeked, Only then will I be willing to start up this thread again.

How would you konw all Ex-Drug users are only Christians now, maybe one? I doubt there are many Ex-Drug Users in the first place, also, not all poor people are Christians, the reason some are is because they know the church will feed and clothe them, but they probably don't even believe in Christ, they are greedy. and # 3, you don't have to be Christian to be humble and meek, being humble is not a sign of believing Christ, I can be humble and meek just because I want to be, not for god. So what I mean is that not all meek humble, poor, ex druggies is not a sign of being Christian.

[Mykey]

Absolutely with you it agree. In it something is and it is good idea. It is ready to support you.

[Nixit]

*Shakes his head* this is what nalaris was talking about. Without REASONABLE doubt, you got nothin on jesus. And that's all I care about. Dang, I'v seen people put on life without parol with less evidence than this. And yet YOU seem to be to... may I say BRAINWASHED, ether that or you refuse to beleav anything els than what science sais. *Sigh* And this is what I ment when I said that this will do nothing.

Now, there is a reason behind this. It is the reason of stubbornes. Pride. Stuck up-ness. You'r too upidy with your oun life that you can't see anything differen't.

Now, before in this topic, someone said something about "being able to tell who would be a cristian." And I say, your right. Becaus there are MANY signs of becoming a cristian. One of them is poverty. Yes, being poor. Another one is meeknes. And being humble. And being compleatly and UTTERLY broken before god. And THIS Is why FORMER, and I repeat FORMER Drug addicts become cristians. Becaus they have been broken, and humbled. they have thrown away there pride. Now, when you find yourself in a slump, maby your about to be evicted, maby you have had a looong time adiction, I DON'T KNOW. When you are in a slump, when YOU have been humbled, when YOU have bee Meeked, Only then will I be willing to start up this thread again.and still, yall got notin on jesus.

That's because the real only mainstream solution to overcoming addiction is the 12 Steps/Alcoholics Anonymous. Or whatever it's called. And part of those steps is taking God into your life.

Does it work? Like 10-20 percent of the time, but I admit it's the most effective method.

Does that mean that Christianity and all of it's lovely niceties are true? No.

[formerly known as hf]

I worked in the drug-related offences department of my local probation services - I can firmly say that most ex-drug users ARE NOT religious.

Those that do become religious often do because they got off of drugs through a religious charity - and, unfortunately, society sees drug addiction as so unworthy of tax-payer money, that charities are the prime providers of essential services.

You are the one that sounds brainwashed, pie - I know what I believe, and I am able to consider it, and opposition to my position. I know that I may the choice about what I believe.

Whenever you post here, you spout out things that I know you did not decide for yourself, as you constantly refer to half-baked christian websites. And, despite being constantly shown how incorrect, and innaccurate your 'sources' are, and how plainly skewed your thinking is, you continue to bang the same stick - which shows a greater deal of brainwashing.

[Nixit]

He even ignores you.

[Nalaris]

Whatdayaknow, the thread that wouldn't die is back.

1)There is, somewhere in the world or maybe not yet on the world, a religion or combination of religions that is perfectly true. Do you agree?

If this also includes a lack of supernatural beliefs, then yes.

Naturally that's included. I consider Atheism a religion, because it constitutes a belief in an afterlife, even if that afterlife happens to be you blinking out of existence.

2)Assuming you do, can it be said that the only reason a person would not join that religion is because they fear to give something up. Do you agree with this as well?

No.

Elaborate. Why else would someone not join this religion? When I say 'give something up' I'm not referring to physical objects, but also to lifestyles, beliefs, etc.

3)Assuming the above two things are true, it could be said that it's better to give that something up and join the religion. Do you agree?

Again, no.

Naturally, if you don't believe the second principle, the third one is essentially impossible to believe in without contradicting yourself (feel free to correct me).

Well, I hope I got the quotes right.

[Jack Dudeman]

I consider Atheism a religion, because it constitutes a belief in an afterlife, even if that afterlife happens to be you blinking out of existence.

Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.

'Atheism' is no more of a particular religion than 'theism.' Simply defined, it refers to a lack of belief in any type of god or supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent being.