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 blasé, 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...

Last edited by Abject Silver on Jan-02-2003 at 05:47

quote:

Originally posted by mndeg what does ur mean?

UR...as in ur being anal

___________________

pixel8edconcepts.com :: new flash site in the works

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 blasé, 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.

Last edited by DJ Chrono on Jan-03-2003 at 21:50

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.

Last edited by DJ Chrono on Jan-03-2003 at 22:13

dj chrono...u rock!!!!

___________________

pixel8edconcepts.com :: new flash site in the works

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.

Last edited by Abject Silver on Jan-04-2003 at 02:01