TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- What happens when you die ?
Pages (9): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 »

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 But he hasn't come to the conclusion, he said it's only a hope. There's a big difference between believing and hoping. Oh, yes, the thing about neurons is wrong. Neurons without oxygen die very quickly, about 6 minutes or so after heart stops, most of them are allready not functional. Some cells live for few weeks after though, as long as they have supplies of nutrients. After that, they suffocate in their own waste. But the brain dies right away. That's why it's impossible to revive a person who's been dead for more than 5 or so minutes. The heart and everything else is still functional, but the brain is not.

untrue..in cases where the person fell into freezing cold water..people have been revived up to 17 minutes later...maybe with a little brain damage..but they have been revived....

and for people who belive in religion just because they need to know something happens after u die....THE LAW OF CONSERVATION...i said it before energy can not be created or destroyed....so the energy of your body lives on and is constantly being recycled. so basically u do live on.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Chrono Appearently neither do you.

Apparently, but not really.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Chrono How can you possibly say "You don't have to believe in Jesus to go to Heaven." Where are you learning this?

From the Magisterium... and they know a hell of a lot more than you do.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Chrono "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him." John 3:36

Absolutely true...

You see, you automatically assumed my argument was wrong because you could open up a Bible and find an apparently contradictory quote.

However, this quote is not contradictory to the fact that you don't have to believe in Jesus to go to Heaven.

Since you're so brilliant, and know all about the issues you're talking about, I'll leave you to figure the above paradox(?) out. But since I'm so nice, I'll give you a hint: Anonymous Christians. Why don't you research the Church's teaching on them, and then come back and tell me I'm wrong?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Chrono You could practice any religion, or none at all, aslong as you are a good person, and end up going to heaven. What you are saying is blasphemy.

Quite true, except the blasphemy part. You see, if you really knew what was going on, you'd have some notion of Christian philosophy, which teaches quite rightly that you don't need religion to be saved. Morality is enough... BUT since religion is not a means to an end of being moral, but rather the opposite, it is beneficial to be religious and not only moral. And I already went over this innate vs. revealed business...

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Chrono You're not wrong? And your perpective is the "real catholic position"? I really wonder how you can say some of these things, and maintain that it is the real Catholic position. That is suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church is blasphemous.

Again, no I'm not.

Do some homework, and then come and try to argue with me.

quote:

Im pretty sure that the book of John was written in the new testement, and I guess the rules to get into heaven changed after Jesus was born!

Yes and no... go read my earlier post addressing the metaphor issue.

quote:

and for people who belive in religion just because they need to know something happens after u die....THE LAW OF CONSERVATION...i said it before energy can not be created or destroyed....so the energy of your body lives on and is constantly being recycled. so basically u do live on.

I really fail to see how this fits into this discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by Floorfiller i think you miss the point of morality here. i can tell you have a notion of what morality is, but i simply don't agree with all of it. first off, morality does not transcend time, but what is thought of as moral is a direct result of the time and culture that one lives in. i know that you are thinking of larger scale morals that people have such a stealing and murder etc, but morality is more then the ten commandments. morals in our society can and do differ from those of other countries.

No no no... you're the one missing the whole point of morality. Anyone that actually knows what morality is, knows that it is absolutely not relative to culture. If you believe morality is relative to culture you are sorely mistaken, because a relative moral law is not a law because the two terms are contradictory. How a law be relative? True, morality is relative in a certain sense that whether an act is right or wrong depends on things like the person's motive and the situation they find themselves in, but most definately not in the sense that you suggest.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter It's also interesting how you equate religious upbrining with moral behavior, when there is no evidence to suggest that any such relationship exists. In fact, given the recently illuminated perversity which has been stirring great controversy regarding the Catholic church, one could make quite a compelling argument that an inverse relationship is apparent (that is, without even referring to the morally devoid relationship between Muslims and Jews, or any of the innumerable historical references that have already been mentioned in this thread).

You know I'm not one to equate religious upbringing with morality, but I find it hard to believe that if someone is brought up in such a religious family, they could be immoral. To me, it just seems like a ridiculous idea... of course there are always exceptions, and we could spend all day arguing back and forth, but I don't think it's really worthwhile.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I don't think the issue is that simple. It's easy to say that a child, when born, is either going to be one to question or not. But it seems far more likely that a child's tendency to question is stronly influenced by his or her upbringing. When a child is raised in a devoutly religious environment, the child is not being encouraged to question things, instead, the child is being encouraged to accept things on faith.

Perhaps, but I think we're venturing into the area of psychology... an area I have absolutely no clue about. You say a child's tendency to question is stronly influenced by his or her upbringing... and I agree. Let's assume a child is being brought up in a devoutly religious environment, and let's also assume that a consequence of this upbringing is that they are not encouraged to question. If this is the case, then I agree with you to the extent that this is negative because part of living must be questioning... wrestling with issues that affect our life. But what about a child brought up in a devoutly atheistic family, who is taught religion is bad, and a consequence of this upbringing is that they do not question. This is also negative, and it seems to be what you are suggesting.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter It becomes a bad thing when parents tell young children things, asserting them as facts, which are of dubious or controversial truth value.

Not all religious families are devout... I think an extremely small percent are, at least nowadays. You have made your case that being devoutly religious and raising a child is a bad thing, and I partially agree with you. But what about the other 99% who aren't devoutly religious? Is a parent teaching their children that they should be good people a bad thing? I certainly hope you don't think so.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Russo quote: and for people who belive in religion just because they need to know something happens after u die....THE LAW OF CONSERVATION...i said it before energy can not be created or destroyed....so the energy of your body lives on and is constantly being recycled. so basically u do live on. I really fail to see how this fits into this discussion.

becuase this thread is originally about what happens when u die....not about ur personal views on religion

what does ur mean?

quote:

I believe we're just a group of molecules. When we die we stop functioning, and there is no soul that carrys on to the afterlife, as a few others pointed out.

That's my belief as well.

quote:

There was no "Big Bang"

The Big Bang is simply a theory that could help explain how the Universe originated. As one of my profs instilled in me "Theories help to explain the world, they are not 'the world'".

quote:

we're just in the right places that's sutiable the sustain life form.

I also agree with this.

quote:

A very good point there. There is a 99.9% chance, well possibly 100%, that there is life form in millions of other places out there.

I agree with you 110%. The sheer size of the universe makes it that statistics favor other life forms existing and being able to evolve in a suitable environment.

Good post a-aplz

Ehhh, I regret not having read every post in this entire topic, but this entire thing seems to be a gross misinterpretation of a convoluted jumble of rhetoric coming either from an age-old book like the bible or the qu'ran to a modern physics textbook, ranging in eloquence from simple banter to very apt argumentative pieces (props to Renegade for that one).

But unfortunately, that's all it is. There are countless countermands and counterproofs for many different areas of knowledge. First of all, if you argue for ancient tantric monotheistic societies, please, for [insert preferred diety in here]'s sake, DO NOT USE THE BIBLE.

If you're planning on proving a point, know your entire topic of interest. If you're arguing religion, use the Bhagavad-Gita or the Shrimad Bhagavatam. Talk about Sanskrit, which even now completely baffles scientists for its scientific nature as a language and 'Oh dear me, Dr. Van Der Tramp! How did ancient troglodytes 6000 years ago manage to produce something so exact and inherently scientifique?!' Talk about how 'myths' from thousands of years ago were found to be true. Hell, they just found a man-made bridge off the coast of India a couple of months back with one of NASA's imaging satellites. This bridge was talked about in an ancient Vaisnav text.

If you're arguing science, quit using the roman church as a scapegoat for your aggressions - it's getting blas�, and you're blaming the theology instead of the intrinsic vice of avarice that is present in every human, which is really at fault in essentially every case of wrongdoing on the part of either clergy or mission. I've been a bit fortunate in seeing things that no museum would ever put on display because it completely subverts the notion of evolutionary principles. But not everyone can accept that for truth unless they've seen that. Also keep in mind that simple thermodynamics disproves evolutionary theory. Also keep in mind that evolutionary theory is sketchy. Yes, there are essential undeniable characteristics to the theory, but try not to use it too much. Rather, use things that have been proven and are known as truth (though nowadays, step through the window of quantum mechanics and things stop making sense completely; truth loses all meaning. Everything from Schrodinger's principles to quantum 'weirdness' manages to at best, put into question, or at worst, contradict, classical physics.) in your arguments. Otherwise it just gets boring. I've been in too many arguments like these, which is why I'm not taking any sides.

However, a lot can be said for science and religion. It seems to be that many past societies were ones that embraced both for their values, and not their vices. I don't know. Maybe i've just studied too much useless crap, which is why now I call everything into question, but also can't deny anything simply outright. But even if we suppose that there is no one deity that rules all of us (also, do a bit of research and you'll notice some interesting similarities between ancient texts ranging from the Gita to the Book Of Allah that talk about the exact same 'god,' and even the same stories. How could societies that were supposedly completely isolated from each other talk of the same events?) then there can be no denial of the use of religion in life. Take religious folk, and you'll see a natural kindness that you won't see too much in those that weren't raised with religious morals. Who would you rather work alongside? Someone whose beliefs center around goodwill to mankind and kindness to all (please don't bring up the childish argument that not all religious peeps are like that - I know), or would you rather work with someone whose parents taught them that there is absolutely nothing wrong with stabbing you in the back to get a better position, to ruin your life for absolutely no reason than to take out their pent up aggressions on someone? I know what I'd rather have, that's for sure.


No, I'm not religious. I'm just one of those people that lived through so much shit that I learned to smell the flowers even when I'm swimming in it. Not too many people realize that when the game is over, the king and the pawn go into the same box - that's one of the biggest troubles that we face. Everyone argues over bullshit and fails to realize that it's just one big puzzle that we're supposed to solve. Don't believe me? How unfortunate...

quote:

Originally posted by mndeg what does ur mean?

UR...as in ur being anal

quote:

should go to church because it helps you spritually, you don't necessarily have to go to church to be a christian. as long as you believe in jesus, that is enough. so no, these people aren't "picking and choosing" out of beliefs, they just might not be as strong as christians that do go to church.

That's kinda weak. Like calling yourself an artist, but saying you don't have to actually perform any art.

I'm thinking that 99% of Christians seem to misunderstand the nature of their own belief system. You're supposed to better yourself. You can't go to your temple or church or synagogue or mosque once a week, confess your sins and repent and promise to be a good boy, thence going back home and engaging in the exact modes of materialistic gratification that encompassed your existence in the previous week until next Sunday comes along. It just doesn't work like that. You can't call yourself Christian if you don't do something to BE Christian. In the hood they'd call you a posah'!


Being religious is like being a hacker. You can't call yourself a hacker through claim of mentality alone. You have to actually have some kind of runic knowledge that you perpetually better and renew to attain a higher level of knowledge. You have to do something to be a real hacker.

And most commonly the hackers that scream out their true hackerdom in earnest, publicly, are always the ones that aren't really the true wizards. Ergo, if you have to tell people about how much of a hacker you are, you're nothing of the sort.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Russo Perhaps, but I think we're venturing into the area of psychology... an area I have absolutely no clue about. You say a child's tendency to question is stronly influenced by his or her upbringing... and I agree. Let's assume a child is being brought up in a devoutly religious environment, and let's also assume that a consequence of this upbringing is that they are not encouraged to question. If this is the case, then I agree with you to the extent that this is negative because part of living must be questioning... wrestling with issues that affect our life. But what about a child brought up in a devoutly atheistic family, who is taught religion is bad, and a consequence of this upbringing is that they do not question. This is also negative, and it seems to be what you are suggesting.

A child brought up being taught that religion is bad is just as bad (if not worse), I totally agree. What I'm suggesting is an upbrining in which parents essentially avoid theological questions until a child has reached a reasonable level of maturity, at which point the parent could explain that there are many different systems of belief in the world, and explain which one they believe, and why.

The problem as I see it is that children at an extremely young age have a strong tendency to believe everything their parents say to be the absolute truth. So, in situations where a parent could be wrong - i.e. political and religious doctrines, the parent would be doing the right thing by allowing their child to mature beyond those formative years before sharing his or her personal beliefs with the child.

quote:

Not all religious families are devout... I think an extremely small percent are, at least nowadays. You have made your case that being devoutly religious and raising a child is a bad thing, and I partially agree with you. But what about the other 99% who aren't devoutly religious? Is a parent teaching their children that they should be good people a bad thing? I certainly hope you don't think so.

It is definitely important that children be taught to be good people. I simply think that this can and ought to be accomplished without tying it to theological questions.

Cheers,

Arbiter

ok.. mayb some of the stuff i mentioned sounds strange and contradicting but this is probably the result of my strong religious upbringing in combination with a recent realisation, that even though religion might be based on some fact, one cannot be blind and simply believe in the one thing that was drilled into them over and over since birth.

quote:

ok but why then does every religious person in here say hope is the point of religion...obviously there has to be some connection. i mean he said that he doesn't necessarily believe in religion in fact called it nonsense, but he still has hope that something totally based on that nonsensical religion is what happens...it just doesn't add up to me.

Let's just say I now see the bigger picture, and even though i am often in a state of dreamy hope, this hope is more and more crushed by the reality which is fast becoming clearer...

Oh and its good to know that the 2 month coma thing has been cleared up

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter A child brought up being taught that religion is bad is just as bad (if not worse), I totally agree. What I'm suggesting is an upbrining in which parents essentially avoid theological questions until a child has reached a reasonable level of maturity, at which point the parent could explain that there are many different systems of belief in the world, and explain which one they believe, and why. The problem as I see it is that children at an extremely young age have a strong tendency to believe everything their parents say to be the absolute truth. So, in situations where a parent could be wrong - i.e. political and religious doctrines, the parent would be doing the right thing by allowing their child to mature beyond those formative years before sharing his or her personal beliefs with the child.

Fair enough... although I don't entirely agree, I don't really object. I was getting the impression that you thought you should teach children that religion is bad thing... but since you are only discouraging religious questions in early childhood there really isn't anything wrong with what you are saying, as long as you teach your children that they have to be good people.

quote:

Originally posted by Abject Silver Ehhh, I regret not having read every post in this entire topic, but this entire thing seems to be a gross misinterpretation of a convoluted jumble of rhetoric coming either from an age-old book like the bible or the qu'ran to a modern physics textbook, ranging in eloquence from simple banter to very apt argumentative pieces (props to Renegade for that one). But unfortunately, that's all it is. There are countless countermands and counterproofs for many different areas of knowledge. First of all, if you argue for ancient tantric monotheistic societies, please, for [insert preferred diety in here]'s sake, DO NOT USE THE BIBLE. If you're planning on proving a point, know your entire topic of interest. If you're arguing religion, use the Bhagavad-Gita or the Shrimad Bhagavatam. Talk about Sanskrit, which even now completely baffles scientists for its scientific nature as a language and 'Oh dear me, Dr. Van Der Tramp! How did ancient troglodytes 6000 years ago manage to produce something so exact and inherently scientifique?!' Talk about how 'myths' from thousands of years ago were found to be true. Hell, they just found a man-made bridge off the coast of India a couple of months back with one of NASA's imaging satellites. This bridge was talked about in an ancient Vaisnav text. If you're arguing science, quit using the roman church as a scapegoat for your aggressions - it's getting blas�, and you're blaming the theology instead of the intrinsic vice of avarice that is present in every human, which is really at fault in essentially every case of wrongdoing on the part of either clergy or mission. I've been a bit fortunate in seeing things that no museum would ever put on display because it completely subverts the notion of evolutionary principles. But not everyone can accept that for truth unless they've seen that. Also keep in mind that simple thermodynamics disproves evolutionary theory. Also keep in mind that evolutionary theory is sketchy. Yes, there are essential undeniable characteristics to the theory, but try not to use it too much. Rather, use things that have been proven and are known as truth (though nowadays, step through the window of quantum mechanics and things stop making sense completely; truth loses all meaning. Everything from Schrodinger's principles to quantum 'weirdness' manages to at best, put into question, or at worst, contradict, classical physics.) in your arguments. Otherwise it just gets boring. I've been in too many arguments like these, which is why I'm not taking any sides. However, a lot can be said for science and religion. It seems to be that many past societies were ones that embraced both for their values, and not their vices. I don't know. Maybe i've just studied too much useless crap, which is why now I call everything into question, but also can't deny anything simply outright. But even if we suppose that there is no one deity that rules all of us (also, do a bit of research and you'll notice some interesting similarities between ancient texts ranging from the Gita to the Book Of Allah that talk about the exact same 'god,' and even the same stories. How could societies that were supposedly completely isolated from each other talk of the same events?) then there can be no denial of the use of religion in life. Take religious folk, and you'll see a natural kindness that you won't see too much in those that weren't raised with religious morals. Who would you rather work alongside? Someone whose beliefs center around goodwill to mankind and kindness to all (please don't bring up the childish argument that not all religious peeps are like that - I know), or would you rather work with someone whose parents taught them that there is absolutely nothing wrong with stabbing you in the back to get a better position, to ruin your life for absolutely no reason than to take out their pent up aggressions on someone? I know what I'd rather have, that's for sure. No, I'm not religious. I'm just one of those people that lived through so much shit that I learned to smell the flowers even when I'm swimming in it. Not too many people realize that when the game is over, the king and the pawn go into the same box - that's one of the biggest troubles that we face. Everyone argues over bullshit and fails to realize that it's just one big puzzle that we're supposed to solve. Don't believe me? How unfortunate...

Very very very nice post... finally one that I agree with entirely. It's impossible to have a discussion when people have no clue about what they're talking about. For example... a) evolution contradicts the Roman Catholic Church's teachings and b) you must believe in Christ to go to Heaven... both are false according to the Catholic Church's teachings and I know this for a fact, yet we've spent a hundred posts arguing because some people can open a Bible and see something they think is contradictory. If you want to argue about Theology, you go to the Magisterium, or you try to argue yourself, philosophically... yet few have done that! Keep in mind I'm only referring to the Roman Catholic Church now, but this argumentative style can also apply to any other major religion. They are very similar anyways... for example, Hinduism is very much like Catholicism I think, the only major differences resulting from their cyclical view of life, as opposed to a Christian's linear view. This gives rise to things like a Hindu's four different goals of life. Catholicism (basically) teaches that their fourth (and third) goals are what we should be striving for, but our linear view of life means that we have to avoid a Hindu's first and second goals entirely because there is no room for error when you only have one life as opposed to many. Of course this is a simplification, but important nonetheless. Also, there is nothing wrong with mixing science and religion... we can talk about Schrodinger's wave equations all day and all the fun stuff photons do, but using science to discount religion is a ludicrous idea. Can science prove or disprove God's existence? No. But is science the only method of proving it? Some say yes, others say no. But at the end of the day, it really is "no" because the scientific method can't prove that it's the only way of proving the existence of God. Remember, people who believe in God should still believe in science...

Ok michael russo,

I'm not going to argue with you about the Christian religion, because obviously you know everything about it.

One thing I must point out is that you are stating your knowledge based on a Catholic perspective. I, on the other hand, am stating my knowledge based on a Baptist perspective (which is surprisingly similar to protestant and other divisions).

What you're saying may be accurate in terms of Catholic faith, but it is definately NOT accurate whatsoever in my faith (and other christian faiths).

quote:

You see, if you really knew what was going on, you'd have some notion of Christian philosophy, which teaches quite rightly that you don't need religion to be saved.

So please dont speak like you know everything about the Christian philosophy, when you only know the catholic perspective. Go study the other divisions of christianity, and then come back and talk to me.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Chrono Ok michael russo, I'm not going to argue with you about the Christian religion, because obviously you know everything about it. One thing I must point out is that you are stating your knowledge based on a Catholic perspective. I, on the other hand, am stating my knowledge based on a Baptist perspective (which is surprisingly similar to protestant and other divisions). What you're saying may be accurate in terms of Catholic faith, but it is definately NOT accurate whatsoever in my faith (and other christian faiths). So please dont speak like you know everything about the Christian philosophy, when you only know the catholic perspective. Go study the other divisions of christianity, and then come back and talk to me.

First of all, I stated very clearly in an earlier post that I was talking about the Catholic position. So don't try and argue with me about Catholicism and come crying back with excuses when you realize you are wrong. And I definately do not know that much about it... I, however, restrict my posts to issues I know about to avoid looking like a fool like some of our other members.

And really, I couldn't care less about studying all the other sects of Christianity. Basically, almost all of them are Catholicism with stuff wrongly taken out and other stuff wrongly changed. Catholicism is the true Church and all other Christian Churches are heretical for varying reasons... keep in mind I'm definately not saying you or other members of these other churches are heretics (there is a big difference!).

Anyways, Christian philosophy should be the same for all Christians. Whether it is or isn't I don't know, but I think this little tidbit of information is something you might find interesting: In my Catholic textbook last year, it talked about not needing to believe in Christ to go to Heaven... and lo and behold, this year, in my Christian philosophy book, it talks about the same issue. Isn't this interesting? So maybe what I'm saying is accurate in terms of Catholic faith, and accurate in terms of your faith as well? Maybe you should study your own faith first...

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Russo First of all, I stated very clearly in an earlier post that I was talking about the Catholic position. So don't try and argue with me about Catholicism and come crying back with excuses when you realize you are wrong.

I'm not wrong, I'm simply saying that perhapse the Catholic perspective differs more than I realize with the other divisions of christianity that I am familiar with.

quote:

I couldn't care less about studying all the other sects of Christianity. Basically, almost all of them are Catholicism with stuff wrongly taken out and other stuff wrongly changed. Catholicism is the true Church and all other Christian Churches are heretical for varying reasons...

Is this what they teach you in Catholic school? Propaganda to turn you against other christian sects?

Don't even start saying that, when:

1. Openly admitted you "couldn't care less about studying all the other sects of Christianity." Then what grounds do you have that their are things 'wrongly' taken out and 'wrongly' changed? You didnt study them, how would you know?

2. Catholics 'wrongly' change things themselves. Lets look at some examples.

a) Purgatory. Please enlighten me on where this originated from, because to my knowledge the Catholic church made it up.

b) Praying to Mary. Why would you pray to her? She is a human who died. All prayers should be directed to God (or Jesus beacuse he is one with God), should they not?

c) You can get into heaven without believing in Jesus. You say that in the Catholic religion this is true. I did a little search on yahoo about 'how to go to heaven', and quite a few sites came up. let's take a little peak into what they said:

"To get to Heaven, you cannot work your way. All of the good deeds you have done in your life will not save you from your sins"

"b. Believe "Whoever puts his faith in the Son has eternal life..." (John 3:36a)"

from: Here

"If you do more good things than bad things, God will probably let you into heaven." The above thinking will reserve your place in hell. You need FAITH IN THE BLOOD OF JESUS. There are no good deeds that you can do on your own that will erase the sins that you have committed."

from: Here

"You must accept by faith what Jesus Christ did for you"

from: Here

"How can I be sure that I go to Heaven, and not to Hell, when I die?"
"We must believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ"

from: Here

"Getting to Heaven does not depend on being good or doing good things. In fact, there is nothing you can do to earn a place in Heaven. The only way there is through Jesus Christ."

from: Here

Now. It must be a coincidence that every site I clicked on said the same general message. I didnt sift through the results, only posting the ones that supported my view, I merely clicked on all the relevant sites, and they all said the same thing. And I only took examples from my first page of results, of 727,000.

Could it be possible that all these sites are saying things that are not accurately christian? Maybe they were misinformed about their religion all their lives. And considering you know more than all these people, I guess they're all wrong.

quote:

Anyways, Christian philosophy should be the same for all Christians. Whether it is or isn't I don't know,

They should be, and quite frankly I thought they were the same (despite a few minor things). But according to your description of the Catholic faith, I guess they arnt the same.

quote:

but I think this little tidbit of information is something you might find interesting: In my Catholic textbook last year, it talked about not needing to believe in Christ to go to Heaven... and lo and behold, this year, in my Christian philosophy book, it talks about the same issue. Isn't this interesting?

I see.. and I assume the "christian philosophy" book wasnt written by catholics?

I would recommend that you don't believe everything you read in textbooks.

It's just propaganda, like history textbooks. We rarely ever see the side of the loosers. I come from a german background, and I have heard many stories about the WWs. It's shocking what pieces of information they leave out of our textbooks here.

quote:

So maybe what I'm saying is accurate in terms of Catholic faith, and accurate in terms of your faith as well? Maybe you should study your own faith first...

What you're saying is not accurate in my faith. Just take a look at those quotes and URLs I posted above.

I have studied my faith, but thanks for the recommendation.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Russo I stated very clearly in an earlier post that I was talking about the Catholic position.

Here is your first post Michael,

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Russo Hmm... another religious debate Some comments after skimming through: 1) I don't know what evolution has to do with any of this, but whoever said Christians don't believe in it doesn't know what he's talking about because it doesn't contradict any Church teaching 2) What does entropy have to do with anything? It's funny how some of us bring up science to justify convenient skepticism when, in reality, it has no bearing

I don't see any indication that you were referring to Catholicism in it. Actually, you specifically said 'Christians', not catholics. And just to clarify, evolution IS contradicted by the the Church in many christian faiths (excluding catholicism).

Here is your next post:

quote:

Sorry, but actually you don't. [this is in reference to me saying: I dont know anything about christianity] I will repeat what I said before: evolution does not contradict the Church's teachings. Keep in mind I'm talking the RC Church, not the millions of other heretical ones.

Here you state you're talking about the roman catholic church, but after you claim I don't know anything about Christianity.

dj chrono...u rock!!!!

Guys, you sound irreversibly lame arguing trying to argue when you're on the same side. Get a clue.

First things first. Any variance in Christian sects was because of people's decisions up top. Why did the Orthodox church retire from compliance with Rome? Because of a difference of opinions. I do have a bias in this argument, and a pretty heavy one (but it's kind of hard not to when you know the basis for the separation), so I won't say anything else. Why did the formation of the Lutherians, the Protestans, the Anglicans, the Jesuits, the Evangelicals take place? Because someone at the top disagreed. For crying out loud, the king of England decides that he wants one rule, one church, so he makes his own religion and forces his country to abide. Suddenly they're the ones serving god, not those imbeciles on the other side of the pond.

Oh, wait... They all serve Jesus. NO, one isn't the real Jesus. Yes, he's the DARKSIDE Jesus. Right, right.

In any case, let it go, because a) this isn't even the topic of the forum, and b) you guys sound so incredibly zealotous you remind me of those little old ladies that come to your door and advertise themselves as Jehova's witnesses, and try to pound their beliefs into you with a sledge hammer when you look at them with nothing but pity due to their completely lack of regard and linear thinking. It's like they live inside their own world and while they have Jesus everything's gonna be fine even if they show nothing but disdain and angst towards all others. Sorry guys, there are 6.2 billion others in the world.

Chrono you're cool. More so due to the SC2 body kit on the Tiburon in your avatar. Michael, you're cool. Just because you are.

Start thinking outside the damn box. You won't get to heaven by calling each other heretics. This I promise you.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Chrono Here is your first post Michael, I don't see any indication that you were referring to Catholicism in it.

Fair enough... I was not precise enough in my first post, but I didn't think that would become an issue.

But anyways, I didn't say "first post," I said "earlier post."

quote:

...evolution does not contradict the Church's teachings. Keep in mind I'm talking the RC Church..."

This is the quote I was referring to, and you even responded to it with the quote in your response, so you obviously must have seen it!

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Chrono Is this what they teach you in Catholic school? Propaganda to turn you against other christian sects?

I don't see what you're getting so worked up about... I specifically said members of these Churches are not heretics. If they wanted to turn us against other religious sects they would have drilled into us that all members of non-Catholic Churches were heretics.

And besides, anyone who created a new religion knew they were going to be labelled heretics... don't they teach you your Church's history at least?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Chrono 1. Openly admitted you "couldn't care less about studying all the other sects of Christianity." Then what grounds do you have that their are things 'wrongly' taken out and 'wrongly' changed? You didnt study them, how would you know?

I openly admitted I didn't care, but not that I never studied them, so I don't know why you would assume that.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Chrono 2. Catholics 'wrongly' change things themselves. Lets look at some examples.

Do you think the Catechism of the Catholic Church just dropped out of the sky? The faith has been developed over a period of two thousand years, so obviously the Church has to define things based on different sources, like Tradition and the Bible and philosophy. And as the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" it is free to do that. Keep in mind that the meaning of "catholic" is "universal."

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Chrono a) Purgatory. Please enlighten me on where this originated from, because to my knowledge the Catholic church made it up.

I'm really not sure where it came from... no doubt from a theological development the Church was justified in making.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Chrono b) Praying to Mary. Why would you pray to her? She is a human who died. All prayers should be directed to God (or Jesus beacuse he is one with God), should they not?

First of all, Mary is not an ordinary human. The Immaculate Conception? Ever heard of that? It refers to her conception, not Jesus'. Second of all, we usually don't pray to Mary, we ask for her intercession. Third of all, how can there be something wrong with acknowledging and praying to saints? That's why we have patron saints in the first place.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Chrono c) You can get into heaven without believing in Jesus. You say that in the Catholic religion this is true. I did a little search on yahoo about 'how to go to heaven', and quite a few sites came up. let's take a little peak into what they said: "To get to Heaven, you cannot work your way. All of the good deeds you have done in your life will not save you from your sins" "b. Believe "Whoever puts his faith in the Son has eternal life..." (John 3:36a)" from: Here "If you do more good things than bad things, God will probably let you into heaven." The above thinking will reserve your place in hell. You need FAITH IN THE BLOOD OF JESUS. There are no good deeds that you can do on your own that will erase the sins that you have committed." from: Here "You must accept by faith what Jesus Christ did for you" from: Here "How can I be sure that I go to Heaven, and not to Hell, when I die?" "We must believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ" from: Here "Getting to Heaven does not depend on being good or doing good things. In fact, there is nothing you can do to earn a place in Heaven. The only way there is through Jesus Christ." from: Here Now. It must be a coincidence that every site I clicked on said the same general message. I didnt sift through the results, only posting the ones that supported my view, I merely clicked on all the relevant sites, and they all said the same thing. And I only took examples from my first page of results, of 727,000.

Has the Church changed anything, or was that always the case from the beginning of time?

Of course people are going to tell you to have faith if you want to get to Heaven for a very simple reason: religion is much more that morality. If you truly believe, you will be moved by religion to be a better person. How many people martyred themselves in the name of Christ? Hundreds, thousands? I'm not sure, but many have. Yet how many martyr themselves in the name of morality?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Chrono Could it be possible that all these sites are saying things that are not accurately christian? Maybe they were misinformed about their religion all their lives. And considering you know more than all these people, I guess they're all wrong.

There's nothing really wrong with what they are saying because they want to convert people... and please stop saying I know more than all these people. The only reason I said that was because I was irritated by people who don't take time to think things through (I'm not going to mention any names, but I'm not referring to you).

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Chrono I see.. and I assume the "christian philosophy" book wasnt written by catholics? I would recommend that you don't believe everything you read in textbooks. It's just propaganda, like history textbooks. We rarely ever see the side of the loosers. I come from a german background, and I have heard many stories about the WWs. It's shocking what pieces of information they leave out of our textbooks here.

The book we're using isn't a textbook, but I know what you mean about propaganda. The thing is, I can't bring myself to believe that if a Christian or Catholic book says you don't have to believe in God to go to Heaven, it can possibly be propaganda... propaganda is the exact opposite!

quote:

Originally posted by Abject Silver Guys, you sound irreversibly lame arguing trying to argue when you're on the same side. Get a clue. In any case, let it go, because a) this isn't even the topic of the forum, and b) you guys sound so incredibly zealotous you remind of those little old ladies that come to your door and advertise themselves as Jehova's witnesses, and try to pound their beliefs into you with a sledge hammer when you look at them with nothing but pity due to their completely lack of regard and linear thinking. It's like they live inside their own world and while they have Jesus everything's gonna be fine even if they show nothing but disdain and angst towards all others. Sorry guys, there are 6.2 billion others in the world. Chrono you're cool. More so due to the SC2 body kit on the Tiburon in your avatar. Michael, you're cool. Just because you are. Start thinking outside the damn box. You won't get to heaven by calling each other heretics. This I promise you.

I agree with you. I'm not trying to force my beliefs on anyone, I'm just trying to clarify a few things with Michael here.

Nothing is ever solved when debating about religion, and as you said this isn't the topic of the post.

quote:

Originally posted by Abject Silver Guys, you sound irreversibly lame arguing trying to argue when you're on the same side. Get a clue. First things first. Any variance in Christian sects was because of people's decisions up top. Why did the Orthodox church retire from compliance with Rome? Because of a difference of opinions. I do have a bias in this argument, and a pretty heavy one (but it's kind of hard not to when you know the basis for the separation), so I won't say anything else. Why did the formation of the Lutherians, the Protestans, the Anglicans, the Jesuits, the Evangelicals form? Because someone at the top disagreed. For crying out loud, the king of England decides that he wants one rule, one church, so he makes his own religion and forces his country to abide. Suddenly they're the ones serve god, not those imbeciles on the other side of the pond. Oh, wait... They all serve Jesus. NO, one isn't the real Jesus. Yes, he's the DARKSIDE Jesus. Right, right. In any case, let it go, because a) this isn't even the topic of the forum, and b) you guys sound so incredibly zealotous you remind of those little old ladies that come to your door and advertise themselves as Jehova's witnesses, and try to pound their beliefs into you with a sledge hammer when you look at them with nothing but pity due to their completely lack of regard and linear thinking. It's like they live inside their own world and while they have Jesus everything's gonna be fine even if they show nothing but disdain and angst towards all others. Sorry guys, there are 6.2 billion others in the world. Chrono you're cool. More so due to the SC2 body kit on the Tiburon in your avatar. Michael, you're cool. Just because you are. Start thinking outside the damn box. You won't get to heaven by calling each other heretics. This I promise you.

Lol... but just for the record I never called him a heretic

what on earth does "zealotous" mean?

quote:

what on earth does "zealotous" mean?

Zealot = fanatical partisan, or something like that.

Abject Silver:

quote:

Also keep in mind that simple thermodynamics disproves evolutionary theory.

WTF are you talking about???
Thermodynamics theory disproves evolutionary theory??? Rotfl.
Where the hell did you get that from? You've totally mixed up two things. Please, enlighten me how that is possible. You might get a nobel prize for discovering a new previously unthought of connection between thermodynamics and biology.

quote:

Also keep in mind that evolutionary theory is sketchy. Yes, there are essential undeniable characteristics to the theory, but try not to use it too much. Rather, use things that have been proven and are known as truth

Even the RC church admits that evolution is possible. They admitted Galilleo Galilei was right in 1997 if I'm not mistaken. Church is definitely not a place to search for scientific answers. No theory is 100% sure. Nothing in life is. But evolution theory is so highly probable that it is almost surely correct. To doubt its correctnes is almost like doubting that two apples and two apples equal four apples, because someone could add an apple when you are not looking, and that two apples plus two apples actually equals 3 apples. Might be, but chances are almost impossible.

quote:

(though nowadays, step through the window of quantum mechanics and things stop making sense completely; truth loses all meaning. Everything from Schrodinger's principles to quantum 'weirdness' manages to at best, put into question, or at worst, contradict, classical physics.) in your arguments. Otherwise it just gets boring. I've been in too many arguments like these, which is why I'm not taking any sides.

I don't see why things stop making sense completely? The quantum physics aren't yet a completely discovered area of science, so parts of it may not make sense now, but in the end it certainly will. Besides, classical physics is based on medium scale objects, and QP on very very small ones, the ones CP couldn't examine anyways.

I don't believe in anything but I don't believe in nothing.

I am christian, I believe there is god, but I don't go to chirch, basically because I get bored but also because I think it is meaningless to worship christ and the saints. Anybody can go to church but that does not mean he is a good man, you make who you are with your actions.

Also I think that people who do 'good' things or don't do 'bad' things because they believe in god and fear punishment are hypocrites, you should be fair and just because it is the right thing to do. And I believe that atheists who do 'bad' things because they think that they will never be punished are the worst kind of people and I hope that there is hell so that they can rot in it for all eternity

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Zealot = fanatical partisan, or something like that. Abject Silver: WTF are you talking about??? Thermodynamics theory disproves evolutionary theory??? Rotfl. Where the hell did you get that from? You've totally mixed up two things. Please, enlighten me how that is possible. You might get a nobel prize for discovering a new previously unthought of connection between thermodynamics and biology.

Zdravo

*sigh* Didn't your mother ever teach you that it's impolite to laugh at someone? If you can't detect sarcasm, then perhaps it's my fault for assuming that the internet is a good conductor for dry humor. In any case, there actually were a couple of articles published about this, though they're a bit lackluster at best. http://islamonline.net/english/scie...article04.shtml is one.

quote:

Even the RC church admits that evolution is possible. They admitted Galilleo Galilei was right in 1997 if I'm not mistaken. Church is definitely not a place to search for scientific answers. No theory is 100% sure. Nothing in life is. But evolution theory is so highly probable that it is almost surely correct. To doubt its correctnes is almost like doubting that two apples and two apples equal four apples, because someone could add an apple when you are not looking, and that two apples plus two apples actually equals 3 apples. Might be, but chances are almost impossible.

The Roman Catholic church, the greatest exponent of Christian existence in the world, admitting they're wrong? A reference if you please. Galileo never talked about evolution. Evolution is Darwinian theory. That's much later than Galileo. So what did the church admit he was right about?

And how did Orwellian arithmetic come into play here? I was saying that it's sketchy at best. You're suggesting that it's so incredibly precise that we should follow it with complete and utter surrender and devotion. Right, so how many times did the theory get adjusted over the past hundred years? Pattern recognition would suggest it will continue to do so until it is perfected, and I honestly doubt we've perfected it. And yes, the theory is always right, even when it supported such notions as polar shift (Sarcasm again. Sorry). I never said the theory was completely wrong, I just refuse to believe that it is 100% right. Reread the posts before you reply.

quote:

I don't see why things stop making sense completely? The quantum physics aren't yet a completely discovered area of science, so parts of it may not make sense now, but in the end it certainly will. Besides, classical physics is based on medium scale objects, and QP on very very small ones, the ones CP couldn't examine anyways.

But classical physics isn't a completely discovered area either, now is it? How many times was the value of G changed before it attained its current 6.67x10^-11?

Familiar with the double slit experiment? A single-burst photon is emitted, therefore the results on the screen should be either the projection from one slit, or another. Instead, you have a grating pattern. This make sense to you? I think David Deutsch is the only scientist (works on quantum crypto. Belgium, iirc.) who can understand this stuff even close to logically. Two interpretations exist that explain it. Multiple-worlds, and Schroedinger's. Multiple-worlds interpretation states that when the photon is released, the universe splits into two, and interference between the universes is what causes the grating on the screen. Schroedinger states that all possibilities are existing until one is observed, whence all the other universes are destroyed (this is the cat paradox he is so famous for). And this makes sense? Indeed that quantum physics is what takes care of the miniscule aspects of the universe, but how can you have a qubit that can occupy more states than one, since qubits can be either a 1 or a 0, or both, or neither.

You say that things will make sense eventually. Bad idea to state definite claims for an indefinite future. It seems a bit... ambitious. I see your point, but I'm not quite sure if you saw mine, which is why we have this misunderstanding. I hope everything's clear now.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.