Religion

Drist wrote:

Dray The Fingerless wrote:
i love jesus. i hate jesus followers.

Sorry you hate me. D:

i dont hate you personally, i hate the idea that jesus followers have in general.

Has anyone mentioned "Red Shift" yet?

The truth is, you win. I can only stall with realistic things that don't parallel Evolution. But in the end I can't win logically. It comes down to faith. Now lets be friends and get over this.

blind faith is an ironic gift to return to the creator of human intelligence...

i don't use blind faith

i believe in a god because of logic, cells, and the universe

the logic of it is this, a god has to exist because matter cannot create itself, and matter that is could not come about, so the universe can't be the "first",

you may say, then how did god create himself,

well, just like the holocaust, there can really never be an answer to that, because it goes beyond logic, its counter-intuitive

like the fact that objects moving close to the speed of light actually SHRINK IN SIZE, they don't turn oblong.

but when you deal with things such as an OMNIPOTENT being, then there is always the answer of, just because

Look at it this way weigh up your options

Scientists: have chemicals, tools, rockets, supercomputers and made things like electricity and the motorised vehicle

Religion: have a book... yeah...

Daft Punk wrote:Look at it this way weigh up your options

Scientists: have chemicals, tools, rockets, supercomputers and made things like electricity and the motorised vehicle

Religion: have a book... yeah...

didn't speak of a book,

i spoke of logic, such that it demands a god

Logic doesnt even bring into thought a super sentient with omnipotency and omnisicrency. Im sorry but if you do you have are verry vivid imagination or are smoking something. Would you have come to that conclusion if you haden't heard of religion at all? No you would have thought of something a lot more realistic and a lot less drastic.

There is a difference between following a religion and following God. Believing in God is different than believing in a religion. Christians are meant to be "christ like" thats what christian means.Often times christians get caught up in religion and stray away from God and what he really is. Yeah, science has rockets,chemicals and all that stuff but none of that would have existed without God. Thats all I am gonna post in this topic.

oook

here

the law of conservation of mass and energy states that matter cannot be destroyed or created and the same applies to energy

???

how can the universe exist with all that matter and energy without something influencing it??

we will never know because...

i didn't really want to do this but w/e, its not that hard





think about it this way, where the cones meet, is an event, now see this image, open it in a new tab




now draw the conclusion...

look up red shift

Drist wrote:The truth is, you win. I can only stall with realistic things that don't parallel Evolution. But in the end I can't win logically. It comes down to faith. Now lets be friends and get over this.

To put it simple Drist, there is one thing above God. The defining, culminating, most important thing about being a human being. Logic. Rational thought. If God does not compute with the thing that defines us as humans....its doing it wrong. :/. I cannot rule out the possibility of a God, but i can most certainly state that many of the theories i believe in, almost all, are much much much more probable, pratical, and morally right then the ones preached by religions around the world. That is where i stand. Friendship has nth to do with a debate dude. i think you all need to learn to separate things. you are my friends, regardless of these things.

No i mean dont think less of me for not believing in the evidence. ive stated my case.

Drist wrote:No i mean dont think less of me for not believing in the evidence. ive stated my case.

We still love joo ^^

No homo

Ilmarë wrote:I respect those that follow the Bible, even if it has been somewhat convoluted, but other books that have been unchanged for ages have values that still apply. Dray, morals don't always develop, look at modern society and tell me how morally good it is.

yes, some morals dont always develop, the key word being SOME. if certain points of a book arent valid, then the omnitruth that the book preaches is unvalid too. just becuz parts of it are applied, doesnt mean its right about evth. and it definitly doesnt mean that its the right book to preach about the ultimate truth.

i disagree, because then,

just like our constitution,

which allowed slavery, would mean we should get rid of our constitution, and so, from that vantage, it applies the same to religious texts that it is up to the interpreter, protestant revolution and stuff like that.

Nihil wrote:i disagree, because then,

just like our constitution,

which allowed slavery, would mean we should get rid of our constitution, and so, from that vantage, it applies the same to religious texts that it is up to the interpreter, protestant revolution and stuff like that.

aaah but you see, you are allowed to evolve and change your constitution, and thus you have, changing your 13th amemdment to abolish slavery and involuntary servitude, but religion relys on dogmas, and this is probably where eveery religion fails, its incapacity to admit mistake in its own writtings, and to correct them or adapt them to our days. but then again, if they did that, they would be admitting that 'God' was wrong, and we cant have that now can we?

Nihil wrote:i disagree, because then,

just like our constitution,

which allowed slavery, would mean we should get rid of our constitution, and so, from that vantage, it applies the same to religious texts that it is up to the interpreter, protestant revolution and stuff like that.

thats what religion always comes down to the interpreter, the individulal,

of course, if you are catholic thats a different story, but still, this is what the majority of todays people do, interpret for themselves from religious texts

Nihil wrote:

Nihil wrote:i disagree, because then,

just like our constitution,

which allowed slavery, would mean we should get rid of our constitution, and so, from that vantage, it applies the same to religious texts that it is up to the interpreter, protestant revolution and stuff like that.

thats what religion always comes down to the interpreter, the individulal,

of course, if you are catholic thats a different story, but still, this is what the majority of todays people do, interpret for themselves from religious texts

and thus i present you the greatest example of how flawed that theory is.

islamic terrorist groups. they interpretate their book in their own way. yet teh islamic community says that the way they are reading it is wrong, and that the Coran does not preach their actions. i think it was all the suicidal mass murders taht convinced them of that.... so you see, while a closed dogmatic view of religious texts allows for them to be wrong, the free personal view allows for obscenities to happen, because of a certain faction who views the books a certain way. and this interpretation in a morally destructive way hasnt happened only with muslims, oh no, it goes as old as the Council of Nicaea.

i guess your next argument will say taht some interpretations will of course be too wrong for society, and these are sick twisted versions. am i right?

well, i'm arguing that the idea of religious texts being flawed is wrong, because it is up to the interpreter,

who am i to say that islamic terrorists aren't wrong?
all i know is that it is morally not justifiable

Nihil wrote:well, i'm arguing that the idea of religious texts being flawed is wrong, because it is up to the interpreter,

who am i to say that islamic terrorists aren't wrong?
all i know is that it is morally not justifiable

the fact is, these texts WERENT depending on the interpreter. but with the evolution of society, christians and other religions have found a means to prolongue their catatonic existence, by saying "Oh these books, you know, its whatever you think it is, really, its all about you" opposed to "This is the word of God, and thou shall take it by hand".

it has been happening for ages, since the church stopped ruling lands, and besides, who is to say that they shouldn't be interpreted? Not many literally interpret the Koran, and not many Literally interpret the bible, for in there lie discrepancies, the interpretation is from the stories.

I believe there was someone like Abraham, Mohammed and Jesus, does that mean i literally believe each of these stories? no but since they teach the doctrine of morals in a non literal way, yes.

like i said, i'm not really any religion, i just believe in a god,

but that doesn't mean that these texts aren't valid? they are all valid, because it is up to the interpreter, they were written in a different time, and how stories evolve, this is undoubtedly a part of it, another part would be penmanship, a good author has to sell his story^^

Nihil wrote:it has been happening for ages, since the church stopped ruling lands, and besides, who is to say that they shouldn't be interpreted? Not many literally interpret the Koran, and not many Literally interpret the bible, for in there lie discrepancies, the interpretation is from the stories.

I believe there was someone like Abraham, Mohammed and Jesus, does that mean i literally believe each of these stories? no but since they teach the doctrine of morals in a non literal way, yes.

like i said, i'm not really any religion, i just believe in a god,

but that doesn't mean that these texts aren't valid? they are all valid, because it is up to the interpreter, they were written in a different time, and how stories evolve, this is undoubtedly a part of it, another part would be penmanship, a good author has to sell his story^^

yes, it should be interpreted as any other book, such as those self estime helping books, or fables. my problem, comes when it tries to be more than that. more then a book with stories and morals. a book with stories and lessons. when it tries to make humanity bow to it, adore it, and blindly follow it.

ya lol, that is a problem then, because these books are great moral sources, religious texts, but you can't just interpret literally and follow its everyword, because even its writers are humans.

Dont start with misinterpretations or takeing things out of context thats what the "snake handlers" are for xD