What religion are you?

[Lil' Timmy]

Heh I meant the corpse is fresh, anything dead over say..a hour I wont touch

and thus this thread comes full-circle.

 

[rocklegendfm99]

if you cant vote for christianity then whoever made this thread is going to hell

 

[PvtRyan]

Heh I meant the corpse is fresh, anything dead over say..a hour I wont touch

Phew... you scared me there for a second bro.

 

[mchammer75040]

I wonder how long it will take before badger closes, deletes and bans us and this thread..

 

[Lil' Timmy]

I wonder how long it will take before badger closes, deletes and bans us and this thread..

no no no, icarus closes, bans, and deletes. badger just acts like he a lady's man and pretends to travel about.

 

[mchammer75040]

Ohh ok well bring the heat icarus

 

[nw909]

I'm Buddha, sup dudes.

 

[PvtRyan]

Ohh ok well bring the heat icarus

Better not, his wings will melt.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

I'm Buddha, sup dudes.

are you pissed that the commies took tibet? oh and muslims control your ancient lands.. gj you weakling.

 

[IchI]

Satanist

 

[Apos]

I personally haven't done an in-depth study on Catholics, but I have done enough research where a lot of Catholicism is fundamentally different. While Catholics and Protestants may believe in the same God and savior, there is a dramatic difference with other things (Pope, saints, rosary beads, communion to name just a few).

That is a big difference than comparing the differences of how evangelical a denomination should be.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Mormons are pretty darn different from everybody. So are Jehovah's Witnesses. In fact, there are lots of Christian sects that are pretty darn different from each other.

But they're all Christians, which is the point. Nobody gets to claim exclusive ownership of what "correct" Christianity is.

Most far left democrats tend to be anti-religious. I apoligize if I wrongly categorized you.

I'm not religious, but I'm pro-liberty and definately not anti-religious.

However, if it wasn't you who was going to make the statement, somebody else would come in here saying I'm sort of religious nut. Understand, I put up with it on a constant basis. You have no idea what it is like.

Oh, I think I might. (note, see your quote above).

Let me be plain. I don't think faith is a good way to determine universal facts that we all have to contend with in mutual society. But I don't have any problem with people living their lives according to their faith as long as it doesn't materially infringe on anyone else's right to do the same. I'll certainly argue with people about the truth of this or that claim, but there's nothing per se wrong or crazy about having or living by faith beliefs.

 

[blahblahblah]

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Mormons are pretty darn different from everybody. So are Jehovah's Witnesses. In fact, there are lots of Christian sects that are pretty darn different from each other.

But they're all Christians, which is the point. Nobody gets to claim exclusive ownership of what "correct" Christianity is.

Nearly all protestant denominations do not include Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses as Christian.

PS - Did you see my massive election rebuttal of a while back? It was great. Let me dig up the post.

[Edit]: Ahhh, here it is!

 

[f|uke]

if you cant vote for christianity then whoever made this thread is going to hell

you're kidding.. right?

 

[clarky003]

what would you stereotype me as.. if i dont care about religion?,, and all I endevour to do is to help better humanity, and understand being part of that humanity on earth.. to better myself to help other's so to speak.

understanding what will happen to me after I die seems pointless to me, because I will find out when I die anyway,, I know I either cease to be human,,, therefore.. fear after death is an impossiblity, because of my emotions being shed. or I carry on in some form or other... as a different form of energy,, Etherial perhaps.

but all I know is .. why worry about religious belief's when there is this plane of reality to explore through our senses,, make the most of it.. and find out about everything later when our time comes,, if thats possible.

 

[slicktick]

Nearly all protestant denominations do not include Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses as Christian.

So what if nearly all protestants dont include us Mormons as Christians, we are by definition worshipers of Christ, and we believe in him, just as any other protestant sect does. So there is no argument at all for us not being Christian.

 

[Yakuza]

*sigh*

Standard creationist arguments like this really make my blood boil.... :|

Please define "proper amounts" for me, do we receive a 'proper' amount of heat and light? There are creatures who will die at room temperature, there are also creatures that thrive in pitch dark at the bottom of the freezing ocean, isn't that proper light and heat as well? It is for those animals.

And that's precisely what evolution is: adjustment.
It's not pure chance.

Ever thought of the possibility that life emerged because of the situation here? You flip cause-result, 'the conditions for animals here are perfect so they must have been created'.
They adjusted themselves to these conditions. And you can deny it all you want, but that's a fact.

But this is futile, you just won't listen... you just won't listen....

Isac Newton was the one who I quoted. But then again what the hell did he know right?

 

[Apos]

What I am saying is that you base your whole Belief system on what some one else has done and scene.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that science is a "belief system." Again, it's a method for testing claims against both evidence and skeptical review.

You have never seen an atom yet you believe the exist simple by word of man.

Well, I have more than word. I have my extensive knowledge of human society and how it works, and of how science works to produce testable results. The distributed way that science works prevents there from being any single authority to direct "truth", and the open nature of the discussion allows anyone and everyone to participate and understand and examine. Hence it would take a truly massive, and frankly, highly implausible conspiracy for a faulty result to stand for long unless it was based on a truly important and serious error that hundreds of inquiring people had simply in good faith yet to find.

And of course, I have done some limited and interesting experiments. I've spoken to, for instance, one of the guys that built the fusion reactor in Princeton, NJ, and I've even seen some of the experiments they do there. I've seen mass spectrometers. I've done basic lab experiments. I've examined geologic evidence and reams of argument concerning evolution. Again: hard to see how all that equates to simply taking something on faith, given, again, that it would require a massive, worldwide conspiracy of almost millions of people to fake some of the major and basic claims that I've not personally experimented with.

You have "faith" in the words and findings of these scientist because you choose to believe what they says as truth, with out ever actualy seeing them, testing them for yourself.

Again, while on some gross level that might make sense, it's hard to see how this compares to taking a particular truth entirely on faith. In the case of atoms, scientists have had to explain exactly their reasoning and their evidence and how they got the result. They thus open up their claims to attack and verification by others, and after being subjected to just such skepticism, their claims and evidence held up. And that evidence isn't sealed away somewhere: it's out for all to examine, including myself if I was truly skeptical. This process most certainly gives me a much higher confidence, and legitimately so, that scientific claims are however as well verified as they claim to be. So again: hard to see how that compares to someone simply declaring themselves the authority and saying they know something is true: but can't prove it or explain how someone else could verify it.

What makes your truth more valid than My truth. Becuase I believe in the supernatural my truth is less valid?

I'm not sure what particular truth you are talking about: you'll have to specify. But if a truth is verified by extensive testing and years of argument and people trying to disprove it, then yeah, I'd say that's a lot more worthwhile as a guide to truth than just something someone believes without explaining how they verified it.

 

[Yakuza]

well sure ...but I dont believe he was the son of god

So Jesus was a liar?

 

[PvtRyan]

Isac Newton was the one who I quoted. But then again what the hell did he know right?

Why would I care who said it? If it's invalid compared to todays knowledge, it's completely irrelevant.

So Jesus was a liar?

Maybe things became very twisted in the many many retranslations of the bible? The way the bible says it went, doesn't necessarily mean it actually went that way.

 

[Danimal]

SON OF A BITCH!

I go to sleep and now my innocent, yet crappy poll turns into a argument about science vs religion and then about necrophilia...

I am now sad ;(

 

[Prince of China]

You should've known that would happen when you post a thread about religion.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

mission accomplished.

 

[Danimal]

meh a true noob always learn from his or her mistakes

 

[Yakuza]

Why would I care who said it? If it's invalid compared to todays knowledge, it's completely irrelevant.

and what knowledge today would make Newtons knowledge invalid?

Maybe things became very twisted in the many many retranslations of the bible? The way the bible says it went, doesn't necessarily mean it actually went that way.

You dont know how bibles are translated do you.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

and what knowledge today would make Newtons knowledge invalid?

it wasn't knowledge, it was an opinion.

You dont know how bibles are translated do you.

sure why not, jesus could have been a filthy liar (assuming he existed at all). he could have been a complete loon that smoked one too many flaming bushes too.. either of those suppositions has precedent in reality, unlike a giant fairy in the sky.

 

[righte0us]

Israel (Jewish) represent.

 

[Apos]

So Jesus was a liar?

So David Koresh was a liar?

So Mohamed was a liar?

So Buddha was a liar?

So John Morris was a liar?

It ain't that simple.

 

[Apos]

Isac Newton was the one who I quoted. But then again what the hell did he know right?

He also thought you could turn lead into gold if you just found the correct chemical solution. He was wrong.

Newton wasn't a biologist (he was primarily a mathematician), and he certainly wasn't aware of the concept of evolution or the new insight it provides into the natural world.

 

[Yakuza]

So David Koresh was a liar?

So Mohamed was a liar?

So Buddha was a liar?

So John Morris was a liar?

It ain't that simple.

We are talking about one person right now. Jesus. Its really simple do you think he is a liar.

 

[Yakuza]

it wasn't knowledge, it was an opinion.sure why not, jesus could have been a filthy liar (assuming he existed at all). he could have been a complete loon that smoked one too many flaming bushes too.. either of those suppositions has precedent in reality, unlike a giant fairy in the sky.

What are opions based off of?

And your basing it off of what? If you agree that he did exist and thats what we are talking about, then you either believe he was a liar or he was telling the turth.

 

[Bigcheese]

LDS (aka morman)

and a poll should not have evan been made, to many religions....

 

[Lil' Timmy]

What are opions based off of?

And your basing it off of what? If you agree that he did exist and thats what we are talking about, then you either believe he was a liar or he was telling the turth.

opinions are based off of perceptions.

for arguments sake, let's assume that jesus really existed. it's not as simple as a veracity test, b/c we are talking about a person, not a computer. here are some possibilities:

1) jesus was both correct, and truthful.
2) jesus was wrong, but believed what he was saying (truthful).
3) jesus was right, but lying (he didn't know he was right).
4) jesus was wrong and he knew it (liar).
5) the reality of a historical jesus is lost to time (an often transliterated political document contains little trustworthy information upon which one can deduce the reality of jesus).

tell me why #1 is any more plausible than the other 4.

 

[Dynasty]

religion is a waste of time imo....never has any TRUE facts based on it. so-and-so said this, so-and-so did that....whatever!!!

 

[Apos]

We are talking about one person right now. Jesus. Its really simple do you think he is a liar.

Dude, I've read CS Lewis, and the argument doesn't make any sense.

First of all, liar about what in particular? You forgot to specify the particular statement you're talking about. Lots of different things are attributed to Jesus. No one is just flat out "a liar" all the time.

Second of all, I really have no idea whether Jesus even said everything that is attributed to him. If so, he may have been lying about some things, he may have been convinced he was right about some things, we may not even know what he meant a lot of the time. Just because I don't have much reason to think that some of the things attributed to him in the Bible are true doesn't mean I have any clue whether the guy even existed the way he is portrayed, much less whether he was lying, crazy, right, or some mix of all in any given situation.

 

[Danimal]

First of all, liar about what in particular? You forgot to specify the particular statement you're talking about. Lots of different things are attributed to Jesus. No one is just flat out "a liar" all the time.

Timmy might have been reffering to Jesus claiming he was the sun of god and king of the jews

Please mods. Delete this thread, it is becoming page after page of 2 people correcting each other

I HAVE CREATED A MONSTER!

 

[The Mullinator]

Personally I believe that there was a man named Jesus at one time who really did end up truly believing they were the son of god and everyone else believed it as well. I believe he may have been a real person but he was just like every other human being, he wasn't the son of a god.

 

[johnnypoopoopant]

you don't have christian up there!!!

 

[Apos]

Timmy might have been reffering to Jesus claiming he was the sun of god and king of the jews

It's not even clear what either of those terms really meant to people, or even how Jesus might have meant them. Certainly, his concept of king of the jews was radically divergent from most Jews (as was messiah, given that Jesus did not in any sense bring about the messianic age that Jews associated with the messiah), and he didn't really explain it very well. Son of God and Son of Man are also cryptic concepts that later people basically have decided mean this or that, without acknowledging the original ambiguity.

Regardless, it was extremely common in those days for people to believe themselves the messiah or great phrophets or the sons of gods. There were countless such figures: some even quite similar to Jesus.

 

[CptStern]

So Jesus was a liar?

well we dont know what his actual words were do we? we have second hand accounts of what he might have said, might have done ...anyways if jesus did say that he is god made flesh he's a big fat liar pants on fire ...as is every other prophet who's made claims of divinity ..no disrespect intended

 

[Tr0n]

So Jesus was a liar?

He is human also.