  |
| Author |
|
Theowne
Baron
Registration Date: 02.11.07
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1290 |
|
|
Roarkiller:
quote:
The first one was inaccurate in translation (when compared to mine, at least).
Well, again, that sort of proves my point about ambiguity in translation. In my version, it says what I posted above...So I could just as easily say your version is incorrect.
quote:
The actual meaning to this line is how the moon and sun are orbiting in THEIR respective orbit
The word "their" doesn't really change anything. The verse still talks about how the sun and moon are orbiting in the sky, while in reality the Earth is the one orbiting the sun.
It is easy to make that mistake, and it was what people would believe back then, looking at the sky.
quote:
The line, while talking about planetary motion, is also talking about how the path taken by these planets are constant.
It doesn't mention the planets at all, just the sun and moon orbiting in the sky. To me, it sounds just like the regular old geocentric model.
The fact that the Earth is also called a "fixed abode" supports this as well, since we all know the Earth is always moving, orbiting the sun. But back then, they thought it was a fixed abode, naturally.
quote:
The second is not talking about the sun "overtaking" the moon by any means. It is talking about how daytime will never catch up to night time, and vice versa; they are a constant.
The word night and day are mentioned after the words sun and moon. If they meant the same thing, why would they say the same thing twice? Immediately following that is the sentence "They float each in an orbit.". Night and day float in orbit? Again, in my opinion the sentence is clearly about the sun and the moon in the sky, and the belief that they are moving around the Earth, never "catching up" to the other, and that's why night and day are at separate times.
Also, even if your interpretation is correct, the verse itself is still incorrect. Night time and day time are not constant. Here in Canada night time begins at 8:00 at one time of the year, and 5:00 in another.
quote:
And not many people know that much. So interpretations of many of these people (including me) hold very little merit in the first place. As I said before, only a person truly knowledgeable about their on religion is truly qualified to argue and explain it. All others simply do not know enough to make their own explanatons, no mater how rational.
It's fine to take that route if you want to. But what it basically says is that only people with favorable views on their religion decide whether it is accurate or not. And I don't mind if people do that, but I do take issue when people say that the Quran or anything else is scientific, and then when that claim is challenged, respond with "You will never understand it" or such similar things. If people are going to make that sort of claim they should be willing to defend it properly.
Post last edited by Theowne on 11.17.2007, 12:34 PM.
|
|
 11.17.2007, 12:20 PM |
   
|
Saddletank
Miyazaki's Best Friend
Registration Date: 09.28.06
Location: On your case
Posts: 10069 |
|
|
I apologise for this ridiculously long post, but I have tried to respond to a number of previous posters. Feel free to just skip to the parts where I respond to you individually.
quote:
Originally posted by Lovecraft
I'm a Satanist, but that does not mean I worship the devil.
I truely hope you are not a satanist.
From what you then go on to say, I'd put you firmly in the humanist camp.
quote:
Originally posted by Theowne
Believing in religion is the first step to believing in healers, mediums, and other things which people waste their money on.
Wow, you are so, so worringly off-target in that view. The exact opposite is the truth. Religious people reject spiritualists, mediums and other charlatans because, being religious they know that such communications are fraudulent. Or they should.
Note; I’m always and only talking from a Christian point of view. If other religions embrace mediums and so on… well… there’s a serious problem there.
Healers of course can be different. I’ve experienced healing and seen it at work. Personally enjoyed it. If the healing comes from Jesus, that’s absolutely how it should be. If it comes from elsewhere, if the person calling upon a healing power calls on anything but Jesus, be very suspicious.
quote:
Originally posted by Theowne
To be a part of a religion means you accept everything that religion says is true (which is quite a lot) and at the same time dismiss every single other religion, and all the things that one says, as false. Without any real reason or proof.
A follower does not have to accept everything that his religion says is true. I don’t accept that homosexuality is abhorrent to God. I believe the opposite. Does this make me no longer a valid member of the Church? For centuries the Christian church would not permit females to preach. Or that the Bible should not be translated out of Latin or Greek. Many Christians believe the earth was created in six days and on the seventh God put his feet up and read the Sunday papers. I don't. Many others don't - they agree with an earth billions of years old and all that evolution theory suggests. Neither is wrong and more to the point neither is remotely relevant. There are core things it is essential to believe, the rest is just not that important. Religion is NOT a fixed object set in stone 2000 years ago, people continuously use their intelligence to question things. I have said this in another thread recently. The Church is a living breathing creature and at minor levels doctrine is constantly changing.
Yes there is a core of required beliefs every Christian must hold. But you may be surprised to find they are few.
The converse is true - believers of a religion do not necessarily have to reject all that other religions say. Roarkiller is clearly an intelligent and wise person and not subject to the ranting of a funfair sideshow charlatan - there is much in the Muslim faith that has value and only an ostrich with its head in the sand would reject the Koran out of hand. Or a fundamentalist might which is even worse.
In some ways, the way that minds constantly study the Bible and question it, the Church changes much like science’s view of the origins of the universe changes. Apart from some core values, little is fixed.
God wants us to continuously question things and discuss things and be curious. And after so many centuries of such questioning and poking and ridiculing the amazing thing is the Bible still holds the single most powerful truth about how we should live our lives.
quote:
Originally posted by Theowne
Try going to a person who has suffered from cancer or some other disease from birth and tell him that this is all a master plan by God. It can't always be that simplistic.
It isn’t, I never said it was nor should any Christian say that. I have no answers as to why innocent people, especially children, suffer so. But the world is full of seemingly random suffering and there is a perfectly valid reason for that: original sin. Man is also an animal inherently full with the ability to do evil. He uses that ability with glee.
quote:
Originally posted by #1sanfan
The major religions all have some kind of loophole that can make skeptics and people who want to take an opposing view on it, some cannon fodder.
To be Christian, you have no choice but to accept that Jesus was an actual person. I think that the good deal of history leaves him out. That shocks me, the person who is supposed to be the son of God, isn't even a footnote
You would need to run that past me again. Seeing as Jesus is the single most significant and well known life in history, where does he become less than “a footnote”?
quote:
Originally posted by #1sanfan
People dump there experience on god because the simple fact, that if there was an all powerful being, then they could have prevented it. Why would this being sit back and watch us like a movie?
Did you read the PM exchange we had a few weeks ago? I explained all this to you then. You have your answer why: free will. Please go back to our previous discussion, all your answers are there.
quote:
Originally posted by #1sanfan
He put in his stage hand, we offed it, and then he is just going to chill and relax to the Earth Show? Why not just go with the eternal happiness. If I could create a world that is what I would do.
He did. He did that exactly. Man rejected it. He sent his son. Man rejected him too. People such as yourself ask to witness life changing events, miracles even. You’ve already had them. Jesus raised people from the dead. He himself was. People saw it, first hand. And still they did not believe. Why should people’s reaction be any different today? Tell me, if you saw today a man raised from the dead, what would you think? That God had done a miracle? Or that science had? Please be honest.
Do you not think it is selfish of you to demand a personal miracle in your life when countless millions before you and around you deserved and deserve so much more than you?
That is one reason why he does not intervene in every life. Whose life is more deserving of interference? Yours? Or mine? Or that starving AIDS ridden baby in Ethiopa? Should God cure us all? Then what should we do with faith? Sanfan, I'm sorry, it doesn't and cannot work like that. You would not want it like that either. If everything that went wrong God fixed at once we would all be merely puppets dancing on strings with no life and no freewill.
quote:
Originally posted by #1sanfan
The bible is the biggest loophole in modern history IMO. It was put together by Constantine several hundred years after the death of christ. It didn't fall from the sky, it was written by man, a committee of them.
No-one has ever claimed it did fall from the sky. The Old and New Testaments have always been accepted as written by individuals (not committee) through whom God breathed his intentions.
Have you read any books that describe how the Bible was written, when and how it became to be assembled and finally took the form it does today? How the early church was established? Saying it was “put together by Constantine several hundred years after the death of Christ” isn’t doing the facts justice. I too was full of questions about the facts surrounding Jesus’ execution circa 33AD and also how the Bible came into existence. Its one of my main driving interests in Christianity – I like to ask questions, asking and asking and picking away at facts is all I do.
Please read some books about this before you completely fabricate things. I am more than happy to write out here two or three pages for you but would you read it? Would you believe it? Somehow I doubt it, but if you honestly offer to try I will do it. The New Testament is the single most reliable ancient text in the world, both from the number of extant early examples (or fragments) and from the time-lapse between the date of the original writings and of the extant examples. The accuracy and reliability of the New Testament is more reliable than Caesar’s “Gallic War”, Livy’s “Roman History”, Tacitus’ “Histories” and “Annals” or Herodotus or Thucydides. Despite the broken links in both time and/or completeness we have back to such early manuscripts, no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest manuscripts of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals. Yet we have parts of the Gospels dating back to around 130AD, less than 50 years after they were written. The numerous (and I’m talking thousands) of early manuscripts and fragments of the New Testament are consistently in agreement in all major points. Minor grammatical differences exist: that is all. The intent and meaning of the originals is preserved.
The New Testament is a very sound, authentic and accurate rendition of the original Gospels and letters of Paul (and others) all written before 100AD. Arguing against that is impossible.
quote:
Originally posted by #1sanfan
Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism.
It’s not an offshoot, it is Gods intended continuation and completion of the plan he started centuries before among the Jewish people. In fact Judaism is an error confounded by those who didn’t accept Christ. Those guys who saw miracles performed right in front of their faces and rejected them.
quote:
Originally posted by Roarkiller
If Jesus was the messenger, why was the bible tasked by others?
I am very sorry that no-one answered this question, I honestly can’t recall you asking it. I will speak with some friends tomorrow and get you a response.
Post last edited by Saddletank on 11.17.2007, 12:34 PM.
|
|
| 11.17.2007, 12:22 PM |
|
Theowne
Baron
Registration Date: 02.11.07
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1290 |
|
|
Saddletank:
quote:
But the world is full of seemingly random suffering and there is a perfectly valid reason for that: original sin.
I do not view "original sin" as a perfectly valid reason that a child is born condemned to an irregular life while plenty of undeserving people enjoy the opposite. It is easy for a person (I'm not saying you specifically) who has a relatively trouble-free existence to dismiss the suffering in the world as "God's plan", it is far less easy for the people who are experiencing that suffering to accept it. I have seen and experienced this sort of thing, and the idea that there are people who undermine it as "God's plan" does make me a bit angry.
quote:
Religious people reject spiritualists, mediums and other charlatans because, being religious they know that such communications are fraudulent. Or they should.
What they should do is not what they always will. A person who has taken a leap of faith to believe in an organized religion's teachings and history could just as easily take a leap of faith to believe in a television healer. Whereas someone who has been taught to be a skeptic will question the validity before spending their money, time, and even emotional investment.
quote:
f it comes from elsewhere, if the person calling upon a healing power calls on anything but Jesus, be very suspicious.
Peter Popoff calls on Jesus in all his healing sessions. But what he actually heard was his wife, feeding him private information to make him look like he was being spoken to by God. He threw away people's crutches and told them they could walk again. And everyone thought he was talking to Jesus.
quote:
Does this make me no longer a valid member of the Church?
Well, certainly according to some members over at the Christian forums, it would.
Post last edited by Theowne on 11.17.2007, 12:49 PM.
|
|
| 11.17.2007, 12:30 PM |
|
Saddletank
Miyazaki's Best Friend
Registration Date: 09.28.06
Location: On your case
Posts: 10069 |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Theowne
I do not view "original sin" as a perfectly valid reason that a child is born condemned to an irregular life while plenty of undeserving people enjoy the opposite. It is easy for a person (not saying you specifically) who has a relatively trouble-free existence to dismiss the suffering in the world as "God's plan", it is far less easy for the people who are experiencing that suffering to accept it. I have seen and experienced this sort of thing, and the idea that there are people who undermine it as "God's plan" does make me a bit angry.
I am sorry, it is not easy to accept. You are entitled to be angry. I am angry too and I know why it happens, it does not make the pain any less. Right now in my life there is a person I love very much who is embracing evil because they think there is more validity in it for their life than in what God can offer. It hurts to face these things. There is evil in the world, I don't deny it. But having faith at least helps me understand it better and view our brief existence here in the context of life afterwards.
quote:
Originally posted by Theowne
What they should do is not what they always will. A person who has taken a leap of faith to believe in an organized religion's teachings and history could just as easily take a leap of faith to believe in a television healer.
I disagree. Because they have faith in a true religion they should be LESS likely to believe in a TV healer. If their faith is sound. However some TV healers are persuasive, the devil is very clever at what he does.
quote:
Originally posted by Theowne
Peter Popoff calls on Jesus in all his healing sessions. But what he actually heard was his wife, feeding him private information to make him look like he was being spoken to by God. He threw away people's crutches and told them they could walk again. And everyone thought he was talking to Jesus.
That's my point. They THOUGHT he was, but he wasn't, he was a charlatan. Jesus specifically warns against such people. But people are still taken in by them, it is human nature to be desperate for answers. We cannot know how many people in Popoff's audiences were Christians and who were just desperate hurting people whom he exploited.
quote:
Does this make me no longer a valid member of the Church?
Originally posted by Theowne Well, certainly according to some members over at the Christian forums, it would.
And that proves what exactly? Christians argue among themselves all the time, just as non-Christians do, its part of the questioning and learning process. I notice you picked up on that one example of mine but not the others. I originally put a "no" answer to that rhetorical question since it is rhetorical and does not affect how much God loves me and wants me to be saved and go out and tell people he loves them too. That is what Christians should be about, not quibbling about gay priests or whatever.
The strength of the church is it's members. It will always be its weakness too.
Post last edited by Saddletank on 11.17.2007, 12:54 PM.
|
|
| 11.17.2007, 12:53 PM |
|
Theowne
Baron
Registration Date: 02.11.07
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1290 |
|
|
Saddletank:
quote:
I am sorry, it is not easy to accept.
The missing part here is that there is no reason to accept it. I have no reason to accept the idea that there is a reason for everything and that it is perfectly acceptable for people to be cursed from birth or in their life simply as "God's" plan in condescending tones from people who have never experienced it themselves. (again, not saying you specifically). It reminds me of the response to the shootings in the US university - it's easy for people at home to say that the students should have fought back, but put those same people in that position and they may have a different opinion.
I thought about all of this and made the decision that in the end, rather than sitting back believing it was all "God's plan" and must occur, I would rather get up and start doing something to help these people cursed under "God's plan". That's my decision, and others are free to make their own.
quote:
That's my point. They THOUGHT he was, but he wasn't, he was a charlatan.
And how is he any different from all the others? How do you know that they are genuine while he's not? Do we have to pry the earpieces from every single charlatan before people will recognize them as frauds?
quote:
I notice you picked up on that one example of mine but not the others.
I'm not sure what you mean. All your examples referred to beliefs which would not normally be considered pure Christian beliefs. I pointed out that many Christians would disagree with you. So who should we believe when we are discussing Christianity?
Post last edited by Theowne on 11.17.2007, 02:12 PM.
|
|
| 11.17.2007, 01:05 PM |
|
Mush
Baron
Registration Date: 07.30.07
Location: South of Canada
Posts: 1810 |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Saddletank
Wow, you are so, so worringly off-target in that view. The exact opposite is the truth. Religious people reject spiritualists, mediums and other charlatans because, being religious they know that such communications are fraudulent. Or they should.
Note; I’m always and only talking from a Christian point of view. If other religions embrace mediums and so on… well… there’s a serious problem there.
Saddles, I have to say I disagree with you wholeheartedly. Okay, yes - we've seen that Christianity adamantly rejects "magic" and anybody who claims to have magical powers. That's why there were people rallying to ban Harry Potter, after all.
But what would Christianity be if not for Christ? Wasn't he claiming to be pretty much exactly that? Or Moses? Or Muhammad? All of them claimed to be communicating with God. Whether or not they actually did is a matter of what religion you believe.
Clearly, following a religion means taking some leap of faith, and accepting somebody's claim without substantiating evidence. That's pretty much inherent to all major religions. So what is to say that Jesus' claim on holiness is any more valid than that of the ex-Soviet-traffic-cop who claimed to be Jesus reborn, and headed to Siberia to build a paradise with his followers? How can you say that he's a charlatan and Jesus is not?
Finally, many religions did embrace spiritualists. Why would you say that's a "serious problem"? If you think it's wrong for them to delude themselves like that, well, they could say the same thing about your religion. It's all relative.
quote:
If it comes from elsewhere, if the person calling upon a healing power calls on anything but Jesus, be very suspicious.
I'm wondering... how can you ever tell what kind of healing power they're calling on?
quote:
Originally posted by Theowne
To be a part of a religion means you accept everything that religion says is true (which is quite a lot) and at the same time dismiss every single other religion, and all the things that one says, as false. Without any real reason or proof.
We usually see eye-to-eye but here I disagree with you, Theowne. Everyone believes what they believe. Whether they claim to be a follower of a religion is their business; it doesn't change what they believe. Like Saddletank says, a lot of religious people accept homosexuality. I'm going to bold this because I think it's important. Being a follower of a religion does not determine what you believe. It works the other way: What you believe determines what religion you identify with.
Sometimes (in fact, almost all of the time) people's beliefs don't line up squarely behind any one particular religion. That doesn't stop them from joining a religious community, and it shouldn't.
quote:
But the world is full of seemingly random suffering and there is a perfectly valid reason for that: original sin.
Just as a sidenote, why do you believe in original sin? I personally think people's sins come from their actions and decisions, not from their birth.
quote:
He did that exactly. Man rejected it. He sent his son. Man rejected him too. People such as yourself ask to witness life changing events, miracles even. You’ve already had them. Jesus raised people from the dead. He himself was. People saw it, first hand. And still they did not believe. Why should people’s reaction be any different today?
You said it yourself: Free will. Why should God assume that we would react the same way? It's easier to believe something you witness firsthand than something you've read about other people witnessing. In the first case, you rule out the possibility of being duped by a charlatan.
quote:
Do you not think it is selfish of you to demand a personal miracle in your life when countless millions before you and around you deserved and deserve so much more than you?
Is it more reasonable to demand a personal miracle in other people's lives? I know enough people pray for it. But I don't see that happening either.
quote:
In fact Judaism is an error confounded by those who didn’t accept Christ. Those guys who saw miracles performed right in front of their faces and rejected them.
Saddles, I caution you strongly against prefacing statements like that with the words "in fact". I hope you understand why.
__________________
Post last edited by Mush on 11.17.2007, 04:38 PM.
|
|
| 11.17.2007, 04:11 PM |
|
Lovecraft
Kodama
Registration Date: 11.14.07
Location:
Posts: 46 |
|
|
Why doesn't everyone just drop the subject? What is it going to prove anyways? We should just follow our own religious believes and let others do them same, why argue it when to me at least it seems pointless?
__________________
|
|
| 11.17.2007, 04:30 PM |
|
Mush
Baron
Registration Date: 07.30.07
Location: South of Canada
Posts: 1810 |
|
|
Drop the subject? Why? It's not like we're trying to convert each other.
Dropping the subject is like turning your back on someone instead of working out your differences. It's unproductive and it leaves you as strangers.
We're not out to prove anything. I'm just here to learn and ask questions.
Anyway...
__________________
|
|
| 11.17.2007, 04:34 PM |
|
Saddletank
Miyazaki's Best Friend
Registration Date: 09.28.06
Location: On your case
Posts: 10069 |
|
|
Just a quickie. I need to check something tomorrow with a friend before I can answer one of Theowne's points, so I'll try to answer yours then too Mushka, but for now just on that last item you picked up on I used those words as a counter to Theowne's suggestion to the opposite - that Christianity is a branch off of Judaism. All I meant to say was the opposite is true, as in "In fact you are mistaken, the case actually is this..." I hope you understand.
And I didn't put an "IMHO" at the end because it's not my opinion, I sincerely think its a fact that the Bible tells us the truth that the Jews in 33AD made a tragic mistake in rejecting Jesus, following which the Jewish faith branched away from Gods intended plan for his people.
At which point he adjusted his plan so that "his people" became those who followed Christ.
If you think I am wrong to claim this please say so, its one thing I feel confident about discussing.
It saddens me that the Jewish religious leaders chose this path but they certainly did and I'm not approaching this argument with any racist slant whatever. Officially it was Rome who executed Christ, but the Jewish leaders most certainly rejected him.
__________________
Isakaya High School Roleplaying Info
"An old man like me stands no chance fighting against a high school girl in her underwear" - Oshino Meme, Nekomonogatari (Kuro)
|
|
| 11.17.2007, 04:39 PM |
|
Saddletank
Miyazaki's Best Friend
Registration Date: 09.28.06
Location: On your case
Posts: 10069 |
|
|
No, I wouldn't want to drop the subject, its one of the most fascinating things to discuss. And easily the most important.
No-one is forcing anyone to read the thread. Feel free to avoid it, no-one will think less of you for it.
|
|
| 11.17.2007, 04:41 PM |
|
Theowne
Baron
Registration Date: 02.11.07
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1290 |
|
|
quote:
I used those words as a counter to Theowne's suggestion to the opposite - that Christianity is a branch off of Judaism
?? Did you mean sanfan?
One small thing though...:
quote:
it's not my opinion, I sincerely think its a fact
Isn't that kind of a contradiction?
|
|
| 11.17.2007, 04:44 PM |
|
Saddletank
Miyazaki's Best Friend
Registration Date: 09.28.06
Location: On your case
Posts: 10069 |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Theowne
?? Did you mean sanfan?
Yes. I had you in my mind then because I was constructing answers to your points in my head.
quote:
Originally posted by Theowne One small thing though...:
quote:
it's not my opinion, I sincerely think its a fact
Isn't that kind of a contradiction?
No. I think its a fact: I consider it to be a fact.
Post last edited by Saddletank on 11.17.2007, 04:58 PM.
|
|
| 11.17.2007, 04:50 PM |
|
Mush
Baron
Registration Date: 07.30.07
Location: South of Canada
Posts: 1810 |
|
|
Don't worry, I'm patient. 
quote:
Originally posted by Saddletank
All I meant to say was the opposite is true, as in "In fact you are mistaken, the case actually is this..." I hope you understand.
I understand what you're getting at, but it doesn't read that way, because you're still claiming factual knowledge. Would Jewish people agree that it's a fact? I don't think so. Do you have any factual evidence? No, because if such evidence existed, then you could use it to prove that Christianity is the correct religion, and as we know, this cannot be done. So there's no way that you can call it a 'fact', any more than you could say "it is a fact that my religion is the one true religion, and that's not a matter of opinion".
That kind of statement is a very dangerous one.
Furthermore, to state that someone else's religion is actually an error is approaching the idea of religion from a very narrow and hurtful perspective. Again, there are no 'facts' that can support your view; religion is purely a matter of faith, and will always stay that way. That's why we are forced to accept all religions as equals.
quote:
And I didn't put an "IMHO" at the end because it's not my opinion, I sincerely think its a fact that the Bible tells us the truth that the Jews in 33AD made a tragic mistake in rejecting Jesus, following which the Jewish faith branched away from Gods intended plan for his people.
Sincerely believing it does not make it any less your opinion, though. I can equally say that I sincerely think it's a fact that the Bible is wrong about this. Neither of our arguments carry any greater weight than the other. That's a good indication that we're holding opinions, not facts.
That's why we absolutely have to be tolerant and supportive of other religions. If I were to have some message to deliver about religion, that would ultimately be it. We have such limited knowledge about God, that we cannot do anything but accept other religions on equal grounds as our own.
__________________
|
|
| 11.17.2007, 04:54 PM |
|
Miyrru
Graphic Designer
Registration Date: 08.16.06
Location: Freezing cold Northern Ontario
Posts: 7178 |
|
|
This is starting to remind me of our last 'discussion'(I use this term loosely).
Like discussing an abstract concept like greatness, religion is also another abstract concept. We aren't sure of its origins, and its history is cloudy and very old.
Religion is about faith and opinion. I sincerely believe that when the bible committee put the thing together that it was meant as a rule guide for its kingdom. They wanted to get the people semi-united so that they are easier to control. This is how the world in my view has been working forever. People know for sure, beyond any doubt, that material possessions exist. These possessions are useful and can make people happy. Why not try to horde as much as possible? People seem to exist to exploit each other.
To summarize my point. Religion is a crapshoot. If it is in fact true that there is an all powerful creator, then the real 'chosen' people will get a nice path to paradise. The rest of us, pick your damnation. It is all out of our hands. Might as well enjoy the ride, live through every bend like it is the last, and when it is over, lets hope that there are other rides out there that we can get on.
__________________
Click for Gallery^^
The truth had to be seen. Anything else was a story, entertaining but more embroidered fib then crude, shapeless fact. ~Dave Eggers
|
|
| 11.17.2007, 06:18 PM |
|
Saddletank
Miyazaki's Best Friend
Registration Date: 09.28.06
Location: On your case
Posts: 10069 |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by #1sanfan Religion is a crapshoot. If it is in fact true that there is an all powerful creator, then the real 'chosen' people will get a nice path to paradise. The rest of us, pick your damnation. It is all out of our hands. Might as well enjoy the ride, live through every bend like it is the last, and when it is over, lets hope that there are other rides out there that we can get on.
Christianity offers you everything and takes from you nothing. Nothing at all. It is a completely free gift. No strings attached. It is the only free lunch if you like, and the finest banquet there is. Jesus has already given himself for you. You simply have to say yes. Once you do, that's it. You live forever. It puzzles me greatly why so many people think it is a trick and they will have their reasoning ability turned to mush or some such if they let themselves be drawn in. You can accept it today, right now. Anyone can. Heck, it won't cost anything.
|
|
| 11.17.2007, 08:55 PM |
|
Miyrru
Graphic Designer
Registration Date: 08.16.06
Location: Freezing cold Northern Ontario
Posts: 7178 |
|
|
I have learned this in economics, there is no free lunch. There is an opportunity cost to every, aka, it is the cost of the next best choice.
So in this case, the trip to church. You could be doing homework instead, could be working for that hour and earning income. There are the cost in the donations and the gas(if you drive) or bus fare perhaps. There is a cost to everything. Now in this case it isnt substantial, but there is a time investment.
__________________
Click for Gallery^^
The truth had to be seen. Anything else was a story, entertaining but more embroidered fib then crude, shapeless fact. ~Dave Eggers
|
|
| 11.17.2007, 09:02 PM |
|
Theowne
Baron
Registration Date: 02.11.07
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1290 |
|
|
quote:
they will have their reasoning ability turned to mush or some such if they let themselves be drawn in.
Well, because it's true. Logically, it doesn't make sense to believe in something if there is no evidence for it. There's a book - but there are many holy books in the world.
quote:
Christianity offers you everything and takes from you nothing. Nothing at all. It is a completely free gift. No strings attached. It is the only free lunch if you like, and the finest banquet there is. Jesus has already given himself for you. You simply have to say yes. Once you do, that's it. You live forever.
The problem with all this is that none of this is fact or certain, it is just a belief based on one of many holy books. Come on, you must surely know why people are not attracted to Christianity. It's because there is simply no reason or evidence to believe in it, and it exists as one among countless religions, and it seems to be keeping back while science and society move forward.
I do notice a lot more people who say that they may believe in God but do not identify with a religion. I consider this a good thing.
Post last edited by Theowne on 11.17.2007, 09:17 PM.
|
|
| 11.17.2007, 09:07 PM |
|
T.C.
Totoro
Registration Date: 08.28.07
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 709 |
|
|
im athiest. religious people might descirbe me as someone who lacks faith.
i live my life for my loved ones and myself. i couldnt live for or along the guidelines of something i dont truly believe in, this act of integrity (couldnt really think of a better word) is important to me. Some would be disapointed that i dont believe but i think my questioning of God and religion is perfectly healthy and valid, a core element of modern intellect is the ability to question. nothing should be outside of criticism, not even God.
having said this, my opinion doesnt taint my perception of religious people. i can sincerely admire a persons devotion to what they belive in or their upholding of their morals and values or good character wether or not i agree with them.
unfortunately many christians whom i have met have turned me off religion more, though i know i shouldnt judge a faith by such a tiny amount of its followers. There are many whose "faith" must be always be qaulified with the word "blind".
|
|
| 11.17.2007, 09:08 PM |
|
Saddletank
Miyazaki's Best Friend
Registration Date: 09.28.06
Location: On your case
Posts: 10069 |
|
|
@ Theowne and #1sanfan
But the offer is still free. You lose nothing by accepting it. I'm not aware of any other religion that makes this offer. All others require something in return.
@ Theowne. There is heaps of evidence for it. What I think you meant is there is no proof. There are also lots of facts - a considerable number of people and events and places in the New Testament are verifiable from contemporary secular sources. This book isn't made up. It's not a Stephen King novel. Of course if there were proof there would be no need of faith and no need of any committment. Religions require faith, it is their key feature. Demanding proof will get you no answer. God requires faith. He's come to you 99% of the way, its not much to give him the other 1%, it's all he's asking.
He's already cooked and served you the free lunch. People expect to be spoon fed too, you need to feed yourself in this instance.
And even it were total rubbish, since its free its no loss to accept it, is it?
@ #1sanfan, yes in the world of economics there are no free lunches. I'm not talking about economics at all. You don't need to go to church to become a Christian, you can do it sat at your computer right there by saying a few words and believing them to be true.
Post last edited by Saddletank on 11.17.2007, 09:19 PM.
|
|
| 11.17.2007, 09:19 PM |
|
Miyrru
Graphic Designer
Registration Date: 08.16.06
Location: Freezing cold Northern Ontario
Posts: 7178 |
|
|
But if you don't go to church you aren't a real christian. I do believe somewhere in the bible it says that you have to go to church/do some type of services.
Christianity has recently slackened off the requirements of the religion as it is unpopular to sit for an hour and a half listening to a service in Latin.
__________________
Click for Gallery^^
The truth had to be seen. Anything else was a story, entertaining but more embroidered fib then crude, shapeless fact. ~Dave Eggers
|
|
| 11.17.2007, 09:23 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
Online Ghibli
Ghibli Tavern is powered by WoltLab, hosted by Teragon Networks
|
|
