UN Bias Hurts The World

Anything and Everything about Uplink

Moderators: bert_the_turtle, jelco, Chris, Icepick, Rkiver

ReflectingGod
level5
level5
Posts: 2725
Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2002 4:40 pm
Location: W. Australia

Postby ReflectingGod » Fri Jun 24, 2005 4:03 am

From this thread it is easy to see why Stews has more than 9000 posts.... :lol:
ME!

Procrastination - Hard work often pays of after time, but laziness always pays off now!

**Bibo ergo sum!**
ToRmEnToR
level5
level5
Posts: 2420
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2002 5:48 pm
Location: Israel
Contact:

Postby ToRmEnToR » Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:03 am

Well religion is just another way to categorize people. Different groups of people will always find a way to fight with other groups of people.

Blacks and whites, jews and muslims, etc...
meow
Rkiver
level5
level5
Posts: 6405
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 10:39 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Postby Rkiver » Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:43 am

Meh, you all bleed the same colour.
Uplink help: Read the FAQ
Banker
level3
level3
Posts: 437
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 6:10 pm

Postby Banker » Fri Jun 24, 2005 4:01 pm

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:Hitler was not much of a Christian and referencing God does not make something religious. Is football or acting religious now simply because participants make an occasional mention of God?


Actually, he was. It's a fact, might want to get some evidence fore you say he wasnt.

Also lets look at other major bloodletting of the 20th Century. WWII left approximately 55 million dead. About 40 million died in Mao's Communist China. Under Mao's rule religion was effectively banned, so this is 40 million deaths in the near total absence of religion. Then there are the 8-20 million that died in Stalin's Communist Russia (again without religion). If you add in the Chinese and Soviet Civil Wars that figure eclipses the frigures for WWII. So it would seem an absence of religion is a far worse problem than any religion. In fact the conflicts that are actually about religion claim very few lives in comparison to these political conflicts.


Those idelogy's are almost religions too, they have no base in facts, they build their beliefs on "scripture" (like the Communist manifest), they have something similiar to prophets (Marx, Stalin etc)

Quite untrue. Anti-Jewish feelings existed long before Christ. The most anti-Semitic places are also generally the least Christian.


Any historic evidence for this?
Nope, and before Christianity came, Judaism was about the only monotheistic religion.


That is not fighting for their god. . . These are cultural references to God and are not religious. WWII was not about religion, it was about nationalism. This is not simply my opinion, it is the nearly unanimous view of historians as well.


It's using your religion to rally support and "boost moral" by telling people you're fighting for a higher cause, that's what it is.


You don't seem to quite understand what Jesus is saying in this passage. He is simply saying not everyone is ready to hear the word of God. He believes people need to be ready to accept the word of God and act on it before they can be "saved". He is not permanently excluding anyone from being "saved", just saying not everyone is ready to be "saved".


Really? Don't you know interpretation is a grave sin?
Read it like it says and dont make no bullshit excuses just cause you dont agree with the passage.
As for not understanding, studying religions and Christianity in particular, EVERY DAY, yup.. That brings me a lack of understanding.
:roll:

Religous studies is a big interest of mine, and its where Im going to work in the future, and its through it Ive learned to hate alot of the religions, most people have no fuckin idea what their religions are about, they only "know" what their local priest spoon feeds them on sundays.


This is in reference to the divisions and persecution his teaching will inevitably cause. He is saying following him will cause conflict and may breakup families, but that his message will in the end result in true peace. He is basically saying that superficial peace is cheap when compared to the profound peace he is advocating. This is akin to the question of the US entering into WWII. Was it best to try to negotiate a self-serving peace with Germany and Japan or was it better to join the war in order to bring a greater peace?


Once again, dont interpretate.. He's saying that ifyou dont hate your family then you are not worthy of him in the following verses,
that's what its about. Simply put he asks you to reject your whole family, and only follow him.

You obviously don't know much about the Christian faith, which is a shame. I would invite you to actually take a look and see what Christianity really is, what Jesus really teaches, what the Bible actually says. . .


Like I said again, I study it.. Dont give me those bullshit excuses, that verse is so clear it's funny if you're going to ignore it, oh well, being christian I guess you're biased.. This is like arguing with Curio about Israel, unless you love Israel and his policies he's not going to listen, no matter what facts you have, guess this is true with you and Christianity.

"He said to them, Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well." (Mark 16:15-18 NIV)


He is telling his Disciples to go out and preach his message. I don't see any problem with that.


Oh really? Read it again, Ive put it in bold text since you have obvious reading problems. If you believe, those signs will accompany you. PERIOD.
:lol:


First the Bible is a creation of man, so it is certainly fallible. Second it was not written by one author. It is a collection of various texts written at different times, by people with differing views of Jesus's teachings.


No shit? :roll:
Good that we all can all reject the idea that it is of some kind of divine origin. But now that we have established that it's bullshit and you cant trust it, why do you? :lol:

Yes, there are certainly some contradictions, but that does not diminish the overall message. Hell, scientists contradict each other all the time, should we dismiss all science simply because of that?


Oh really?
Are you saying contradictions doesnt diminsh an overall message?
Well then, why is it wrong to contradict yourself when debating then?

You obviously have your own views, but they seem to rooted in a deep ignorance.


Im not the one that ignores whole sections of my religious book when it doesnt suit my views.. Exactly HOW am I ignorant, Im pointing out how Christianity is stupid, with FACTS (And your own book, the bible). So just how is that ignorant?

But maybe I should drop this, I can see its your feelings that are doing the talking right now, and not your mind. You were brought up Christian and so you want to find atleast some good things about it.. Well, not uncommon, that's usually what happens with every stupid idelogy you get passed down from your parents, you defend it cause your parents taught it to you.

But truth hurts and the truth is Christianity is a dumb religion. :)
Me300 wrote:I love how Banker has the uncanny capability cussing all the time while making his arguments.
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Fri Jun 24, 2005 4:42 pm

Banker wrote:Actually, he was. It's a fact, might want to get some evidence fore you say he wasnt.


Heh, well how about we look at what Hitler had to say on the issue. . .

Hilter wrote:National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.


Hilter wrote:Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.


Hilter wrote:The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse... the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little... Christianity <is> the liar... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State.


Hilter wrote:The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.


I could go on, but I think you get the picture. These are all quotes taken from his personal comments. At times he used Christianity in his public propaganda, but it is clear from his personal statements he was not a Christian and in fact detested the religion.

Those idelogy's are almost religions too, they have no base in facts, they build their beliefs on "scripture" (like the Communist manifest), they have something similiar to prophets (Marx, Stalin etc)


If you say so. . .

Any historic evidence for this?
Nope, and before Christianity came, Judaism was about the only monotheistic religion.


Actually the Egyptians had a monotheistic religion well before the coming of Christ, but whatever. . .

The Romans for example had a long history of anti-Jewish actions before the coming of Christianity.


It's using your religion to rally support and "boost moral" by telling people you're fighting for a higher cause, that's what it is.


So? Military leaders also say things like "Just remember your wives and children. We are doing this for them." Does that mean families cause wars? Should we hate families because they are used to motivate soldiers?


Really? Don't you know interpretation is a grave sin?


Umm. . . No. In fact the entire Protestant Christian movement is built on interpretation. You have to interpret the Bible just to read it (there is always an inherent interpretation).

Even Jesus said interpretation was neccessary:

"When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!" (Mark 4:10-12 NIV)

Right there (in a passage you yourself quote) Jesus says that the teachings he gives hold the secret of the kingdom of God, but only to those who correctly interpret them. To everyone else who just take them literally they hold little meaning. He is talking about you!


Read it like it says and dont make no bullshit excuses just cause you dont agree with the passage.


I am simply stating how most Christians view those passages.

As for not understanding, studying religions and Christianity in particular, EVERY DAY, yup.. That brings me a lack of understanding.
:roll:


If you are saying you study Christianity everyday, then I wonder how you can be so incorrect on most of these points. Even simple facts seem to escape you. I'm not sure what you are studying, but it seems obvious it is neither religion nor Christianity.

Religous studies is a big interest of mine, and its where Im going to work in the future, and its through it Ive learned to hate alot of the religions, most people have no fuckin idea what their religions are about, they only "know" what their local priest spoon feeds them on sundays.


It would seem you don't have much of an idea either. . .

Once again, dont interpretate.. He's saying that ifyou dont hate your family then you are not worthy of him in the following verses,
that's what its about. Simply put he asks you to reject your whole family, and only follow him.


That is not what the passage says. You are interpreting it as much as I am, if not more so.


Oh really? Read it again, Ive put it in bold text since you have obvious reading problems. If you believe, those signs will accompany you. PERIOD.
:lol:


I don't see what your point is. . . Those are things his Disciples had or would do to help demonstrate the truth of their God. Some sects (very, very minor ones) do drink poison and handle snakes to prove their faith and the Catholic Church performs exorcisms, but I don't particularly see any problem with any of that.


No shit? :roll:
Good that we all can all reject the idea that it is of some kind of divine origin. But now that we have established that it's bullshit and you cant trust it, why do you? :lol:


I don't think I ever said it was "bullshit". . . I simply said it has to be studied with it's origin in mind. If you look at a collection of scientific texts they will not all agree with each other, but that does not mean they are "bullshit". All it means is that you have to do a little work to find the truth.

Oh really?
Are you saying contradictions doesnt diminsh an overall message?


I believe that was my statement. . .

Well then, why is it wrong to contradict yourself when debating then?


Because you are contradicting yourself. Contradictions among people are inevitable. Contradictions in the Bible simple mean it cannot be taken as a perfect description of Christianity. It means interpretation and study must be done to resolve the contradictions.

Im not the one that ignores whole sections of my religious book when it doesnt suit my views.. Exactly HOW am I ignorant, Im pointing out how Christianity is stupid, with FACTS (And your own book, the bible). So just how is that ignorant?


I don't ignore sections of the Bible; I just take them for what they are. So far most of your "facts" have either not been facts (they are opinions) or have simply been incorrect. That is why I say you are profoundly ignorant on this issue.


But maybe I should drop this, I can see its your feelings that are doing the talking right now, and not your mind. You were brought up Christian and so you want to find atleast some good things about it.. Well, not uncommon, that's usually what happens with every stupid idelogy you get passed down from your parents, you defend it cause your parents taught it to you.


I don't feel my feelings are significantly affecting my judgment on this matter. I would similarly defend Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc. even though I was not raised with any of those beliefs.

But truth hurts and the truth is Christianity is a dumb religion. :)


This is a rather silly argument as the word "dumb" doesn't really mean anything. It sounds more like you are on a school playground than trying to make a serious point. Perhaps you should argue that Christianity is a contradictory religion, or that it is a dangerous religion. That would at least make your argument sound more intelligent.
ToRmEnToR
level5
level5
Posts: 2420
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2002 5:48 pm
Location: Israel
Contact:

Postby ToRmEnToR » Fri Jun 24, 2005 6:03 pm

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:Actually the Egyptians had a monotheistic religion well before the coming of Christ, but whatever. . .


Ancient egyptians monotheistic?
meow
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Fri Jun 24, 2005 6:10 pm

That would be the Aten cult in the reign of the Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten. Akhenaten declared Aten was the one true God and abolished the polytheistic hierarchy that existed in Egypt. After Akhenaten's death the old polytheistic religion was re-established, but many scholars believe that the Jews (who were in Exodus in Egypt at the time) picked up this monotheism and that is what gave birth to Judaism.
ToRmEnToR
level5
level5
Posts: 2420
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2002 5:48 pm
Location: Israel
Contact:

Postby ToRmEnToR » Fri Jun 24, 2005 6:19 pm

many scholars believe that the Jews (who were in Exodus in Egypt at the time) picked up this monotheism and that is what gave birth to Judaism.


Didnt abraham come up with the monotheistic ideology before that?
meow
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Fri Jun 24, 2005 6:47 pm

Yes, Abraham did advocate a monotheistic view, but it was never formally established (the Jews were still polytheistic after Abraham). The actual existence of Abraham is also in some dispute, as there is no record of his life before he is mentioned in the Book of Genesis.

The Jews as a people however were still polytheistic when they went into Egypt. This is where the story of the Ten Commandments comes in, as it talks about the Jews worshipping idols.

No one can say for certain where the origins of Judaic monotheism lie though. It arose in a culture and at a time that makes finding definitive accounts very difficult. It is also not all that important where it came from. What is important is that it did come and in doing so changed the world.
ToRmEnToR
level5
level5
Posts: 2420
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2002 5:48 pm
Location: Israel
Contact:

Postby ToRmEnToR » Fri Jun 24, 2005 7:40 pm

Well it is recorded in the bible that some of the jews back then where monotheistic on and off (for a very long piriod of time). Actually most stories involve those 'saviors' who tell everyone (everyone = the sinners) that they should go back to monotheism before god shoots lightning bolts at them or something of that sort... But there are always those who bring (or at least try to bring, usualy being successful, but I'm sure there was no shortage of failures) everyone back to monotheism.

But you said yourself that after that akhenaten died the old polytheistic religion was reastablished so you cant realy take that as a well established monotheistic sociaty.

As for the existance of abraham, I guess no one can prove it, and it's logical to assume that he didnt exist... But some kind of force always sent those saviors I've mentioned before. Abraham or not, someone or a group of people came up with the whole monotheistic idea back in the time of abraham's time.

And there is an intresting explenation about why there is no background information on abraham in the bible. I dont think that the lack of his background in the bible could be used as evidence for his existance or non existance.
meow
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Fri Jun 24, 2005 11:37 pm

I only brought up Akhenaten because Banker had said Judaism was pretty much the only monotheistic religion before Christianity. I don't know why he made such a statement as it didn't seem to be related to any arguement he was making, but that is what he said. As a self-professed student of religion, that is a silly statement to make. Any student of religion should know about the cult of Aten. In addition to that cult there is also Zoroastrianism which was a full fledged monotheistic religion well before the time of Christ.
User avatar
The GoldFish
level5
level5
Posts: 3961
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 9:01 pm
Location: Bowl / South UK
Contact:

Postby The GoldFish » Fri Jun 24, 2005 11:48 pm

Religion often just zombifies people as an 'easy explanation' that doesn't leave them with an interest to look in any further detail in to matters, effectively making many of them stupid and unobjective on some specific matters and often very, very dangerous people to have in positions of power.

The religous texts they claim to follow don't really profess the extreme views they often appear to have.

It is arguable which is the religion - the people following it or the ideas behind the book which are selectively followed.

I hate people brainwashed to believe certain things *purely* because a book "says" so.

I think Religion can be a powerful tool for teaching people about important life values and morals.

I'm sure most people probably agree?
-- The GoldFish - member of former GIT and commander in chief of GALLAHAD. You could have done something, but it's been fixed. The end. Also, play bestgameever!
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:07 am

Yes, I certainly do. However the brainwashing phenomenon is not unique to religion. It is not a "religious thing" but a "human thing". You see very similar things in politics, where people believe things simply because they are told to, regardless of the facts. Even scientists fall prey to this sort of thing.

This brainwashing thing is one of the things that most annoys me. I see it both in the anti-religious movement (most of the things Banker has thus far argued are staples of the anti-religious movement, if you can call it that). I also see a lot of the same thing in the Israeli-Palestinian debate. Both sides (Israeli and Palestinian) have their own collection of staple arguments and facts, many of which are highly misleading. Many people just repeat these pre-packaged arguments ad nauseum, which is rather unproductive.
Banker
level3
level3
Posts: 437
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 6:10 pm

Postby Banker » Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:42 am

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:I could go on, but I think you get the picture. These are all quotes taken from his personal comments. At times he used Christianity in his public propaganda, but it is clear from his personal statements he was not a Christian and in fact detested the religion.


With his personal comments, I suppose you mean Mein Kampf.. There are no real others "personal comments" from him, and that is the same source that my quote is from. So I guess he just contradicts himself, heh.. Well, the man wasnt famous for his mental stability.

If you say so. . .


Oh yes, I do. And Capitalism too btw.

Actually the Egyptians had a monotheistic religion well before the coming of Christ, but whatever. . .


Ive adressed it further down..

The Romans for example had a long history of anti-Jewish actions before the coming of Christianity.


The romans had a lot of anti-everyone actions too (They occupated quite many countries and people you know) before the coming of Christianity.. The jews werent the only ones or a special case so this argument kinda falls flat.

So? Military leaders also say things like "Just remember your wives and children. We are doing this for them." Does that mean families cause wars? Should we hate families because they are used to motivate soldiers?


No, I was just saying that shit like that make it easier to keep your soldiers in check, you can always opress peoples will with a good dose of religion. You can say like; "oh you dont want to follow orders?! Betray your country do you? Then you betray god himself!"
What believing soldier would ever do that if you put it to him like that?

Umm. . . No. In fact the entire Protestant Christian movement is built on interpretation.


Yes well, I dont like protestants more than Catholics or Orthodox, or any other kind of Christian faiths.

Even Jesus said interpretation was neccessary:


No, you only thinks so cause you interpretate said verse..
That's nothing but circular reasoning.

"When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!" (Mark 4:10-12 NIV)

Right there (in a passage you yourself quote) Jesus says that the teachings he gives hold the secret of the kingdom of God, but only to those who correctly interpret them. To everyone else who just take them literally they hold little meaning. He is talking about you!


No, take them literally and they hold a simple meaning; "if you dont understand, you're lost, and that was the whole point."

I am simply stating how most Christians view those passages.


Yeah well that doesnt mean shit, where I live they have started to allow gay marriages in the church and female priests.. And the priests says that it is the will of their "god", even though they have no damn bible support for it at all, infact the Bible opposes them, they just choose to ignore it. Why?
Cause they are cowards that bend to the political will.
Though maybe that's a good thing after all, the more hollow the church and its teachings are, the less people will care about it.

If you are saying you study Christianity everyday, then I wonder how you can be so incorrect on most of these points. Even simple facts seem to escape you. I'm not sure what you are studying, but it seems obvious it is neither religion nor Christianity.


Well, the madman usually doesnt realise he's mad..
Maybe its actually you that doesn't really understand Christianity.
Why are you so sure it's me?
You are however wrong on later issues here, like the things about
Zoroastrianism, so I'd say you're wrong but just doesn't think that's possible.
Remember, PRIDE IS A SIN! :twisted:
:lol:

It would seem you don't have much of an idea either. . .


Read my above point.

That is not what the passage says. You are interpreting it as much as I am, if not more so.


"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me." (Matthew 10:37-38 NIV)

It is EXACTLY what the passage says..


I don't see what your point is. . . Those are things his Disciples had or would do to help demonstrate the truth of their God. Some sects (very, very minor ones) do drink poison and handle snakes to prove their faith and the Catholic Church performs exorcisms, but I don't particularly see any problem with any of that.


My point is this:
1. Do you call yourself a Christian? If yes proceed to 2.
2. Have you ever spoken in tongues, driven out demons, or
drank deadly poison without getting ill? If no proceed to 3.
3. Then you are not a true believer.

Simple enough right?

I don't think I ever said it was "bullshit". . . I simply said it has to be studied with it's origin in mind. If you look at a collection of scientific texts they will not all agree with each other, but that does not mean they are "bullshit". All it means is that you have to do a little work to find the truth.


Science can be proven in repeated experiments, dont compare religion to science, they have NOTHING in common, religion doesnt even have to be based in common sense.
Religions can be studied, but the only thing you'll get out of it is knowledge about said religions, and maybe joy over knowing things about them, that's it. Indulging in science on the other hand can actually lead to inventions.
Do remember this though Christian, thinking is WRONG. :lol:

"Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding" (Proverbs 3:5 NIV)


Because you are contradicting yourself. Contradictions among people are inevitable. Contradictions in the Bible simple mean it cannot be taken as a perfect description of Christianity. It means interpretation and study must be done to resolve the contradictions.


You mean you must come up with excuses for the contradictions or the whole book will be looked upon as the lies and bullshit it really
is.. That's what Theology is all about, finding excuses for all the errors in your respective religous book.

I don't ignore sections of the Bible; I just take them for what they are. So far most of your "facts" have either not been facts (they are opinions) or have simply been incorrect. That is why I say you are profoundly ignorant on this issue.


In what way is showing you your own scripture incorrect?
Reading it straight off without interpretation (as itself claims you must) incorrect? Or maybe any view of scripture (no matter how much more correct it is) than your own is incorrect...
Yup, Im the ignorant one here. :roll:


I don't feel my feelings are significantly affecting my judgment on this matter. I would similarly defend Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc. even though I was not raised with any of those beliefs.


lmao..
Keep thinking that if it makes you feel better. :)

This is a rather silly argument as the word "dumb" doesn't really mean anything. It sounds more like you are on a school playground than trying to make a serious point. Perhaps you should argue that Christianity is a contradictory religion, or that it is a dangerous religion. That would at least make your argument sound more intelligent.


It was intended as something of a humoruous statemennt..
Oh, and the definition of the word "dumb" is quite beside the point dont you think? If it makes you feel better, I can stop using the word in this debate.. :lol:


As for the rest...

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:I only brought up Akhenaten because Banker had said Judaism was pretty much the only monotheistic religion before Christianity. I don't know why he made such a statement as it didn't seem to be related to any arguement he was making, but that is what he said. As a self-professed student of religion, that is a silly statement to make. Any student of religion should know about the cult of Aten. In addition to that cult there is also Zoroastrianism which was a full fledged monotheistic religion well before the time of Christ.


Akhenaten ruled for only 16 years, and his "religion" was merely a way to rid the priest caste of some of their power.
And this "religion" was never shared by almost anyone, infact alot of people opposed him because of him enforcing it, when he destroyed temples of the old religion. I wouldnt call it a real religion, more like a small insignifact sect, it's suprised me you even brought it up since it's quite far fetched.

As for Zoroastrianism, they have 2 major gods. One "good" (Ahura Mazdah) and one "evil" (Angra Mainyu), so it is not a monotheistic religion, it is dualism (that's the correct english word I think)..
Good one, you just made yourself look like quite the fool thinking you're so educated on this. :D

But oh do try to educate me with all your knowledge wise one..
:roll:

Atleast it's quite amusing.
Me300 wrote:I love how Banker has the uncanny capability cussing all the time while making his arguments.
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Sat Jun 25, 2005 1:56 am

Banker wrote:With his personal comments, I suppose you mean Mein Kampf.. There are no real others "personal comments" from him, and that is the same source that my quote is from.


I am amazed at how you can make such flatly incorrect assertions on such a consistent basis.

My quotes were take from Hitler's Table Talk, a book of Hitler's private conversations. Mein Kampf was almost entirely propaganda.


The romans had a lot of anti-everyone actions too (They occupated quite many countries and people you know) before the coming of Christianity.. The jews werent the only ones or a special case so this argument kinda falls flat.


How so? Many Christians have a lot of anti-everyone feeling too. Anti-Islam, Anti-Homosexual, etc. I simply said anti-Jewish sentiment predates Christianity, which is a fact and that fact is not altered by anything you have said.

No, I was just saying that shit like that make it easier to keep your soldiers in check, you can always opress peoples will with a good dose of religion. You can say like; "oh you dont want to follow orders?! Betray your country do you? Then you betray god himself!"
What believing soldier would ever do that if you put it to him like that?


But in that respect how is religion any different from say patriotism or love of family. Your point has been that religion and Christianity in particular is a stupid idea. This point does nothing to support that.

Yes well, I dont like protestants more than Catholics or Orthodox, or any other kind of Christian faiths.


So? You said that interpretation was a sin and was not allowed. The fact that a huge portion of Christians are part of denominations that are based on individual interpretation of the Bible would seem to contradict that quite strongly.

No, take them literally and they hold a simple meaning; "if you dont understand, you're lost, and that was the whole point."


By your interpretation. . . There is really no interpretation needed to understand that passage. If you want to believe otherwise, well I just feel that is your rather ironic loss.



"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me." (Matthew 10:37-38 NIV)

It is EXACTLY what the passage says..


It says anyone who puts anyone above Jesus (and by extension God) is not worthy to call themselves a Christian. Is that somehow a shocking statement?


My point is this:
1. Do you call yourself a Christian? If yes proceed to 2.
2. Have you ever spoken in tongues, driven out demons, or
drank deadly poison without getting ill? If no proceed to 3.
3. Then you are not a true believer.


That is not what the passage says. It doesn't say you have to do those things to be a Christian, it says some Christians will do those things.

Science can be proven in repeated experiments, dont compare religion to science, they have NOTHING in common, religion doesnt even have to be based in common sense.


Since science can be proven (or at least supported by experimentation) doesn't that mean there should be even less of any excuse for contradiction? Since religion can't be proven, it would seem contradiction is inevitable, at least among different people.


You mean you must come up with excuses for the contradictions or the whole book will be looked upon as the lies and bullshit it really
is.. That's what Theology is all about, finding excuses for all the errors in your respective religous book.


Umm. . . no. But that's thanks for totally misunderstanding my words.

And yes, theology can be seen as a way to resolve the contradictions of the religious texts. Although, science can similarly be seen as resolving the contradictions of the natural world. For example, if I have an apple in one hand and a balloon filled with helium in the other and I let each go, different things happen. This is a contradiction until science tells you that gravity pulls both towards the earth with equal force, but helium is lighter than the atmosphere and so exerts a greater force upwards on the balloon. Theology can provide such answers (though with less certainty) for textual contradictions in religious texts.


Akhenaten ruled for only 16 years, and his "religion" was merely a way to rid the priest caste of some of their power.
And this "religion" was never shared by almost anyone, infact alot of people opposed him because of him enforcing it, when he destroyed temples of the old religion. I wouldnt call it a real religion, more like a small insignifact sect, it's suprised me you even brought it up since it's quite far fetched.


It is widely regarded as a religion and in fact most texts on religion will reference it as a significant early form of monotheism.

Here is the Wikipedia article on monotheism for reference.


As for Zoroastrianism, they have 2 major gods. One "good" (Ahura Mazdah) and one "evil" (Angra Mainyu), so it is not a monotheistic religion, it is dualism (that's the correct english word I think)..


Zoroastrianism is classified as a monotheistic religion. The "evil" god is not treated so much as a god but as a being. This is similar to the Judeo-Christian idea of Satan. Again, you don't need to trust me; nearly all authoritative texts on the subject will tell you the same thing.

Here is the Wikipedia article on Zoroastrianism for reference.

Good one, you just made yourself look like quite the fool thinking you're so educated on this. :D


If you want to believe that, it is fine. I believe you have made me look quite good and feel I have done very well for myself in this little debate.

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 9 guests