NationStates Jolt Archive

Undoubtedly this has been done before, but I wasn't around for it. And, I figured this might make a great discussion, if a somewhat heated one.

Me personally, I'm an apathetic agnostic. I'm not sure as to the existance of a god/gods, as I have seen no direct evidence (I'm leaning towards the no side. e.g. AIDS), however, since whatever, if anything, is up there doesn't seem to care for us much regardless, the question is solely academic.

Apathetic agnosticism (also called Pragmatic agnosticism)—the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of God or gods, but since any God or gods that may exist appear unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic anyway---Wikipedia

Undoubtedly this has been done before, but I wasn't around for it.
I take it you've been here for under a week, then :p

Welcome to the forums and all that, hope you enjoy your stay here etc. :)
And, I figured this might make a great discussion, if a somewhat heated one.
More the latter than the former, I reckon.

UB and Fass vs. Christianity, whoopedy-doo.
Me personally, I'm an apathetic agnostic. I'm not sure as to the existance of a god/gods, as I have seen no direct evidence (I'm leaning towards the no side. e.g. AIDS), however, since whatever, if anything, is up there doesn't seem to care for us much regardless, the question is solely academic.
I'm an atheist. Because I see no real evidence for any kind of God. Still, if people are into their faith, then fair enough.

In the words of Thoreau,

"Without something to believe in, humans are as uncivilized as primates"

Poll full of fail. You had more options than that available and didn't even put in Jewish let alone Pagan.

My fault
Sorry
Remember, Noob? And it's 2:16 AM where I am.
On that note, Goodnight.

Poll full of fail. You had more options than that available and didn't even put in Jewish let alone Pagan.
He put in 'Other', which also covers the far more numerous Hindu and Sikh religions. On the other hand, since we have about 3 'Other' types on the entire forums, this'll be fairly representative, and will lead to less poll-skewing, to be fair.

In the words of Thoreau,

"Without something to believe in, humans are as uncivilized as primates"

Humans are primates.

Also, we can believe in things other than religion to civilize us...like girl on girl action, and not pissing on the goddamn public toilet seats.

He put in 'Other', which also covers the far more numerous Hindu and Sikh religions. On the other hand, since we have about 3 'Other' types on the entire forums, this'll be fairly representative, and will lead to less poll-skewing, to be fair.

I was a Raelian for a month, so maybe I could beef up our "other" numbers for a while.

Do Sikh's fukh? You know, to make more Sikhs...

Undoubtedly this has been done before, but I wasn't around for it. And, I figured this might make a great discussion, if a somewhat heated one.
Nah, not at all. We've actually already settled this debate over Mancala, and we're all relatively content with our conclusions.

Do Sikh's fukh? You know, to make more Sikhs...
Well yes. They also convert, etc. etc.

Also, we can believe in things other than religion to civilize us...like girl on girl action

That reminds me ... when i'm only partially ignoring those commercials for Girls Gone Wild, i usually don't hear the audio. Is this a case where you hear that same itchy tune and age warning without actually having any visual? Kinda like Intangelon's soundtrack appreciation?

Agnost. In practice atheistic, with a tendency to be extremely annoyed by the hypocrisy of almost all organised religions and their followers.

Poll full of fail. You had more options than that available and didn't even put in Jewish let alone Pagan.

The Jewish religion is tiny. Only about 15 million Jews left.
Hell - scientology is already approaching 2 million. Do you wish to take that seriously ?

O pléase stop the -isms! Damned boxes, annoy the shit outa me.

I believe that an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being became bored with being a know-all, be-all, all powerful presence and decided to try an experiment, blowing itself up into an infinite amount of separate entities.

The idea was that these separate entities would slowly gather together into ever more complex parts, that it would be interesting to see how and what would form.

We're at the stage of consciousness, of being able to manipulate our world yet we're still pretty basic, greater and greater forms of complexity will, if they haven't already, arise.

The irony is that, once formed into ultimate consciousness, we will once again be bored, once again blow ourselves into an infinite amount of separate entities in an infinite process of expansion and contraction.

Point is that we're all intricately linked with everything else, nothing can be destroyed and nothing can be created, we can only, as the sum of our parts, be some part of this universe.

No good, no bad, merely formation.

It's as likely a belief as any other, no more nor less possible than any other belief although, in my eyes, it does have the benefit of no judgement and allows for one thing I hold above all others, the ability to explore and question 'what is' without being blinded by faith, in whatever form that takes.

I believe that an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being became bored with being a know-all, be-all, all powerful presence and decided to try an experiment, blowing itself up into an infinite amount of separate entities.

The idea was that these separate entities would slowly gather together into ever more complex parts, that it would be interesting to see how and what would form.

We're at the stage of consciousness, of being able to manipulate our world yet we're still pretty basic, greater and greater forms of complexity will, if they haven't already, arise.

The irony is that, once formed into ultimate consciousness, we will once again be bored, once again blow ourselves into an infinite amount of separate entities in an infinite process of expansion and contraction.

Point is that we're all intricately linked with everything else, nothing can be destroyed and nothing can be created, we can only, as the sum of our parts, be some part of this universe.

No good, no bad, merely formation.

It's as likely a belief as any other, no more nor less possible than any other belief although, in my eyes, it does have the benefit of no judgement and allows for one thing I hold above all others, the ability to explore and question 'what is' without being blinded by faith, in whatever form that takes.

So if we could only develop the ultimate, always innovative, infinitely creative hooker bot that would fuck in N number of ways where the cardinality of set N is aleph, we could break the cycle...

Or, what our complexity only comes at the price of greater disorder everywhere else, until chaos swamps us and pulls back down into using rotary telephones and writing checks...

I'm going back to being a Raelian...

Poll full of fail. You had more options than that available and didn't even put in Jewish let alone Pagan.Why? It's those nindsets with large numbers of followers.

O pléase stop the -isms! Damned boxes, annoy the shit outa me.Well, these -isms belong in boxes. 6 feet under.

In the words of Thoreau,

"Without something to believe in, humans are as uncivilized as primates"What a complete rubbish. The word should be "With something to believe in, humans are as uncivilized as other primates" Look at history, although other primates have never been as uncivilized as human believers.

What a complete rubbish. The word should be "With something to believe in, humans are as uncivilized as other primates" Look at history, although other primates have never been as uncivilized as human believers.

Nuh uh, 'cause as long as you're wearing a really elaborate outfit and people intone somber melodies when you enter and leave the room, you can do bad shit and still be better than monkey.

Moooonkey!

What a complete rubbish. The word should be "With something to believe in, humans are as uncivilized as other primates" Look at history, although other primates have never been as uncivilized as human believers.

A large number of sociologists (Durkheim, Weber etc...) hold that it is absolutely essential for religion to develop in order to maintain order in a developing society, perhaps religion is unneeded now where societies are complex and very developed, but its foolish to blame all of the problems in history on religion, where there is absolutely no example of a society that has developed without religion sometime in its past to contrast with.

I was playing cards with the guys and I asked Jesus what he believes in. He replied, "Shut the hell up and pass the cheetos."

Coyote laughed. :(

No love for Judaism in the poll option? =/

My religion is a very mixed religion containing beliefs, doctrines, and philosophies from Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto and Jainisism... I believe in teh Vishnu, Shiva, and Brahma... I believe in the Tao as well as Karma, Reincarnation, and Nirvana, and I also beleive in multiple planes of existance!

My religion is a very mixed religion containing beliefs, doctrines, and philosophies from Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto and Jainisism... I believe in teh Vishnu, Shiva, and Brahma... I believe in the Tao as well as Karma, Reincarnation, and Nirvana, and I also beleive in multiple planes of existance!

Somewhere out there, you don't. :p

I believe that an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being became bored with being a know-all, be-all, all powerful presence and decided to try an experiment, blowing itself up into an infinite amount of separate entities.

The idea was that these separate entities would slowly gather together into ever more complex parts, that it would be interesting to see how and what would form.

We're at the stage of consciousness, of being able to manipulate our world yet we're still pretty basic, greater and greater forms of complexity will, if they haven't already, arise.

The irony is that, once formed into ultimate consciousness, we will once again be bored, once again blow ourselves into an infinite amount of separate entities in an infinite process of expansion and contraction.

Point is that we're all intricately linked with everything else, nothing can be destroyed and nothing can be created, we can only, as the sum of our parts, be some part of this universe.

No good, no bad, merely formation.

It's as likely a belief as any other, no more nor less possible than any other belief although, in my eyes, it does have the benefit of no judgement and allows for one thing I hold above all others, the ability to explore and question 'what is' without being blinded by faith, in whatever form that takes.

So, have we decided yet to call it Debrisism, or Debrism, or what?

A large number of sociologists (Durkheim, Weber etc...) hold that it is absolutely essential for religion to develop in order to maintain order in a developing society, perhaps religion is unneeded now where societies are complex and very developed, but its foolish to blame all of the problems in history on religion, where there is absolutely no example of a society that has developed without religion sometime in its past to contrast with.

Well, I for one will not stand for believing in mystical fiction just because it provides a utilitarian purpose! After all, if even a false religion would provide this value to developing cultures, its really just a crutch!

Now my belief in Raelianism, THAT'S something to be admired.

Join Rael! Get Laid!

Somewhere out there, you don't. :p

Like a clown car full of Nyarlthahoteps, LG just keeps the love coming.

No love for Judaism in the poll option? =/

Don't worry, we shall inherit the earth soon. ;)

Don't worry, we shall inherit the earth soon. ;)

Jew-Jitsu. They will win.

Like a clown car full of Nyarlthahoteps, LG just keeps the love coming.

*closes wikipedia*

Ha! You spelled it wrong! Though somewhere out there, you didn't. :confused:

No love for Judaism in the poll option? =/

I think it may need some work (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmy0ZqStGXc)

*closes wikipedia*

Ha! You spelled it wrong! Though somewhere out there, you didn't. :confused:

See, spellcheck might be a crutch of the lazy, but as a lazy person, I think it should include Elder Gods and Old Ones.

See, spellcheck might be a crutch of the lazy, but as a lazy person, I think it should include Elder Gods and Old Ones.

Why chance offending them? Good point. *nod*

Why chance offending them? Good point. *nod*

There's a dude, broke off from LaVey style satanism to form a "Cult of Cthulhu"...

Doesn't look like it has a lot of slutty gothy chicks, though, so I didn't join.

I believe that an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being became bored with being a know-all, be-all, all powerful presence and decided to try an experiment, blowing itself up into an infinite amount of separate entities.

The idea was that these separate entities would slowly gather together into ever more complex parts, that it would be interesting to see how and what would form.

We're at the stage of consciousness, of being able to manipulate our world yet we're still pretty basic, greater and greater forms of complexity will, if they haven't already, arise.

The irony is that, once formed into ultimate consciousness, we will once again be bored, once again blow ourselves into an infinite amount of separate entities in an infinite process of expansion and contraction.

Point is that we're all intricately linked with everything else, nothing can be destroyed and nothing can be created, we can only, as the sum of our parts, be some part of this universe.

No good, no bad, merely formation.

It's as likely a belief as any other, no more nor less possible than any other belief although, in my eyes, it does have the benefit of no judgement and allows for one thing I hold above all others, the ability to explore and question 'what is' without being blinded by faith, in whatever form that takes.

God's Debris is an awful book.

And no, this flight of fancy is not just as likely as anything else: for a start, the idea of an omniscient being needing to 'experiment' is absurd by definition.

There's a dude, broke off from LaVey style satanism to form a "Cult of Cthulhu"...

Doesn't look like it has a lot of slutty gothy chicks, though, so I didn't join.

They do have Hentai though. Lots and lots of tentacles...

What is the Christian/Catholic option supposed to mean? Catholics, together with the other (eastern) orthodox churches, are the original Christians, the continuation of the community (allegedly) founded by Yeshua. Other denominations that are calling themselves Christians (e.g. protestants) have all at one point stepped out of this community.

Don't worry, we shall inherit the earth soon. ;)
Sorry, I thought you guys already owned it. Nearly as much as us Brits, anyway :p

There's a dude, broke off from LaVey style satanism to form a "Cult of Cthulhu"...

Doesn't look like it has a lot of slutty gothy chicks, though, so I didn't join.
If you're looking for slutty gothy chicks, I'd look no further than your nearest Catholic school.

What is the Christian/Catholic option supposed to mean? Catholics, together with the other (eastern) orthodox churches, are the original Christians, the continuation of the community (allegedly) founded by Yeshua. Other denominations that are calling themselves Christians (e.g. protestants) have all at one point stepped out of this community.

Just because you're the oldest surviving Church does not make you the 'original Christians'.

I asked God if he existed once. He said he didn't know. I pointed my confused face at him, so he asked if I existed. I said yes, or something like that(I was really drunk at the time). He asked me to prove it. I couldn't. He walked off, saying 'So you don't really know'.

I'm not sure if he was trying to make a point or was just sick of my drunken existential ramblings.

Sorry, I thought you guys already owned it. Nearly as much as us Brits, anyway :p

Well being British as well gives me the best of both worlds then! :cool:

Just because you're the oldest surviving Church does not make you the 'original Christians'.

Are you suggesting that UB is a catholic? Epic lulz.

Well being British as well gives me the best of both worlds then! :cool:
Very true, enjoy!

Are you suggesting that UB is a catholic? Epic lulz.

I meant 'you' in a hypothetical sense, though it would be funny if UB was a catholic troll.

Just because you're the oldest surviving Church does not make you the 'original Christians'.1. I am not a church.
2. the catholic (="universal") church is what the early christian communities have evolved into. or worded differently: the early christian communities became the churches of christian orthodoxy, and the western church of orthodoxy is what we now call the catholic church.
only much later did other groups (e.g. protestants) split from it.

1. I am not a church.
2. the catholic (="universal") church is what the early christian communities have evolved into. only much later did groups split from it.

The early, early Christians (I mean the hardcore pacifist ones refusing to fight in the Roman Imperial army and all that) are not anything like the Catholic church, never mind that the Catholics base their ethical doctrine on something never mentioned once in the Bible and is totally nonsensical and irrational (natural law) and that the early Roman Church chose which books to include and which books not to include in the Bible.

The early, early Christians (I mean the hardcore pacifist ones refusing to fight in the Roman Imperial army and all that) are not anything like the Catholic church, never mind that the Catholics base their ethical doctrine on something never mentioned once in the Bible and is totally nonsensical and irrational (natural law) and that the early Roman Church chose which books to include and which books not to include in the Bible.what are you talking about? of course the catholic church of today or the pat 500 years is not like the early christian community. however, it is the continuation of that community, passing on the consecration by yeshua himself from generation to generation.

I picked Christian 'cause I'm a Mormon.

I picked Christian 'cause I'm a Mormon.The word you meant is spelled without the middle m.

I picked Christian 'cause I'm a Mormon.

as a mormon, how do you feel about the possibilty of future prophets?

not warren jeffs (flds) but perhaps some new guy in the future.

what are you talking about? of course the catholic church of today or the pat 500 years is not like the early christian community. however, it is the continuation of that community, passing on the consecration by yeshua himself from generation to generation.

But even the very earliest orthodox church is only an arbitrary selection of Christian doctrine to accept and not to accept, that the Christians of the time did not have much of an option to opt out of. It doesn't make them the most Christian (which you seem to be suggesting) just because people took a lot of time to see how far removed the Church is from scriptural doctrine.

I believe that whether or not I believe in God is far less important than whether or not God believes in me :)

I believe that whether or not I believe in God is far less important than whether or not God believes in me :)

if god didnt believe in you, you wouldnt exist.

right?

if god didnt believe in you, you wouldnt exist.

right?

God is like Dewey Cox's first wife. He believes in you, he just knows you're gonna fail.

as a mormon, how do you feel about the possibilty of future prophets?

not warren jeffs (flds) but perhaps some new guy in the future.

I'm not sure if I understand your question... I mean, new prophets are inevitable. We just had a new one called a couple months ago when the old one passed away.

I'm not sure if I understand your question... I mean, new prophets are inevitable. We just had a new one called a couple months ago when the old one passed away.

not the "sactioned by the church" guys

a prophet like joseph smith was. a guy just minding his own business when WHAM! he is visited by god and given a new revelation of some kind that changes the whole paradigm.

God is like Dewey Cox's first wife. He believes in you, he just knows you're gonna fail.

which is why its good that we dont know what god knows, eh?

not the "sactioned by the church" guys

a prophet like joseph smith was. a guy just minding his own business when WHAM! he is visited by god and given a new revelation of some kind that changes the whole paradigm.

Well, the Church is led by a prophet who's no different from Joseph Smith. He's analogous to the Pope in the Catholic world. Not exactly the same, but in terms of Church organization he's equivalent. After Joseph Smith was killed, Brigham Young was called (by God) to take over for him, and so on and so on up to the present day.

which is why its good that we dont know what god knows, eh?

If there is an omniscient god, it knows everything, including what its like to give a slow, sloppy rim job to the Numa Numa guy.

So, yeah, we don't want to know.

Well, the Church is led by a prophet who's no different from Joseph Smith. He's analogous to the Pope in the Catholic world. Not exactly the same, but in terms of Church organization he's equivalent. After Joseph Smith was killed, Brigham Young was called (by God) to take over for him, and so on and so on up to the present day.

yes i know.

but that doesnt answer my question.

If there is an omniscient god, it knows everything, including what its like to give a slow, sloppy rim job to the Numa Numa guy.

So, yeah, we don't want to know.

o

i never thought of that.

omniscience isnt all its cracked up to be.

yes i know.

but that doesnt answer my question.

Then I don't understand the question...

Then I don't understand the question...

well, as im sure you are aware, every now and then some strapping young mormon lad decides that he has received a revelation from god that god is pissed over this no-polygamy thing and he starts his own new apostate polygamous mormon sect--like warren jeffs and the flds (cant be bothered to look up if jeffs founded it or just inherited it)

we might all agree that mr jeffs is not a prophet of god but rather a man with too big a sex drive and ego who has found himself skillful at manipulating people into following him.

but

that doesnt mean that there CANT be a future prophet that comes from out of the blue just like joseph smith did. after all god is not limited to the leadership of the mormon church any more than he was limited to the leadership of the catholic church when he chose joseph smith as his prophet.

or is he?

do you think that future prophets are limited to the insiders in the mormon church or can/will god designate some outsider in the future?

But even the very earliest orthodox church is only an arbitrary selection of Christian doctrine to accept and not to accept, that the Christians of the time did not have much of an option to opt out of. It doesn't make them the most Christian (which you seem to be suggesting) just because people took a lot of time to see how far removed the Church is from scriptural doctrine.What does original christian have to do with the most christian. and since when does christian mean to be based on scriptural doctrine.

if god didnt believe in you, you wouldnt exist.

right?no. a person's existence does not depend on a non-existing god's alleged thoughts.

Then I don't understand the question...

Rather than being "Prophet" by virtue of being the oldest dude sitting on the LDS Presidency, a Prophet (what some LDS scholars might call a "dispensation head") who becomes a Prophet because God actually shows up and says "Hi, you're a prophet".

Being "called" in the LDS is kind of an organizational thing, although I understand that members believe the leadership are inspired by God to pick whoever.

Remember back in the late 70's, when the church still wouldn't let black people join the priesthood, then when the church was receiving political pressure on the issue, and suddenly it was "revealed" that now blacks could be in the priesthood?

Or when the LDS church taught that blacks were cursed by God?

no. a person's existence does not depend on a non-existing god's alleged thoughts.

UB-

Curious at why it is you jump into every religious argument or discussion and take the non believers side? You seem to know a bit about religion and it's workings however I always wondered why you defend your position over the years now so hard. Most people just form their own opinion and let others form theirs without contesting them. Always wondered what your background with religion is.

no. a person's existence does not depend on a non-existing god's alleged thoughts.

Unless...unless, wow, man, we're like, just the after echo, of the dreams of some god that unmade itself, so it doesn't exist anymore, but we were its hopes and aspirations, and we survived its implosion, man, and so we're just the beliefs of a god that doesn't exist anymore...

Dude, I think we were supposed to take the plastic off before we smoked these...

Unless...unless, wow, man, we're like, just the after echo, of the dreams of some god that unmade itself, so it doesn't exist anymore, but we were its hopes and aspirations, and we survived its implosion, man, and so we're just the beliefs of a god that doesn't exist anymore...

Dude, I think we were supposed to take the plastic off before we smoked these...

lol, I need a smoke after this.

well, as im sure you are aware, every now and then some strapping young mormon lad decides that he has received a revelation from god that god is pissed over this no-polygamy thing and he starts his own new apostate polygamous mormon sect--like warren jeffs and the flds (cant be bothered to look up if jeffs founded it or just inherited it)

we might all agree that mr jeffs is not a prophet of god but rather a man with too big a sex drive and ego who has found himself skillful at manipulating people into following him.

but

that doesnt mean that there CANT be a future prophet that comes from out of the blue just like joseph smith did. after all god is not limited to the leadership of the mormon church any more than he was limited to the leadership of the catholic church when he chose joseph smith as his prophet.

or is he?

do you think that future prophets are limited to the insiders in the mormon church or can/will god designate some outsider in the future?

Well, yes and no. The Church as it is today is God's Church as He intends it to be so any prophet would be called form within it, most likely (but not necessarily) from one of the 12 Apostles. As long as the Church is on the right path, there's little reason to go outside it for a new Prophet.

On the other hand, if the Church were to go apostate (fall away from the true path) then one could no longer count on the existing leadership and so I would suppose a new Prophet could come from anywhere.

(Those who follow guys like this cult guy in TX were probably taught that the LDS church was apostate.)

So how would I know the Prophet is authentic? One of the primary tenets of LDS belief is that of personal revelation... that the Spirit will testify of the truth to each individual. (This is how people convert in the first place.) It's a useful exercise to pray for that testimony each time a new Prophet is called anyway, by the way.

So the short answer is, I'd have to trust God to let me know what to do about it.

So how would I know the Prophet is authentic? One of the primary tenets of LDS belief is that of personal revelation... that the Spirit will testify of the truth to each individual. (This is how people convert in the first place.) It's a useful exercise to pray for that testimony each time a new Prophet is called anyway, by the way.


So, for those to whom the Spirit testified that Islam is the true religion, and believe in that personal revelation just as much, Islam is the authentic religion.

A lot of times, when a "Spirit" talks to you, or moves you to a certain response, it might be part of you needing to believe something, so you believe.

I've met people from lots of religions, and lots of them can point to a "personal revelation" that theirs is the authentic religion. In fact, the official LDS missionary dogma describes this "personal revelation" of the "spirit" in ways that are extremely consistent with a psychosomatic response.

The word you meant is spelled without the middle m.

The remark you have made is called flaming.
Have a nice vacation, United Beleriand.

The remark you have made is called flaming.
Have a nice vacation, United Beleriand.

You know those judges who engage in "creative sentencing", where a shoplifter has to stand outside the shop wearing a sign, or the parents of a truant child have to live in the kid's room, that kind of thing...

Maybe instead of banning him for a while, he should have to work in a Catholic hospice or something.

Can I have his radio?

So, for those to whom the Spirit testified that Islam is the true religion, and believe in that personal revelation just as much, Islam is the authentic religion.

A lot of times, when a "Spirit" talks to you, or moves you to a certain response, it might be part of you needing to believe something, so you believe.

I've met people from lots of religions, and lots of them can point to a "personal revelation" that theirs is the authentic religion. In fact, the official LDS missionary dogma describes this "personal revelation" of the "spirit" in ways that are extremely consistent with a psychosomatic response.

*shrug* I know that's the way people look at it. It's the way I used to look at it until I had my own experience. I can't describe it, you'll either experience it for yourself, or not.

The remark you have made is called flaming.
Have a nice vacation, United Beleriand.

Dammit now I can't gripe about the mods...

(But thanks ;) )

Just because you're the oldest surviving Church does not make you the 'original Christians'.

Hmmm.


Main Entry:
1orig·i·nal Listen to the pronunciation of 1original
Pronunciation:
\ə-ˈrij-ə-nəl, -ˈrij-nəl\
Function:
noun
Date:
14th century

1archaic : the source or cause from which something arises; specifically : originator2 a: that from which a copy, reproduction, or translation is made b: a work composed firsthand3 a: a person of fresh initiative or inventive capacity b: a unique or eccentric person

www.m-w.com

Original, as in originator, as in first, as from whence other branches have sprung. Yes, I believe UB has used the word properly.

*shrug* I know that's the way people look at it. It's the way I used to look at it until I had my own experience. I can't describe it, you'll either experience it for yourself, or not.

A muslim could say exactly the same thing to you, is my point.

I've already had that experience with the LDS, then realized what that experience really was.

I guess what I'm saying is, members of many, many religions have the same kind of experience.

Basically, suppose members of 3 differing religions all have that experience. At least 2 (and possibly 3) are having that experience with a false religion.

Everybody wants to believe theirs is the real one. But yours isn't any more special than the muslim, or hindu, or whoever whose experience is just as meaningful to them as yours is to you.

So, if you can believe their religion is false, even with their "experience", can't the same be said of you?

EDIT: Also, why do you assume I didn't have that "spirit" experience converting to LDS? I had it, I just eventually was able to discover that the "Spirit" is just the part of you that badly wants to believe something, so it does. If your premise is "You don't understand because you haven't had my super special experience", well, I have. And people in all the other religions have, too.

Dammit now I can't gripe about the mods...

(But thanks ;) )

You may continue to gripe as normal. So long as it's not flaming, flamebaiting, spamming, griefing, advertising, asking for warez, et cetera, et cetera, and so forth, you're cool.

Hmmm.




Original, as in originator, as in first, as from whence other branches have sprung. Yes, I believe UB has used the word properly.

Although some might argue that the Catholic Church doesn't represent the earliert incarnation of Christian doctrine.

Take Mormons, for example ;) We believe that Joseph Smith did not "found" the Church, rather, that he "restored" it to its original state.

A muslim could say exactly the same thing to you, is my point.

I've already had that experience with the LDS, then realized what that experience really was.

I guess what I'm saying is, members of many, many religions have the same kind of experience.

Basically, suppose members of 3 differing religions all have that experience. At least 2 (and possibly 3) or having that experience with a false religion.

Everybody wants to believe theirs is the real one. But yours isn't any more special than the muslim, or hindu, or whoever whose experience is just as meaningful to them as yours is to you.

So, if you can believe their religion is false, even with their "experience", can't the same be said of you?

They can certainly say the same of me. They do all the time. The difference is that (and correct me if I'm wrong) neither Islam nor any other belief system claims conversion based upon a spiritual experience. (Some Christian denominations probably do) but you'll notice that Mormon missionaries take the "don't take my word for it, ask God directly" approach.

You may continue to gripe as normal. So long as it's not flaming, flamebaiting, spamming, griefing, advertising, asking for warez, et cetera, et cetera, and so forth, you're cool.

Roger that.

Just because you're the oldest surviving Church does not make you the 'original Christians'.

True. Then again, if memory serves me right there are more Catholics than every other denomination of Christianity combined. So from a democratic point of view it is up to them to decide what is Christian and what isn't.

A muslim could say exactly the same thing to you, is my point.

I've already had that experience with the LDS, then realized what that experience really was.

I guess what I'm saying is, members of many, many religions have the same kind of experience.

Basically, suppose members of 3 differing religions all have that experience. At least 2 (and possibly 3) or having that experience with a false religion.

Everybody wants to believe theirs is the real one. But yours isn't any more special than the muslim, or hindu, or whoever whose experience is just as meaningful to them as yours is to you.

So, if you can believe their religion is false, even with their "experience", can't the same be said of you?

I could recognize that my religion is true FOR ME, and that as it pertains to my beliefs it is true, and still understand that Islam is as true and real to the Muslim. I can also refrain from pushing my beliefs onto someone else unless they ask about them, and appreciate it when others do the same.

Really, if everyone were simply to worry ONLY about himself, the world would be a lot more peaceful. It's when people decide they need to police others' morality (no matter what system they follow) that things go to shit.

Really, if everyone were simply to worry ONLY about himself, the world would be a lot more peaceful. It's when people decide they need to police others' morality (no matter what system they follow) that things go to shit.

The sad thing is that most peoples beliefs require them to "worry" about others. Especially if those others are infidels/heretics.

Well, yes and no. The Church as it is today is God's Church as He intends it to be so any prophet would be called form within it, most likely (but not necessarily) from one of the 12 Apostles. As long as the Church is on the right path, there's little reason to go outside it for a new Prophet.

On the other hand, if the Church were to go apostate (fall away from the true path) then one could no longer count on the existing leadership and so I would suppose a new Prophet could come from anywhere.

(Those who follow guys like this cult guy in TX were probably taught that the LDS church was apostate.)

So how would I know the Prophet is authentic? One of the primary tenets of LDS belief is that of personal revelation... that the Spirit will testify of the truth to each individual. (This is how people convert in the first place.) It's a useful exercise to pray for that testimony each time a new Prophet is called anyway, by the way.

So the short answer is, I'd have to trust God to let me know what to do about it.


so if god decommisioned the mormon church and established a new prophet you would expect to have your own personal revelation about it that would take you in the correct path?

Although some might argue that the Catholic Church doesn't represent the earliert incarnation of Christian doctrine.

Take Mormons, for example ;) We believe that Joseph Smith did not "found" the Church, rather, that he "restored" it to its original state.

I may disagree with you on that point; however, I don't see the need for us to engage in "no, he didn't," "yes, he did" and chainsaws at six paces. ;)

Original, as in originator, as in first, as from whence other branches have sprung. Yes, I believe UB has used the word properly.

Could there be some instances where the "first/originators" aren't the same as the "oldest surviving"?

(I'm asking to clarifying, not saying either Hyde or UB is wrong).

Suppose the first iteration of something is gone, but a few elements from the 2nd and 3rd generation still survive.

The 2nd or 3rd gens might be the oldest surviving, but they aren't the originators.

I could be wrong, though.

so if god decommisioned the mormon church and established a new prophet you would expect to have your own personal revelation about it that would take you in the correct path?

Exactly.

I may disagree with you on that point; however, I don't see the need for us to engage in "no, he didn't," "yes, he did" and chainsaws at six paces. ;)

Me neither. I forgot my six shooters anyway ;)

I could recognize that my religion is true FOR ME, and that as it pertains to my beliefs it is true, and still understand that Islam is as true and real to the Muslim. I can also refrain from pushing my beliefs onto someone else unless they ask about them, and appreciate it when others do the same.

Well, I'm glad you can see where Islam is just as true and real to the Muslim as your religion is to you. I hope that attitude progresses its way up to the leadership in the LDS. (I don't know if you are LDS or not, but I hope they eventually feel the way you've stated here).


Really, if everyone were simply to worry ONLY about himself, the world would be a lot more peaceful. It's when people decide they need to police others' morality (no matter what system they follow) that things go to shit.

Worry only about one's self? I don't know, a certain worry for others seems to be pervasive in a lot of religion (not all), and LDS (again, not necessarily you) have said to me that they worry a great deal about other's and want to save them.

On an unrelated note, I think UB's "Moron" bit was out of line, I wasn't trying to bag on your mod response.

Could there be some instances where the "first/originators" aren't the same as the "oldest surviving"?

(I'm asking to clarifying, not saying either Hyde or UB is wrong).

Suppose the first iteration of something is gone, but a few elements from the 2nd and 3rd generation still survive.

The 2nd or 3rd gens might be the oldest surviving, but they aren't the originators.

I could be wrong, though.

and isnt the coptic church older than the r. catholic church so that the catholic church is neither the original nor the oldest but just the place from where the protestant churches came from?

They can certainly say the same of me. They do all the time. The difference is that (and correct me if I'm wrong) neither Islam nor any other belief system claims conversion based upon a spiritual experience. (Some Christian denominations probably do) but you'll notice that Mormon missionaries take the "don't take my word for it, ask God directly" approach.

So, just to make sure (I want to be fair), you are here stating that no other religion (other than yours) claims conversion based upon a spiritual experience?

That's what you're saying?

So, for instance, then, no Imam would have ever told me "If you want to know if Islam true, go to Allah in prayer, He will tell you"?

And no other religion bases conversion on a spiritual experience?

You say "correct me if I'm wrong", well, how diligent were you in exploring this statement on your own? (Especially considering it appears to be a central aspect in your choice of religion).

Could there be some instances where the "first/originators" aren't the same as the "oldest surviving"?

(I'm asking to clarifying, not saying either Hyde or UB is wrong).

Suppose the first iteration of something is gone, but a few elements from the 2nd and 3rd generation still survive.

The 2nd or 3rd gens might be the oldest surviving, but they aren't the originators.

I could be wrong, though.

Well, given that the particular belief of my church is that pretty much Peter was esablished as the first Pope and it's been continuous from there... with several schisms (as from the Eastern Orthodox church and the Protestant sects) it would be my belief the Catholic church is the original.

That does not, however, suggest to me that it is superior to other Christian churches -- the way I see it, like any family, we may disagree an certain points of order, but the foundation is generally the same. My best friend is a Lutheran and I've certainly attended plenty of services with her -- and really, there's not much difference between what we believe.

So, for those to whom the Spirit testified that Islam is the true religion, and believe in that personal revelation just as much, Islam is the authentic religion.

A lot of times, when a "Spirit" talks to you, or moves you to a certain response, it might be part of you needing to believe something, so you believe.

I've met people from lots of religions, and lots of them can point to a "personal revelation" that theirs is the authentic religion. In fact, the official LDS missionary dogma describes this "personal revelation" of the "spirit" in ways that are extremely consistent with a psychosomatic response.
The idea of "communicating spirits" is, I think, a mystical interpretation of a potentially rational event taken to extremes. But I don't think it's just a case of self-delusion; I think it is some passive and external process that forces people to seek a level above the individual and rational in order to try to explain.

My own explanation for this is purely conjecture, but whatever the case, it's not something that only happens within a Religious environment or community. It's something that is accelerated by religious congregation and consequently exploited through the immediate presentation of that congregation's own explanation while the individual is still in a vulnerable state, but that our purely positivist world views can't naturally deal with without the kind of hacks that Western Religions try to utilise.

Religious people aren't making up their experiences, nor are they simply believing something because they want to. A subconscious, pseudo-rational association between a very real event and a set of explanations is made, by Organised Religion, at that fine window of opportunity between perception and evaluation.

and isnt the coptic church older than the r. catholic church so that the catholic church is neither the original nor the oldest but just the place from where the protestant churches came from?

That I don't know.

Say, I can't start any more threads because I'm dying, but a poster here has claimed that ONLY the Mormon Church claims conversion based on a spiritual experience.

Would you be interested in starting a thread to see what people think of this claim?

and isnt the coptic church older than the r. catholic church so that the catholic church is neither the original nor the oldest but just the place from where the protestant churches came from?

Note that a prototype is seldomn the best thing to come out of a production line ;)

Religious people aren't making up their experiences, nor are they simply believing something because they want to. A subconscious, pseudo-rational association between a very real event and a set of explanations is made, by Organised Religion, at that fine window of opportunity between perception and evaluation.

Well, a real event could still be "real" as an emotional response coming from the subconscious, and while the feelings are real in that they are feelings, that doesn't prove that that specific religion is the "True" one.

I guess my point is, again, if 3 different people all have that "real" experience, not made up, and each person arrives at the belief that their religion is the only correct one, at least 2 of them are wrong.

Which means that the experience, however real, is not a reliable indicator of having the One True Religion.

That I don't know.

Say, I can't start any more threads because I'm dying, but a poster here has claimed that ONLY the Mormon Church claims conversion based on a spiritual experience.

Would you be interested in starting a thread to see what people think of this claim?

what would i put in the OP?

I take refuge in the Lord, Jesus Christ, who is synonymous and inseparable from Love and compassion. I believe that Christians are enslaved to analyzing Scripture and never truly grasp the concept of universal Love to all creatures.

I believe that the Christian community needs to realize that compassion is the center of Christ's teaching and that a man's own ego is his worst enemy.

I want to launch a large-scale movement which I am calling the Tenth Crusade, whose aim is basically to build close bridges to other religions', particularly Muslims. God-willing, we will all be One under Love.

Before I die, I wish to see Christians in mosques, Muslims in Buddhist temples, Hindus in churches, Sikhs in synagogues, Jews in Hindu temples, and Hindus in Sikh temples, all in order to gain an elevated understanding of each others' religions.

The elimination of ignorance will destroy vanity and prejudiced where it exists.

God is Love.

Well, given that the particular belief of my church is that pretty much Peter was esablished as the first Pope and it's been continuous from there... with several schisms (as from the Eastern Orthodox church and the Protestant sects) it would be my belief the Catholic church is the original.

That does not, however, suggest to me that it is superior to other Christian churches -- the way I see it, like any family, we may disagree an certain points of order, but the foundation is generally the same. My best friend is a Lutheran and I've certainly attended plenty of services with her -- and really, there's not much difference between what we believe.

Its nice to see at least a culture of conciliation.

So, Catholics don't run around saying "Hah, Methodist dip, you won't get last rites from a priest, or confession, so you're gonna buuurn!"

I think that's a good thing.

Note that a prototype is seldomn the best thing to come out of a production line ;)

lol

yean but i suppose that the coptics have refined their beliefs over the centuries just like everyone else has

I want to launch a large-scale movement which I am calling the Tenth Crusade, whose aim is basically to build close bridges to other religions', particularly Muslims. God-willing, we will all be One under Love.


Oooooooh, dear....

Well, I'm glad you can see where Islam is just as true and real to the Muslim as your religion is to you. I hope that attitude progresses its way up to the leadership in the LDS. (I don't know if you are LDS or not, but I hope they eventually feel the way you've stated here).



Worry only about one's self? I don't know, a certain worry for others seems to be pervasive in a lot of religion (not all), and LDS (again, not necessarily you) have said to me that they worry a great deal about other's and want to save them.

On an unrelated note, I think UB's "Moron" bit was out of line, I wasn't trying to bag on your mod response.

I'm not LDS, and some of the beliefs and policies seem strange to me (like baptism by proxy). However, those I've met are honestly good folks and moral folks with their hearts in the right place.

When I say "worry about one's self", what I mean is not going about telling other people "you can't drink or we'll punish you," "you can't dress like that," "you can't worship what you want to," "you MUST believe what we believe".

I very much believe in helping others who need help. I donate to charities regularly, and have taken personal action as well. I don't think that, "We'll feed you and your family who are in desperate straits, but only if you profess your belief in my religion" types have the first clue of what being moral is about (and no, I am NOT suggesting that LDS do this.).

I take refuge in the Lord, Jesus Christ, who is synonymous and inseparable from Love and compassion.

While I can understand why some people would consider Jesus a nice man based on scripture (even though I myself disagree with that assessment) I always fail to see what makes him so damn special when compared to the millions of far more compassionate and loving people that have died throughout history.

In fact, I consider the comparison you make here to be a grave insult of love.

what would i put in the OP?

Well, the thread could be titled "Can only Mormons and some other Christians claim conversion through spiritual experience?"

For the OP, just check Neo Bretonnia's last post, quote the relevant part where he says that only Mormons (and possibly some other Christians) use a "spiritual experience" in their conversion.

His indication is that only Mormon's refrain from using "just take my word for it" approach, implying that everyone else uses it.

So, Catholics don't run around saying "Hah, Methodist dip, you won't get last rites from a priest, or confession, so you're gonna buuurn!"

Well, at least, this Catholic and the Catholics she's had contact with certainly don't. But, as always, YMMV.

I take refuge in the Lord, Jesus Christ, who is synonymous and inseparable from Love and compassion.

So, people who don't believe in Jesus, have no love or compassion?

That's how the word "inseparable" would function here.

And you're telling everybody else about their prejudice...

I don't think that, "We'll feed you and your family who are in desperate straits, but only if you profess your belief in my religion" types have the first clue of what being moral is about (and no, I am NOT suggesting that LDS do this.).

Its cool, it didn't seem that you were suggesting LDS were like that, anyway. To my knowledge, LDS community help is not restricted to only helping members, and I don't think Catholics are like that either, so you guys seem to be on the same page there.

Well, at least, this Catholic and the Catholics she's had contact with certainly don't. But, as always, YMMV.

Is it true there is a group of hardline Catholics that reject some sort of Vatican convention from a few decades back, that are evidently not so relaxed about other religions?

Is it true there is a group of hardline Catholics that reject some sort of Vatican convention from a few decades back, that are evidently not so relaxed about other religions?

Yes, there are some hardline conservatives who reject Vatican II. If I am not much mistaken, actor Mel Gibson is of that faction.

Vatican II, one of the most important councils in church history, profoundly changed the structures and practices of the church. It sought, in the words of Pope John XXIII, aggiornaménto, “to bring the church up to date,” and many of the council’s decrees did bring the church into the modern world. Although the reforms were welcomed by many, they produced internal disruptions greater than any the church has known since the Protestant Reformation. Some have argued that the council did not go far enough, while others have maintained that its reforms went too far, too fast. In the decades following the council, liberal and conservative Catholics were divided over interpretation of its decrees. Although such disunity posed a real threat of schism, there were only a few group departures. The number of departures of individual members of the laity and clergy, however, was large enough to cause concern and remained an important matter for the church long after the council ended.

In accordance with Vatican II, the Roman Catholic Church officially abandoned its “one true church” position and formally ended the thousand-year schism with the Greek Orthodox Church. It also entered into ecumenical conversations with other churches with the hope of establishing greater Christian unity. The church has assumed observer status in the World Council of Churches and has participated in groups associated with the World Council. Representatives of the church participated in the discussions sponsored by the World Council that led to the publication of the important document Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry (1982), which identified areas of agreement between the churches on several core teachings; the church responded positively, though with qualification, to the text. Steps to improve relations with non-Christian religions were made at Vatican II and by the popes of the later 20th century. The council’s declaration Nostra aetate (October 28, 1965; “In Our Era”) rejected the traditional accusation that the Jews killed Christ, recognized the legitimacy of Judaism, and condemned anti-Semitism. Efforts at improving relations with other religions, especially Judaism, were pivotal to the papacy of John Paul II, who prayed with world religious leaders in 1986, made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and prayed in a mosque and a synagogue.

"Roman Catholicism." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 07 Jun. 2008 <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/507284/Roman-Catholicism>.

Yes, there are some who reject Vatican II. If I am not much mistaken, actor Mel Gibson is of that faction.

Huh. I'll google "reject Vatican II" and see what I get.

Out of respect for your religion, and the respect you've shown by cooperating with other religions, I will refrain from referring to it as "Vatican II: Electric Boogaloo".

Say, I can't start any more threads because I'm dying,

Wait? As in your are terminally ill? :(:(:(

Hmmm.




Original, as in originator, as in first, as from whence other branches have sprung. Yes, I believe UB has used the word properly.

Hahhah! The early Roman Church did not create the Christian doctrine, there were Christians long before that Church even existed.

Out of respect for your religion, and the respect you've shown by cooperating with other religions, I will refrain from referring to it as "Vatican II: Electric Boogaloo".

:D

Much appreciated.

Hahhah! The early Roman Church did not create the Christian doctrine, there were Christians long before that Church even existed.

Hahaha, do you have anything useful to add? Explanation, perhaps, or was the point to be Nelsonesque?

Wait? As in your are terminally ill? :(:(:(

dont ask. it will only make me weep again to hear the details.

While I can understand why some people would consider Jesus a nice man based on scripture (even though I myself disagree with that assessment) I always fail to see what makes him so damn special when compared to the millions of far more compassionate and loving people that have died throughout history.

In fact, I consider the comparison you make here to be a grave insult of love.

Let's see. If there was a man who just killed your entire family. Would you offer him to stay in your home? Would you take care of him? Would you even take his prison sentence, in the hopes that he would notice what you did for him, and would live to be a better person? That essentially what Jesus did for us. He took unworthy people, who deserved a prison sentence for committing crimes against Him, and said 'Hey, I'll take this for you, but on the account that you clean your life up'. I don't know anyone else that would do that.

dont ask. it will only make me weep again to hear the details.



Oh,I am sorry to both you and especially to that poster. I can't believe that I missed this. :(

So, just to make sure (I want to be fair), you are here stating that no other religion (other than yours) claims conversion based upon a spiritual experience?

That's what you're saying?

So, for instance, then, no Imam would have ever told me "If you want to know if Islam true, go to Allah in prayer, He will tell you"?

And no other religion bases conversion on a spiritual experience?

You say "correct me if I'm wrong", well, how diligent were you in exploring this statement on your own? (Especially considering it appears to be a central aspect in your choice of religion).

Get uppity much? You could have made the correction without the sarcasm. Especially considering you're the one who started off by going after my beliefs, not vice versa.

Hahaha, do you have anything useful to add? Explanation, perhaps, or was the point to be Nelsonesque?

I was debating your point, what part do you need explained?

Oh,I am sorry to both you and especially to that poster. I can't believe that I missed this. :(

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=557753

Well, a real event could still be "real" as an emotional response coming from the subconscious, and while the feelings are real in that they are feelings, that doesn't prove that that specific religion is the "True" one.

I guess my point is, again, if 3 different people all have that "real" experience, not made up, and each person arrives at the belief that their religion is the only correct one, at least 2 of them are wrong.

Which means that the experience, however real, is not a reliable indicator of having the One True Religion.
Of course no religion is "True". The enunciation of any explanation is naturally motivated purely by the self-interest of the organisation responsible for putting it forward.

However, there is something in every religious explanation that survives the evaluation process. It is obvious, to us, that the idea of a supernatural sky wizard is ridiculous, but within the context of an individual who has just been briefly exposed to the contents of a religious hive mind, or the edge of chaos, or the visage of God, or whatever, something about what they've seen corroborates it as an explanation.

Maybe all three are wrong about their religion being the only correct one, but if indeed they are all seeing the same thing, the "one true belief" (although no such thing exists) is more closely approximated by finding their common intersection, no matter how much they, themselves, proclaim exclusivity.

Of course no religion is "True". The enunciation of any explanation is naturally motivated purely by the self-interest of the organisation responsible for putting it forward.

However, there is something in every religious explanation that survives the evaluation process. It is obvious, to us, that the idea of a supernatural sky wizard is ridiculous, but within the context of an individual who has just been briefly exposed to the contents of a religious hive mind, or the edge of chaos, or the visage of God, or whatever, something about what they've seen corroborates it as an explanation.

Maybe all three are wrong about their religion being the only correct one, but if indeed they are all seeing the same thing, the "one true belief" (although no such thing exists) is more closely approximated by finding their common intersection, no matter how much they, themselves, proclaim exclusivity.


the tao that can be known is not the true tao.

the tao that can be known is not the true tao.
Of that which we cannot know, we cannot speak.

Get uppity much? You could have made the correction without the sarcasm. Especially considering you're the one who started off by going after my beliefs, not vice versa.

Oh, was I uppity? Gee, I guess prior to the 1970's, I wouldn't have been allowed in the LDS priesthood, being uppity and all.

Was I any more sarcastic than implying that other religions use "Just take my word for it", as you did?

The fact is, you stated that this supposedly exclusive aspect of conversion by spiritual experience was not present in other religions, and in fact, that assumption on your part is central to your stated reasons for believing in your religion.

So, if I do correct it, with or without sarcasm, where might that lead?

Wait? As in your are terminally ill? :(:(:(

Thank you for your concern, but my passing is not the kind to be seriously concerned over, its the other kind of. But your sympathy is still gracious.

Of course no religion is "True". The enunciation of any explanation is naturally motivated purely by the self-interest of the organisation responsible for putting it forward.

However, there is something in every religious explanation that survives the evaluation process. It is obvious, to us, that the idea of a supernatural sky wizard is ridiculous, but within the context of an individual who has just been briefly exposed to the contents of a religious hive mind, or the edge of chaos, or the visage of God, or whatever, something about what they've seen corroborates it as an explanation.

Maybe all three are wrong about their religion being the only correct one, but if indeed they are all seeing the same thing, the "one true belief" (although no such thing exists) is more closely approximated by finding their common intersection, no matter how much they, themselves, proclaim exclusivity.

No religion is True? That's not what Crimean Republic says, and he's some kind of genius.

yet another moronic religion poll. I can forgive missing out my own religion (Paganism), we're hardly a large demographic. But why do the people who make these threads always miss out Hinduism, the third largest religion in the world?

the tao that can be known is not the true tao.

oh man, I just did without doing, now I am without being...

Kind of like going to a strip club, getting fucked without actually fucking.

yet another moronic religion poll. I can forgive missing out my own religion (Paganism), we're hardly a large demographic. But why do the people who make these threads always miss out Hinduism, the third largest religion in the world?

There's some other religion he's missed out as well... hmm.. can't quite remember it, nah it's probably nothing, you seem to have all the major ones covered. ;)

Poll full of fail. I'm an Agnostic Atheist - but apparently those two things are exclusive, according to the poll.

And, of course... neither of them is even a religion....

yet another moronic religion poll. I can forgive missing out my own religion (Paganism), we're hardly a large demographic. But why do the people who make these threads always miss out Hinduism, the third largest religion in the world?

Nuh uh. I see lots of Hindus on campus. Large? Those guys are like 50 or 60 kilos, tops.

Everyone forgets the Jews...

yet another moronic religion poll. I can forgive missing out my own religion (Paganism), we're hardly a large demographic. But why do the people who make these threads always miss out Hinduism, the third largest religion in the world?
It isn't taken that seriously by other folks, because a lot of people think it's polytheïstic, and when people usually think of those they think off the Romans and the Greeks, old died-out religions. Heck, I've discussed with a couple of people (Christians, if you want to know, some pretty orthodox) and apperantly they thought that now it was "just a couple of habits"and stuff like that, simply translated "It's just bullshit, it's not noteworthy." I just hate that arrogance...

Anyway, I'm sick of all the labels and boxes, all the -isms. It just leads to prejudgisms, this poll shows why -isms fail.

Everyone forgets the Jews...

Sounds like Godwin-baiting...

Sounds like Godwin-baiting...

Now that just sounds anti-semetic, not all Jews Godwin and whine about the holocaust the whole time. You know who else would have treated Jews as badly as you... Hitler! :eek:

Now that just sounds anti-semetic, not all Jews Godwin and whine about the holocaust the whole time. You know who else would have treated Jews as badly as you... Hitler! :eek:

I'd like to thank the Academy... the crew, the writers, obviously....

Pagan.

Full on, 100% Member of the Party Religion.

Yes, we do have orgies in the woods.
No, we don't sacrifice virgin policemen (I mean, do you know how HARD it is to find a virgin in this day an age?! Come on! Those spells involving the sacrificing of a virgin have become completely uncastable).

Yes, we do have orgies in the woods.

Where can I sign up?

Let's see. If there was a man who just killed your entire family. Would you offer him to stay in your home? Would you take care of him? Would you even take his prison sentence, in the hopes that he would notice what you did for him, and would live to be a better person?

I know someone who did just that, yes. I call him an idiot, not a good man.

That essentially what Jesus did for us. He took unworthy people, who deserved a prison sentence for committing crimes against Him, and said 'Hey, I'll take this for you, but on the account that you clean your life up'. I don't know anyone else that would do that.

You need to meet more people. And think harder about what makes someone a good person.

You need to meet more people. And think harder about what makes someone a good person.

Isn't complete, unconditional good acts the very definition of what makes someone good?

Where can I sign up?

*shudder*

think of the TICKS.

And think harder about what makes someone a good person.
Hey, say what you like about the stupidity of the whole divine sacrifice idea, but the Jesus character, as Luke puts it across, is a good guy. Sure, he had a few moments of weakness (killing a tree to make a point was not exactly his best moment), but he didn't stray from his notions of human kindness, giving his time and ability up to help those less fortunate and standing up to the establishment that was keeping them in psychological repression.

Isn't complete, unconditional good acts the very definition of what makes someone good?

Not really. "Good" deeds can have disastrous results, while "selfish" deeds might be better for all involved in the long run. Completely ignoring ones own needs, considering oneself insignificant is also not considered to be good everywhere. Otherwise we would all be communists.

Where can I sign up?

*Brings out contract*

This requires that you do not call upon the Norse Gods until you at least know how to pronounce their names and what they have dominion of...technically they are a major part in Heathenism rather than plain Paganism, but so many fluff bunnies have been provoking them recently by calling on them.

*Points to paper*

Sign here, here, here, initial here, here, here and Here.

That last one was just an autograph, but hey, what the hell.

Hey, say what you like about the stupidity of the whole divine sacrifice idea, but the Jesus character, as Luke puts it across, is a good guy. Sure, he had a few moments of human weakness (killing a tree to make a point was not exactly his best moment), but he didn't stray from his notions of human kindness, giving his time and ability up to help those less fortunate and standing up to the establishment that was keeping them in psychological repression.

*shrugs* I literally know several dozens of people that do more or less the same. I do not see what makes Jesus more special, other than that he got resurrected and became the second most powerful being in the universe.

Offer me the same deal Jesus got and I would accept.Hell, I would accept a lesser deal.
Does that make me a better person than Jesus ?

*shudder*

think of the TICKS.

Hot shower after and everything is fine!

Not really. "Good" deeds can have disastrous results, while "selfish" deeds might be better for all involved in the long run. Completely ignoring ones own needs, considering oneself insignificant is also not considered to be good everywhere. Otherwise we would all be communists.

Yes but obviously Jesus' actions during his life had good results, he gave hope to the lower orders of society etc... and never did anything to the disadvantage of anyone for his own greed. I mean it's very rare to not call Jesus good, even Kant describes him as one of the best followers of the categorical imperative.

*Brings out contract*

This requires that you do not call upon the Norse Gods until you at least know how to pronounce their names and what they have dominion of...technically they are a major part in Heathenism rather than plain Paganism, but so many fluff bunnies have been provoking them recently by calling on them.

*Points to paper*

Sign here, here, here, initial here, here, here and Here.

That last one was just an autograph, but hey, what the hell.

Thanks, I totally believe in these horse Gods, they're like awesome. Now when's the next orgy???

Hey, say what you like about the stupidity of the whole divine sacrifice idea, but the Jesus character, as Luke puts it across, is a good guy. Sure, he had a few moments of weakness (killing a tree to make a point was not exactly his best moment), but he didn't stray from his notions of human kindness, giving his time and ability up to help those less fortunate and standing up to the establishment that was keeping them in psychological repression.

I do all that, without the weird cursing-trees thing. And I'm not even doing it for the promotion.

It's a prety poor lookout that we're supposed to consider someone a realistic candidate for god, just because he only acts like a prick to fruit.

*shrugs* I literally know several dozens of people that do more or less the same. I do not see what makes Jesus more special, other than that he got resurrected and became the second most powerful being in the universe.

Offer me the same deal Jesus got and I would accept.
Me too. In fact, arguably, Jesus got a no-brainer. I'd have happily accepted taking eternal torment myself - he got the "appeal to divine authority" get-out clause.

But you don't have to be "more good than anyone else could possibly be" to be "a good person". Credit where credit's due, and all that.

Oh, and...

Otherwise we would all be communists.
And this would be a bad thing?

True. Then again, if memory serves me right there are more Catholics than every other denomination of Christianity combined. So from a democratic point of view it is up to them to decide what is Christian and what isn't.
Sorry, I was under the impression that organised religion was about submission to an absolute power, not democracy.

Thanks, I totally believe in these horse Gods, they're like awesome. Now when's the next orgy???

Depends if there is a coven near you...

Either at the next full moon, or at 20th/21st June. Litha.

It's a pity you just missed Beltane. It's our biggest orgy of the year...

I do all that, without the weird cursing-trees thing. And I'm not even doing it for the promotion.
Was he? That wasn't something I thought when reading it. You could argue he was doing it for the attention, entirely fairly, but I don't think the attainment of Godhood was ever his objective.

It's a prety poor lookout that we're supposed to consider someone a realistic candidate for god, just because he only acts like a prick to fruit.
Well, quite. But, of course, it's not us this pitch is being aimed at, and with respect, it's a pretty poor lookout for those it does work on anyway.

God's Debris is an awful book.

And no, this flight of fancy is not just as likely as anything else: for a start, the idea of an omniscient being needing to 'experiment' is absurd by definition.

Believe me when I say don't believe anything I write on NSG. Also, I can't believe someone came up with my theory before me, next you'll say there's no original thought in this world, merely incremental opinion.

Unbelievable.

One can create any belief, don't think yours is absolute.

Sorry, I was under the impression that organised religion was about submission to an absolute power, not democracy.
You'd be mistaken, then. Except in as much as the church authorities are said absolute power, I suppose.

You'd be mistaken, then.
I think not.
Except in as much as the church authorities are said absolute power, I suppose.
Yes, exactly. Not much point roping people into blind faith if you're going to let them ask questions.

I think not.
Okay then: What does it mean to be a Christian? (Going off to watch Doctor Who - back soon!)

I am a proud Roman Catholic, though I see different ways to God, even atheism and agnosticism as ways if the person is good to his fellow man. I see it as different ways. You can take a plane(Catholicism) or you can walk (atheism). Either way, it is still possible to get to the same place, albeit more dificult with the other ways. I do get annoyed with people who call Christianity violent, and just ignore counter-examples like Babylon, Greece, Rome, and particularly the early French Republic and communist Russia. All were non-Christian entities who managed to be biased and intolerant just the same. And they deny it!

Sorry, I was under the impression that organised religion was about submission to an absolute power, not democracy.

But how else are you going to determine who may call themselves Christian, if not through listening to the majority ? Look who adheres to the Bible most strictly ? That would exclude almost all denominations, except perhaps scary people like Fred Phelps.

Was he? That wasn't something I thought when reading it. You could argue he was doing it for the attention, entirely fairly, but I don't think the attainment of Godhood was ever his objective.

Perhaps not. But he did get it - and he knew that beforehand.
Really good deal.

Okay then: What does it mean to be a Christian?
Being a member of any Christian denomination, obviously.
But how else are you going to determine who may call themselves Christian, if not through listening to the majority ?
"If you want to be Christian, and submit to our God and way of doing things, fine"
Look who adheres to the Bible most strictly ? That would exclude almost all denominations, except perhaps scary people like Fred Phelps.
Bugger that. If people want to identify themselves as Christian, they can go ahead. On the other hand, the power in a church isn't really vested in the churchgoers, it's vested in the holy types.

Was he? That wasn't something I thought when reading it. You could argue he was doing it for the attention, entirely fairly, but I don't think the attainment of Godhood was ever his objective.


If the Christian scripture is to be believed, we all have the free will to oppose god. Even (according to most Christian arguments) 'Satan' opposed God. We're also told that Jesus was 'very god' and 'very man' - so he still had the capacity to go against god - but he chose not to. He chose to be god, rather than man - he did it for the promotion.

"If you want to be Christian, and submit to our God and way of doing things, fine"

The "our God" and "our way of doing things" is where it gets tricky.

Bugger that. If people want to identify themselves as Christian, they can go ahead.

So the Catholics, Mormons, Phelpses, people that believe Jesus was a raptor and people that just like the name are all equally true Christians ?

In that case it is a word without real meaning. So let the majority decide what the meaning should be.

So the Catholics, Mormons, Phelpses, people that believe Jesus was a raptor and people that just like the name are all equally true Christians ?

In that case it is a word without real meaning. So let the majority decide what the meaning should be.
It's indeed a meaningless word by itself, "God" is also a meaningless word by itself. It depends on the meaning people give to it.

Oh, was I uppity? Gee, I guess prior to the 1970's, I wouldn't have been allowed in the LDS priesthood, being uppity and all.

Was I any more sarcastic than implying that other religions use "Just take my word for it", as you did?

The fact is, you stated that this supposedly exclusive aspect of conversion by spiritual experience was not present in other religions, and in fact, that assumption on your part is central to your stated reasons for believing in your religion.

So, if I do correct it, with or without sarcasm, where might that lead?

Yeah, you were uppity.
I said "Correct me if I"m wrong" precisely because I didn't know for sure. A reasonable person could have said "Well actually..." and gone on to explain it. It was that simple. Any additional implication you attached to it was on YOU not me, and I'm not going to sit here and apologize to you over your assumptions. If you want to talk to me reasonably, we can. If you just want somebody to gripe at, I've got better things to do. You decide.

I am a proud Roman Catholic, though I see different ways to God, even atheism and agnosticism as ways if the person is good to his fellow man. I see it as different ways. You can take a plane(Catholicism) or you can walk (atheism). Either way, it is still possible to get to the same place, albeit more dificult with the other ways. I do get annoyed with people who call Christianity violent, and just ignore counter-examples like Babylon, Greece, Rome, and particularly the early French Republic and communist Russia. All were non-Christian entities who managed to be biased and intolerant just the same. And they deny it!

Don't let it get to you. They do that mostly in order to justify anti-Catholic vitriol.

Any additional implication you attached to it was on YOU not me, and I'm not going to sit here and apologize to you over your assumptions. If you want to talk to me reasonably, we can. If you just want somebody to gripe at, I've got better things to do. You decide.


I missed something. Out of curiousity, is this part:

"The fact is, you stated that this supposedly exclusive aspect of conversion by spiritual experience was not present in other religions, and in fact, that assumption on your part is central to your stated reasons for believing in your religion."

...true?

Related to true?

I missed something. Out of curiousity, is this part:

"The fact is, you stated that this supposedly exclusive aspect of conversion by spiritual experience was not present in other religions, and in fact, that assumption on your part is central to your stated reasons for believing in your religion."

...true?

Related to true?

This is what I said. It wasn't sarcastic, so I don't know where that was coming from.

They can certainly say the same of me. They do all the time. The difference is that (and correct me if I'm wrong) neither Islam nor any other belief system claims conversion based upon a spiritual experience. (Some Christian denominations probably do) but you'll notice that Mormon missionaries take the "don't take my word for it, ask God directly" approach.
Roger that.

This is what I said. It wasn't sarcastic, so I don't know where that was coming from.

So... you were wrong - but you kind of allowed for it. Okay. And the "that assumption on your part is central to your stated reasons for believing in your religion" bit?

So... you were wrong - but you kind of allowed for it. Okay. And the "that assumption on your part is central to your stated reasons for believing in your religion" bit?

:shrug:

I've always asserted that my belief is based on a personal experience that I can neither explain nor prove, but that's me.

:shrug:

I've always asserted that my belief is based on a personal experience that I can neither explain nor prove, but that's me.

So... you didn't say it?

So... you didn't say it?

Are you asking for the sake of clarification, or because you're looking to get me to contradict myself?

Are you asking for the sake of clarification, or because you're looking to get me to contradict myself?

I'm asking because I (apparently) didn't see what it is you appear to be talking about.

You do seem to be becoming increasingly evasive and confrontational about it, though.

Perhaps, there's my answer.

I'm asking because I (apparently) didn't see what it is you appear to be talking about.

You do seem to be becoming increasingly evasive and confrontational about it, though.

Perhaps, there's my answer.

I'm not being evasive and I don't mean it confrontationally.

Right now, my patience with people is at a low. It's not that I'm trying to be nasty to you, it's that I'm tired of people taking things that I say and distorting them in order to justify giving me crap over it. So yes, sometimes my patience wears thin and it makes me defensive. I've just come out of a series of posts dealing with a person who has an axe to grind against me, my religion, or maybe both. Sometimes when yuo try to be reasonable it gets you nowhere so instead one learns to be careful.

To answer you directly, no. I've never indicated that my whole spiritual belief system revolves around the idea that the Mormon Church is the only religion that takes the "don't take my word for it, go to God" approach.

Gods... not one of these threads again...

If the Christian scripture is to be believed, we all have the free will to oppose god. Even (according to most Christian arguments) 'Satan' opposed God. We're also told that Jesus was 'very god' and 'very man' - so he still had the capacity to go against god - but he chose not to. He chose to be god, rather than man - he did it for the promotion.
This might seem strange coming from me, but I really don't understand your point at all. Are you saying that by not going against God, Jesus rejected his humanity, and that this necessarily involves a promotion of being? Are you suggesting that the reason he didn't go against God when he could was motivated by prospects of future gain? (which would be highly speculative) Are you supposing that choosing to take on the title of God is the same thing as actually wanting to be God? Or is this just pitched way over my head?

Gods... not one of these threads again...

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/religionthreadnv7.jpg

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/religionthreadnv7.jpg

Expecting more facepalm, actually. Give it a page or two though.

I'd say more of agnostic than anything. I don't think faith can be quantified nor the existence of god(s) proven or disproven. That said of the religions or belief systems that exist, Islam would seem to make the most sense to me, personally.

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/religionthreadnv7.jpg

Iffy has come to save us all!!:eek:

Iffy has come to save us all!!:eek:

Iffy's doing what where now? Has he been moonlighting as a superhero again?

Iffy's doing what where now? Has he been moonlighting as a superhero again?

No, he´s a savior.

No, he´s a savior.

*snicker* A savior, eh? Well, he has his moments.

I was debating your point, what part do you need explained?

You have a funny idea of what debate is. "ha ha" is not debate.

Switching back and forth between Agnostic and Atheist

Just being agnostic will do nicely for me. Switching sounds tiring.

Yeah, you were uppity.
I said "Correct me if I"m wrong" precisely because I didn't know for sure. A reasonable person could have said "Well actually..." and gone on to explain it. It was that simple.

Okay, then: Neo Bretonnia, your assumption about other religions not having a "spiritual" conversion has been shown to be incorrect and a basic examination of other religions as well as many counterexamples will show that. Islam and many other religions have a spiritual aspect to their conversion, which directly shows that your line of reasoning that you found Mormon conversion somehow more valid due to its use of this conversion techinque is not consistent with the facts. As you like to say, it was that simple.


Any additional implication you attached to it was on YOU not me, and I'm not going to sit here and apologize to you over your assumptions.

What about your assumptions?

My only assumption was when you presented your statement about other religions supposed lack of spiritual conversion, was that you thought Mormon's "spiritual conversion" was somehow distinctive. Looking at your own post and the line of reasoning, that was clealry implied, and not an unreasonable assumption on my part.

So again, what about your assumption, the one you applied to millions of other people and their religions?


If you want to talk to me reasonably, we can. If you just want somebody to gripe at, I've got better things to do. You decide.

I have reasonably illustrated that you were making an assumption and I have reasonably refuted your assumption about other religions. Why is that unreasonable?

I'm not being evasive and I don't mean it confrontationally.

Right now, my patience with people is at a low. It's not that I'm trying to be nasty to you, it's that I'm tired of people taking things that I say and distorting them in order to justify giving me crap over it. So yes, sometimes my patience wears thin and it makes me defensive. I've just come out of a series of posts dealing with a person who has an axe to grind against me, my religion, or maybe both. Sometimes when yuo try to be reasonable it gets you nowhere so instead one learns to be careful.

To answer you directly, no. I've never indicated that my whole spiritual belief system revolves around the idea that the Mormon Church is the only religion that takes the "don't take my word for it, go to God" approach.

Okay - that's what I was looking for. The problem is, when you ask a question three times before you get an answer, it looks like avoiding the issue.

I'm not sure if the contratemps took place in this thread, or is a reference to something elsewhere... so I just wanted to make sure the thing being referenced was being understood (mainly, by me) in context.

:shrug:

I've always asserted that my belief is based on a personal experience that I can neither explain nor prove, but that's me.

If you can't explain it, then how do you know you aren't just believing what you need to believe, want to believe?

An explanation, a priori, is your reason and purpose for doing something. If you can't explain it, what does that say about its merit as an action?

Especially an action that would effect your whole life, your outlook, your philosophy...if even you admit that you are basing all of that on something inexplicable*, what does that really say?

Or is it, you can't explain it to others? Well, if you can't explain it to others, you haven't really explained it to yourself, since we can all understand things just as well as you.

Or is it, you can't explain it to someone who hasn't had "the experience"? Well, we've established that other religions have that experience too, yet they arrived at a different conclusion.


Per your request, this is all presented reasonably, and you said you'd discuss it. I'd like to hear your response.

Okay - that's what I was looking for. The problem is, when you ask a question three times before you get an answer, it looks like avoiding the issue.

I'm not sure if the contratemps took place in this thread, or is a reference to something elsewhere... so I just wanted to make sure the thing being referenced was being understood (mainly, by me) in context.

GnI, look at the post of his own that he himself quoted.

He clearly states that the supposedly distinctively "spiritual" nature of Mormon conversion as part of his premise.

The very nature of what conversion is makes it a vital fulcrum and primal foundation of one's spiritual beliefs, so for him to now say

I've never indicated that my whole spiritual belief system revolves around the idea that the Mormon Church is the only religion that takes the "don't take my word for it, go to God" approach.

remember that he DID say that the conversion process had that supposed advantage, and he was clearly using that to support his religion as more valid than others in its conversion. And again, since conversion is, a priori, the process of choosing that religion, this does impact his "whole spiritual belief system".

GnI, look at the post of his own that he himself quoted.

He clearly states that the supposedly distinctively "spiritual" nature of Mormon conversion as part of his premise.

The very nature of what conversion is makes it a vital fulcrum and primal foundation of one's spiritual beliefs, so for him to now say

remember that he DID say that the conversion process had that supposed advantage, and he was clearly using that to support his religion as more valid than others in its conversion. And again, since conversion is, a priori, the process of choosing that religion, this does impact his "whole spiritual belief system".

I have to say, it certainly looks that way. I wasn't really trying to join that argument... I just wanted to see what was going on (I think I missed that little interplay). Logically speaking, I'd say you're right... but then, since when was religious conversion logical?

*snicker* A savior, eh? Well, he has his moments.

He certainly does.


I´m tired of God/Religion threads... I´m off from this Holy mess.

Agnostic. God is the invention of beings higher than us: space aliens.

I have to say, it certainly looks that way. I wasn't really trying to join that argument... I just wanted to see what was going on (I think I missed that little interplay). Logically speaking, I'd say you're right... but then, since when was religious conversion logical?

The funny thing was, Neo Bretonnia accused ME of assumptions, of being unreasonable, yet when HIS assumption about other religions was easily refuted, he wants to make that my fault.

He talks about how he's "tried to be reasonable", yet so far, the line of reasoning his presented has been shown to be deeply flawed.

Then, he backpedals to "I can't explain it". Well, if he can't explain what should be the most pervasive and influential decision of his life, what does that say?

I have a number of Mormon LDS friends, some of whom are thoroughly versed in Mormon doctrine and theology. It will be interesting to see what they think of his statements here.

Agnostic. God is the invention of beings higher than us: space aliens.

Wooh! Go Rael!!!!

Wooh! Go Rael!!!!
Go Zecharias Sitchin!!!!

I'm an atheist. I try to be nice to believers, but it can be hard when they insist we take Santa and the Easter bunny seriously.

I'm an atheist. I try to be nice to believers, but it can be hard when they insist we take Santa and the Easter bunny seriously.
Some guy at my social group insists that. <_<

Like a clown car full of Nyarlthahoteps, LG just keeps the love coming.

I tried to consider what that would entail. I think my brain just exploded.

God. Sky Fairy. Easter Bunny. Same difference.

Some guy at my social group insists that. <_<

I believe you mean, "Support Group." :p

I'm an atheist. I try to be nice to believers, but it can be hard when they insist we take Santa and the Easter bunny seriously.

Excepting that Santa Claus is strictly secular, and the Easter bunny actually comes from the goddess Eostre... quite pagan, last I looked.

I believe you mean, "Support Group." :p
You could call it that.... :p

I follow Juda[removed for the Great Dawn's benefit].

Excepting that Santa Claus is strictly secular, and the Easter bunny actually comes from the goddess Eostre... quite pagan, last I looked.Silly kitty. I mean an adult believing in any of them strikes me as equally ridiculous.

I believe in the power of the human imagination, for good or bad it sure comes up with some weird shit.

I tried to consider what that would entail. I think my brain just exploded.

Don't worry. The Fungi from Yuggoth will deliver you a new one, delivered in a FedEx tube crafted from some strange metal, with a sheen unlike any that could be identified by the department of Dubious Metallurgy at Miskatonic University.

Undoubtedly this has been done before, but I wasn't around for it. And, I figured this might make a great discussion, if a somewhat heated one.
An unoriginal topic, yes, but you are correct in that it will create entertaining drama.

Me personally, I'm an apathetic agnostic. I'm not sure as to the existance of a god/gods, as I have seen no direct evidence (I'm leaning towards the no side. e.g. AIDS),

What does AIDS have to do with god(s)?

Myself, I am a sort of pagan.

The funny thing was, Neo Bretonnia accused ME of assumptions, of being unreasonable, yet when HIS assumption about other religions was easily refuted, he wants to make that my fault.

He talks about how he's "tried to be reasonable", yet so far, the line of reasoning his presented has been shown to be deeply flawed.

Then, he backpedals to "I can't explain it". Well, if he can't explain what should be the most pervasive and influential decision of his life, what does that say?

I have a number of Mormon LDS friends, some of whom are thoroughly versed in Mormon doctrine and theology. It will be interesting to see what they think of his statements here.

Perhaps it's wrong of me, but - aside from basic flavours of Christianity, I tend to assume most people are faking their religion on forums.

Certainly, the Mormons (and Witnesses - especially Witnesses) I've actually known in real life, bear little resemblence to the versions I see on NSG.

You have a funny idea of what debate is. "ha ha" is not debate.

So apparently you missed the "The early Roman Church did not create the Christian doctrine, there were Christians long before that Church even existed" part.

Silly kitty. I mean an adult believing in any of them strikes me as equally ridiculous.

And it’s ridiculous that an intelligent person would deny the existence of God…
Psalm 53:1-3
The fool says in his heart,
"There is no God."
They are corrupt, and their ways are vile;
there is no one who does good.

God looks down from heaven
on the sons of men
to see if there are any who understand,
any who seek God.

Everyone has turned away,
they have together become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.

And if we pretend that God doesn’t exist and act in ways that are not good…
Romans 1:16-20
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, "The righteous shall live by faith."

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Excepting that Santa Claus is strictly secular

Actually Santa Clause is a combination of Saint Nicholas of Myra, several pagan gods, the father Christmas figure and coca cola. Extremely religious in other words, and we celebrate his feast at Yule.

Undoubtedly this has been done before, but I wasn't around for it. And, I figured this might make a great discussion, if a somewhat heated one.

Me personally, I'm an apathetic agnostic. I'm not sure as to the existance of a god/gods, as I have seen no direct evidence (I'm leaning towards the no side. e.g. AIDS), however, since whatever, if anything, is up there doesn't seem to care for us much regardless, the question is solely academic.

Apathetic agnosticism (also called Pragmatic agnosticism)—the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of God or gods, but since any God or gods that may exist appear unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic anyway---Wikipedia

Same as you. I, however, do believe in the existence of the supernatural, ghosts and spirits.

And it’s ridiculous that an intelligent person would deny the existence of God…
Psalm 53:1-3
The fool says in his heart,
"There is no God."
They are corrupt, and their ways are vile;
there is no one who does good.

God looks down from heaven
on the sons of men
to see if there are any who understand,
any who seek God.

Everyone has turned away,
they have together become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.

And if we pretend that God doesn’t exist and act in ways that are not good…
Romans 1:16-20
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, "The righteous shall live by faith."

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Why the hell do you keep citing scripture as a support for your point? Because it doesn't support anything.

Why the hell do you keep citing scripture as a support for your point? Because it doesn't support anything.

Because there aren't any new arguments here, ancient counter-arguments work just fine still so I use them. There is nothing new about these anti-theist view points, they were debunked thousands of years ago... modern is not new, despite the apparent contradiction.

Ecclesiastes 1:9
What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.

Ecclesiastes 3:17-22
I said in my heart, God will judge the righteous and the wicked, for there is a time for every matter and for every work. I said in my heart with regard to the children of man that God is testing them that they may see that they themselves are but beasts. For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity. All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return. Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth? So I saw that there is nothing better than that a man should rejoice in his work, for that is his lot. Who can bring him to see what will be after him?

Because there aren't any new arguments here, ancient counter-arguments work just fine still so I use them.

you are aware that there is a difference between counter-arguments and nay-saying, yes?

Because there aren't any new arguments here, ancient counter-arguments work just fine still so I use them. There is nothing new about these anti-theist view points, they were debunked thousands of years ago... modern is not new, despite the apparent contradiction.

Ecclesiastes 1:9
What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.

Ecclesiastes 3:17-22
I said in my heart, God will judge the righteous and the wicked, for there is a time for every matter and for every work. I said in my heart with regard to the children of man that God is testing them that they may see that they themselves are but beasts. For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity. All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return. Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth? So I saw that there is nothing better than that a man should rejoice in his work, for that is his lot. Who can bring him to see what will be after him?

Wait, you're calling these quotes 'arguments'? They are just assertions and poetic phrases, where the only justification for believing them are self contained so any reasoning to give authority to its words are circular.

You are essentially saying: "hey guys guess what you're wrong because this ancient book I like says so!"

Because there aren't any new arguments here, ancient counter-arguments work just fine still so I use them. There is nothing new about these anti-theist view points, they were debunked thousands of years ago... modern is not new, despite the apparent contradiction.

Ecclesiastes 1:9
What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.

Ecclesiastes 3:17-22
I said in my heart, God will judge the righteous and the wicked, for there is a time for every matter and for every work. I said in my heart with regard to the children of man that God is testing them that they may see that they themselves are but beasts. For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity. All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return. Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth? So I saw that there is nothing better than that a man should rejoice in his work, for that is his lot. Who can bring him to see what will be after him?
... uhu...

"You're wrong because my book says so"

Awesome. Let's apply a similar principle to, say, Christianity. Christ didn't die, that's bullshit, he couldn't have, as a prophet of God, because Islam says so.

Wait, you're calling these quotes 'arguments'? They are just assertions and poetic phrases, where the only justification for believing them are self contained so any reasoning to give authority to its words are circular.

You are essentially saying: "hey guys guess what you're wrong because this ancient book I like says so!"

I'm not using them as an appeal to authority, they have no authority granted them here, I'm using the positions presented by the words themselves to either point out a shared opinion (shared by me) or as a direct counter statement to another persons assertion which I disagree with. Additionally, if I expressed my shared opinion without quoting them, wouldn't I be accused of plagiarism? So I quote.

... uhu...

"You're wrong because my book says so"

Awesome. Let's apply a similar principle to, say, Christianity. Christ didn't die, that's bullshit, he couldn't have, as a prophet of God, because Islam says so.

So quote it.

I'm not using them as an appeal to authority, they have no authority granted them here, I'm using the positions presented by the words themselves to either point out a shared opinion (shared by me) or as a direct counter statement to another persons assertion which I disagree with. Additionally, if I expressed my shared opinion without quoting them, wouldn't I be accused of plagiarism? So I quote.

So then the problem still remains, since they do not add support to what you say in any way. So citing them is pointless and superfluous.

So quote it.
Why bother?

It's not a proper argument, because it lacks any evidence to back your statement up, it's just saying "look, my opinion is this".

I'm not using them as an appeal to authority, they have no authority granted them here, I'm using the positions presented by the words themselves to either point out a shared opinion (shared by me) or as a direct counter statement to another persons assertion which I disagree with.

so that's a 'no', then.

i think perhaps you might be well served by looking up what an argument is.

There is nothing new about these anti-theist view points, they were debunked thousands of years ago...

I am very interested in your definition of "debunked". Because from where I sit it is the literal interpretation of certain parts of the Bible (e.g. Genesis, Noah) that has been debunked - not the doubting of Scripture.

And as people said, Islam has debunked everything you believe. The Qu'ran says so, so it must be true.

My own Holy book in turn has debunked Islam. Look - it says so in page 1 *quickly scribbles it in*.
Unless you are willing to acknowledge that your own logic is worthless, you must now convert or be a hypocrite.

So quote it.

Read the Qu'ran. The description of the Islamic view of Jesus given was accurate.

So quote it.

Say: O People of the Scripture. Come to an agreement between us and you: that we shall worship none but Allah, and that we shall ascribe no partners unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside Allah. And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are they who have surrendered (to Allah).
[Al Imran 3:64]

Read the Qu'ran. The description of the Islamic view of Jesus given was accurate.

I've read the entire Qur'an, I wasn't convinced, despite claiming ayats, it didn't have any.

I've read the entire Qur'an, I wasn't convinced, despite claiming ayats, it didn't have any.
OK, well here's yer wee bit about how Jesus didn't die :

That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not: Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.
—Qur'an, [Qur'an 4:157]

And "I'm not convinced" is not more an argument than "I am convinced", by the way.

OK, well here's yer wee bit about how Jesus didn't die :

That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not: Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.
—Qur'an, [Qur'an 4:157]

And "I'm not convinced" is not more an argument than "I am convinced", by the way.

And the Qur'an says this:

"Christ, the son of Mary, was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how God makes His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!" (5:75).

Oh I've seen it all, and it's use of non-canonical Jesus stories is telling, the author of the Qur'an was familiar with gnostic works written hundreds of years after Christ but hundreds of years before Mohammad. Thats too bad for Islam, because they've got it all messed up now because of it.

Christ died, Christianity was founded on that very principle six hundred years before the Qur'an was written... The theology of salvation for Christians is this:

Romans 6:4
We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Thus, Islam fails to create a substitute for it, Mohamed never quotes cannon scripture, only heresy gnostic scripture, I wonder why?

Silly kitty. I mean an adult believing in any of them strikes me as equally ridiculous.

*shrug* I don't know of any adult Christian who believes that Santa is coming down the chimney, nor that a rabbit delivers candy and colored eggs, but ok.

And the Qur'an says this:

"Christ, the son of Mary, was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how God makes His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!" (5:75).

Oh I've seen it all, and it's use of non-canonical Jesus stories is telling, the author of the Qur'an was familiar with gnostic works written hundreds of years after Christ but hundreds of years before Mohammad. Thats too bad for Islam, because they've got it all messed up now because of it.

Christ died, Christianity was founded on that very principle six hundred years before the Qur'an was written... The theology of salvation for Christians is this:

Romans 6:4
We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Thus, Islam fails to create a substitute for it, Mohamed never quotes cannon scripture, only heresy gnostic scripture, I wonder why?

In case you hadn't realised, nobody is saying that the Quran is the least bit authoritative on this case, we were just using it as an example to show how that quoting from some 'sacred' writings do not add anything to your argument. Because it doesn't, it's just a very annoying thing to do.

So apparently you missed the "The early Roman Church did not create the Christian doctrine, there were Christians long before that Church even existed" part.

Why do I expect better of you?
Yes, ha ha, blah blah blah. Did you bother to mention what did exist before? No? So the point was not to "debate" a point, because a statement without explanation is not debate, the point apparently was to be a cartoon character.

Now why don't you go steal Bart's lunch money already.

And the Qur'an says this:

"Christ, the son of Mary, was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how God makes His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!" (5:75).

Oh I've seen it all, and it's use of non-canonical Jesus stories is telling, the author of the Qur'an was familiar with gnostic works written hundreds of years after Christ but hundreds of years before Mohammad. Thats too bad for Islam, because they've got it all messed up now because of it.

Christ died, Christianity was founded on that very principle six hundred years before the Qur'an was written... The theology of salvation for Christians is this:

Romans 6:4
We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Thus, Islam fails to create a substitute for it, Mohamed never quotes cannon scripture, only heresy gnostic scripture, I wonder why?
Uhu, as you rightly point out "this is just what they say". On the other hand, you then try to come back with "but this is what this says". That's not proof. That's just a different story.

Actually Santa Clause is a combination of Saint Nicholas of Myra, several pagan gods, the father Christmas figure and coca cola. Extremely religious in other words, and we celebrate his feast at Yule.

I had no idea that Coca-Cola was sacred. My mistake.

And I am aware of the connection to Saint Nicholas and his act of charity but nowhere in the Bible or in Christian doctrine will you find mention of Santa Claus, nor of his reindeer, nor of Christmas trees (which are also a permutation of the pagan yule logs and brought to us by Queen Victoria and Prince Albert). They are secular symbols as presented today. The early Christian church may have usurped the time period and some of the customs for Saturnalia and the Yule feast, but truly, one cannot say that Christians celebrate them.

Wait, you're calling these quotes 'arguments'? They are just assertions"

Ohhh, hey pot..... :p

Did you bother to mention what did exist before? No? So the point was not to "debate" a point, because a statement without explanation is not debate, the point apparently was to be a cartoon character.


I assumed that you already knew, and I still do because I don't believe that you think that there were no Christians before the dawning of the Roman Catholic church. Also notice I said earliest surviving church originally, not oldest church. But if you really want a source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_early_Christianity.

*shrug* I don't know of any adult Christian who believes that Santa is coming down the chimney, nor that a rabbit delivers candy and colored eggs, but ok.

the point is that such beliefs are equally ridiculous as imaginary sky friends, for precisely the same reasons

I had no idea that Coca-Cola was sacred. My mistake.

And I am aware of the connection to Saint Nicholas and his act of charity but nowhere in the Bible or in Christian doctrine will you find mention of Santa Claus, nor of his reindeer, nor of Christmas trees (which are also a permutation of the pagan yule logs and brought to us by Queen Victoria and Prince Albert). They are secular symbols as presented today. The early Christian church may have usurped the time period and some of the customs for Saturnalia and the Yule feast, but truly, one cannot say that Christians celebrate them.

You said Santa Clause was "secular". Not "non christian".

And I am aware of the connection to Saint Nicholas and his act of charity but nowhere in the Bible or in Christian doctrine will you find mention of Santa Claus, nor of his reindeer, nor of Christmas trees (which are also a permutation of the pagan yule logs and brought to us by Queen Victoria and Prince Albert). They are secular symbols as presented today. The early Christian church may have usurped the time period and some of the customs for Saturnalia and the Yule feast, but truly, one cannot say that Christians celebrate them.

secular does not mean what you think it means

Agnost. In practice atheistic, with a tendency to be extremely annoyed by the hypocrisy of almost all organised religions and their followers.

Pretty much my feelings on the subject, except when I get into heated arguments with a hypothetical deity, which usually ends with me quoting St. Theresa of Avila and saying "No wonder you have so few friends, look how you treat the ones you've got."

I had no idea that Coca-Cola was sacred. My mistake.

You've clearly never seen "The Gods Must Be Crazy."

God loving, deluded, Sikh theist here. Whoohoo!:)

God loving, deluded, Sikh theist here. Whoohoo!:)

Do you carry a Kirpan, and if so, do you ever get flak from people about it?

Where I live, you can get a permit to carry a concealed firearm, and I don't imagine a kirpan is more dangerous than a firearm.

Do you carry a Kirpan, and if so, do you ever get flak from people about it?

Where I live, you can get a permit to carry a concealed firearm, and I don't imagine a kirpan is more dangerous than a firearm.

Naaaa no kirpan for me, i'm no Amdrethi(baptised) sikh. On the whole though the Amdrethi sikhs of my aquantence have very little problems with it, as it is legislated for.

Watch the movie "Zeitgeist" its free for all to see on the internet, skip most if you want but watch whole part 1. I am an atheist and believe me, these guys explain alot about how everything came as it is.

I do not mean to dishonour religion but please open up for this movie and maybe even open your eyes and see the thruth

Call me an agnostic apathist: I don't know, and I don't care.

Watch the movie "Zeitgeist" its free for all to see on the internet, skip most if you want but watch whole part 1. I am an atheist and believe me, these guys explain alot about how everything came as it is.

I do not mean to dishonour religion but please open up for this movie and maybe even open your eyes and see the thruth

Heh thats the strange thing about the thruth, nobody is sure exactly what it is.

Watch the movie "Zeitgeist" its free for all to see on the internet, skip most if you want but watch whole part 1. I am an atheist and believe me, these guys explain alot about how everything came as it is.

I do not mean to dishonour religion but please open up for this movie and maybe even open your eyes and see the thruth
Yes yes, you've shown me that at school, it's pretty damn suggestive though. No proper sources, no backing up, no proper and thorough research. Sure, some of those things sad there might be an explanation, but there is also a lot or rubbish in it (what they say about the cross for example). It ain't just "the truth", it's a possible explanation for the origin of certain myths and stories.

Yes yes, you've shown me that at school, it's pretty damn suggestive though. No proper sources, no backing up, no proper and thorough research. Sure, some of those things sad there might be an explanation, but there is also a lot or rubbish in it (what they say about the cross for example). It ain't just "the truth", it's a possible explanation for the origin of certain myths and stories.

As soon as someone dismisses something as 'rubbish' in this kind of high-handed manner, they make a skeptic of me... well, you and your new friend have convinced me to watch something I wasn't going to watch.

As soon as someone dismisses something as 'rubbish' in this kind of high-handed manner, they make a skeptic of me... well done, between you and your new friend, you've convinced me to watch something I wasn't going to watch.
Nah he ain't new, he's a classmate ;)
But ofcourse it's worth to watch because every option is worth checking out, but heck what they say about the cross and where that came from simply does not make any sense: back in those days, crucifiction was a completly normal way of capital punishment, no need for that wierd explanation. Ever heard from Occam's Razor? It's not high-minded, sometimes it's just obvious. For other things, it might not be that way, but it is for the example I gave. Another class-mate (Razsin knows who I mean) did simply brush it all away as complete rubbish, without even looking at it properly.

Watch the movie "Zeitgeist" its free for all to see on the internet, skip most if you want but watch whole part 1. I am an atheist and believe me, these guys explain alot about how everything came as it is.

I do not mean to dishonour religion but please open up for this movie and maybe even open your eyes and see the thruth
I don't get this. You, and all of the other "atheists" who keep bringing this up, completely miss the point of the film. Zeitgeist is all about the disestablishment of Religion. You're supposed to dishonour the idea that other people can tell you what's right. It is a calculated and deliberate refutation to the assertion that Establishment can be trusted, including the sort of naively positivist "that which isn't religion is right".

The three parts of the film are inseparable if you want to get the message it's putting across. You can't trust religion, but you also can't trust the people who say you can't trust religion (including me) purely on the basis of being able to discredit religion (or institutional thought in general). The Zeitgeist is not just something that the religious or the right-wing politicians exploit - it is an intrinsic part of community and society, and it's something that we need to be prepared to challenge and confront in all of the convenient pidgeonholes we try to stick people in or stick to ourselves. That's what the 3rd part of the film is about, and if you don't get that, you don't get the message of the 1st. Simple as that.

Ever heard from Occam's Razor? It's not high-minded, sometimes it's just obvious.
Ack. Another incorrect use of Occam's Razor.

The Razor is not a principle of fact. The Razor is a principle of building approximations to fact. It is used in Science as a guide to hypothesis creation, not as a technique for dismissing arguments out of hand. Otherwise, we'd still be stuck in Newtonian physics.

I'm christian.:)