| The Passion of the Christ [message #74717] |
Mon, 29 March 2004 19:46   |
setstyle
Messages: 101
Registered: July 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| da_shiz |
has any story book had 40+ authors and have not one of them conflict with each other?
|
As a matter of fact, there is a book that fits that description... it's called the Bible, more specifically the New Testament.
| da_shiz |
most athiests ... let their minds get in the way of ... letting them believe in the simplest of ideas ... what is "1" and how come when it's added to itself it equals this other number, the number "2"?
|
Numbers are not a tangible, concrete thing - they are concepts. You do not pick up two ones, glue them together, and hold up a two. It has been proven out of rational thought - if you buy an apple and find another, you don't have one, you have two. Religious concepts do not have their foundations laid on rational thought, but faith, far from a simple thing.
| da_shiz |
aren't kids the happiest out of everyone? that's because they don't over think things.
|
...Which means that kids aren't ready at their young age to transend the "simple" fairy-tales known as religion.
| da_shiz |
... one absolute truth is that a marriage is strictly between a man and a woman.
|
Your "absolute truth" is nothing more than an opinion, or perhaps an observation of standard societal tradition. Marriage is a very close relationship and union between two people- it just so happens that those two people have most often been of the opposite sex.
| da_shiz |
we're even making homosexuals out to be somewhat like heroes, that they're coming out of the closet which is supposedly a hard thing to do. they're being rewarded for being homo ...
|
When you have faced, as you pointed out, decades of scorn and hatred, it can be hard to admit to being an abomination in the eyes of society. Are they really being awarded, or just accepted?
| da_shiz |
my faith IS the only faith that will lead you to salvation.
|
Think you not that all the despicable characters of history have used similiar devices of justifying their positions? Hitler was even mentioned earlier in this thread.
When it comes to religion, nothing changes.
your = possessive adjective
you're = you + are
|
|
|
|
| The Passion of the Christ [message #74720] |
Mon, 29 March 2004 20:01 |
|
|
for one, i WAS talking about the Bible.
another, my faith is concrete like numbers. they are both truths.
religions aren't fairy-tales. they are beliefs that grown men and women have believed for centuries. i was referring to the fact that christians are more christ-like when they have been saved from the time they were kids.
to many, as i have stated again and again and will not change others' minds, my absolute truths are nothing of the sort. i, however, know that they are absolute truths. debate with me all you wish on this subject, i feel that until you try to understand the Bible, you won't get what i am saying.
i do commend their bravery, but i don't reward them with marriage rights. just like when a child lies and then admits to it. the parents are proud and commend their bravery to tell them, but they don't come away with a new bike.
Hitler was trying to use religion as a way to get more supporters (as mentioned earlier). Hitler was using it for evil. I don't plan on using my belief in absolute truths for dominating the world.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
| The Passion of the Christ [message #74722] |
Mon, 29 March 2004 20:12 |
xptek_disabled
Messages: 1308
Registered: September 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Quote: |
so you believe in a higher being? i don't want to cram the Bible down peoples' throats, but I seriously think it would solve many of your problems.
|
No, I keep an open mind. Untill I see proof that this higher being does exist, I'm not going to worship him, but untill I see proof he doesnt exist, I'm not going to rule out the possibility.
Local oper-irc.ugin.net - A Scrumfy free IRC.
Jonwil > SK
http://www.byterush.net/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| The Passion of the Christ [message #74758] |
Mon, 29 March 2004 23:38 |
 |
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
da_shiz, I just want to clarify something. When I use the words "truth", "knowledge" and "belief" I'm using the literal interpretation of them. If you beleive in something, you do not know it to be truth. If you Know something, then it is truth and you no longer simply "beleive" it to be true. We do not "believe" that 1+1=2, we "know" that. While I'm not trying to undermine my own religion, or start a conflict with you, it may be possible that Jesus was a fraud and just managed to dupe everyone. Don't get me wrong, I in no way beleive this to be true, but it's still a possiblity, even if it's not a plausablility. I only say this because we don't "know" what the truth surrounding the matter is. Historiic studies that far back are incomplete, hence we don't "know" if Jesus even existed. Recent Bone findings have found a "Son of Joseph, Brother to Jesus", however, once again, there is insufficiant proof (last I heard) that it is the same Jesus as the bible dictates, though it is highly likely that it is.
Now, the whole religion concept is a system of beliefs. By it's own admittance of it being a belief structure, the religions of the world say that the proof of their set of beliefs are not "Knowledge". There is no "proof" that our religion is the right one, just as there is no "proof" that anything any religion states is true. The changed phrase, "Experiancing is knowing" would apply here. We do not "know" that atoms exist, as we have not experianced them ourselves. We have to rely on others that they exist. The same holds true for religion. We have to rely on others for what could be true. Now, this is not saying atoms don't exist, just as I'm not saying God doesn't exist. However, just because we don't "know" them to exist doesn't mean they don't. We just don't "know" it. An example of this is quazars. We believed atoms to be the smallest thing in existance, infact we "knew" it. Now something smaller has been discovered... the quazar. So now we "know" that to be the smallest thing to exist. Until now that it. We now beleive that something smaller than a quazar exists, strings. So much for "knowing" the "truth", huh?
Edit: and yes, Javaxcx if you want to bring out that Athiest arguement, go right ahead. It's always an enjoyment to watch them squirm. 
|
|
|
|
| The Passion of the Christ [message #74834] |
Tue, 30 March 2004 09:04 |
 |
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
To save my own time, and without changing any words, I'm just going to cut'n'paste from that paper we did:
Atheism
It is not logical to conclude the atheist concept of God’s existence over the
agnostic belief. An atheist is “one who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods” (Dictionary). Atheism is a philosophy where no God is present, and is therefore reliant on the belief that the universe is dictated solely by logic and the measurement of matter and energy.* The universe however, is obviously too large for any human to measure, and therefore uncertainty takes the place of the unmeasured. The atheist philosophy makes the claim that there is no God, but fails to account for the uncertainty in the universe. For an atheist to say that God cannot exist, without measuring every part of the universe, is premature and illogical. For a philosophy based entirely on logic, the outcome of claiming God’s non-existence is hypocritical. Since a hypocritical logic cannot exist, neither can a logical atheist. If there is no such thing as a logical atheist, what is someone who believes strongly that God cannot exist? By definition: “those who believe that it is very improbable that a deity exists” (Robinson); agnostic atheists. Agnostic atheists do not base a philosophy on the hypocritical logic atheism does, rather promote logistical debates on the improbability of a transcendent being. It is more logical to debate God’s non-existence than to conclude it, as no conclusion can ever be reached. It is therefore impossible for any human being to logically accept the atheist concept of God, whereas agnostic atheism allows logistical debate.
*This line does spark an awful lot of arguement. But you must realize, when I say that you disbelieve or deny the existence of God or gods, you must understand that includes supernatural forces that govern us. That includes magic and whatnot. Who/whatever creates them DOES fall into the category of a God or gods because it is a force that humans are superceded by.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| The Passion of the Christ [message #75078] |
Wed, 31 March 2004 14:18 |
setstyle
Messages: 101
Registered: July 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
/clear all sense of bashing
| da_shiz |
for one, i WAS talking about the Bible.
|
I pointed out that it fits the description you said it did not - the authors of the Bible do have conflicting stories.
| Cwazyape |
Well, then Im not considered an official athiest...
|
Giving oneself a label does not do well to keeping a free mind. Liberal, atheist, feminist... they all lump together everyone involved, including any conflicting opinions and beliefs. If I say I am a(n) [insert group], I take on the ideas of all others involved in calling themselves a(n) [insert group].
I do not believe in any god or gods.
With that statement, I cast away labels and definitions to opt instead for the clear definition of me, not a collective. A statement of affiliation can bring with it negative implications, such as many a political party being discredited by the actions of a select few members.
your = possessive adjective
you're = you + are
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| The Passion of the Christ [message #75297] |
Thu, 01 April 2004 14:23 |
setstyle
Messages: 101
Registered: July 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Javaxcx |
| setstyle |
I do not believe in any god or gods.
With that statement, I cast away labels and definitions to opt instead for the clear definition of me, not a collective.
|
You're a human being. If you're an intelligent one, you're also an agnostic atheist.
Like it or lump it, you do fit into a category -- no matter how much of an individual you feel you are.
|
Of course. We'll all marked by faults.
your = possessive adjective
you're = you + are
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| The Passion of the Christ [message #75709] |
Sat, 03 April 2004 12:32 |
setstyle
Messages: 101
Registered: July 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Javaxcx |
Categorizing something doesn't mean it has faults.
|
Correct, but what I said is that human beings are marked by imperfection.
your = possessive adjective
you're = you + are
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
