Religion

[west]

Yes Saztronic I find that kind of thing very disturbing too, but I don't automaticly judge such people as evil. Gandi believed 100% in passivism after-all. Faith even absolute, isn't nessissarly dangerious, but when that faith is dangerious, it becomes aboslutely dangerious when itself is believed absolutely; thus, it is only more potentially dangerious... kind of like a nuke that may or may not be active

Schrödinger's catechism?

[Pie]

So, many of you agree that;

Joseph Smith, followed by many thousands, reverred as prophet - is a fraud?

Mohammed, followed by many millions, seen as a prophet by many more - was a fraud and created a fraudulent religion?

Hinduism, as it does not believe in a christo-judao god, must be fraudulent...

Etc. for all other 'false / fraud' god religions and beliefs in Asia?

The Pope, followed by many many people, is not God's voice on earth, but put there by people, and is a fraud?



So,
what makes Jesus the real thing?

He has a book?
So does Mohammed.
So do most other religions.

He resurrected himself?
Well, to top that, many gods of other rleigions can't even be killed in the first place.

He has millions of followers?
So do many other gods

He had eye-witness martyrs.
So did Mohammed.




If I was a Hindu, and we were having similar arguments, what arguments would you use to refute my beliefs - that can't also be applied to refute Christian beliefs?

You know, you just keep on asking the same questions, and I just keep giving the same answers... but it dosen't seem to be getting through.

What makes them differen't is that jesus has hundreds of poeple witnessing miracles that HE did. AND he was myrterd, and we all know what myrterdom means. and as were most of his witnesses.

[Pie]

There is a saying that says: "When you find the Truth, you will know it".

That is the way it is. Once you have found the truth, you will know without a doubt that it is true and right. That is why I can argue against all of the other things you named above. I believe and know with my whole heart that Jesus is God's son and that he died for the sins of the World, and that whoever beliveth in him should not perish but have everlasting life in heaven(paraphrased from John 3:16).

It has been a pleasure talking and debating all of the matters above, but I will not be able to get on very often for a while because of my RL. So, I will be ending my debating on this topic.

You and others have said that you can never be 100% certain about something, well that is because you have not found the thruth yet. I hope that some day each and everyone of you will find it.

This is, without question, the most chilling and disturbing note I have ever seen on the forums.

The Inquisitors who tortured and killed in the name of Jesus were 100% certain that what they were doing was right, and God's will. They believed they had found the truth, and the truth was utter ruthlessness and brutality in the pursuit of witches and heretics and anyone who didn't agree with their truth.

Suicide bombers are 100% certain that what they are doing is right, and God's will. The believe they have found the truth, and the truth is about destroying your enemies through self-destruction to earn a coveted place in paradise.

People who are 100% sure of things are the most dangerous people on the planet. They do not change course no matter what evidence contradicts their beliefs; they are willing to use any means whatsoever in the propagation or defense of those beliefs; and in fine Orwellian fashion, they call evil good and good evil.

I pity you if you believe you have cornered the market on truth, and that you are 100% right. Faith is not possible without doubt. Without doubt, faith is not faith -- it is hubris. If you claim you have no doubt, then you have placed yourself above the very humanity you claim God gives you. You make yourself into a god -- for who but a god can know with absolute certainty. In this sense you break the very commandments you reference above, because you place yourself above God.

100% right. The very idea sends a chill down my spine and casts yet another shadow on my hope for the future of the world.

Jesus was 100% sure that he was right, that he was the son of god, that god existed and loved us, and shows compation. And what did he do? He heald the sick, made the blind see, the deaf hear, the paralised people walk, did great miracles in the name of god, and then sent his 12 apostles out unto the world to do works 10 times as great, all in god's name.

But when people try and read the bible, twist it into there oun viewpoints, (and might i say that most of the general populous back then couldn't eaven read, let alon read the bible, and the pope's and bishops.. well, the line "what they don't know actually can hurt them" comes to mind. And they most likely just happened to forget to read the most important parts of the bible. becaus if you would read 1 page anywere in the bible, you would find that god is a merciful god.

SO if you are actually afraid of someone being 100% sure that the bible is true, that jhon 3 16 is true(A.K.A. the golden rule), that the comandments are tru... than you obviously have one weird vewpoint, becaus the only way for someone to use god's name to justify torture, is if they have never read the bible, or they actually don't believe in the bible.

and... being 100% sure of something puts you above god? than i think that everyone in the world is guilty of this. gravity exists, is an absolute. existing at all, is an absolute. full grown tomatoes are red, I think is an absolute. A red ball is red, is an absolute. a balloon will pop if you hit it square on with a fork, if you drop a glass cup it will break, if you stab me in the heart with that 5 foot long sword i will die, If i dont eat something for an extended period i will die, most light bulbs(that are above like, 3 wats or something) are hot to the touch.

yep. Everyone is guilty.

[formerly known as hf]

What makes them differen't is that jesus has hundreds of poeple witnessing miracles that HE did. AND he was myrterd, and we all know what myrterdom means. and as were most of his witnesses.

But, the same thing has been said about other religious figures.

Many people followed Mohammed, and were martyrs - arguably more than were martyrs in following Jesus. So why don't you follow Mohammed?

The links you keep showing me, do not corroborate the bible. They are mostly conjecture, that various sites 'could have been where such-and-such miracle happened'. The same way Rosswell could have been the site of an alien crash-landing...

[formerly known as hf]

the only way for someone to use god's name to justify torture, is if they have never read the bible, or they actually don't believe in the bible.

Bollocks

You're saying the heads of the Spanish Inquisition have never read the Bible? Or don;t believe in it?

You're saying the kiddy-fiddler priests have never read the Bible? Or don't believe in it?

You're saying that the Crusades were led by people who hadn't read the Bible? Or don't believe in it?


100% belief is often very dangerous.

Jesus was 100% sure that he was right, that he was the son of god, that god existed and loved us, and shows compation. And what did he do? He heald the sick, made the blind see, the deaf hear, the paralised people walk, did great miracles in the name of god, and then sent his 12 apostles out unto the world to do works 10 times as great, all in god's name.

No, he didn't, he didn't exist...

[Nalaris]

Jesus' existance can neither be proven nor disproven given our current evidence, so drop that argument.

The head of the Spanish Inquisition didn't take his shots from the Bible, but from the Pope, who was concerned with maintaining his political power.

The 'kiddy-fiddler' priests (I'm assuming I know what you're talking about) clearly didn't believe the Bible because the Bible is clearly against illicit sex. Either they don't believe the Bible or they're willing to go to Hell (though they won't) in order to get some sick kicks now.


The Crusades were originally led as an armed pilgrimage to the Holy Land, and was only non-Christian in that it kind of defied the whole idea of 'turn the other cheek'. Eventually, however, the Crusades were established as a Christian Jihad, at which point they still weren't any more immoral than any other war the Christians fought amongst themselves.

[formerly known as hf]

Jesus' existance can neither be proven nor disproven given our current evidence, so drop that argument.

I know, it certianly can't be proven, and nothing can be disproven as such.
But pie's merry-go-round continues, and I'm to damned stubborn to step off of it...

The head of the Spanish Inquisition didn't take his shots from the Bible, but from the Pope, who was concerned with maintaining his political power.

The 'kiddy-fiddler' priests (I'm assuming I know what you're talking about) clearly didn't believe the Bible because the Bible is clearly against illicit sex. Either they don't believe the Bible or they're willing to go to Hell (though they won't) in order to get some sick kicks now.


The Crusades were originally led as an armed pilgrimage to the Holy Land, and was only non-Christian in that it kind of defied the whole idea of 'turn the other cheek'. Eventually, however, the Crusades were established as a Christian Jihad, at which point they still weren't any more immoral than any other war the Christians fought amongst themselves.

No. but they have all (some child abusers included) been known to draw upon Bible passages and thus all upon the will of God to justify their actions.


Anyway, those were larger descriptions, many people, in all walks of life, daily call upon the Bible for justification of some horrific, and not so horrific, misdemeanours.

You can believe in the Bible and be a paedophile. You can believe in the Bible and murder.

People have been known to kill one another over Biblical interpretations. If the Bible was so damned straight and easy-to-understand and believe, would there be so many different Christian denominations?

[Elros]

No. but they have all (some child abusers included) been known to draw upon Bible passages and thus all upon the will of God to justify their actions.

Anyway, those were larger descriptions, many people, in all walks of life, daily call upon the Bible for justification of some horrific, and not so horrific, misdemeanours.

You can believe in the Bible and be a paedophile. You can believe in the Bible and murder.

This is about one of thwe dumbest statements that you have made HF. You usually seem to place pretty good arguments about stuff but this is just stupid. If all of those things above were taught as "right" in the Bible than yes, the Bible would be responsible for causin those problems. However, just because someone calls upon the Bible to try an justify their wrongdoind(like raping kids, or murder) than that means nothing. i no people that belive in science, and have murdered people, and raped people. Does that mean that science is wrong, just because some people did but stuff that believed in it? NO!!! You said, "You can believe in the Bible and Murder". No duh!!! You can Believe in "Science and Murder", Evolution and Murder", "Society and Murder". Just cause someone belives in something that is wrong, does not make everything else that they belive in wrong also.

One last thing, they can "not" rightly justify raping kids, or murdering innocent people as right using the Bible. They may think they can, or try to mix stuff around in it to loosely prove it.When it comes down to it however, those things are stated very simple as "Wrong, and Wicked" in the Bible.

Oh, and I know I said I was off this thread, but I got my 4 Wisdom teeth pulled this morning, so I will be home for several days. So I had time. I am a little drugged up though since they put me to sleep.

[saztronic]

No. but they have all (some child abusers included) been known to draw upon Bible passages and thus all upon the will of God to justify their actions.

Anyway, those were larger descriptions, many people, in all walks of life, daily call upon the Bible for justification of some horrific, and not so horrific, misdemeanours.

You can believe in the Bible and be a paedophile. You can believe in the Bible and murder.

This is about one of thwe dumbest statements that you have made HF. You usually seem to place pretty good arguments about stuff but this is just stupid. If all of those things above were taught as "right" in the Bible than yes, the Bible would be responsible for causin those problems. However, just because someone calls upon the Bible to try an justify their wrongdoind(like raping kids, or murder) than that means nothing. i no people that belive in science, and have murdered people, and raped people. Does that mean that science is wrong, just because some people did but stuff that believed in it? NO!!! You said, "You can believe in the Bible and Murder". No duh!!! You can Believe in "Science and Murder", Evolution and Murder", "Society and Murder". Just cause someone belives in something that is wrong, does not make everything else that they belive in wrong also.

One last thing, they can "not" rightly justify raping kids, or murdering innocent people as right using the Bible. They may think they can, or try to mix stuff around in it to loosely prove it.When it comes down to it however, those things are stated very simple as "Wrong, and Wicked" in the Bible.

All right then, how about slavery? Numerous 100% Bible-thumping ministers in the South and North used to justify slavery and all its concommitant obscenities using a variety of Bible passages -- including those from our dearly beloved Apostle Paul, in the New Testament, not that silly outdated Old Testament -- that pretty much unequivocally support slavery as an institution. The Bible doesn't categorically say that slavery is wrong. How about it -- Pie? Elros? Either of you espouse treating your fellow human beings as chattel? Visited or advocated for your local slave market lately? So one can, actually, believe 100% in the Bible, and yet argue without doubt for something that is 100% wrong. Just like the Crusaders, Inquistition leaders, and our current President have done.

Jesus was 100% sure that he was right, that he was the son of god, that god existed and loved us, and shows compation.

Really. I seem to remember the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus pleading "Please, let this cup pass from my lips." I remember the cry from the cross "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Or, in a more literal translation of "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthanai?": "Daddy, Daddy, why have you forsaken me?" -- a somewhat more wrenching tableau). I remember Jesus getting angry at the moneychangers in the temple, and cursing a fig tree for refusing to give him fruit, causing it to wither and die.

Jesus was as much human as he was God, if you believe in that sort of thing. He showed himself to be not 100% sure -- 100% committed to an unfortunate course of action, perhaps, but not 100% eager, and not 100% happy, and not 100% understanding. Pleading with God to change His mind, crying out in anguish and confusion, showing a penchant for irritability -- not the hallmarks of the religious zealot, who is more often unhesitating and scornful of hesitation.

It's not Jesus who scares me. It's those who claim inerrancy of belief and action in his name.

[Elros]

All right then, how about slavery? Numerous 100% Bible-thumping ministers in the South and North used to justify slavery and all its concommitant obscenities using a variety of Bible passages -- including those from our dearly beloved Apostle Paul, in the New Testament, not that silly outdated Old Testament -- that pretty much unequivocally support slavery as an institution. The Bible doesn't categorically say that slavery is wrong. How about it -- Pie? Elros? Either of you espouse treating your fellow human beings as chattel? Visited or advocated for your local slave market lately? So one can, actually, believe 100% in the Bible, and yet argue without doubt for something that is 100% wrong. Just like the Crusaders, Inquistition leaders, and our current President have done.

Could you please point out what verses you are talking about when you say Paul reffered to it being right? Because I know many Bible verses by heart, and I read it very often and none seem to stand out to me saying anything along those lines.

Jesus was 100% sure that he was right, that he was the son of god, that god existed and loved us, and shows compation.

Really. I seem to remember the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus pleading "Please, let this cup pass from my lips." I remember the cry from the cross "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Or, in a more literal translation of "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthanai?": "Daddy, Daddy, why have you forsaken me?" -- a somewhat more wrenching tableau). I remember Jesus getting angry at the moneychangers in the temple, and cursing a fig tree for refusing to give him fruit, causing it to wither and die.

Jesus was as much human as he was God, if you believe in that sort of thing. He showed himself to be not 100% sure -- 100% committed to an unfortunate course of action, perhaps, but not 100% eager, and not 100% happy, and not 100% understanding. Pleading with God to change His mind, crying out in anguish and confusion, showing a penchant for irritability -- not the hallmarks of the religious zealot, who is more often unhesitating and scornful of hesitation.

It's not Jesus who scares me. It's those who claim inerrancy of belief and action in his name.

Ok this is very easy to explain.

First: When God asked his father in the garden of gethsemane to let this cup past from him he was a "man" physically. He was definetly 100% God, but he was born into a "man's" body thru a virgin named Mary(which while I am on this topic, the catholics are wrong for worshiping, praying through Mary to get to God. Mary is no more important than Joseph, or David, or Elijah for that matter. The Bible says "There is ONE mediator between God and man, and that is Jesus Christ.), so since he was phisically a man he knew the kind of pain and agony that he would have to feel by getting crucified, and beaten with whips. Most of all though he knew that when he took the sin of the world upon him right before he died to atone for it, that God his Father would forsake him. God is Holy and can have nothing to do with sin. That is another reason why Jesus had to become a man to die on the cross. So he was pleading that if there was any other way for it to happen he wanted it, because of what he had to go through. However, He said "Not my will, but Thine be done". He was 100% willing to do anything that God his Father wanted, and He did.

Secondly: God hates sin! Even in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament, God gets angry with sin. When Jesus entered the Temple(Gods Holy Temple) and saw all the sin that was going on in there he did get angry with "sin", and rightfully so. So in that case that was no different than if God the father had entered the Temple and saw it he would have done the same thing, but probably far worse. But Jesus showed compasion more so than God had shown in the Old Testament(just seconding what Pie has been saying about Jesus being compassionate).

Last of all: That stuff you said about Jesus cursing the Fig tree and it withering away. *laughs* That was not Jesus that did that, that was Jonah in the Old Testament. *shakes his head* You should get your stories straight before you post them.[/quote]

[Pie]

What makes them differen't is that jesus has hundreds of poeple witnessing miracles that HE did. AND he was myrterd, and we all know what myrterdom means. and as were most of his witnesses.

But, the same thing has been said about other religious figures.

Many people followed Mohammed, and were martyrs - arguably more than were martyrs in following Jesus. So why don't you follow Mohammed?

The links you keep showing me, do not corroborate the bible. They are mostly conjecture, that various sites 'could have been where such-and-such miracle happened'. The same way Rosswell could have been the site of an alien crash-landing...

FIrst of all, you SUPPOSE that they were myrters. could be that islamic beliefes didn't meet up with any other group of people who would want to kill them untell muhammed was long gon.

secont, did they see muhamed do a myracle, or die and rise again, or feed 500, or 5000 (cant remember) people, as jesus died, with only a basketfull of fish and bread?

and did the people who followed muhammed have anything to gain frome following him?

Also, evolution is mostly conjectures, with the fossil records that do not prove anything, becaus if there was this world whide flood, as I believe so, than all that radio carbon would have been washed away frome most fossils. Also, fossilisation requires water, or some sort of pressure, and a layer of silt. two posibal answers for that. Being covord in water (wich discredets it's age) or being covored in lava. ANd that whole, layer theory that they have, that this is this age caus it was found this far deep... well, it is really... it dosen't prove much. Becaus of all the floods, and river changes, and earthquakes, and mudslides, and rain, and volcanoes, and that one thing, that one experement if you put different types of soil together in a jar, shake them up, and then let it sit for a wile... it will just form back into different layers of the density of the soil that it is.

So, you have a theory, and another theory, wich you try to prove by measuring the time of the fossils, with something that is just a theory, and all the proof is just theoretical, and it dosen't match up with alot of the spetial cases that we have (such as that fosilised footprint of human and dinosour beside each other, or that human head dated (strangely) to be about 3 million, or whatever, years old.) and these cases cannot just be thrown out, as outliers, becaus they don't dissagree with any of the other fossil records that we have (and you really can't dissagree with a record of fossils anyway) and they only disagree with a theory... soo...

If my sights that i put up here are conjectures, well, evolution is a conjecture, so you got no room to talk, and I would debait the issue onto whether my sights are conjectuers or not.

and pleas, once again, find me the dating system that they use for dinosoures and the like.

[Pie]

the only way for someone to use god's name to justify torture, is if they have never read the bible, or they actually don't believe in the bible.

Bollocks

You're saying the heads of the Spanish Inquisition have never read the Bible? Or don;t believe in it?

You're saying the kiddy-fiddler priests have never read the Bible? Or don't believe in it?

You're saying that the Crusades were led by people who hadn't read the Bible? Or don't believe in it?


100% belief is often very dangerous.

Jesus was 100% sure that he was right, that he was the son of god, that god existed and loved us, and shows compation. And what did he do? He heald the sick, made the blind see, the deaf hear, the paralised people walk, did great miracles in the name of god, and then sent his 12 apostles out unto the world to do works 10 times as great, all in god's name.

No, he didn't, he didn't exist...

wait a minut... in this last thing you said, are you saying that jesus didn't exist?

that, my frend, is bullocks. might as well say that charlamange didn't exist, or that saladin didn't exist, or that daved didn't exist, or that solomon didn't exist, or that.. well, you get the point.

and also, yes, i do believe that all those people either haven't read the bible, or they really don't believe it and they aren't cristians. I don't know why you disagree with that, but yes. that is what I am saying.

[Pie]

Jesus' existance can neither be proven nor disproven given our current evidence, so drop that argument.

The head of the Spanish Inquisition didn't take his shots from the Bible, but from the Pope, who was concerned with maintaining his political power.

The 'kiddy-fiddler' priests (I'm assuming I know what you're talking about) clearly didn't believe the Bible because the Bible is clearly against illicit sex. Either they don't believe the Bible or they're willing to go to Hell (though they won't) in order to get some sick kicks now.


The Crusades were originally led as an armed pilgrimage to the Holy Land, and was only non-Christian in that it kind of defied the whole idea of 'turn the other cheek'. Eventually, however, the Crusades were established as a Christian Jihad, at which point they still weren't any more immoral than any other war the Christians fought amongst themselves.

i disagree with the first point, with all the others i agree, exept the last one... wich i myself would word a little differently, but it still stands as correct, although it dosen't point out exactly how many commandments and laws that the bible has that they break.

[Pie]

No. but they have all (some child abusers included) been known to draw upon Bible passages and thus all upon the will of God to justify their actions.

Anyway, those were larger descriptions, many people, in all walks of life, daily call upon the Bible for justification of some horrific, and not so horrific, misdemeanours.

You can believe in the Bible and be a paedophile. You can believe in the Bible and murder.

This is about one of thwe dumbest statements that you have made HF. You usually seem to place pretty good arguments about stuff but this is just stupid. If all of those things above were taught as "right" in the Bible than yes, the Bible would be responsible for causin those problems. However, just because someone calls upon the Bible to try an justify their wrongdoind(like raping kids, or murder) than that means nothing. i no people that belive in science, and have murdered people, and raped people. Does that mean that science is wrong, just because some people did but stuff that believed in it? NO!!! You said, "You can believe in the Bible and Murder". No duh!!! You can Believe in "Science and Murder", Evolution and Murder", "Society and Murder". Just cause someone belives in something that is wrong, does not make everything else that they belive in wrong also.

One last thing, they can "not" rightly justify raping kids, or murdering innocent people as right using the Bible. They may think they can, or try to mix stuff around in it to loosely prove it.When it comes down to it however, those things are stated very simple as "Wrong, and Wicked" in the Bible.

All right then, how about slavery? Numerous 100% Bible-thumping ministers in the South and North used to justify slavery and all its concommitant obscenities using a variety of Bible passages -- including those from our dearly beloved Apostle Paul, in the New Testament, not that silly outdated Old Testament -- that pretty much unequivocally support slavery as an institution. The Bible doesn't categorically say that slavery is wrong. How about it -- Pie? Elros? Either of you espouse treating your fellow human beings as chattel? Visited or advocated for your local slave market lately? So one can, actually, believe 100% in the Bible, and yet argue without doubt for something that is 100% wrong. Just like the Crusaders, Inquistition leaders, and our current President have done.

Jesus was 100% sure that he was right, that he was the son of god, that god existed and loved us, and shows compation.

Really. I seem to remember the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus pleading "Please, let this cup pass from my lips." I remember the cry from the cross "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Or, in a more literal translation of "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthanai?": "Daddy, Daddy, why have you forsaken me?" -- a somewhat more wrenching tableau). I remember Jesus getting angry at the moneychangers in the temple, and cursing a fig tree for refusing to give him fruit, causing it to wither and die.

Jesus was as much human as he was God, if you believe in that sort of thing. He showed himself to be not 100% sure -- 100% committed to an unfortunate course of action, perhaps, but not 100% eager, and not 100% happy, and not 100% understanding. Pleading with God to change His mind, crying out in anguish and confusion, showing a penchant for irritability -- not the hallmarks of the religious zealot, who is more often unhesitating and scornful of hesitation.

It's not Jesus who scares me. It's those who claim inerrancy of belief and action in his name.

Slavery was differen't in apostle pauls time.

And it also sais to treat your servants good.And I'm sure I could get alot more out of this, but I'm buisy.

Jesus. and here comes the dispute of what 'is' means. Jesus was god, and was man. He had properties of god and of man. So yes, i have to agree that jesus was as much god as he was man.

"hath not the potter have power over the clay to make one vessal onto honor and another onto dishoner?" And jesus reseaved great, great treasures in heaven. so it's all good.

[Pie]

Also, those here who doubt that jesus existed, I truly cannot understand that. I have given you outside sources mentioning him. the time of his death to the time of the writing is 100 years, not counting the gosples. The apostles were myrterd. religions don't just pop out of nowere. Truly I don't understand that. And I will not debait it any longer, for it is clear that you are blinder that you acuse me of being.