-
Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
-
Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex
Do you follow a religion
- Thread starter Robboe
- Start date
Not by a long shot.
So let me get this straight.
The Muslims are an off-shoot of Christianity, to the point of realizing Judaism and Christianity as valid religions. They even make mention of Christ as a prophet of God, though they don't consider him to be divine.
Its a generally accepted fact culturally and academically that Allah is the same being as the Judeo-Christian God.
So you dispute this because.....?
The Muslims are an off-shoot of Christianity, to the point of realizing Judaism and Christianity as valid religions. They even make mention of Christ as a prophet of God, though they don't consider him to be divine.
Its a generally accepted fact culturally and academically that Allah is the same being as the Judeo-Christian God.
So you dispute this because.....?
What part of that post said that I cared what you thought of my intellegence?
I gave up on what people thought about me a long time ago. What you think about me is not nearly as important as what I think about me. Remember that and you'll live a happier life.You are an interesting fellow (to put it nicely). You try to talk with some intelligence, but yet you still continually try to put people down with nearly every post. Your bitterness is probably due to your lack of something in your life.... I don't have a clue what it is, but I'm sure you know.
And in closing. No matter what you have to say about me, I'll still sleep every bit as good as if you had said nothing. I don't take offense to any of your ramblings.
What are you basing this on, since as I already said its accepted in quite a number of ways that Allah = God of the Bible.
There you go again. At the first re-invitation to civil dialog you revert to a childish style of ???in your face??? ranting and defiance. I am quite nearly convinced now that you are incapable of getting to an adult-to-adult interaction pattern. You much prefer to assume a superior parent-to-child oration relationship but yet lack the discipline to long sustain it and rapidly degrade any dialog to a child-child interaction pattern ??? which I refuse to be a part of. This is precisely your problem and why few here care to be bothered with even replying to you. You have a measure of intellect but you would be much more effective if you could rein in your ego. Even Lucifer stooped to slither into the skin of the snake to give the illusion that he was arguing to the benefit of man and not to his own glory when he tricked Adam & Eve. Is your purpose to instruct, to learn, to divide or to recruit?
I also want to remind you from my initial post that I did not enjoin this thread to debate but to simply state my beliefs. I have my own personal reasons for this. At the risk of getting baited into the debate I???ll only respond to these few wormy things that are so blatantly fallacious that they scream to have their heads crushed and be put out of their misery.
Disagree. I don???t even need to get into the science. ???Bad??? is a religious concept. This is a non sequitur since you would have us believe from prior posts there is no concept of ???Bad???. There is another non sequitur in your assertion (through symmetric equality) that science is not religion. This is multiply-transitive-circular on a religious concept that you used in the same discredited argument as well as on your choice to use the concept statistical ???improbability??? (AKA ???uncertainty???) - which is the basis for MY prior statement. And since you seek to discredit this position I am not going to let you use that. In other words you just made my point in the use of the word ???improbable??? - thanks for agreeing with me. Was this intended as an instruction in the concepts of cohesion and brevity oh wise one?
Disagree. This whole assertion is redundant and superfluous to the previous disallowed concept of ???probability??? ??? but with the addition of one more inconsistency. Since I get to claim all the 10 dimensions of that argument I have now run out of 10 fingers to count on ??? but we will soon get to the Babylonian standard of 12 if I can borrow the two horns on your head
(now it???s fun.). You can???t redundantly argue in terms of probabilities without reinforcing my ???uncertainty??? concept. It???s remarkably similar to the notion of a ???benefit of the doubt??? in our justice systems isn???t it? But since you previously presented for consideration Gnosticism as a religion (yet another tired example of a god with petty human like emotions - i.e. jealousy) in much the same way the ancient Greeks & Romans did with their false religion (e.g. Zeus, the whole mount Olympus contingent and their human like emotions and antics) you are once again guilty of a non sequitur and inconsistent philosophical basis. You can???t on the one hand complain that it???s improbable that a god would have petty human emotions while simultaneously expecting anyone to accept your premises that Gnosticism is a viable consideration in your prior post. Sorry you just don???t have any credibility with me (on this topic).I???m still looking for those valid points so I can make sure I don???t side step them by accident? Oops. I don???t see any valid points? Guess not - discussion over.
Originally posted by OceanDude
There you go again. At the first re-invitation to civil dialog you revert to a childish style of ???in your face??? ranting and defiance. I am quite nearly convinced now that you are incapable of getting to an adult-to-adult interaction pattern. You much prefer to assume a superior parent-to-child oration relationship but yet lack the discipline to long sustain it and rapidly degrade any dialog to a child-child interaction pattern ??? which I refuse to be a part of. This is precisely your problem and why few here care to be bothered with even replying to you. You have a measure of intellect but you would be much more effective if you could rein in your ego. Even Lucifer stooped to slither into the skin of the snake to give the illusion that he was arguing to the benefit of man and not to his own glory when he tricked Adam & Eve. Is your purpose to instruct, to learn, to divide or to recruit?
I'm really getting to the point of telling you to flat out shut up, because this circular reasoning bullshit is getting ridiculous.
I feel bad for anybody that does try to actually talk seriously on a subject with you, because apparently its quite impossible as you'll simply throw three pages of meaningless drivel at them that supposedly tells them they're being childish.
Disagree. I don???t even need to get into the science. ???Bad??? is a religious concept. This is a non sequitur since you would have us believe from prior posts there is no concept of ???Bad???. There is another non sequitur in your assertion (through symmetric equality) that science is not religion. This is multiply-transitive-circular on a religious concept that you used in the same discredited argument as well as on your choice to use the concept statistical ???improbability??? (AKA ???uncertainty???) - which is the basis for MY prior statement. And since you seek to discredit this position I am not going to let you use that. In other words you just made my point in the use of the word ???improbable??? - thanks for agreeing with me. Was this intended as an instruction in the concepts of cohesion and brevity oh wise one?
Don't argue semantics. Bad science is improper science, simple as that. I don't care how you want to try and dress it up with big words, it doesn't change the meaning of my point. Myopia gets you nowhere.
If you want to use science properly, then do so. Don't use unrelated points to prove your argument and I won't call you on them.
And YET AGAIN you don't act on any of the points, you merely try to side-step with meaningless, overly complex banter.
Disagree. This whole assertion is redundant and superfluous to the previous disallowed concept of ???probability??? ??? but with the addition of one more inconsistency. Since I get to claim all the 10 dimensions of that argument I have now run out of 10 fingers to count on ??? but we will soon get to the Babylonian standard of 12 if I can borrow the two horns on your head(now it???s fun.). You can???t redundantly argue in terms of probabilities without reinforcing my ???uncertainty??? concept. It???s remarkably similar to the notion of a ???benefit of the doubt??? in our justice systems isn???t it? But since you previously presented for consideration Gnosticism as a religion (yet another tired example of a god with petty human like emotions - i.e. jealousy) in much the same way the ancient Greeks & Romans did with their false religion (e.g. Zeus, the whole mount Olympus contingent and their human like emotions and antics) you are once again guilty of a non sequitur and inconsistent philosophical basis. You can???t on the one hand complain that it???s improbable that a god would have petty human emotions while simultaneously expecting anyone to accept your premises that Gnosticism is a viable consideration in your prior post. Sorry you just don???t have any credibility with me (on this topic).
Did this paragraph even say anything? I'm serious. If it did, there was no meaning readily apparent.
All I could gather was that you don't think I'm being consistent in my viewpoints. I most assuredly am, since you've never once bothered to ask what exactly I believe.
My stance on the topic is simple. You mis-applied science to justify religion. I called you on it. You complained, saying you understood quite well. I proved otherwise. You still won't address my questions.
I???m still looking for those valid points so I can make sure I don???t side step them by accident? Oops. I don???t see any valid points? Guess not - discussion over.
I just love the self-appointed arrogance demonstrated here. Refusing to acknowledge something doesn't mean its not there.
You've still yet to answer anything I've asked regarding Christian thought, only continuing to write your long, content-free passages that only lead the discussion further and further away from the topic.
I'm not the only one that has beef with Christian ideology. If this is the prevailing Christian mentality in the world, its no wonder that faith is slowly and steadily dying. If Christianity wants to survive, its going to have to evolve past this mentality.
Asking questions about your religion does not imply offense. It seems you and all of your contemporaries feel this way however; maybe its some holdover from the "do as your told and don't think" days. But that doesn't cut it any more. If you can't come up with reasonable, logically consistent answers, you're only going to lose more and more followers.
But maybe that's meant to be.
There you go again. At the first re-invitation to civil dialog you revert to a childish style of ???in your face??? ranting and defiance. I am quite nearly convinced now that you are incapable of getting to an adult-to-adult interaction pattern. You much prefer to assume a superior parent-to-child oration relationship but yet lack the discipline to long sustain it and rapidly degrade any dialog to a child-child interaction pattern ??? which I refuse to be a part of. This is precisely your problem and why few here care to be bothered with even replying to you. You have a measure of intellect but you would be much more effective if you could rein in your ego. Even Lucifer stooped to slither into the skin of the snake to give the illusion that he was arguing to the benefit of man and not to his own glory when he tricked Adam & Eve. Is your purpose to instruct, to learn, to divide or to recruit?
I'm really getting to the point of telling you to flat out shut up, because this circular reasoning bullshit is getting ridiculous.
I feel bad for anybody that does try to actually talk seriously on a subject with you, because apparently its quite impossible as you'll simply throw three pages of meaningless drivel at them that supposedly tells them they're being childish.
Disagree. I don???t even need to get into the science. ???Bad??? is a religious concept. This is a non sequitur since you would have us believe from prior posts there is no concept of ???Bad???. There is another non sequitur in your assertion (through symmetric equality) that science is not religion. This is multiply-transitive-circular on a religious concept that you used in the same discredited argument as well as on your choice to use the concept statistical ???improbability??? (AKA ???uncertainty???) - which is the basis for MY prior statement. And since you seek to discredit this position I am not going to let you use that. In other words you just made my point in the use of the word ???improbable??? - thanks for agreeing with me. Was this intended as an instruction in the concepts of cohesion and brevity oh wise one?
Don't argue semantics. Bad science is improper science, simple as that. I don't care how you want to try and dress it up with big words, it doesn't change the meaning of my point. Myopia gets you nowhere.
If you want to use science properly, then do so. Don't use unrelated points to prove your argument and I won't call you on them.
And YET AGAIN you don't act on any of the points, you merely try to side-step with meaningless, overly complex banter.
Disagree. This whole assertion is redundant and superfluous to the previous disallowed concept of ???probability??? ??? but with the addition of one more inconsistency. Since I get to claim all the 10 dimensions of that argument I have now run out of 10 fingers to count on ??? but we will soon get to the Babylonian standard of 12 if I can borrow the two horns on your head
(now it???s fun.). You can???t redundantly argue in terms of probabilities without reinforcing my ???uncertainty??? concept. It???s remarkably similar to the notion of a ???benefit of the doubt??? in our justice systems isn???t it? But since you previously presented for consideration Gnosticism as a religion (yet another tired example of a god with petty human like emotions - i.e. jealousy) in much the same way the ancient Greeks & Romans did with their false religion (e.g. Zeus, the whole mount Olympus contingent and their human like emotions and antics) you are once again guilty of a non sequitur and inconsistent philosophical basis. You can???t on the one hand complain that it???s improbable that a god would have petty human emotions while simultaneously expecting anyone to accept your premises that Gnosticism is a viable consideration in your prior post. Sorry you just don???t have any credibility with me (on this topic).Did this paragraph even say anything? I'm serious. If it did, there was no meaning readily apparent.
All I could gather was that you don't think I'm being consistent in my viewpoints. I most assuredly am, since you've never once bothered to ask what exactly I believe.
My stance on the topic is simple. You mis-applied science to justify religion. I called you on it. You complained, saying you understood quite well. I proved otherwise. You still won't address my questions.
I???m still looking for those valid points so I can make sure I don???t side step them by accident? Oops. I don???t see any valid points? Guess not - discussion over.
I just love the self-appointed arrogance demonstrated here. Refusing to acknowledge something doesn't mean its not there.
You've still yet to answer anything I've asked regarding Christian thought, only continuing to write your long, content-free passages that only lead the discussion further and further away from the topic.
I'm not the only one that has beef with Christian ideology. If this is the prevailing Christian mentality in the world, its no wonder that faith is slowly and steadily dying. If Christianity wants to survive, its going to have to evolve past this mentality.
Asking questions about your religion does not imply offense. It seems you and all of your contemporaries feel this way however; maybe its some holdover from the "do as your told and don't think" days. But that doesn't cut it any more. If you can't come up with reasonable, logically consistent answers, you're only going to lose more and more followers.
But maybe that's meant to be.
I think you completly missed the boat when I said that allah and God are not the same. even the muslims don't think so.
And to my knowledge muslim is not a shoot off of Christianity. They simply drew the bible in to help add merit of some sort to the quran, which was written to suit mohamads fancy as he saw fit. He also rewrote it serveral times to allow him to murder, pillage and take other mens wives.
Snake, TCD and others,
Here is what it boils down to... I'm going to heaven when the time comes. It's your choice to believe or not to believe in heaven or hell. It is also your choice were you will spend eternity. It would be extremely sad to know that someone tried to tell you about it and you closed mindedly turned them down and scorned their attemps at doing so.
I and others could sit here and try to explain the Bible and God to you guys till I'm blue in the face, To what
result?? You would still not believe.
It's true I can't sit here and point God out in a crowd and say "see that's him. Now do you believe?" I also can't go back in history and find the people that wrote the Bible and show them to you. The Bible can stand on it's own by the prophecies or predictions that have happend, also many other history books can concur with the Bible to prove and support it's word. Also many, many people can tell you what they "feel" when they pray to God.
Have you every felt the wind? Could you see it? Could you touch it? How did you know that it was there? You saw the results of the wind, but never the wind it self. The same is true with God. I really can't explain it further than that. I can show you scriptures in the Bible to help you understand it, but first you have to believe in the Bible.
Before you knock me, try it for yourself... What have you got to loose? Six feet of dirt on your head when you die? What have you got to gain? To me the choice would be simple.
Here is what it boils down to... I'm going to heaven when the time comes. It's your choice to believe or not to believe in heaven or hell. It is also your choice were you will spend eternity. It would be extremely sad to know that someone tried to tell you about it and you closed mindedly turned them down and scorned their attemps at doing so.
I and others could sit here and try to explain the Bible and God to you guys till I'm blue in the face, To what
result?? You would still not believe.
It's true I can't sit here and point God out in a crowd and say "see that's him. Now do you believe?" I also can't go back in history and find the people that wrote the Bible and show them to you. The Bible can stand on it's own by the prophecies or predictions that have happend, also many other history books can concur with the Bible to prove and support it's word. Also many, many people can tell you what they "feel" when they pray to God.
Have you every felt the wind? Could you see it? Could you touch it? How did you know that it was there? You saw the results of the wind, but never the wind it self. The same is true with God. I really can't explain it further than that. I can show you scriptures in the Bible to help you understand it, but first you have to believe in the Bible.
Before you knock me, try it for yourself... What have you got to loose? Six feet of dirt on your head when you die?
What have you got to gain? To me the choice would be simple.
I look at it this way.
I'm going to live my life as a good person, in touch with my inner light and the connection it brings me to all things in this world and above this world.
When I die, if I encounter the being you call God and he turns me away from his paradise, then I will be happy to go. Why? Because that being is corrupt and evil.
If he would turn away good people over a matter of dogmatic triviality, then that's a being I want no part of. That's no better than any fascist propaganda dealt by a fallible human dictator. And its certainly not the characteristic of a being claiming to be the source of love and compassion.
So I will live my life as a good, caring person who fights for truth and for right. If God chooses to punish me for that, then so be it. But just bear in mind, that's no perfect being if that's the case.
I'm going to live my life as a good person, in touch with my inner light and the connection it brings me to all things in this world and above this world.
When I die, if I encounter the being you call God and he turns me away from his paradise, then I will be happy to go. Why? Because that being is corrupt and evil.
If he would turn away good people over a matter of dogmatic triviality, then that's a being I want no part of. That's no better than any fascist propaganda dealt by a fallible human dictator. And its certainly not the characteristic of a being claiming to be the source of love and compassion.
So I will live my life as a good, caring person who fights for truth and for right. If God chooses to punish me for that, then so be it. But just bear in mind, that's no perfect being if that's the case.
Edit: This was originally in response to Pepper's comment about my words being outrageous and blasphemous.
In your context, I'm sure it is.
But as I've been trying to state, I don't see the universe within those confines.
I'm using the standard of logic, reason, and simple compassion for life to determine my standards of "good" and "evil," not what's laid out in the Bible. My own feelings of kinship towards other beings, towards nature, and towards the universe as a whole, determine my morality....not words from a 2000 year old dead culture.
And by those standards, God's standard to enter Heaven is what is outrageous to me.
If he tells a good person to go away over trivial matters, and yes that's what they are, then he is not the all-loving embodiment of compassion.
That's the whole point of this argument. If God is allowing ANYONE to suffer because they don't "know" him, that's not divine judgment...that's a childish tantrum.
You see what I'm saying as outrageous and blasphemous, because you're only looking at the situation in the context of your beliefs. I'm looking at it, trying my best, from an objective standard.
That's where my thoughts on the issue are coming from...introspection and a compassionate heart. And they're telling me that something is massively wrong with the ideology of sacrifice and punishment.
In your context, I'm sure it is.
But as I've been trying to state, I don't see the universe within those confines.
I'm using the standard of logic, reason, and simple compassion for life to determine my standards of "good" and "evil," not what's laid out in the Bible. My own feelings of kinship towards other beings, towards nature, and towards the universe as a whole, determine my morality....not words from a 2000 year old dead culture.
And by those standards, God's standard to enter Heaven is what is outrageous to me.
If he tells a good person to go away over trivial matters, and yes that's what they are, then he is not the all-loving embodiment of compassion.
That's the whole point of this argument. If God is allowing ANYONE to suffer because they don't "know" him, that's not divine judgment...that's a childish tantrum.
You see what I'm saying as outrageous and blasphemous, because you're only looking at the situation in the context of your beliefs. I'm looking at it, trying my best, from an objective standard.
That's where my thoughts on the issue are coming from...introspection and a compassionate heart. And they're telling me that something is massively wrong with the ideology of sacrifice and punishment.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,476
- Reaction score
- 14
- Points
- 0
Sorry, I deleted my post b/c I decided to just stay out of it. I did not realize you had read it. I will re-post it as close as I can remember it later today (when I have more time.)
I don't like doing that, but I thought I had done it quick enough. My bad.
I don't know your age but I assume you have job. I also assume that you have a boss. Suppose your boss sets forth rules that say: Monday is white sock day. In order to get into work, you must wear a pair of white socks. There is no leeway to this rule.
Would that make him unfair or unjust? It's his company. He can do with it as he sees fit right? Everybody I know and have known all my life has had at least one pair of white socks, or the means of getting a pair. So it should not be a problem for anyone to comply. Correct?
The same could be said about have a chance to be with God. Everybody has been given the chance/choice of complying with the rules set forth in the Bible for getting into heaven. (crude point, but hopefully you get the jest of it)
The Bible states that God is a fair and just God.
When your mom and/or dad took you home from the hospital just after birth, why did they take only you? Because you were the only one there that was their child. Was that fair to all the other babies? No, but you had met the criteria that they had set forth at the time of them leaving the hospital. The Bible has also made it quite clear what it takes to be a child of God and to be part of the home coming of his children.
Thats great. You are already a step ahead of most people.
For your sake, I hope he doesn't.
Hey Tboy, so what about the millions of poeple (such as Asians) in this world that have never even been exposed to christianity and it's bible?
For example Buddhists, are they all going to hell?
For example Buddhists, are they all going to hell?
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,476
- Reaction score
- 14
- Points
- 0
The Bible states that "general revelation" in nature is enough for believe in God. This is a difficult question, though, and the exact answer is one we may not know until "the day" comes. I do believe that viewing creation is enough to know there is a god, how that jives with trust in Christ, I don't know. I think this just underscores how important it is to get the Word out there, in every way possible.
I do know that churchs everywhere are sending missionaries to all parts of the world to spread the Gospel. We are commanded to in the Bible. A huge percentage of our church budget goes to funding missionaries.
Actually, there are lots of missionaries all over the world that are preaching and teaching the word.
There have been tribes found, in really remote places that missionaries have found, worshiping God. They could not explain how they knew to do so, just it was always done that way.
About the Buddhists, it's not my call. Nothing I say could will it one way or the other. I do know they are one of the most peacefull "religious" groups of people found anywhere.
This scripture
Leads me to believe (my belief only) that 50% of the worlds population will go. I don't think (my belief again) that litteraly every other person will go... but 50% over all.
(as a side note if anyone is interested in talking about this to someone locally, I could hook you up)
( soory BO.....I`m drunk again 
)
Well, as someone thats married to a lady born and raise a buddist, I must say here, I want nothing to do with a god that is racist, or so petty as to only allow into heaven those who
Oh fuck it....this is too stupid to even bother with.
)Well, as someone thats married to a lady born and raise a buddist, I must say here, I want nothing to do with a god that is racist, or so petty as to only allow into heaven those who
Oh fuck it....this is too stupid to even bother with.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,476
- Reaction score
- 14
- Points
- 0
On what basis is it absurd? It is God's creation. He tells us the rules (which is what I essentially posted last night and deleted.)
Who are we to tell God what is right or wrong. He tells us. We are the creature, he is the Creator. We have no rights here.
The Bible plainly says that Christ is the only way to God.
That's the deal, we are in no position to negotiate.
Another thing I said last night to Snake is this: he said he lives a good life. Well, what is good? What he thinks is good may not be to another. Many evil men have done horrible acts thinking they were living a good life. There needs to be a standard.
Goodness comes from God. That is the standard. He tells us what is good. If you stand before him with "Well, I was good" He is going to say, "Depart from me, I never knew you." Goodness is the fruit of a believer, not a ticket to heaven (sorry for mixing metaphors)
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,476
- Reaction score
- 14
- Points
- 0
Originally posted by kuso
( soory BO.....I`m drunk again
Well, as someone thats married to a lady born and raise a buddist, I must say here, I want nothing to do with a god that is racist, or so petty as to only allow into heaven those who
Oh fuck it....this is too stupid to even bother with.
No race is excluded from God. None. Any one who truly believes is "in."
Talk about "stupid," that is the most absurd charge in this thread.
God is the ONLY ONE who is truly color blind.
that is the belief of only one religeon, it's absurd for anyone religeon to think it is superior and above the rest.
see, where I am different is I see the bible as a book of metaphors that christains have literalized and perpetuated as real stories.
the bible is full of good stories with great morals behind them, but they're not meant to be taken literally.
IN what exactly? Faith? As long as it is YOUR god right?
Sorry, you may think so, but I think there p@revious few posts you and Tboy have made ( nothing personaly to either of you ) far out perform my absurdity here.......
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,476
- Reaction score
- 14
- Points
- 0
I think it is absurd to expect Chritians to say anything other than "only Christians will go to heaven."
I mean, Christianity is by definition "exclusive." It has to be. If you believe the Bible, you can't believe the Koran. If you believe the Bible, the Budists are WRONG. There is no wiggle room. Christ said "I am the way, the Truth and the Light. No one comes to the Father but by me." That pretty much eliminates an inclusive religion.
I do understand why people struggle with the Bible, but I do not understand why they expect those who believe it to accept other religions. If they do, they don't believe the Bible.
