Yes, commas, when used on BBS, can, -really stir emotions, and cause anger, so use them. With caution!
/Disoputlip
You too can see the light!
-
Disoputlip
- Sojourner
- Posts: 956
- Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2002 6:01 am
- Location: Copenhagen
I hate to rain on your parade, but they are all correct. The comma, the question mark after the parentheses and the use of 'it'. Your book may give guidelines on how to make your sentences prettier, but what I wrote is definitely correct. Also, it may mention to avoid using the word 'it' - it doesn't mention that it is incorrect. Lastly, the short sentence is correct as well. You can say it is wrong, but hearsay isn't an acceptable form of evidence. Better luck next time!
[This message has been edited by cherzra (edited 03-06-2002).]
[This message has been edited by cherzra (edited 03-06-2002).]
That's right Cherzra, the rules for correct grammar set forth in a book entitled <u>RULES FOR WRITERS</u> are heresy. Furthermore you are a perfect being incapable of making any mistakes, let alone mistakes that native speakers of english often make even though you are not a native speaker of the language. We should all bow down and worship Cherzra, for he is obviously God.
I'm following Elseenas out. I can't deal with this sort of idiocy any longer.
------------------
Every problem in the universe can be solved by finding the right long-haired prettyboy and beating the crap out of him.
I'm following Elseenas out. I can't deal with this sort of idiocy any longer.
------------------
Every problem in the universe can be solved by finding the right long-haired prettyboy and beating the crap out of him.
H button is broken.
Stop the bashing and get back on topic. You guys are caught with trying to smear each other's name than addressing the issue. Get back on topic.
Ashiwi some great points about generalization. I was attempting to do the same thing; however, I was unable to do as well.
Els. I never said you were a Christian. I've read your previous post and you continually stated that you were not Christian. Not everyone who read the post has tunnel vision. If you want to continue the discussion, I would be more then willing to continue to response.
Cherzra. I'm a Christian. Everyday I go to work, I think about killing everyone single pagan out there. I want to sacrifice their body to God. I thought I was being discreed, pretending that human life was worst Christ's sacrifice, but all along I was plotting to take over the world and torture everyone that is non-Christian. Cherzra, your abilities are amazing.
Jegzed. maybe you can clarify for me, but isn't the line of David on the side of Mary?
Sok
Stop the bashing and get back on topic. You guys are caught with trying to smear each other's name than addressing the issue. Get back on topic.
Ashiwi some great points about generalization. I was attempting to do the same thing; however, I was unable to do as well.
Els. I never said you were a Christian. I've read your previous post and you continually stated that you were not Christian. Not everyone who read the post has tunnel vision. If you want to continue the discussion, I would be more then willing to continue to response.
Cherzra. I'm a Christian. Everyday I go to work, I think about killing everyone single pagan out there. I want to sacrifice their body to God. I thought I was being discreed, pretending that human life was worst Christ's sacrifice, but all along I was plotting to take over the world and torture everyone that is non-Christian. Cherzra, your abilities are amazing.
Jegzed. maybe you can clarify for me, but isn't the line of David on the side of Mary?
Sok
-
Eilorn
- Sojourner
- Posts: 229
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2001 6:01 am
- Location: Salt Lake City,UT,USA 84116
- Contact:
In the Bible it talks about Satan (Lucifer, whatever) and how he fights against God. If God and Satan exist, how much better would Satan's fight go, if he hijacked sects and sowed confusion and destruction?
The devil made me do it.
Eilorn.
(Not really: if there is free will Satan should have no power but the power of persuasion.)
The devil made me do it.
Eilorn.
(Not really: if there is free will Satan should have no power but the power of persuasion.)
I think if Chez calmed a bit you guys would see his point a bit better...I believe he is saying that religion is bad, not necessarily the people who practice it. In any organization you will have corruption because that is the human way. He gave you those links to prove just that, not to prove that the individual christians, muslims, pagans, buddhists, etc... are wrong. The idea of religion is wrong. Spirituality on the other hand would be the better way about it. Religion - polotics - dogma - mythology = spirituality.
Most of you are just a guilty as chez for being emotional and condesending...especially elseenas. You constantly throw around your schooling, languages, mathmatic principals. It is obvious to me that you are having a pissing/my dick is bigger than yours contest with chez and blaming him for being the only one participating. You will prolly reply with something like, "o I am just defending myself." Well, possibly, but you not only try to defend yourself, but you flame him just as hard but with less emotion.
Look, we know you are smart, 99% of the rest of us also have mucho booksmarts and mucho IQ's.
As far as the religios crimes, yes, religion is the cause of much pain and suffering in the world, whether self-imposed or not. We have already proven that Christianity and Islamic fundamentalists are blood seekers. What about the others? Don't even tell me that many of the other religions have not tried to pursecute people for not sharing their beliefs. That they didn't start a war. If I wasn't busy atm I would surf the net and look for something to back this up, but unless you ask for it, I am not going to.
So, to end this rant, I will say this...
Religion is a bad thing, throw away your books, your doctrines, your dogma, and your religios polotics...they are nothing but trouble...Instead, follow your heart, make your own theories on the existance of god. If you believe great! It is the most likely of choices, if not, wonderful! Science is a good thing and has many redoable experiments. Can you still worship the Christian god w/o the church, w/o the bible, w/o their doctrines, Hell yeah you can! But you can't be christian if you dont follow the bible! Wrong, You only need faith that God exists and lead a moral life, period. ( I just used christianity as an example there so just letting you know I am not picking on christians). Do this and your life will be less stressful and you wont be paying taxes, err, I mean giving to the church every sunday to throw a breakfast for your church or something and pay your preacher to tell you something you can easily take 10 minutes and read/understand yourself...
Good day!
Kifle
Most of you are just a guilty as chez for being emotional and condesending...especially elseenas. You constantly throw around your schooling, languages, mathmatic principals. It is obvious to me that you are having a pissing/my dick is bigger than yours contest with chez and blaming him for being the only one participating. You will prolly reply with something like, "o I am just defending myself." Well, possibly, but you not only try to defend yourself, but you flame him just as hard but with less emotion.
Look, we know you are smart, 99% of the rest of us also have mucho booksmarts and mucho IQ's.
As far as the religios crimes, yes, religion is the cause of much pain and suffering in the world, whether self-imposed or not. We have already proven that Christianity and Islamic fundamentalists are blood seekers. What about the others? Don't even tell me that many of the other religions have not tried to pursecute people for not sharing their beliefs. That they didn't start a war. If I wasn't busy atm I would surf the net and look for something to back this up, but unless you ask for it, I am not going to.
So, to end this rant, I will say this...
Religion is a bad thing, throw away your books, your doctrines, your dogma, and your religios polotics...they are nothing but trouble...Instead, follow your heart, make your own theories on the existance of god. If you believe great! It is the most likely of choices, if not, wonderful! Science is a good thing and has many redoable experiments. Can you still worship the Christian god w/o the church, w/o the bible, w/o their doctrines, Hell yeah you can! But you can't be christian if you dont follow the bible! Wrong, You only need faith that God exists and lead a moral life, period. ( I just used christianity as an example there so just letting you know I am not picking on christians). Do this and your life will be less stressful and you wont be paying taxes, err, I mean giving to the church every sunday to throw a breakfast for your church or something and pay your preacher to tell you something you can easily take 10 minutes and read/understand yourself...
Good day!
Kifle
Wow, this thread has been all over the place... except where it originally started. Getting back to the topic: The reason religious fanatics like this disturb me so much is that they look for simple answers to complex problems. The problems presented in the story, stripped of their D&D dressings, are: Teenage girl starts questioning her authoritarian religious upbringing, throws the baby out with the bathwater and turns to a cult. Other teenage girl is depressed and commits suicide. First girl is consumed with guilt.
It must be nice and comfy to be able to blame these problems on some outlandish game practiced by a few weirdos. Saves parents the trouble of worrying whether they may have screwed up, whether their religious indoctrination was somehow flawed, or whether they simply failed to pay attention to the fact that their kid was depressed, lonely, disaffected or otherwise in need of help.
And a lot of times these kids ARE in need of help... I don't know about the rest of you, but the times in my life that I put the most effort into RP were the times I was least happy and needed it as an escape and/or therapy. (Incidentally, RP is a recognized and valid means of therapy often used by counselors and psychologists... sometimes people in pain simply find what they need to get through it). So, instead of confronting the real problem, these religious ignoramuses attack the symptom and put a Jesus band-aid on a hemorrhage.
It must be nice and comfy to be able to blame these problems on some outlandish game practiced by a few weirdos. Saves parents the trouble of worrying whether they may have screwed up, whether their religious indoctrination was somehow flawed, or whether they simply failed to pay attention to the fact that their kid was depressed, lonely, disaffected or otherwise in need of help.
And a lot of times these kids ARE in need of help... I don't know about the rest of you, but the times in my life that I put the most effort into RP were the times I was least happy and needed it as an escape and/or therapy. (Incidentally, RP is a recognized and valid means of therapy often used by counselors and psychologists... sometimes people in pain simply find what they need to get through it). So, instead of confronting the real problem, these religious ignoramuses attack the symptom and put a Jesus band-aid on a hemorrhage.
Disclaimer:
--------------
Ok from now on I will do my best to keep what I say about religion basically on Christianity because I am not well verse in many of the other religions out there, unless I'm asking questions about other religion.
--------------
Kifle, you are asking us to accept spirituality. Before I make any decisions, can you define what is spirituality?
"Religion - politics - dogma - mythology = spirituality" this is still a little unclear to me. maybe if you help define some of the terms for me it would help.
What is the moral foundation of it? What is the reason why the human race should adopt this ideal of universalism/spirituality (motive)? How do you determine if something is wrong? What is the nature of man within this system? Can people with different ethics dwell within this system, or is this a system itself? What are the positives and negatives, that might come out of spirituality system? Would spirituality become a religion if it had a guildline base on the answers to these question?
Is politics base on people's idea of right and wrong?
If I claim that spirituality is the only good system, am I not being dogmatic?
Kifle, I know you said, "Spirituality on the other hand would be the better way about it". I understand better to mean nothing without problems or that it is perfect.
-------------------
1) I never disagree with Cherzra that within the Christian history, there was atrocities that was committed under the disguise of Christianity. However, I disagree that the basic teaching of Christianity is to cause pain, suffering, etc.
2) What I wanted Cherzra to see is that there are alway people within Christianity which deviate from the mainstream. I understand that there are corrupt leaders within the Christian faith; however, to say that Christianity is the source of those corrupting I do not agree. I believe most will agree that within any major system there are bound to be radicals; however, I do not agree that one should make the exception the rule.
example. Stalin head of the USSR, which was suppose to be communistic, was more of a dictator. Communism is a great system thought up by a very smart man; however, some of the human beings use the system for self, resulting in the killing many of the USSR's people. Is communism the blame/cause of this suffering? Is communism a religion?
-----------------
Eadgydd, I agree with you that when you make everything black and white it will cause problems. A problem that I face is not that everything is black and white, but that too many things are gray. If one does not have some black or white, I do not believe they will have the foundation it takes to stand.
----------------
Jegzed, I continue to wait for more example of contradictions. Please forgive me if I sound partronizing, but I am honest and sincere when i ask to know more of the inconsistencies in which you speak. This is not intented to provoke you your anger, I am attempted to learn.
I think that's it for now. See you guys tomorrow.
Good job Yayaril.
--------------
Ok from now on I will do my best to keep what I say about religion basically on Christianity because I am not well verse in many of the other religions out there, unless I'm asking questions about other religion.
--------------
Kifle, you are asking us to accept spirituality. Before I make any decisions, can you define what is spirituality?
"Religion - politics - dogma - mythology = spirituality" this is still a little unclear to me. maybe if you help define some of the terms for me it would help.
What is the moral foundation of it? What is the reason why the human race should adopt this ideal of universalism/spirituality (motive)? How do you determine if something is wrong? What is the nature of man within this system? Can people with different ethics dwell within this system, or is this a system itself? What are the positives and negatives, that might come out of spirituality system? Would spirituality become a religion if it had a guildline base on the answers to these question?
Is politics base on people's idea of right and wrong?
If I claim that spirituality is the only good system, am I not being dogmatic?
Kifle, I know you said, "Spirituality on the other hand would be the better way about it". I understand better to mean nothing without problems or that it is perfect.
-------------------
1) I never disagree with Cherzra that within the Christian history, there was atrocities that was committed under the disguise of Christianity. However, I disagree that the basic teaching of Christianity is to cause pain, suffering, etc.
2) What I wanted Cherzra to see is that there are alway people within Christianity which deviate from the mainstream. I understand that there are corrupt leaders within the Christian faith; however, to say that Christianity is the source of those corrupting I do not agree. I believe most will agree that within any major system there are bound to be radicals; however, I do not agree that one should make the exception the rule.
example. Stalin head of the USSR, which was suppose to be communistic, was more of a dictator. Communism is a great system thought up by a very smart man; however, some of the human beings use the system for self, resulting in the killing many of the USSR's people. Is communism the blame/cause of this suffering? Is communism a religion?
-----------------
Eadgydd, I agree with you that when you make everything black and white it will cause problems. A problem that I face is not that everything is black and white, but that too many things are gray. If one does not have some black or white, I do not believe they will have the foundation it takes to stand.
----------------
Jegzed, I continue to wait for more example of contradictions. Please forgive me if I sound partronizing, but I am honest and sincere when i ask to know more of the inconsistencies in which you speak. This is not intented to provoke you your anger, I am attempted to learn.
I think that's it for now. See you guys tomorrow.
Good job Yayaril.
Kifle that last couple of sentence after I posted was a little unclear. Let me say that I know you mention spirituality is better. I know that better does not mean that it can't have problem. I know that better does not mean that it is perfect. However, I ask those questions to see how many positives their are vs. the negatives.
sok
sok
More clarification. I posted, "What is the reason why the human race should adopt (was that redundant) this idea of universalism/spirituality (motive)?" However, Kifle never said universalism is spirituality. So I will rephrase the question.
Is spirituality a form of universalism? If so that keep with the old question. If not,
why should the human race adopt this idea of spirituality?
Sok
Is spirituality a form of universalism? If so that keep with the old question. If not,
why should the human race adopt this idea of spirituality?
Sok
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by sok:
<B>Jegzed. maybe you can clarify for me, but isn't the line of David on the side of Mary?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There is NO line of Mary written in the bible, just two lines of Joseph.
I will not go to further contradictions until you've read the bible enough to find out who Joseph's grandfather is.
<B>Jegzed. maybe you can clarify for me, but isn't the line of David on the side of Mary?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There is NO line of Mary written in the bible, just two lines of Joseph.
I will not go to further contradictions until you've read the bible enough to find out who Joseph's grandfather is.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by sok:
<B>More clarification. I posted, "What is the reason why the human race should adopt (was that redundant) this idea of universalism/spirituality (motive)?" However, Kifle never said universalism is spirituality. So I will rephrase the question.
Is spirituality a form of universalism? If so that keep with the old question. If not,
why should the human race adopt this idea of spirituality?
Sok</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Okie, I was a bit vague...What I meant was, spirituality is ones own views on a higher being, the meaning of life, and all that other stuff that religion has models, doctrines, and laws for.
The reason the human race should adopt this is because it holds the freedom of individualism, no bias, nobody is right or wrong when it comes to the existance/inexistance of a higher entity. You would have no doctrines saying that this is evil, or that is immoral, or this group of people killed this guy so we can hate them, etc...
Kifle
I am sleepy so if you have any questions lemme know, I will reply to you elseenas when I awake
<B>More clarification. I posted, "What is the reason why the human race should adopt (was that redundant) this idea of universalism/spirituality (motive)?" However, Kifle never said universalism is spirituality. So I will rephrase the question.
Is spirituality a form of universalism? If so that keep with the old question. If not,
why should the human race adopt this idea of spirituality?
Sok</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Okie, I was a bit vague...What I meant was, spirituality is ones own views on a higher being, the meaning of life, and all that other stuff that religion has models, doctrines, and laws for.
The reason the human race should adopt this is because it holds the freedom of individualism, no bias, nobody is right or wrong when it comes to the existance/inexistance of a higher entity. You would have no doctrines saying that this is evil, or that is immoral, or this group of people killed this guy so we can hate them, etc...
Kifle
I am sleepy so if you have any questions lemme know, I will reply to you elseenas when I awake
heh it's fun to keep adding to this thread.
anyways, Kifle what do you believe in? I guess what i believe in is spirituality, altho i do not call it that. I simply believe that God exists, and that we have souls....also i believe we are reborn. i guess that would be considered "spirituality".
dang i forgot what else i was going to add. oh well i can add it later
anyways, Kifle what do you believe in? I guess what i believe in is spirituality, altho i do not call it that. I simply believe that God exists, and that we have souls....also i believe we are reborn. i guess that would be considered "spirituality".
dang i forgot what else i was going to add. oh well i can add it later
True Ashiwi, but the intelligent people know that the best way to the top of the food chain is to make everyon's life better. If I go around screwing people over I'm just going to end up getting screwed over by them eventually.
------------------
Every problem in the universe can be solved by finding the right long-haired prettyboy and beating the crap out of him.
------------------
Every problem in the universe can be solved by finding the right long-haired prettyboy and beating the crap out of him.
Very true, but not everybody is intelligent (read "wise") enough to live by that rule. That's why checks and balances come into play, why there are governements, laws, and even religions.
Example of the moment (have patience with me, politics aren't my forte):
Mr. and Mrs. Snooty were raised in wealthy families, went to excellent schools, had every advantage, and both work to maintain lucrative careers. They have a child, Snooty Jr., who attends public school (just try to imagine it) conveniently within their high class neighborhood. They feel they have worked hard for what they have, and probably for good reason. They have high standards, high morals, high values, and are kind to small, furry animals.
On the next vote in their city is a multi-district tax increase, a paltry amount in the big picture, but a tax increase nonetheless. This tax increase is geared toward providing what some people consider needed supplies in very specific low income schools, schools which are not in the Snooty family's district. Mr. and Mrs. Snooty discuss the issue at length, and decide to vote against it because they feel, as is their right, that their tax dollars should be retained in their district, and should go to the schools which their child attends.
This is a reasonable scenario, one cannot truly expect the Snooty's to support somebody else's children. What isn't considered is that those children who have to attend low-income schools, through no fault of their own, will affect all of us eventually. They will grow up to be part of our economy, part of our political system, part of our collective value system. Why in the world would anybody want their education to be sub-standard?
It's not that anybody *wants* their education to be sub-standard. Actually, there are very many good reasons why people don't want their tax dollars going to "other" districts, and choose, instead, to funnel their money into the nurturing of their own child. Human beings are competitive by nature, and are driven to push themselves higher up in the food chain, which is one of many reasons why neither communism nor anarchy work. Communism is a dream based on an ideal which human beings, as a species, cannot collectively strive toward at this stage in their evolution, and anarchy requires that all beings within the system be of good will to each other, or else individuals within the system will attempt to institute their own rule, thereby undermining anarchy.
In order to rise to the top of a heap of human beings, you have to stand on top of somebody else. Only in a perfect world could any other system exist. In order to achieve the nirvana where everybody listens to their own spirituality and does no wrong by anybody else, we'd have to wipe the slate clean and start over.
Oh, but that would take an act of God, wouldn't it?
Example of the moment (have patience with me, politics aren't my forte):
Mr. and Mrs. Snooty were raised in wealthy families, went to excellent schools, had every advantage, and both work to maintain lucrative careers. They have a child, Snooty Jr., who attends public school (just try to imagine it) conveniently within their high class neighborhood. They feel they have worked hard for what they have, and probably for good reason. They have high standards, high morals, high values, and are kind to small, furry animals.
On the next vote in their city is a multi-district tax increase, a paltry amount in the big picture, but a tax increase nonetheless. This tax increase is geared toward providing what some people consider needed supplies in very specific low income schools, schools which are not in the Snooty family's district. Mr. and Mrs. Snooty discuss the issue at length, and decide to vote against it because they feel, as is their right, that their tax dollars should be retained in their district, and should go to the schools which their child attends.
This is a reasonable scenario, one cannot truly expect the Snooty's to support somebody else's children. What isn't considered is that those children who have to attend low-income schools, through no fault of their own, will affect all of us eventually. They will grow up to be part of our economy, part of our political system, part of our collective value system. Why in the world would anybody want their education to be sub-standard?
It's not that anybody *wants* their education to be sub-standard. Actually, there are very many good reasons why people don't want their tax dollars going to "other" districts, and choose, instead, to funnel their money into the nurturing of their own child. Human beings are competitive by nature, and are driven to push themselves higher up in the food chain, which is one of many reasons why neither communism nor anarchy work. Communism is a dream based on an ideal which human beings, as a species, cannot collectively strive toward at this stage in their evolution, and anarchy requires that all beings within the system be of good will to each other, or else individuals within the system will attempt to institute their own rule, thereby undermining anarchy.
In order to rise to the top of a heap of human beings, you have to stand on top of somebody else. Only in a perfect world could any other system exist. In order to achieve the nirvana where everybody listens to their own spirituality and does no wrong by anybody else, we'd have to wipe the slate clean and start over.
Oh, but that would take an act of God, wouldn't it?
-
Disoputlip
- Sojourner
- Posts: 956
- Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2002 6:01 am
- Location: Copenhagen
People that read philosophy runs into all sort of doctrines. Some fit better with christianity than others. But one of the best doctrines is actually the one where you focus on truth as the ultimate goal. Nobody lie, at all.
And that is far-far-far from christianity in its pure form, here lying really doesnt matter. Truth is in the eye of the beholder, and then god convicts you once you are dead
Hell I love Nietzsche
/D
[This message has been edited by Disoputlip (edited 03-07-2002).]
And that is far-far-far from christianity in its pure form, here lying really doesnt matter. Truth is in the eye of the beholder, and then god convicts you once you are dead
Hell I love Nietzsche
/D
[This message has been edited by Disoputlip (edited 03-07-2002).]
OMG, the world must be coming to an end... I saw pigs fly, hell is reportedly buried under a 50 foot snow drift and the moon seems to be permenantly blue...and to top it all off, Sok made a coherent, well written, gramatically post and it even had correct spelling.
I think I need to go to church.
Sobu
I think I need to go to church.
Sobu
-
Disoputlip
- Sojourner
- Posts: 956
- Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2002 6:01 am
- Location: Copenhagen
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by sok:
<B>Anyone Jewish? I heard that the family line is past down through the mother. If you can clarify for me, I would greatly appreciate it.
sok</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah, It's correct (not that i'm a jew) Its quite simple actually. Because the reason is that you always knows for sure who the mother is. but you can never be sure about the father. The one I was told it by stopped beleiving in God dyring WW2 where she had to flee to sweden, and was not really really a jew either because only her father was jew.
/D
<B>Anyone Jewish? I heard that the family line is past down through the mother. If you can clarify for me, I would greatly appreciate it.
sok</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah, It's correct (not that i'm a jew) Its quite simple actually. Because the reason is that you always knows for sure who the mother is. but you can never be sure about the father. The one I was told it by stopped beleiving in God dyring WW2 where she had to flee to sweden, and was not really really a jew either because only her father was jew.
/D
-
combatmedic
- Sojourner
- Posts: 245
- Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 6:01 am
- Location: Seattle, WA
I gots a question for all of you who do not like religion because of the rules/dogma/oppression/whatever =P, but believe in "spirituality" and if following your own heart/golden rule.
The purpose of 99% of all these religions out here is to do what? Live a good life? No, i don't think so, it is to live a good "after life", to get into heaven so to speak. So you live a good life here on Earth, believe in whatever set of rules so that you can get into that afterlife. Every religion out there pretty much states that they are the only way to God/heaven. So if you don't believe in any of them, but believe that there is a creator, aren't you sorta shooting yourself in the foot? How the heck are ya suppossed to get into the afterlife after you die if you don't believe in any certain one? Or do you believe that there is a creator, but no afterlife?
I won't bring up the issue that everyone's morality is different (oh wait, i did... oops), but on the helping everyone out, making them equal so we generally have a better world. Isn't that sorta like communism? After all, that is the basis of thier governments...to help everyone out equally. Flip through one of those fortune 500 magazines and tell me what percentage of those top 500 companies made thier pile by helping other people out. Sure they may donate a little now, but to get that high, they had to squeeze, step, or stomp on someone. That is capitalism at it's heart, out do your opponents by any means necessary, hook and crook.
------------------
Aram the novice paly
The purpose of 99% of all these religions out here is to do what? Live a good life? No, i don't think so, it is to live a good "after life", to get into heaven so to speak. So you live a good life here on Earth, believe in whatever set of rules so that you can get into that afterlife. Every religion out there pretty much states that they are the only way to God/heaven. So if you don't believe in any of them, but believe that there is a creator, aren't you sorta shooting yourself in the foot? How the heck are ya suppossed to get into the afterlife after you die if you don't believe in any certain one? Or do you believe that there is a creator, but no afterlife?
I won't bring up the issue that everyone's morality is different (oh wait, i did... oops), but on the helping everyone out, making them equal so we generally have a better world. Isn't that sorta like communism? After all, that is the basis of thier governments...to help everyone out equally. Flip through one of those fortune 500 magazines and tell me what percentage of those top 500 companies made thier pile by helping other people out. Sure they may donate a little now, but to get that high, they had to squeeze, step, or stomp on someone. That is capitalism at it's heart, out do your opponents by any means necessary, hook and crook.
------------------
Aram the novice paly
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Disoputlip:
<B> Yeah, It's correct (not that i'm a jew) Its quite simple actually. Because the reason is that you always knows for sure who the mother is. but you can never be sure about the father. The one I was told it by stopped beleiving in God dyring WW2 where she had to flee to sweden, and was not really really a jew either because only her father was jew.
/D</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In other words, maternity is a matter of fact, paternity is a matter of faith... hence faith in God the Father...
<B> Yeah, It's correct (not that i'm a jew) Its quite simple actually. Because the reason is that you always knows for sure who the mother is. but you can never be sure about the father. The one I was told it by stopped beleiving in God dyring WW2 where she had to flee to sweden, and was not really really a jew either because only her father was jew.
/D</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In other words, maternity is a matter of fact, paternity is a matter of faith... hence faith in God the Father...
Since people have brought up Communism in the context of a religious discussion, I need to point out: Communism, community, and communion all have the same word root. Early Christianity had more resemblance to communism than to capitalism (if you don't believe me, remember that lending money at interest was outlawed by the Pope in the middle ages).
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by sok:
<B>Anyone Jewish? I heard that the family line is past down through the mother. If you can clarify for me, I would greatly appreciate it.
sok</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah, the jews were looking for a way around that whole 'sins of the father passed on to his son's son's son.'
------------------
·•Kuurg•·
<B>Anyone Jewish? I heard that the family line is past down through the mother. If you can clarify for me, I would greatly appreciate it.
sok</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah, the jews were looking for a way around that whole 'sins of the father passed on to his son's son's son.'
------------------
·•Kuurg•·
Cherzra is an intolerant prig. He's proven time and again that he's incapable of rational debate. His arguments consist primarily of personal flames. I believe he might be found to contain large amounts of human feces.
Elseenas has a big butt. Physicists and mathematicans are more likely to have large butts than any other scientists.
Kuurg is the very model of a modern Major-General,
He's information vegetable, animal, and mineral,
He knows the kings of England, and he quotes the fights historical from Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical;
He's very well acquainted, too, with matters mathematical,
He understands equations, both the simple and quadratical,
About binomial theorem he's teeming with a lot o' news,
With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse.
Kuurg - who apologizes for shamelessly adapting from The Pirates of Penzance.
This post accomplishes no good, so I thought this would be the correct thread to post in.
And so that I remain somewhere in the realm of 'on topic' - I'm an agnostic with down-right atheistic tendencies who, after reading Dark Dungeons, have quit the mud.
------------------
·•Kuurg•·
Elseenas has a big butt. Physicists and mathematicans are more likely to have large butts than any other scientists.
Kuurg is the very model of a modern Major-General,
He's information vegetable, animal, and mineral,
He knows the kings of England, and he quotes the fights historical from Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical;
He's very well acquainted, too, with matters mathematical,
He understands equations, both the simple and quadratical,
About binomial theorem he's teeming with a lot o' news,
With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse.
Kuurg - who apologizes for shamelessly adapting from The Pirates of Penzance.
This post accomplishes no good, so I thought this would be the correct thread to post in.
And so that I remain somewhere in the realm of 'on topic' - I'm an agnostic with down-right atheistic tendencies who, after reading Dark Dungeons, have quit the mud.
------------------
·•Kuurg•·
-
omrec
- Sojourner
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Santa Monica, CA, USA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by combatmedic:
The purpose of 99% of all these religions out here is to do what? Live a good life? No, i don't think so, it is to live a good "after life", to get into heaven so to speak.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The purpose of religion isn't to live a good after life, or to live a good life. The purpose of religion is:
a) Tell people what they want to hear.
b) Charge for it.
Religion is the greatest pyramid scheme ever created.
Look at how many different religions there are out there, and you'll see how almost no matter what you believe, there is someone willing to tell you you're right, if you'll just pay them enough. If they get to you young enough, they'll also make you go out and get other people to join your cult, and make them more money.
It constantly amazes me how many people are willing to live their lives with the knowledge that they have been brainwashed into believing, and who don't really mind. But to each her own, I suppose.
I believe in the following:
1) If there is a god, we have no idea what his true nature is, so we might as well make up whatever we want. Which of course is what we do.
2) If there is an afterlife, we have no possible way of knowing what it is, so (again) we might as well make up whatever we want.
3) If any single creed is right, then the majority of people are wrong, and aren't going to heaven with everyone else...so the parties will all be wherever everyone else ends up.
4) I therefore can believe in whatever I want, because it makes me happy, and no other reason is necessary.
What does this mean? This means that whatever you tell me about God, I can tell you something different, and you have no possible way of proving me wrong. It also means that if you are wanting to join a religion, your best bet is to join the one with the worst hell, cause then at least if that one is right, you'll be ok.
I love the human brain, and I love the wondrous intelligence it is capable of, but the fact that 90-some-odd percent of people STILL believe in some sort of God is sickening. Then again, some people believe in astrology, or ESP, so there is no accounting for human stupidity.
Realize this: If you believe in God, you are either a) brainwashed, b) weak-willed, c) scared, or d) all of the above. Of course, you most likely don't realize you are brainwashed, thats the beauty of it.
I fully admit that I am a hypocrit. Do you?
-Om
P.S. L. Ron Hubbard once said the best way to get rich was to start a religion.
P.P.S My official religious bent is atheist-agnostic-taoist-jewish-pagan. Oh, and if you think agnosticism is merely a stepping point between atheism and theism, go look up the root of the word.
The purpose of 99% of all these religions out here is to do what? Live a good life? No, i don't think so, it is to live a good "after life", to get into heaven so to speak.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The purpose of religion isn't to live a good after life, or to live a good life. The purpose of religion is:
a) Tell people what they want to hear.
b) Charge for it.
Religion is the greatest pyramid scheme ever created.
Look at how many different religions there are out there, and you'll see how almost no matter what you believe, there is someone willing to tell you you're right, if you'll just pay them enough. If they get to you young enough, they'll also make you go out and get other people to join your cult, and make them more money.
It constantly amazes me how many people are willing to live their lives with the knowledge that they have been brainwashed into believing, and who don't really mind. But to each her own, I suppose.
I believe in the following:
1) If there is a god, we have no idea what his true nature is, so we might as well make up whatever we want. Which of course is what we do.
2) If there is an afterlife, we have no possible way of knowing what it is, so (again) we might as well make up whatever we want.
3) If any single creed is right, then the majority of people are wrong, and aren't going to heaven with everyone else...so the parties will all be wherever everyone else ends up.
4) I therefore can believe in whatever I want, because it makes me happy, and no other reason is necessary.
What does this mean? This means that whatever you tell me about God, I can tell you something different, and you have no possible way of proving me wrong. It also means that if you are wanting to join a religion, your best bet is to join the one with the worst hell, cause then at least if that one is right, you'll be ok.
I love the human brain, and I love the wondrous intelligence it is capable of, but the fact that 90-some-odd percent of people STILL believe in some sort of God is sickening. Then again, some people believe in astrology, or ESP, so there is no accounting for human stupidity.
Realize this: If you believe in God, you are either a) brainwashed, b) weak-willed, c) scared, or d) all of the above. Of course, you most likely don't realize you are brainwashed, thats the beauty of it.
I fully admit that I am a hypocrit. Do you?
-Om
P.S. L. Ron Hubbard once said the best way to get rich was to start a religion.
P.P.S My official religious bent is atheist-agnostic-taoist-jewish-pagan. Oh, and if you think agnosticism is merely a stepping point between atheism and theism, go look up the root of the word.
Why we even got on the topic of English with Cherzra (this is mainly for Kifle--who I know is going to bring this one up).
He believed the following statements to be equivilent:
"the two groups of scientists most likely to believe in a deity are [Physicists] and Mathematicians" (I had a typo in there)
"physicists and mathematicians are the most likely people to believe in god"
After several misunderstandings of the type, I came to the conclusion that we just weren't speaking the same language: he was understanding something other than what I was writing.
In other debate forums, this normally happens when the person's principle language is not English. Languages differ in more than simple meaning, but in connotations and implications. Homonyms and such also are not the same between different languages but are often taken to be by non-native speakers.
Thus the question: not an accusation that he did not speak English (he obviously does) but a question as to whether it was his first language.
Jegzed:
This is more like a Jew blowing off the hilt at everyone who claims to follow a political system because the Nazi German Socialist Workers Party persecuted them in WWII.
omrec:
In my religion it is a practice not to charge lessons for membership. A school that I am a student of charges $10 per year OR $30 for a lifetime membership to cover the cost of keeping the website up and running.
sok:
I am more than happy to continue the conversation with you. My comments also weren't directed at you, I know you can read
------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
[This message has been edited by Elseenas (edited 03-08-2002).]
He believed the following statements to be equivilent:
"the two groups of scientists most likely to believe in a deity are [Physicists] and Mathematicians" (I had a typo in there)
"physicists and mathematicians are the most likely people to believe in god"
After several misunderstandings of the type, I came to the conclusion that we just weren't speaking the same language: he was understanding something other than what I was writing.
In other debate forums, this normally happens when the person's principle language is not English. Languages differ in more than simple meaning, but in connotations and implications. Homonyms and such also are not the same between different languages but are often taken to be by non-native speakers.
Thus the question: not an accusation that he did not speak English (he obviously does) but a question as to whether it was his first language.
Jegzed:
This is more like a Jew blowing off the hilt at everyone who claims to follow a political system because the Nazi German Socialist Workers Party persecuted them in WWII.
omrec:
In my religion it is a practice not to charge lessons for membership. A school that I am a student of charges $10 per year OR $30 for a lifetime membership to cover the cost of keeping the website up and running.
sok:
I am more than happy to continue the conversation with you. My comments also weren't directed at you, I know you can read
------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
[This message has been edited by Elseenas (edited 03-08-2002).]
This is all very amusing to me, so I'm going to play devil's advocate now. All you damned agnostics, you fence-sitters, make up your mind! There is no rational explanation for agnosticism. You must be atheist, or theist. There can be no in between. The only way that agnosticism could be an acceptable belief is if there were an exactly equal amount of evidence both for and against the existence of God. Since the balance of evidence is both unequal and highly questionable on either side, agnosticism is not an option. Agnosticism is for the mentally lazy. Are you bisexual too? (k, now I'm just being a bastard, but having fun with it!)
Seriously though, read "The Presumption of Atheism" by Michael Scriven from Primary Philosophy. You agnostics need some direction in your lives! =)
Seriously though, read "The Presumption of Atheism" by Michael Scriven from Primary Philosophy. You agnostics need some direction in your lives! =)
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Kuurg:
Cherzra is an intolerant prig. He's proven time and again that he's incapable of rational debate. His arguments consist primarily of personal flames. I believe he might be found to contain large amounts of human feces.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'll keep this one short then: Fuck you asshole. You worthless, cess-ridden piece of filth. Someone should do humanity a favor and put you down like a dog the next time you go out on the street.
You're just another idiot that gets on my back every other thread, making use of this one to get a little cheap shot in because I probably didn't give you something during a split. If you had more than two dozen brain cells, you would see that it was Elseenas who started with the condescending bullshit - but of course you are too blind to see, and it's so much easier to take a shot at someone who you already hate. You piece of shit.
Cherzra is an intolerant prig. He's proven time and again that he's incapable of rational debate. His arguments consist primarily of personal flames. I believe he might be found to contain large amounts of human feces.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'll keep this one short then: Fuck you asshole. You worthless, cess-ridden piece of filth. Someone should do humanity a favor and put you down like a dog the next time you go out on the street.
You're just another idiot that gets on my back every other thread, making use of this one to get a little cheap shot in because I probably didn't give you something during a split. If you had more than two dozen brain cells, you would see that it was Elseenas who started with the condescending bullshit - but of course you are too blind to see, and it's so much easier to take a shot at someone who you already hate. You piece of shit.
I had considered trying to write something semi-intelligent here, but I'll skip that.
ALL HAIL ERIS! ALL HAIL DISCORDIA!
Damn you, eat not that hot dog bun!
Yayaril, I think this is one hell of a golden apple you've rolled in here. Snicker.
Anyway. Evil is Evil. Man will do Evil in the name of whatever suits his purpose. Lives have been sacrificed / lost in the name of 'Land', 'Religion', 'English Football Teams', 'Love', etc ad infinitum.
Is Fire evil? Uh, no. But the person who sets you on fire with it might be. And conversely, the person who warms your freezing body with it probably could be considered good. It is up to us to see past that person's skin, beliefs, creed, ethos, sexual preference, music tastes, shoe size, etc. People are people (so why should it beee, you and I..)err whups.
Nothing is absolute. Both evil and good have been done in the name of religion. Both evil and good have been done in the name of just about every conceivable concept / notion / ideal. Look for the good in the bad and the bad in the good.
Anyway, its too late to continue this. And I even said I wouldn't try and make a point. Sigh, making a liar out of myself.
A couple quotes / thoughts to end with:
"Faith: Thoroughly questioning your belifs and finding that you still believe them"
-Definintion of Faith from High school Philosophy class!
"Whatever floats your boat, and doesn't sink mine!" - Me
"Be nice to other people. They out number you 5 billion to one" -Malcalypse the Younger, Principia Discordia
"Remember. Grasshopper always wrong when in argument with chicken!" -Principia Discordia
-Lost
ALL HAIL ERIS! ALL HAIL DISCORDIA!
Damn you, eat not that hot dog bun!
Yayaril, I think this is one hell of a golden apple you've rolled in here. Snicker.
Anyway. Evil is Evil. Man will do Evil in the name of whatever suits his purpose. Lives have been sacrificed / lost in the name of 'Land', 'Religion', 'English Football Teams', 'Love', etc ad infinitum.
Is Fire evil? Uh, no. But the person who sets you on fire with it might be. And conversely, the person who warms your freezing body with it probably could be considered good. It is up to us to see past that person's skin, beliefs, creed, ethos, sexual preference, music tastes, shoe size, etc. People are people (so why should it beee, you and I..)err whups.
Nothing is absolute. Both evil and good have been done in the name of religion. Both evil and good have been done in the name of just about every conceivable concept / notion / ideal. Look for the good in the bad and the bad in the good.
Anyway, its too late to continue this. And I even said I wouldn't try and make a point. Sigh, making a liar out of myself.
A couple quotes / thoughts to end with:
"Faith: Thoroughly questioning your belifs and finding that you still believe them"
-Definintion of Faith from High school Philosophy class!
"Whatever floats your boat, and doesn't sink mine!" - Me
"Be nice to other people. They out number you 5 billion to one" -Malcalypse the Younger, Principia Discordia
"Remember. Grasshopper always wrong when in argument with chicken!" -Principia Discordia
-Lost
Hey Om. . .just read your post. . . was wondering why it is the stance of most (of those I've met anyway) Atheists that people who believe in a God are weak willed or scared ? Not really arguing from any personal point of view, but it kind of strikes me as odd, because there are quite a few instances where I see religion taking more willpower to follow / adhere to than a life without any religion. Also, I've seen alot of fearless people blow themselves up. What do you think religious people are scared of ? Death? surely not.
Im sorry to target you on this. I'm just curious where these beliefs of yours come from. Surely, alot of devout relgious people are sheep, like you say. . .but I find it silly to think that _all_ of them are. Just as alot of Athiests could be labeled as being 'closed minded' 'hedonists' etc, whatever (I've never labeled them before, so those are off the top of my head =)
I just cringe when people make sweeping declarations. Cuz time, circumstance, coincidence, happenstance, and blue cheese will eventually prove you wrong.
Again, shame on you all for making me post!
Lost
Im sorry to target you on this. I'm just curious where these beliefs of yours come from. Surely, alot of devout relgious people are sheep, like you say. . .but I find it silly to think that _all_ of them are. Just as alot of Athiests could be labeled as being 'closed minded' 'hedonists' etc, whatever (I've never labeled them before, so those are off the top of my head =)
I just cringe when people make sweeping declarations. Cuz time, circumstance, coincidence, happenstance, and blue cheese will eventually prove you wrong.
Again, shame on you all for making me post!
Lost
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Zellin:
<B>This is all very amusing to me, so I'm going to play devil's advocate now. All you damned agnostics, you fence-sitters, make up your mind! There is no rational explanation for agnosticism. You must be atheist, or theist. There can be no in between. The only way that agnosticism could be an acceptable belief is if there were an exactly equal amount of evidence both for and against the existence of God. Since the balance of evidence is both unequal and highly questionable on either side, agnosticism is not an option. Agnosticism is for the mentally lazy. Are you bisexual too? (k, now I'm just being a bastard, but having fun with it!)
Seriously though, read "The Presumption of Atheism" by Michael Scriven from Primary Philosophy. You agnostics need some direction in your lives! =)</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agnosticism isn't being undecided; it's believing there is a God, but that there is no way to know what he is or what he wants of us. In other words, I'm pretty damn sure that something had to direct the creation of the universe, but no religion has any merit whatsoever. Actually, I used to believe in a God that understood different peoples' need for different beliefs and would accept anyone who followed their own belief system correctly. At this point in my life, however, I'm beginning to think that God just doesn't give a shit. It's like we're some sort of TV show he's watching to amuse himself, but he isn't participating in the least.
Cherzra: Wow, way to disprove his point.
Waelos: There's lots of reasons people turn to religion, few of which have anything to do with logic. It's comforting to think that when someone close to you dies they have gone to heaven, or been reincarnated as a higher caste member or something. Not to mention how terrifying it is to just believe that you will cease to exist. I tried to imagine that once, and it scared the hell out of me. Much, much easier to believe in a soul and a caring God that will take care of you when you die.
There's also the fact that it provides simple, easy answers to people. Thousands of philosophers have tried to figure out what the meaning of life is, but the Bible explains it perfectly in a few hundred pages so people don't have to think about it. Plus, they don't even need to read the damn thing since priests will tell them the meaning within it. It's true that some religious people are smart, and do their own thinking. However, I doubt they chose to be religious in their adult life; they probably were just raised to be religious and so they are. (Another reason we see religious people as being sheep-like, they just stick with the way they were raised instead of questioning the values they were taught and trying to come up with better/more appropriate ones.)
------------------
Every problem in the universe can be solved by finding the right long-haired prettyboy and beating the crap out of him.
<B>This is all very amusing to me, so I'm going to play devil's advocate now. All you damned agnostics, you fence-sitters, make up your mind! There is no rational explanation for agnosticism. You must be atheist, or theist. There can be no in between. The only way that agnosticism could be an acceptable belief is if there were an exactly equal amount of evidence both for and against the existence of God. Since the balance of evidence is both unequal and highly questionable on either side, agnosticism is not an option. Agnosticism is for the mentally lazy. Are you bisexual too? (k, now I'm just being a bastard, but having fun with it!)
Seriously though, read "The Presumption of Atheism" by Michael Scriven from Primary Philosophy. You agnostics need some direction in your lives! =)</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agnosticism isn't being undecided; it's believing there is a God, but that there is no way to know what he is or what he wants of us. In other words, I'm pretty damn sure that something had to direct the creation of the universe, but no religion has any merit whatsoever. Actually, I used to believe in a God that understood different peoples' need for different beliefs and would accept anyone who followed their own belief system correctly. At this point in my life, however, I'm beginning to think that God just doesn't give a shit. It's like we're some sort of TV show he's watching to amuse himself, but he isn't participating in the least.
Cherzra: Wow, way to disprove his point.
Waelos: There's lots of reasons people turn to religion, few of which have anything to do with logic. It's comforting to think that when someone close to you dies they have gone to heaven, or been reincarnated as a higher caste member or something. Not to mention how terrifying it is to just believe that you will cease to exist. I tried to imagine that once, and it scared the hell out of me. Much, much easier to believe in a soul and a caring God that will take care of you when you die.
There's also the fact that it provides simple, easy answers to people. Thousands of philosophers have tried to figure out what the meaning of life is, but the Bible explains it perfectly in a few hundred pages so people don't have to think about it. Plus, they don't even need to read the damn thing since priests will tell them the meaning within it.
It's true that some religious people are smart, and do their own thinking. However, I doubt they chose to be religious in their adult life; they probably were just raised to be religious and so they are. (Another reason we see religious people as being sheep-like, they just stick with the way they were raised instead of questioning the values they were taught and trying to come up with better/more appropriate ones.)------------------
Every problem in the universe can be solved by finding the right long-haired prettyboy and beating the crap out of him.
I consider myself to be agnostic (lower case "a" intentional), but I do not consider myself to be a "fence sitter." I simply do not believe that the human mind is capable of comprehending God at this point in our evolution. There are hundreds of thousands of religious sets out there, thousands and thousands of different interpretations of scriptures of the Bible alone. I do not believe that any faith, any religion, as long as they work toward the betterment of human society as a whole, is wrong. I somewhat believe in reincarnation, where the human psyche, spirit or soul perhaps, goes through an evolution to achieve a state where they can finally step into a greater awareness and consciousness, and perhaps at that point they are able to move on. I somewhat don't believe in it, but I do know that I can neither prove or disprove it, so I will not say without doubt that it cannot possibly be true.
I believe that the Bible is holy scripture... of a sort. Do you remember when you were a little kid and your mom or dad would come in and tell you bedtime stories? Perhaps your earliest recollections are of "The Three Little Pigs" or "Little Red Riding Hood" in their most basic of forms. As you grew older, your parents would choose more and more sophisticated stories to tell or read to you. When my children were seven and eight I was reading the "Chronicles of Narnia" to them, and that's a far cry from "One Fish, Two Fish."
I see the Bible in much the same light as children's stories. When the human species first developed, the greater power was explained in what they could comprehend, stories relating to forces of nature, and thus the first gods were born, of thunder and lightning and wind. As man has evolved, the story has become more complex, and perhaps the Bible is part of that story, but not the complete story, because we are not ready for that yet. I think we're up to "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves." Not the most sophisticated of stories, but not the most simple, either. If there is a greater power, it will reveal itself to us in ways which we can understand, but no more. I could read a mathematical treatise to my child at bedtime, and they probably wouldn't understand it at all... sure, they might get something out of it, and if I continued to read like that to my children, eventually they would grasp the concepts, but what they would be missing are the fundamental values instilled by the stories like 'The Three Little Pigs." A mathematical treatise does not tell a young mind to stay away from bad guys, or to tell the truth, or to be good to each other and good things will happen to you.
The New Testament shows that only through baptism in the name of Jesus can we wash away our sins and become one with God. What year was it that missionaries took that message to the continents of North and South America? What year was it when that message became available to every living person on this planet? I can not, for a single minute, comprehend that there could be a god who would make the demand of baptism, for which the consequences of failure would be to be condemned to hellfire for all eternity, but not bother to let all souls born on this earth know about it. Technically that kind of god allowed billions of billions of souls go to hell, and if you think about it, that god is all knowing, all powerful, that god knows the past, present and future, and that god knew how many souls would be condemned to hell when the baptism law was written, before those souls even had a chance to find out what the law was.
Now there's a quandary to ponder. Free will or no? If God is all powerful, all knowing, all seeing, then God knows the past present and future, yes? So if the Bible is correct, God created the world and man, then created woman to accompany man. When God first started creating the world, He knew that He would be creating man and woman, and He knew that Eve would be making the choice to eat the apple. God knew Eve would eat the apple, and knew exactly how many souls would be condemned to hell for all eternity between the apple eating and judgement day. Every soul that is born onto this earth, God knows the choices it will make in its life, and God knew when He created Eve that I would be writing this post now. Everybody I've ever argued this topic with can only seem to parrot the words "But you choose the paths you take." If God knew the paths I would take before I was even born, how is that a choice? If God knew every single step I would take, and the reasons I would take them, if God knew I was flawed and doomed to spend an eternity in hell before I was even born, why would a good and caring father commit me to such a path? How could a good and caring father doom millions and millions of tribal inhabitants to hell simply because no missionary had yet carried them the word of baptism?
I don't think we have the final word. There's more out there, we're just not ready for it yet.
I believe that the Bible is holy scripture... of a sort. Do you remember when you were a little kid and your mom or dad would come in and tell you bedtime stories? Perhaps your earliest recollections are of "The Three Little Pigs" or "Little Red Riding Hood" in their most basic of forms. As you grew older, your parents would choose more and more sophisticated stories to tell or read to you. When my children were seven and eight I was reading the "Chronicles of Narnia" to them, and that's a far cry from "One Fish, Two Fish."
I see the Bible in much the same light as children's stories. When the human species first developed, the greater power was explained in what they could comprehend, stories relating to forces of nature, and thus the first gods were born, of thunder and lightning and wind. As man has evolved, the story has become more complex, and perhaps the Bible is part of that story, but not the complete story, because we are not ready for that yet. I think we're up to "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves." Not the most sophisticated of stories, but not the most simple, either. If there is a greater power, it will reveal itself to us in ways which we can understand, but no more. I could read a mathematical treatise to my child at bedtime, and they probably wouldn't understand it at all... sure, they might get something out of it, and if I continued to read like that to my children, eventually they would grasp the concepts, but what they would be missing are the fundamental values instilled by the stories like 'The Three Little Pigs." A mathematical treatise does not tell a young mind to stay away from bad guys, or to tell the truth, or to be good to each other and good things will happen to you.
The New Testament shows that only through baptism in the name of Jesus can we wash away our sins and become one with God. What year was it that missionaries took that message to the continents of North and South America? What year was it when that message became available to every living person on this planet? I can not, for a single minute, comprehend that there could be a god who would make the demand of baptism, for which the consequences of failure would be to be condemned to hellfire for all eternity, but not bother to let all souls born on this earth know about it. Technically that kind of god allowed billions of billions of souls go to hell, and if you think about it, that god is all knowing, all powerful, that god knows the past, present and future, and that god knew how many souls would be condemned to hell when the baptism law was written, before those souls even had a chance to find out what the law was.
Now there's a quandary to ponder. Free will or no? If God is all powerful, all knowing, all seeing, then God knows the past present and future, yes? So if the Bible is correct, God created the world and man, then created woman to accompany man. When God first started creating the world, He knew that He would be creating man and woman, and He knew that Eve would be making the choice to eat the apple. God knew Eve would eat the apple, and knew exactly how many souls would be condemned to hell for all eternity between the apple eating and judgement day. Every soul that is born onto this earth, God knows the choices it will make in its life, and God knew when He created Eve that I would be writing this post now. Everybody I've ever argued this topic with can only seem to parrot the words "But you choose the paths you take." If God knew the paths I would take before I was even born, how is that a choice? If God knew every single step I would take, and the reasons I would take them, if God knew I was flawed and doomed to spend an eternity in hell before I was even born, why would a good and caring father commit me to such a path? How could a good and caring father doom millions and millions of tribal inhabitants to hell simply because no missionary had yet carried them the word of baptism?
I don't think we have the final word. There's more out there, we're just not ready for it yet.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by cherzra:
<B> I'll keep this one short then: Fuck you asshole. You worthless, cess-ridden piece of filth. Someone should do humanity a favor and put you down like a dog the next time you go out on the street.
You're just another idiot that gets on my back every other thread, making use of this one to get a little cheap shot in because I probably didn't give you something during a split. If you had more than two dozen brain cells, you would see that it was Elseenas who started with the condescending bullshit - but of course you are too blind to see, and it's so much easier to take a shot at someone who you already hate. You piece of shit.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, Cherzra, I think you're great...in the mud. I really haven't been zoning in ages, haven't been in a group you led for even longer, but when I was, I'm pretty sure I made out well.
On the BBS, it's quite a different story.
At first I thought your posts might just be impassioned - and honestly, in the America thread, you started by making valid points. They quickly, however, devolve into posts like the above. Now, while I'm citing the above as an example, I'm fully aware of the fact that, at least in this instance, saying you were full of shit acted as a catalyst. Still, if one were to read your posts in this thread, they'd find more of the same.
I disagree with Elseenas, but can respect that she's put thought into her posts.
What disgusts me is that you have been championing the ideas that I share, but in such a manner as to make you look like a knee-jerk reactionist who's zealous anti-religion rhetoric is regurgitated from some websites that demonize all religions.
Use the brain that we've seen that you have.
------------------
·•Kuurg•·
<B> I'll keep this one short then: Fuck you asshole. You worthless, cess-ridden piece of filth. Someone should do humanity a favor and put you down like a dog the next time you go out on the street.
You're just another idiot that gets on my back every other thread, making use of this one to get a little cheap shot in because I probably didn't give you something during a split. If you had more than two dozen brain cells, you would see that it was Elseenas who started with the condescending bullshit - but of course you are too blind to see, and it's so much easier to take a shot at someone who you already hate. You piece of shit.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, Cherzra, I think you're great...in the mud. I really haven't been zoning in ages, haven't been in a group you led for even longer, but when I was, I'm pretty sure I made out well.
On the BBS, it's quite a different story.
At first I thought your posts might just be impassioned - and honestly, in the America thread, you started by making valid points. They quickly, however, devolve into posts like the above. Now, while I'm citing the above as an example, I'm fully aware of the fact that, at least in this instance, saying you were full of shit acted as a catalyst. Still, if one were to read your posts in this thread, they'd find more of the same.
I disagree with Elseenas, but can respect that she's put thought into her posts.
What disgusts me is that you have been championing the ideas that I share, but in such a manner as to make you look like a knee-jerk reactionist who's zealous anti-religion rhetoric is regurgitated from some websites that demonize all religions.
Use the brain that we've seen that you have.
------------------
·•Kuurg•·
Well we need several more posts to match the "America and the rest of the world" thread but this is definitely getting up there All we lack is an "Abortion" thread :P Religion, Politics, Abortion - three hottest topics always. Why? Because they all affect weighty issues that nag at personal safety and moral heartstrings. The popularity of these threads show that we all want to be agreed with or disputed because we care Otherwise, why speak up? Apathy, an empty thread, would be worst case scenario in my opinion. Seek, struggle, and find - cuz ignorance may not be blissful in the long wrong. Same with Politics. I _really_ should get out to those polling booths more often! :P~ *guilty*
~Cailet Sedai
ps. Jegz: check out http://www.rockinauburn.com/columns/geneology.html
All we lack is an "Abortion" thread :P Religion, Politics, Abortion - three hottest topics always. Why? Because they all affect weighty issues that nag at personal safety and moral heartstrings. The popularity of these threads show that we all want to be agreed with or disputed because we care Otherwise, why speak up? Apathy, an empty thread, would be worst case scenario in my opinion. Seek, struggle, and find - cuz ignorance may not be blissful in the long wrong. Same with Politics. I _really_ should get out to those polling booths more often! :P~ *guilty*~Cailet Sedai
ps. Jegz: check out http://www.rockinauburn.com/columns/geneology.html
-
omrec
- Sojourner
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Santa Monica, CA, USA
- Contact:
I just knew if I made a couple sweeping statements I could get people responding..
Els: I didn't make my statement about _your_ religion, I made it as a statement about religions in general. If you believe that all religions are run by volunteers, then there wouldn't be any priests, because they couldn't afford it. In fact, the majority of religions encourage people to commit funds to the religion, funds which I believe would be better spent on education, health care, and in numerous other ways that help people. Assume 100 people go to a church, for an hour a week. That is 5200 hours a year, multiply it by your average salary of 10 bucks an hour, and that is 52 thousand dollars that could have been used to help people in real, practical ways.
Of course, you may well consider religions to help people in ways they can't get otherwise, and to be cheaper than a psychologist. If this is the case, we should do studies to see how much it affects their lives, and derive the best possible relligion(s) to help them out. Of course, natural selection would say that the best possible religions select themselves, since people gravitate to them. But we should at least realize that we are joining a club to make us happy, and there isn't anything REAL beneath the surface.
Zellin: I asked that you look up the root of the word agnostic, but I guess I'll just have to summarize it for you. An agnostic says that it is impossible to know something without sufficient proof. You can be agnostic about a lot of things, but it is commonly used to relate to a personal deity. This is why I can be both agnostic AND atheist: I believe we cannot KNOW if there is a god or not, I also choose to not believe in a god.
Being an agnostic is a broad statment about being commited to rationality. Being an atheist relates soley to the fact that there is no evidence for a God, and therefore most likely does not exist.
Waelos: I stated three options. 1) Brainwashed. 2) Weak-willed. 3) Scared. I didn't claim "that people who believe in a God are weak willed or scared", I claimed they are either that, or brainwashed. Important distinction. Anyone who grew up an atheist, and turned to religion later in life, is doing it because of reasons 2 or 3, but MOST people are doing it because of reason 1. I also don't claim all are like that, just the vast majority. There are always exceptions.
I also make the claim that the same mechanisms that allow for religion also allowed for the nazi party, slavery, and the subjugation of women. The last remaining thing we have to get rid of is religion, hopefully we'll remove it sometime over the next couple centuries.
Sarvis: Right on.
Ashiwi: Also right on. The only true way to look at religion is to realize we know nothing about it. Of course, we can also take that attitude towards UFOs, or the Loch Ness monster, or the Easter Bunny. Point is, if we don't know something, we have to conclude, for the time being, that it doesn't exist, no matter how much we would like it to. I totally agree that religious texts, even if they had a small window onto some aspect of the truth, are definitely like children's books. Of course, I disagree at what the real book is like, since I believe God = Santa Claus: A pleasant myth for kids, but not really required when you grow up. And in this case, Humanity as a whole is the child, and needs to grow up.
To maintain our intellectual freedom and integrity REQUIRES that we throw away our superstitions and look for evidence without assumptions. If you look at the world without assumptions, and do research into how various aspects of our lives came into being, none of it requires any god.
As Ashiwi said, we don't have the final word. In fact, I am 99.999% certain that we NEVER will have the final word, and it is better that way. We SHOULD go through life not knowing, and realizing we don't know, and dealing with the things we CAN know.
Happy thought for the day:
"Apparently there is nothing that cannot happen today" - Mark Twain
-Om
The Guardian
Els: I didn't make my statement about _your_ religion, I made it as a statement about religions in general. If you believe that all religions are run by volunteers, then there wouldn't be any priests, because they couldn't afford it. In fact, the majority of religions encourage people to commit funds to the religion, funds which I believe would be better spent on education, health care, and in numerous other ways that help people. Assume 100 people go to a church, for an hour a week. That is 5200 hours a year, multiply it by your average salary of 10 bucks an hour, and that is 52 thousand dollars that could have been used to help people in real, practical ways.
Of course, you may well consider religions to help people in ways they can't get otherwise, and to be cheaper than a psychologist. If this is the case, we should do studies to see how much it affects their lives, and derive the best possible relligion(s) to help them out. Of course, natural selection would say that the best possible religions select themselves, since people gravitate to them. But we should at least realize that we are joining a club to make us happy, and there isn't anything REAL beneath the surface.
Zellin: I asked that you look up the root of the word agnostic, but I guess I'll just have to summarize it for you. An agnostic says that it is impossible to know something without sufficient proof. You can be agnostic about a lot of things, but it is commonly used to relate to a personal deity. This is why I can be both agnostic AND atheist: I believe we cannot KNOW if there is a god or not, I also choose to not believe in a god.
Being an agnostic is a broad statment about being commited to rationality. Being an atheist relates soley to the fact that there is no evidence for a God, and therefore most likely does not exist.
Waelos: I stated three options. 1) Brainwashed. 2) Weak-willed. 3) Scared. I didn't claim "that people who believe in a God are weak willed or scared", I claimed they are either that, or brainwashed. Important distinction. Anyone who grew up an atheist, and turned to religion later in life, is doing it because of reasons 2 or 3, but MOST people are doing it because of reason 1. I also don't claim all are like that, just the vast majority. There are always exceptions.
I also make the claim that the same mechanisms that allow for religion also allowed for the nazi party, slavery, and the subjugation of women. The last remaining thing we have to get rid of is religion, hopefully we'll remove it sometime over the next couple centuries.
Sarvis: Right on.
Ashiwi: Also right on. The only true way to look at religion is to realize we know nothing about it. Of course, we can also take that attitude towards UFOs, or the Loch Ness monster, or the Easter Bunny. Point is, if we don't know something, we have to conclude, for the time being, that it doesn't exist, no matter how much we would like it to. I totally agree that religious texts, even if they had a small window onto some aspect of the truth, are definitely like children's books. Of course, I disagree at what the real book is like, since I believe God = Santa Claus: A pleasant myth for kids, but not really required when you grow up. And in this case, Humanity as a whole is the child, and needs to grow up.
To maintain our intellectual freedom and integrity REQUIRES that we throw away our superstitions and look for evidence without assumptions. If you look at the world without assumptions, and do research into how various aspects of our lives came into being, none of it requires any god.
As Ashiwi said, we don't have the final word. In fact, I am 99.999% certain that we NEVER will have the final word, and it is better that way. We SHOULD go through life not knowing, and realizing we don't know, and dealing with the things we CAN know.
Happy thought for the day:
"Apparently there is nothing that cannot happen today" - Mark Twain
-Om
The Guardian
Read my post again, please. You say being agnostic is a commitment to reality? There is very little tangible evidence for the existence of God, and what little there is is questionable. To proportion your beliefs to the evidence, as you are stating, would require that you be an atheist. There simply is not enough evidence for the existence of God to warrant agnosticism.
Can someone clarify something for me?
OK, someone stated that religion does only bad, and not good. Yet, this assumes that it influences people.
Now, if people will be people, that doesn't mean they will necessarily be good without religion. It's objectively possible that the evil will still be evil and the good will still be good (which is what someone suggested.)
That, however, would make religion Neutral, not Bad.
Incidentally... I have yet to see people who were intolerant due to religion, that would not be intolerant otherwise. I -have- seen people who would do evil reconsider on the odd chance that it might lead to their eternal damnation.
In my book, that's decent results.
(sorry if the formatting is funny... reading this on lynx)
OK, someone stated that religion does only bad, and not good. Yet, this assumes that it influences people.
Now, if people will be people, that doesn't mean they will necessarily be good without religion. It's objectively possible that the evil will still be evil and the good will still be good (which is what someone suggested.)
That, however, would make religion Neutral, not Bad.
Incidentally... I have yet to see people who were intolerant due to religion, that would not be intolerant otherwise. I -have- seen people who would do evil reconsider on the odd chance that it might lead to their eternal damnation.
In my book, that's decent results.
(sorry if the formatting is funny... reading this on lynx)
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by omrec:
<B>Point is, if we don't know something, we have to conclude, for the time being, that it doesn't exist, no matter how much we would like it to. -Om
The Guardian</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry, just had to make a note on this. You do realize that if everybody through history had taken this tactic, there's a lot that exists as commonplace today which wouldn't have? People had ideas, backed them up with faith, and in some cases whole new worlds of science were opened.
<B>Point is, if we don't know something, we have to conclude, for the time being, that it doesn't exist, no matter how much we would like it to. -Om
The Guardian</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry, just had to make a note on this. You do realize that if everybody through history had taken this tactic, there's a lot that exists as commonplace today which wouldn't have? People had ideas, backed them up with faith, and in some cases whole new worlds of science were opened.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by feldorec:
<B>
Lynx r00lz!!
heh..</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Lynx 0wns m3h! Oh wait, G-d 0wns us all...
I'm surprised noone espoused the approach seen in that movie from 2 years ago with the dorky guy and the she-devil.
<B>
Lynx r00lz!!
heh..</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Lynx 0wns m3h! Oh wait, G-d 0wns us all...
I'm surprised noone espoused the approach seen in that movie from 2 years ago with the dorky guy and the she-devil.
Return to “S3 General Discussion Archive”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests