UN Bias Hurts The World

Anything and Everything about Uplink

Moderators: bert_the_turtle, jelco, Chris, Icepick, Rkiver

Banker
level3
level3
Posts: 437
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 6:10 pm

Postby Banker » Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:34 am

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


Are you really that stupid that you cant tell the difference between
actions against someone based on their sexuality or religon or
opressing occupied peoples? The romans opressed all they occupied, even if there were quite kind for the opressors of that age, they were still brutal, the jews werent the only people to feel their brutality, and it wasnt because they were jews either, it was cause they tried to defy the roman rule. That got nothing to do with
racism or prejudice, it's war & politics.

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.


Thanks for proving my point that Christianity is both illogical and contradicts itself.

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?


Not really, but it sure tells you were the religion wants you to put your money so to speak..
Me, and most sane people I would think, rather wants to spend our time on our family instead of a "god" that answers prayers in 0.001% of the cases, either out of a lack of existance, lack of power, or a lack of caring. Oh, and speaking of that, go test your faith Christian boy;

"He replied, If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, Be uprooted and planted in the sea, and it will obey you." (Luke 17:6 NIV)

^ Can you do this? If you have pretty much ANY faith, a mustard seed is VERY SMALL, then you can do this. (according to Christianity atleast).
You must lack faith so.. uhm, Repent? :roll:

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.


"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)

Oh sorry, I didnt realise you were one of those non-believing Christians..! :roll:
Hehe well, you are CONDEMNED then! :lol:

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.


When something is accepted as a fact in science, then it doesnt contradict something, if it does, then one of those are wrong and
no longer regarded a fact. Most religions cant even come up with an excuse for their contradictions, it just ignores them or
are too blind/stupid to notice them.

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.


"WITH NO CERTAINTY" is more like it.. Science is SCIENCE, you know, its based on facts.
Religions are not, they are based on beliefs.

"He set the Earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."
(Psalm 104:5 NIV)

And arent these beliefs clever and full of knowledge too! :D
That you compare this BULLSHIT to science is fucking hilarious..


Here's a classic logical question regarding the contradciton/
logical error of an omnipotent "god"..

Can "god" create a stone so heavy that not even he himself can lift it?

If he can, then he is not omnipotent.
If he cant, then he is not omnipotent.
:lol:
I hope you can figure out why, if not then you are much less intelligent than I thought.


Allright, you claim it (Zoroastrianism) to be a monotheistic religion. Lets look at the facts;

1. Zoroastrianism is believed to have evovled from Hinduism, Hinduism is not a monotheistic religion.

2. Just because one god is more powerful than the other doesnt make it a monotheistic religion, if that was true then the religion of the Greeks for instance would be monotheism since Zeus was the supreme god. This is the difference; According to Christianity, Satan was created by the Christian god and isnt even a god, but
a "fallen angel", but Angra Mainyu was not created by
Ahura Mazdah and is a god. Simple right?

3. More than one god = BY ALL DEFINITION; Polytheism or Dualism.


As for the talk table, I didnt think any sane person would still cling to it (pretty much only christian fundamentalists does) but I guess I forgot who I was debating with..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#References
^ Note that there are no quotes from the "Talk Table" (but Mein Kampf though)
and that it is not listed in References, a good indication of its truth.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm
^ This adress is taken from your beloved Wikipedia.
A good read too.

A few others:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm
http://www.harrington-sites.com/Carrier5.htm
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/belt.htm

The so called "talk table" has been debunked long ago..
It's a forgery, but in their desperate struggle to deny that Hitler as a Christian, alot of Christian think or rather BELIEVE otherwise.
(Not strange really though, that's what your religion is all about,
sense & logic comes second to beliefs.)

You might want to note that every site that presented it as legitimate was either yahoo's book store, (But that store believes the Necronomicon really exists and sells it too!) and fundamentalist christian sites arguing against Hitler being Christian.


Mein Kampf on the other hand, was written while Hitler was in prison, stripped of all political power, and who also had tried to commit suicide upon arrest, and is more of a diary of personal thoughts than anything, is propaganda while the "talk table" whose ideas were debunked by Hitler's own fuckin sister as certainly not Hitlers thoughts, and rejected by most scholars and students of Hitler's life and history students, and almost only used by Christians to claim he was an atheist, is reliable.. Yeah sure!

Mein Kampf is about the only real source of Hitler's personal thoughts, that's the way it is, deal with it.
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 » Sun Jun 26, 2005 4:03 am

Banker wrote:Are you really that stupid that you cant tell the difference between
actions against someone based on their sexuality or religon or
opressing occupied peoples? The romans opressed all they occupied, even if there were quite kind for the opressors of that age, they were still brutal, the jews werent the only people to feel their brutality, and it wasnt because they were jews either, it was cause they tried to defy the roman rule. That got nothing to do with
racism or prejudice, it's war & politics.


Again this is quite untrue. The history of Roman occupation is largely full of the building of baths, aqueducts, roads, amphitheatres, and the like. They generally let the local religions alone and had more desire to placate the peoples they conquered than to oppress them (as an oppressed people can be hard to control, revolts and all). In Egypt they even had their governors take the title pharaoh and made sure the priests were loyal to Rome just to keep the social order as intact as possible.

Thanks for proving my point that Christianity is both illogical and contradicts itself.


I just proved that it contradicts your views of it. I argued that the Bible, especially the teachings of Jesus promote (and even require) interpretation.

Not really, but it sure tells you were the religion wants you to put your money so to speak..
Me, and most sane people I would think, rather wants to spend our time on our family instead of a "god" that answers prayers in 0.001% of the cases, either out of a lack of existance, lack of power, or a lack of caring. Oh, and speaking of that, go test your faith Christian boy;


Made up statistics like that are simply stupid. . .

First of all, it does not say anything about how much time you spend on things. The point is you should not allow your family to make you "un-Christian".

Also maybe God doesn't answer prayers for very good reasons. Many times the things we want most are the things we need least. Personally there have been many times in my life where I have thanked God for unanswered prayers.


"He replied, If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, Be uprooted and planted in the sea, and it will obey you." (Luke 17:6 NIV)

^ Can you do this? If you have pretty much ANY faith, a mustard seed is VERY SMALL, then you can do this. (according to Christianity atleast).
You must lack faith so.. uhm, Repent?


Maybe in your extensive study of religion you have never looked up the word "parable". . .

Oh sorry, I didnt realise you were one of those non-believing Christians..! :roll:
Hehe well, you are CONDEMNED then!


Eh. . . Interpret it however you want then. You obviously have your own "special" take on the Bible.


When something is accepted as a fact in science, then it doesnt contradict something, if it does, then one of those are wrong and
no longer regarded a fact. Most religions cant even come up with an excuse for their contradictions, it just ignores them or
are too blind/stupid to notice them.


That is so silly on so many levels. . .

One, science never proclaims anything is a "fact".

Two, theologians and priests are constantly debating these contradictions. Maybe it is you who are too self-absorbed to notice.


"WITH NO CERTAINTY" is more like it..


Quite untrue. . . Many of these contradictions are based on historical rather than purely philosophical differences.


"He set the Earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."
(Psalm 104:5 NIV)

And arent these beliefs clever and full of knowledge too! :D
That you compare this BULLSHIT to science is fucking hilarious..


Not really, what is pretty funny is how little you seem to understand anything about religion. These statements are not literal statements, they are trying to express religious ideas as simply as possible.

Certainly a lot of the actual "history" given in the Old Testament is inaccurate, but then again it was about as accurate as science was at the time it was written.


Can "god" create a stone so heavy that not even he himself can lift it?

If he can, then he is not omnipotent.
If he cant, then he is not omnipotent.
:lol:
I hope you can figure out why, if not then you are much less intelligent than I thought.


I should point out that "heavy" is a rather silly measure to use. Even I could lift an infinitely massive stone if there was no gravity. Since gravity is what makes something heavy and God would have to be responsible for its creation as well he would be pulling against himself, a rather silly thing for one such as God to be doing.

All in all, that little situation simply proves how silly humans are compared with even the idea of God.


Allright, you claim it (Zoroastrianism) to be a monotheistic religion. Lets look at the facts;

1. Zoroastrianism is believed to have evovled from Hinduism, Hinduism is not a monotheistic religion.


So? Judaism evolved from polytheistic religions. . . Monotheism in general evolved from polytheistic religions, so I don't really see how this is an issue.

2. Just because one god is more powerful than the other doesnt make it a monotheistic religion, if that was true then the religion of the Greeks for instance would be monotheism since Zeus was the supreme god. This is the difference; According to Christianity, Satan was created by the Christian god and isnt even a god, but
a "fallen angel", but Angra Mainyu was not created by
Ahura Mazdah and is a god. Simple right?


Zoroastrianism has multiple forms. Some (especially the very early ones) were solidly dualistic; however it quickly became as monotheistic as Judaism and Christianity. I am not making this distinction myself; this is what the guys with PhDs in religious studies say about it.

Angra Mainyu the "evil god" is actually thought by many to be the main influence behind Satan. Originally Satan was just a fallen Angel, but after the Jews were exposed to Zoroastrianism Satan became a rival of God.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#References
^ Note that there are no quotes from the "Talk Table" (but Mein Kampf though)
and that it is not listed in References, a good indication of its truth.


Yeah, because as we all know the "references" section of Wikipedia is the definitive judge of authenticity. . . The references section is there to provide information on where the information in the article comes from, not present an exhaustive listing of all related publications.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm
^ This adress is taken from your beloved Wikipedia.
A good read too.

A few others:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm
http://www.harrington-sites.com/Carrier5.htm
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/belt.htm


Yeah, let’s look at a few personal sites. . .

Although the middle one there has this to say about "Hitler’s Table Talk":

http://www.harrington-sites.com/Carrier5.htm wrote:It is likely these notes were real. Six original pages from the notebook still exist in the Adolf Hitler Collection at the Library of Congress, which should be authentic.3 There are also two completely independent manuscripts that agree in such a way as to corroborate the existence of a genuine original, and historian Werner Jochmann, in his edition of one of these, cites several notes and letters confirming that the Table Talk was indeed being made and collated by Bormann during the war. And one of the note-takers, Henry Picker, kept his copy of the notes and published them soon after the war, swearing to their authenticity. He later procured sworn testimonials to this by fellow bunker officers, even arch-Nazi Engel himself.


Even they seem to feel the book is legit.


The so called "talk table" has been debunked long ago..
It's a forgery, but in their desperate struggle to deny that Hitler as a Christian, alot of Christian think or rather BELIEVE otherwise.
(Not strange really though, that's what your religion is all about,
sense & logic comes second to beliefs.)


I challenge you to prove that. You won't be able to because it is simply not true.

Your attempts so far have only served to provide further support for their authenticity.

You might want to note that every site that presented it as legitimate was either yahoo's book store, (But that store believes the Necronomicon really exists and sells it too!) and fundamentalist christian sites arguing against Hitler being Christian.


Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble, The Library of Congress. . . They all seem to feel it is legitimate as well. I suppose they are all religious zealots conspiring to hide the truth as well. . .


Mein Kampf on the other hand, was written while Hitler was in prison, stripped of all political power, and who also had tried to commit suicide upon arrest, and is more of a diary of personal thoughts than anything, is propaganda while the "talk table" whose ideas were debunked by Hitler's own fuckin sister as certainly not Hitlers thoughts, and rejected by most scholars and students of Hitler's life and history students, and almost only used by Christians to claim he was an atheist, is reliable.. Yeah sure!


I never claimed he was an atheist; just that he was not a Christian. . .
doormat
level4
level4
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby doormat » Sun Jun 26, 2005 12:56 pm

Banker:

Mark 11-12 wrote:To you it is given to know the kingdom of God; but to them that are without, all things are done in parables;
That seeing they may see and not perceive, and hearing they may hear and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted and their sins be forgiven them.


If the bible contained the great and total truth, it would be so powerful as to be indisputable. Any man who read it would be overcome: Free Will would be lost to us, and all men would, in total belief, become something other than men and less than the Image of the Lord as was intended.

When he spoke of "driving out demons" and "taking up serpents" and "speaking in new tongues" he was quite correct. Christian clergy are active in moral debate and discorse, and the bible is notable amongst religous texts as being translated in many languages, each of which is considered to be valid (unlike the Koran or the Tanakh, which are restricted to one core language.)

And I would say "If you have faith you can achieve anything" was a positive message, wouldn't you?

Hitler was a christian. But just as Osama Bin Laden is a Muslim, the simple word does not encompass the whole of his beliefs. The "Table talk" may be a forgery, I don't know, but during his rule he organised a state religion, which was militant christian and replaced the cross with an up-ended sword. Nice chap. Jesus did say "do not think I bring peace: I bring not peace, but a sword" (which I interpret to mean that he brought the Gospel as a weapon against sin and doubt,) and he did say, when he knew that the Elders were comming for him, "he that has a purse... let him take it and buy a sword" (which he then made a point of not using, so proving that he wasn't taken against his will.). Both of these passages can used to justify evil acts if interpreted the way Banker seems to read the bible.
If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends?
Banker
level3
level3
Posts: 437
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 6:10 pm

Postby Banker » Sun Jun 26, 2005 3:00 pm

Again this is quite untrue. The history of Roman occupation is largely full of the building of baths, aqueducts, roads, amphitheatres, and the like. They generally let the local religions alone and had more desire to placate the peoples they conquered than to oppress them (as an oppressed people can be hard to control, revolts and all). In Egypt they even had their governors take the title pharaoh and made sure the priests were loyal to Rome just to keep the social order as intact as possible.


Yes, but the jews DID STILL REVOLT. And so felt the roman brutality, of course they didnt kill people cause they felt like it, they did it cause a people still opposed them. It had nothing to do with the fact they were jews, they would have done the same to any people they occupied.


I just proved that it contradicts your views of it. I argued that the Bible, especially the teachings of Jesus promote (and even require) interpretation.


Let say like this; some parts of the bible demands interpretation, while it is still outlined as a sin (an no, no interpretation was necessary to get that message).. Isn't that a contradiction?
No excuses, just yes or no.

Made up statistics like that are simply stupid. . .


Well, lets think about it? How many cases of answered prayers are there? And how many people pray about every minute.. I'd say that figure is quite close to the truth.

First of all, it does not say anything about how much time you spend on things. The point is you should not allow your family to make you "un-Christian".

You do know that about every insane sect around the world has similiar messages right? Oh well, that's how Christianity started,
as a small insane (& criminal I should add, as they stole a donkey for Jesus, and "redistrubed" other people's things from time to time for instance.. That kind of redistribution is usually called communism.. haha) sect.

Also maybe God doesn't answer prayers for very good reasons. Many times the things we want most are the things we need least. Personally there have been many times in my life where I have thanked God for unanswered prayers.


:roll:
Oh? Well yet another contradiction then, cause Jesus said "just ask and ye shall receive" when talking about prayers..
He's saying that whatever you want to do, even throwing mountains in the sea, is possible & WILL BE GRANTED if your pray about it. That you try to argue against this is unbelivably stupid, and speaking of which, can you refer a single fuckin passage of the Bible? Cause I have yet to see it.. That might be a good indication of how much YOU know about it..


Maybe in your extensive study of religion you have never looked up the word "parable". . .


Another good excuse.. Whenever something doesnt suit your particular view of the bible, then it is a methapor/parable! :roll:

Eh. . . Interpret it however you want then. You obviously have your own "special" take on the Bible.


hahaha... Oh shit, keep fleeing from that then, it is a very clear passage, if you dont understand what it says then you must throw the english language out the window whenever you're reading a biblical passage.. You're turning into a Curio now, a total lack of base in reason.. and reality.


That is so silly on so many levels. . .

One, science never proclaims anything is a "fact".


Oh really?
So that earth is a sphere (or atleast close, it's not a perfect sphere) is not a fact? And hasn't been proclaimed as a fact either?
The fact that it also moves around the sun hasnt been proclamed a fact either I suppose?

This is totally pathetic, and it's clear that you're not even debating anymore, you're trying to "win" this through any means, and that includes lying.

Two, theologians and priests are constantly debating these contradictions. Maybe it is you who are too self-absorbed to notice.


I know, I was the one that brought up the term Theology here incase you didnt notice.. Maybe you are too self-absorbed to notice eh? :roll:

"WITH NO CERTAINTY" is more like it..


Quite untrue. . . Many of these contradictions are based on historical rather than purely philosophical differences.


So the bible is fact now?

1. Facts dont contradict each other.
2. Pretty much nothing in the bible has been proven which means there is no certainty.


Not really, what is pretty funny is how little you seem to understand anything about religion. These statements are not literal statements, they are trying to express religious ideas as simply as possible.


Sure, keep thinking that... Whenever something suits your views, it's literal. When it doesn't it is not literal. Typical excuses..
You have yet to refer a single verse of the bible, I dont think you ever studied it.. Yet you claim you know more about it than me..
That's funny, why do you know more, just cause you're a Christian (one that doesnt believe! :D ) maybe? :roll:

Certainly a lot of the actual "history" given in the Old Testament is inaccurate, but then again it was about as accurate as science was at the time it was written.


There was no real, organised, science back then, especially not in that backwater region..

I should point out that "heavy" is a rather silly measure to use. Even I could lift an infinitely massive stone if there was no gravity. Since gravity is what makes something heavy and God would have to be responsible for its creation as well he would be pulling against himself, a rather silly thing for one such as God to be doing.

All in all, that little situation simply proves how silly humans are compared with even the idea of God.


If something is infinietly massive, it cannot be moved.
And logically this infinite mass would need infinite size to be of infinite mass, thus there would be nowhere to lift it to even if it could be moved.

But I'm not talking about infinite mass, just if he can or cannot make something that he cannot lift.
No matter how you answer this question; the outcome is the same, omnipotence is impossible.

Cause if he can do anything, then he could make something he cannot lift. But if he cannot lift it then his "strength" is limited, and thus not omnipotent. And if he can lift it then he is unable to make something he cannot lift and is not omnipotent.

Zoroastrianism has multiple forms. Some (especially the very early ones) were solidly dualistic; however it quickly became as monotheistic as Judaism and Christianity. I am not making this distinction myself; this is what the guys with PhDs in religious studies say about it.


How about we stick to the commonly used version, the original one.. Which is dualism. If I would be debating Christianity I would not be interested in using a modern christian sect (like the success church in the USA, cant remember it's correct name, you might have heard of it) when debating it, but the original idea. :roll:

Angra Mainyu the "evil god" is actually thought by many to be the main influence behind Satan. Originally Satan was just a fallen Angel, but after the Jews were exposed to Zoroastrianism Satan became a rival of God.


Satan isn't very relevant in Judaism at all. And Christians just needed a scapegoat. But in both religions, he was created by respective god, and is not a god, so in those religions he is still not a real rival, just a troublemaker.


Yeah, because as we all know the "references" section of Wikipedia is the definitive judge of authenticity. . . The references section is there to provide information on where the information in the article comes from, not present an exhaustive listing of all related publications.


Ah, so then we cant trust the sources on Zoroastrianism either then? :lol:
How does it feel to be such a hypocrite?

http://www.harrington-sites.com/Carrier5.htm wrote:It is likely these notes were real. Six original pages from the notebook still exist in the Adolf Hitler Collection at the Library of Congress, which should be authentic.3 There are also two completely independent manuscripts that agree in such a way as to corroborate the existence of a genuine original, and historian Werner Jochmann, in his edition of one of these, cites several notes and letters confirming that the Table Talk was indeed being made and collated by Bormann during the war. And one of the note-takers, Henry Picker, kept his copy of the notes and published them soon after the war, swearing to their authenticity. He later procured sworn testimonials to this by fellow bunker officers, even arch-Nazi Engel himself.

Even they seem to feel the book is legit.


Good one, you reference a short bit out of ONE site out of like 5, while completly ignoring everything else, and all other sites too.

Well done, you are offically evading the whole issue.


I challenge you to prove that. You won't be able to because it is simply not true.

Your attempts so far have only served to provide further support for their authenticity.


Really? I have given you like 5 links, you have provedid NADA but your own word.. Which so far hasn't been reliable at all, and constantly contradcits itself.

Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble, The Library of Congress. . . They all seem to feel it is legitimate as well. I suppose they are all religious zealots conspiring to hide the truth as well. . .


Hey check it out, Amazon.com also sells the Necronomicon, it must be REAL! I'm going to buy it and summon Demons and put a curse on you stews! :roll:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... ce&s=books

And Barnes and Noble is also.. selling books, book sellers are usually not very interested in truth, but in just that, selling books.

And library of cognress is.. drums please!
Selling and leasing books!

Wow, these are all very good sources you have here stews, they prove it is real, after all it's being sold!
(I'm sure all of them sells the Necronomicon too btw.)
Lightsabers sold in toys'r'us must be real too cause they're also being sold.. :roll:

I never claimed he was an atheist; just that he was not a Christian. . .


Yeah, he was probably a muslim. :roll:


And I dont know if there's any reason in keeping this debate up, you have only ridiculed yourself throughout the whole debate, what respect I had for you is totally gone too, since you have proven yourself a total FOOL. You're, frankly, worse than Curio right now, atleast he argues with "facts", even if they are false.. You choose to argue with beliefs and ignore all the facts. :)
Me300 wrote:I love how Banker has the uncanny capability cussing all the time while making his arguments.
Banker
level3
level3
Posts: 437
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 6:10 pm

Postby Banker » Sun Jun 26, 2005 3:16 pm

When he spoke of "driving out demons" and "taking up serpents" and "speaking in new tongues" he was quite correct. Christian clergy are active in moral debate and discorse, and the bible is notable amongst religous texts as being translated in many languages, each of which is considered to be valid (unlike the Koran or the Tanakh, which are restricted to one core language.)


Well, he said that "these signs shall accompany those who believe." Very simple, if you believe, you will have these signs.

And I would say "If you have faith you can achieve anything" was a positive message, wouldn't you?


No, if that is such a good message, why dont you sit on your ass all day (in faith of course) and just wait for this "god" to give you whatever you might need?

Hitler was a christian. But just as Osama Bin Laden is a Muslim, the simple word does not encompass the whole of his beliefs.


So? They are both represants of the original, fanatic, ideas of respective religion. Except that Usama is a wahabit (sp?) who believes they must live like Muhammed did.

Most of the world doesnt agree with their ideas cause the world has moved on, and abondoned such idiocy, but hollow versions of the religions are still around, those differ ALOT from the original version, the REAL version, it is still the religion, but people tend to twist their religions ideals to make it suitable to a modern world..
Islam is the monotheistic religion that is least dilluted by democratic ideals though, and thus have more "fanatics" or as it actually is; true followers.

The "Table talk" may be a forgery, I don't know, but during his rule he organised a state religion, which was militant christian and replaced the cross with an up-ended sword. Nice chap. Jesus did say "do not think I bring peace: I bring not peace, but a sword" (which I interpret to mean that he brought the Gospel as a weapon against sin and doubt,) and he did say, when he knew that the Elders were comming for him, "he that has a purse... let him take it and buy a sword" (which he then made a point of not using, so proving that he wasn't taken against his will.). Both of these passages can used to justify evil acts if interpreted the way Banker seems to read the bible.


Hitler had good contacts with the different Christian churches, he had personal relations with the pope, he encouraged nazis to do worship, he supported Christian ideals in his speeches..
He was by all standards and more, a true christian.

And yes, some passages can be used to "justify evil acts" but that's the very purpose they are there, to justify religous persecution and what else.

Most Christians believes they follow "good" christian law and ideals when they follow the ten commanments, (the law of Moses) but what they dont know (or choose to ignore) is that the law of Moses also tells you to stone "blasphemers" to death for instance, and outlines the punishment for all those who breaks any of the ten commandments, which is usually, death.

The law of Moses and the Sharia laws (which is deemed oh-so evil by christians) is VERY similiar.
Me300 wrote:I love how Banker has the uncanny capability cussing all the time while making his arguments.
doormat
level4
level4
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby doormat » Sun Jun 26, 2005 5:28 pm

Nooo.... You've gotten confused by the fact that some Muslims refer to Sharia law as "the law of moses". In fact, the Sharia comes mostly from either latter writings describing the life of the prophet, or from the old testament. The Law of Moses as described in the bible is quite basic.

But christians believe that the Sermon on the Mount supercedes this law, and the more controversial areas of Sharia law have no real basis in any text that also forms part of christianity. (Usualy from later writings than even the Koran.)

Jesus predicted that people would focus on the wrong parts of his message and declare themselves to be "true" christians. But I think that you're trying to justify your position by focusing on the indefencable. (Which is an exceptionaly advanced technique for you, I must say. :P ) Fundimentalists are not any more relgious than the rest of us. My local curite is a freak: totaly wet. He is a fundimentalist in that he practices his interpritation of Christianity to extremes, but his faith led him towards understanding and love for all things. (In a big way: the guy frightens me!) Religion is not negative just because it is used to justify the negative.
If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends?
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Sun Jun 26, 2005 5:36 pm

Banker wrote:Yes, but the jews DID STILL REVOLT. And so felt the roman brutality, of course they didnt kill people cause they felt like it, they did it cause a people still opposed them. It had nothing to do with the fact they were jews, they would have done the same to any people they occupied.


No, that is quite untrue again. The Jews did revolt several times, but this was generally following a period where their religious freedoms were infringed upon (ie the Temple in Jerusalem was being converted to a pagan temple, certain religious practices were being done away with, etc). There were a whole host of complicated reasons for the Jewish revolts, but there was definitely an underlying anti-Jewish sentiment.


Let say like this; some parts of the bible demands interpretation, while it is still outlined as a sin (an no, no interpretation was necessary to get that message).. Isn't that a contradiction?
No excuses, just yes or no.


You have never shown that it is called a sin to interpret the Bible. . . So no I see no contradiction.

Well, lets think about it? How many cases of answered prayers are there? And how many people pray about every minute.. I'd say that figure is quite close to the truth.


How would you even begin to estimate the number of prayers and the number of unanswered prayers? You simply can't. Making up statistics like that _is_ simply stupid.

You do know that about every insane sect around the world has similiar messages right? Oh well, that's how Christianity started,
as a small insane (& criminal I should add, as they stole a donkey for Jesus, and "redistrubed" other people's things from time to time for instance.. That kind of redistribution is usually called communism.. haha) sect.


Wow, that is so convoluted a silly I don't even think I will respond. I will just let it stand as a shining beacon of silliness.


:roll:
Oh? Well yet another contradiction then, cause Jesus said "just ask and ye shall receive" when talking about prayers..
He's saying that whatever you want to do, even throwing mountains in the sea, is possible & WILL BE GRANTED if your pray about it. That you try to argue against this is unbelivably stupid, and speaking of which, can you refer a single fuckin passage of the Bible? Cause I have yet to see it.. That might be a good indication of how much YOU know about it..


Hmm. . . So if I asked God to destroy the world (certainly an anti-Christian request) he should grant it? Hell, even Jesus’ prayers go unanswered (when he is begging for mercy on the cross). If you actually read the Bible you will see that prayers are answered based on the wisdom of God, not on the wishes of man.


Another good excuse.. Whenever something doesnt suit your particular view of the bible, then it is a methapor/parable! :roll:


The Bible is quite clear in saying much of what is taught is a parable. . .


Oh really?
So that earth is a sphere (or atleast close, it's not a perfect sphere) is not a fact?


No it’s not. It is an "observation". Scientists understand that our perception of the world can be easily distorted and that what we believe can be erroneous. Also the idea of the sphere is a human creation and so can be altered to fit whatever you want (for example you could define a sphere to be a shape like the earth, which would make the statement the earth is a sphere correct but only trivially).

And hasn't been proclaimed as a fact either?
The fact that it also moves around the sun hasnt been proclamed a fact either I suppose?


Again, these are observations. At one time people thought it was a "fact" that the earth was the unmoving center of the universe. History is full of "facts" that were simply wrong. Science has wisely decided it is not infallible and that we should realize that what may look like a certainty may well be nothing more than an illusion.

This is totally pathetic, and it's clear that you're not even debating anymore, you're trying to "win" this through any means, and that includes lying.


Where have I lied? And I am carefully responding to each of your points, so I don't think you can accuse me of not debating.

[quote=”Stewsburntmonkey”] Two, theologians and priests are constantly debating these contradictions. Maybe it is you who are too self-absorbed to notice.


I know, I was the one that brought up the term Theology here incase you didnt notice.. Maybe you are too self-absorbed to notice eh?[/quote]

Umm. . . That has nothing to do with the statement you quoted. . .

You stated that Christians don’t see these contradictions; I just pointed out that they are constantly debating them. That is I showed your statement was quite incorrect.

So the bible is fact now?


Its content is not, but the actual writing and compiling of it is a fact which can be used to explain many of the contradictions. Each of the authors of its books had their own agenda for writing what they did. Like any man these agendas colored their presentation of Jesus’ teachings and lead to many contradictions.[/quote]

1. Facts dont contradict each other.


No (assuming the fact is actually a fact), but the conclusions we make regarding facts certainly can, which is what is at issue here.

Sure, keep thinking that... Whenever something suits your views, it's literal.


I rarely take anything as literal regarding religion, so I don't know what this is about. . . If you mean I know what a parable is then, yes I do.

When it doesn't it is not literal. Typical excuses..
You have yet to refer a single verse of the bible, I dont think you ever studied it.. Yet you claim you know more about it than me..
That's funny, why do you know more, just cause you're a Christian (one that doesnt believe! :D ) maybe?


I don't usually quote the Bible because it tends to lead to the wrong conclusions (well it tends to lead to whatever conclusion you want it to, right or wrong). You can find a Bible verse and twist in such a way as to support pretty much anything you want. I don't feel it is at all useful to do this. I have actually studied the Bible (I even have some sort of certificate from a course I took at my church around here somewhere, as well as a couple of medals I earned in Boy Scouts for taking Bible study courses) not that I would have needed to to debunk your arguments.

I also find it rather disgusting that you would insult my faith.

There was no real, organised, science back then, especially not in that backwater region..


Not true, there was a lot of science going on; it just had not advanced all that far at that point. That said you cannot fault people for a poor understanding when science says no different. Today it is silly for people to believe in Creationism, but back then science said no different. In 2000 years people will undoubtedly look back at us and comment on how little we understood too.

If something is infinietly massive, it cannot be moved.


Not, much of a scientist are you. . .

As long as there are no other forces at work on the object its mass doesn't affect its movement (at least in the way we are talking about). For example if you drop a ball that weighs 100kg and another ball of the exact same size that weights 10kg from the same height they will hit the ground at the same time. There mass does not affect their movement.

How about we stick to the commonly used version, the original one.. Which is dualism.


That is not the commonly used version. . .

In any event I mentioned Zoroastrianism to provide an example of a monotheistic religion that existed before Christianity. Regardless of what you feel about its origins, there was a monotheistic form of Zoroastrianism before Christ.


Ah, so then we cant trust the sources on Zoroastrianism either then? :lol:
How does it feel to be such a hypocrite?


Are you even reading what I write? I didn't say Wikipedia was wrong, just that the references section has a specific purpose and that purpose is not to provide a full and complete list of all relevant publications.

Good one, you reference a short bit out of ONE site out of like 5, while completly ignoring everything else, and all other sites too.


I looked at the other sites and they had nothing interesting to say. Most as far as I could tell did not dispute the authenticity of the books, but took issue with what they saw as contradictions in it. They questioned the editing of the book. Their contradictions didn’t seem like contradictions to me.

And for someone who has been selectively quoting the Bible it is pretty rich that you now criticize me for quote selectively.

This was the only place where the authenticity of the book was discussed on that website, so I quoted it. I am sorry if it contradicts your views, but there it is.

Well done, you are offically evading the whole issue.


How can you say I am evading the issue? I am directly addressing it! I have just provided evidence and support for my contentions while you have. . . done pretty much nothing to support your contentions. The support you have provided has in fact not supported you arguments and your facts have generally been wrong. If it makes you feel better to believe I am evading the issue fine, but it is rather obvious I am not.


Really? I have given you like 5 links, you have provedid NADA but your own word.. Which so far hasn't been reliable at all, and constantly contradcits itself.


None of which prove that the book is not legitimate and at least one of which proves that the book is legitimate.

Hey check it out, Amazon.com also sells the Necronomicon, it must be REAL! I'm going to buy it and summon Demons and put a curse on you stews!


They are a book store they sell. . . wait for it. . . books! They don't endorse the authenticity of that book. And if you look at the reviews there is ample discussion of its fictional nature.

However if you look, they actually have an editorial review of "Hitler's Table Talk" and the user reviews support the contention that it is legitimate (for what they are worth).

And library of cognress is.. drums please!
Selling and leasing books!


Actually they don't sell books, they collect them. And unless you are a member of Congress they don't let you take the books outside the building generally.

Wow, these are all very good sources you have here stews, they prove it is real, after all it's being sold!
(I'm sure all of them sells the Necronomicon too btw.)
Lightsabers sold in toys'r'us must be real too cause they're also being sold..


You're the one who brought up the bookstore thing (you said only Yahoo books carried it). I was simply demonstrating that you were yet again completely wrong.

Yeah, he was probably a muslim.


No, an atheist is someone who does not believe in a god. I think it is clear the Hitler believed in a god, he just did not believe the teachings of Christianity (or any religion is seems).


And I dont know if there's any reason in keeping this debate up, you have only ridiculed yourself throughout the whole debate, what respect I had for you is totally gone too, since you have proven yourself a total FOOL. You're, frankly, worse than Curio right now, atleast he argues with "facts", even if they are false.. You choose to argue with beliefs and ignore all the facts.


Firstly, we are debating religion, you yourself said there were no facts when dealing with faith, so I don't think you can blame me for not arguing facts in that regard. Second I have had to go out of my way to correct your near constant inaccuracies and your use of made-up or otherwise incorrect facts. I have provided sources that support my contentions and have shown that even your own sources don't agree with you. It seems you are simply lashing out at me because you have nothing better to do.
Banker
level3
level3
Posts: 437
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 6:10 pm

Postby Banker » Mon Jun 27, 2005 1:50 am

No, that is quite untrue again. The Jews did revolt several times, but this was generally following a period where their religious freedoms were infringed upon (ie the Temple in Jerusalem was being converted to a pagan temple, certain religious practices were being done away with, etc). There were a whole host of complicated reasons for the Jewish revolts, but there was definitely an underlying anti-Jewish sentiment.


Allright, let's say they did. But do you really think the jews would be the only ones? Certainly not.



You have never shown that it is called a sin to interpret the Bible. . . So no I see no contradiction.


I thought you had some knowledge of Christianity of your own, sorry..
My misstake, didnt realise I had to point everything out to you.
Well, go research, you sure as hell need it.

How would you even begin to estimate the number of prayers and the number of unanswered prayers? You simply can't. Making up statistics like that _is_ simply stupid.


Allright, let me say it like this so you can understand.. How many documented cases of mulberry trees uprooting themselfs and getting planted in the sea after prayer are there? None, and everyone who managed that would surely document it, since it is undisputable evidence the Christian faith is correct. How many people has asked for it? Surely a lot of people (or with almost 100% certainty atleast a handful) ; about every passage in the bible has been "tried" at some point in history btw.
So the success rate in procentage is 0%, that's even less than 0.001% so I hope you're happy now.

Wow, that is so convoluted a silly I don't even think I will respond. I will just let it stand as a shining beacon of silliness.


Christian communism & donkey stealing right here:

"As he approached Bethphage and Bethany at the hill called the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples, saying to them, 30"Go to the village ahead of you, and as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here. If anyone asks you, "Why are you untying it?" tell him, "The Lord needs it." Those who were sent ahead went and found it just as he had told them. As they were untying the colt, its owners asked them, "Why are you untying the colt?" They replied, "The Lord needs it." They brought it to Jesus, threw their cloaks on the colt and put Jesus on it." (Luke 19:29-35 NIV)

^ This is usually called "theft".


"All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need." (Acts 4:32-35 NIV)

^ Rejection of personal owning, and a strong community redistributing possessions according to need...


"They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need." (Acts 2:42-45 NIV)

^ Redistribution according to individual need is one of THE VERY DEFINITIONS OF COMMUNISM.


Hmm. . . So if I asked God to destroy the world (certainly an anti-Christian request) he should grant it? Hell, even Jesus’ prayers go unanswered (when he is begging for mercy on the cross). If you actually read the Bible you will see that prayers are answered based on the wisdom of God, not on the wishes of man.


Yes, doesnt it contradict itself? In one passage it clearly says that you will receive anything you ask for, and in another it says that if you doesnt receive then it's the "will of god". Yet another excuse for this god's obvious lack of power and yet another fatal contradiction. Dont blame me, or try to reason.. Christianity isn't based on reason, you should know that by now.

The Bible is quite clear in saying much of what is taught is a parable. . .


Ah.. The good ole' "The Bible proves the Bible right argument". Circular reasoning rings a bell?

No it’s not. It is an "observation". Scientists understand that our perception of the world can be easily distorted and that what we believe can be erroneous. Also the idea of the sphere is a human creation and so can be altered to fit whatever you want (for example you could define a sphere to be a shape like the earth, which would make the statement the earth is a sphere correct but only trivially).


So just cause it is an observation, it can't be true? :roll:
You're not making much sense, and this is my last answer to you..
I usually dont argue with religous extremists cause they tend to never listen if you dont agree with them (or rather with you).

As for the earth being round, well lets think about it, man has actually been in space and everywhere on the surface of the planet you know so lets draw some logical conclusions;

1. You cannot "fall off" the earth. Thus it has no visible "end".

2. You can only "fly off" the earth. (going always up)

3. This would indicate a sphereical form.

4. If that isn't enough, Earth has been observed from space, and has been verifeid as a round object.

There are more, but these are probably the most obvious ones.


Again, these are observations. At one time people thought it was a "fact" that the earth was the unmoving center of the universe. History is full of "facts" that were simply wrong. Science has wisely decided it is not infallible and that we should realize that what may look like a certainty may well be nothing more than an illusion.


Yeah, and who taught them that eh? Christianity, and Judaism did..
Thanks for providing more facts to the argument that Christianity is a religion with no base in reality, reason, or even intelligence.

Where have I lied? And I am carefully responding to each of your points, so I don't think you can accuse me of not debating.


Yeah well, maybe you shouldn't reply when you dont got anything useful to reply with.

Umm. . . That has nothing to do with the statement you quoted. . .

You stated that Christians don’t see these contradictions; I just pointed out that they are constantly debating them. That is I showed your statement was quite incorrect.


I never said that all christians fail that see them. But those that do see them, tries to come up with excuses for them.

Its content is not, but the actual writing and compiling of it is a fact which can be used to explain many of the contradictions. Each of the authors of its books had their own agenda for writing what they did. Like any man these agendas colored their presentation of Jesus’ teachings and lead to many contradictions.


You're saying the way the bible is written is a fact?
No, it is not. Most translations move the verses a bit..
That which is passage 1:2 (not a real passage obviously, just a demonstration) might be passage 1:3 in another translation.
And btw, according to you, that the earth is round isn't a fact but only an observation so I could, using that very argument, claim that the bible doesnt even exist if I wanted to act just as stupid as you have.)

And Jesus doesnt need apostels (or anyone else) to contradict him, he contradicts both himself and the O.T several times.

No (assuming the fact is actually a fact), but the conclusions we make regarding facts certainly can, which is what is at issue here.


Yes, but people that are biased (fighting for their religions honor for instance) has a tendecy to let their beliefs cloud their judgement and draw more false conclusions than other people.


I don't usually quote the Bible because it tends to lead to the wrong conclusions (well it tends to lead to whatever conclusion you want it to, right or wrong). You can find a Bible verse and twist in such a way as to support pretty much anything you want. I don't feel it is at all useful to do this. I have actually studied the Bible (I even have some sort of certificate from a course I took at my church around here somewhere, as well as a couple of medals I earned in Boy Scouts for taking Bible study courses) not that I would have needed to to debunk your arguments.


So your conclusions, those of the practicing christian with a religion to defend are automatically more correct than mine I take it?
Your ignorance truly knows no bounds..

I also find it rather disgusting that you would insult my faith.


Like I care one fuckin bit.. Christianity is total shit, there I said it again.. hehe.
Christianty thinks nonbelievers should be killed so Im going to tkae the right to atleast insult your faith;

"If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky, and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death."
(Deuteronomy 17:2-5)

Yeah, an insult is much worse than stoning people to death.

Or maybe this is a parable, or "not literal"! :roll:

Not true, there was a lot of science going on; it just had not advanced all that far at that point. That said you cannot fault people for a poor understanding when science says no different. Today it is silly for people to believe in Creationism, but back then science said no different. In 2000 years people will undoubtedly look back at us and comment on how little we understood too.


No, I cannot fault people for a poor understanding. But I can fault people who are nothing but mindless sheep like you, and give up their own reasoning & understanding for the sake of a worthless book only good as toilet paper. :)

Not, much of a scientist are you. . .

As long as there are no other forces at work on the object its mass doesn't affect its movement (at least in the way we are talking about). For example if you drop a ball that weighs 100kg and another ball of the exact same size that weights 10kg from the same height they will hit the ground at the same time. There mass does not affect their movement.


For something to be of infinite mass, it must also be of infinite size, cause a limited size cannot hold an unlimited mass.
Movement got nothing to do with it, but something of unlimited mass (and automatically size) will take up all the room and there will be nowhere to move it to, thus an object of infinite mass cannot be moved.
This is very simple and easy reasoning, maybe you should actually think before your fingers start to type.

In any event I mentioned Zoroastrianism to provide an example of a monotheistic religion that existed before Christianity. Regardless of what you feel about its origins, there was a monotheistic form of Zoroastrianism before Christ.


Yeah, and there were about 15 other "saviors" before Christ that preached pretty much the same message he did. Maybe I should bring all of them up every time we mention Jesus.


I looked at the other sites and they had nothing interesting to say. Most as far as I could tell did not dispute the authenticity of the books, but took issue with what they saw as contradictions in it. They questioned the editing of the book. Their contradictions didn’t seem like contradictions to me.


Looks like you didnt even read them.

And for someone who has been selectively quoting the Bible it is pretty rich that you now criticize me for quote selectively.


Like I said this is probably my last post, but if you could have brought up A SINGLE PASSAGE like I urged you to do, then we could have discussed it.

This was the only place where the authenticity of the book was discussed on that website, so I quoted it. I am sorry if it contradicts your views, but there it is.


Right, you just proved you didnt really read those links.. :roll:

How can you say I am evading the issue? I am directly addressing it! I have just provided evidence and support for my contentions while you have. . . done pretty much nothing to support your contentions. The support you have provided has in fact not supported you arguments and your facts have generally been wrong. If it makes you feel better to believe I am evading the issue fine, but it is rather obvious I am not.


You're not adressing it, if you choose to take a 3-4 sentences long piece out of context and then ignore the other 20+ pages of text..

None of which prove that the book is not legitimate and at least one of which proves that the book is legitimate.


Like I said, It's obvious you havent even read them all..

They are a book store they sell. . . wait for it. . . books! They don't endorse the authenticity of that book. And if you look at the reviews there is ample discussion of its fictional nature.


No shit? But it's passed of as AUTHENTIC, and the site doesnt argue against it, only the user reviews, atleast most of them..
But the same book is also sold on Yahoo for instance, and there all the user reviews called the book authentic and were positive..

However if you look, they actually have an editorial review of "Hitler's Table Talk" and the user reviews support the contention that it is legitimate (for what they are worth).


The user reviews are not worth shit.

Actually they don't sell books, they collect them. And unless you are a member of Congress they don't let you take the books outside the building generally.


So you agree they lease books, good.
And your point?
That they collect books, or lease them, or even eat them if they would want to do that, doesnt say that the book is authentic like you claimed.

You're the one who brought up the bookstore thing (you said only Yahoo books carried it). I was simply demonstrating that you were yet again completely wrong.


No, I said Yahoo sold the Necronomicon, and that was the only place I know of that sold the Talk table (but I havent really looked for it to be honest, I dont take much interest in forgeries.)
My point is, that the book (or anything really) is being sold doesnt mean it's real. You claimed it to be authentic cause you seem to think Amazon claim it to be real.

Book stores sell books, they dont care if they are real or not, as long as people are interested in buying it.


No, an atheist is someone who does not believe in a god. I think it is clear the Hitler believed in a god, he just did not believe the teachings of Christianity (or any religion is seems).


A :roll: usually indicate that someone, me in this case, was being sarcastic.. You said he wasn't an atheistist now (even though you claimed he was earlier) and I did not dispute it. My whole point is that he was a religous man, a Christian. So why should I argue against the fact the man wasn't an atheist?

Firstly, we are debating religion, you yourself said there were no facts when dealing with faith, so I don't think you can blame me for not arguing facts in that regard. Second I have had to go out of my way to correct your near constant inaccuracies and your use of made-up or otherwise incorrect facts. I have provided sources that support my contentions and have shown that even your own sources don't agree with you. It seems you are simply lashing out at me because you have nothing better to do.


Beliefs are not about facts, true.. Although a few are based on facts, these are usually non-religious kind of beliefs (ideologys)
However, I can demand you to throw that which has been debunked of your religion out of a discussion Im desperatly trying to keep somewhat intelligent. And you have not provided any sources, except a link to wikepedia about Zoroastrianism, that you claim, is a special type of Zoroarstrianism that's monotheism, and not dualism.

That has not proven me wrong in any way.. How could it?

And this argument is finished, my theory that sense and christian heads just dont go together has been verified once again..
The only thing that belongs in a christian head is hollow points.

Now take care christian boy. :wink:


@ doormat, Im not confused at all. I dont care what muslims call it, I didnt even know they called it the law of Moses, neither do I care. I only know they are similiar. ALL THINGS in these 3 religions are extremly similiar, in truth they are nothing but copies of each other.

And the Sharia is no less "divine" than the law of Moses, they are both man-made crap ment to serve human purposes (usually the purposes of those in power).

And a "fundamentalist" is someone that is MORE religous than most, it is the very thing about them. Religion dominates the life of a fundamentalist.. For most people, it doesn't.

And you might think it leads him towards understanding and love for all things, but sorry, the world is not black and white.. It's grey.
There are no absolutes, and even something you do for a "good higher cause" can bring quite alot of suffering for those that "stand in the way" for whatever "glorious & loving plan" the fundamentalist might have for the world. Im not going to say that killing people with stupid opinons isn't the way to go but I'd rather kill people for a reason than cause some higher cause tells me too.

Have you ever read Papillon? The Abydessa (sp?) of the monastery somewhere in latin america is a good example of good intentions gone wrong.
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 » Mon Jun 27, 2005 2:28 am

Banker wrote:Allright, let's say they did. But do you really think the jews would be the only ones? Certainly not.


No, but what difference does that make? The Nazis oppressed all sorts of people not just Jews. Does that make them any less anti-Semitic?


I thought you had some knowledge of Christianity of your own, sorry..
My misstake, didnt realise I had to point everything out to you.
Well, go research, you sure as hell need it.


So you are refusing to back your point up then? I have read the Bible cover to cover and see nothing that I take as making interpretation a sin.


So the success rate in procentage is 0%, that's even less than 0.001% so I hope you're happy now.


Oh, I would certainly put the number of answered prayers at well below .001%, but it is stupid to simply make up some figure.


I'm not going to respond to the whole theft/communism tangent. I don't feel it is relevant and I don't have any particular interest in discussing it as I don't particularly dispute it.


Yes, doesnt it contradict itself? In one passage it clearly says that you will receive anything you ask for, and in another it says that if you doesnt receive then it's the "will of god". Yet another excuse for this god's obvious lack of power and yet another fatal contradiction. Dont blame me, or try to reason.. Christianity isn't based on reason, you should know that by now.


Again you are not interpreting the passage the way it is "supposed" to be interpreted. If you read the Bible it is quite clear that only those who are truly devout will have their prayers answered and those who are truly devout will not ask for such things.

Ah.. The good ole' "The Bible proves the Bible right argument". Circular reasoning rings a bell?


That's not circular. It's just self-supporting. If the Bible says it is relating a parable, there is no reason to doubt that (unless like you, you have some other agenda).

So just cause it is an observation, it can't be true?


No, but we cannot be totally certain it is true. We must rely on our observations, but always with a bit of skepticism.

You're not making much sense, and this is my last answer to you..
I usually dont argue with religous extremist cause they tend to never listen if you dont agree with them.


I'm a religious extremist now? Wow! I haven't been to Church since I guess Christmas. I think the idea of me as a religious extremist is rather laughable.


Stewsburntmonkey wrote:Where have I lied? And I am carefully responding to each of your points, so I don't think you can accuse me of not debating.


Yeah well, maybe you shouldn't reply when you dont got anything useful to reply with.


So you call me a liar and then refuse to point to any place where I lie. . . Although I guess that makes sense. You tried unfounded character assassination and when called out on it you have no choice but to run and hide.


You're saying the way the bible is written is a fact?
No, it is not. Most translations move the verses a bit..
That which is passage 1:2 (not a real passage obviously, just a demonstration) might be passage 1:3 in another translation.


But you can track those changes; they are historical in nature and can thus be debated as "facts".

And Jesus deliberately contradicts the Old Testament as his didn't feel it accurately reflected the Lord's teachings.

Yes, but people that are biased (fighting for their religions honor for instance) has a tendecy to let their beliefs cloud their judgement and draw more false conclusions than other people.


As do anti-religious crusaders. . . It is up to others to weigh the arguments and see who is more honest.


So your conclusions, those of the practicing christian with a religion to defend are automatically more correct than mine I take it?
Your ignorance truly knows no bounds..


That is again not what I said.


Like I care one fuckin bit.. Christianity is total shit, there I said it again.. hehe.
Christianty thinks nonbelievers should be killed so Im going to tkae the right to atleast insult your faith;


I'm just quoting that to highlight what I feel is a very telling paragraph.


For something to be of infinite mass, it must also be of infinite size, cause a limited size cannot hold an unlimited mass.
Movement got nothing to do with it, but something of unlimited mass will take up all the room and there will be nowhere to move it to, thus an object of infinite mass cannot be moved.
This is very simple and easy reasoning, maybe you should actually think before your fingers start to type.


Infinity - Infinity is not 0. . . Once you start dealing with infinity you cannot make such assumptions.

Yeah, and there were about 15 other "saviors" before Christ that preached pretty much the same message he did. Maybe I should bring all of them up every time we mention Jesus.


You could if you wanted to. I was just pointing out that when you said Judaism was the only monotheistic religion before Christianity, that you were wrong.


Looks like you didnt even read them.


If you have a particular bit you feel is relevant why don't you post it. Although having actually read those sites (what a waste of time), you won't find anything to "prove" your case.


You're not addressing it, if you choose to take a 3-4 sentences long piece out of context and then ignore the other 20+ pages of text..


Those other pages don't mention "Hitler's Table Talk". . .

In any event you are quoting a few verses out of the Bible's couple thousand pages, so again why the double standard?


A :roll: usually indicated that someone, me in this case, was being sarcastic.. You said he wasn't an atheistist now (even though you claimed he was earlier) and I did not dispute it.


I never said that. Again I challenge you to provide a quote. And again you won't be able to because one does not exist.


That has not proven me wrong in any way.. How could it?


Because it directly contradicts what you said. . .

Just to save people the trouble of looking for themselves:

Wikipedia wrote:Zoroastrianism or Mazdaism is known as one of the world's oldest monotheistic religions. It was once the official religion of Sassanid Persia and played an important role in Achaemenid times.

. . .

Although Zoroastrianism has a dualistic undertone, with a series of seven entities (similar in function and status to angels) that are good and constructive and another seven that are evil and destructive, the faith is strictly monotheistic.



And this argument is finished, my theory that sense and christian heads just dont go together has been verified once again..


Lol, well good luck. I think people will get a good laugh out of your attempted arguments. I know I certainly have. Funny how people can be so self-righteous. You actually do remind me of most of the fundamentalist Christians I have known in that respect.


The only thing that belongs in a christian head is hollow points.


Lol (again). . . Seeing as you are the one who has been repeating the anti-Christian talking points ad nauseum I find that statement highly amusing. I would challenge you to find any Christian organization who agreed with all I have said here.
User avatar
Montyphy
level5
level5
Posts: 6745
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 2:28 pm
Location: London, England

Postby Montyphy » Mon Jun 27, 2005 1:22 pm

Banker wrote:Can "god" create a stone so heavy that not even he himself can lift it?

Yes he can, although it would take an infinite length of time for him to do so.

Banker wrote:For something to be of infinite mass, it must also be of infinite size, cause a limited size cannot hold an unlimited mass.


It could have an infinite density in which case it's size would be finite

Banker wrote:Movement got nothing to do with it, but something of unlimited mass will take up all the room and there will be nowhere to move it to, thus an object of infinite mass cannot be moved.


Think beyond three dimensions. In your model, there may not be any room for spatial movement but there's still room for temporial movement.

Alternatively, if you believe in String Theory, then it's possible to say that God could move the object through one or more of the higher subatomic dimensions.
Uplink help: Check out the Guide or FAQ.
Latest Uplink patch is v1.55.
Banker
level3
level3
Posts: 437
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 6:10 pm

Postby Banker » Mon Jun 27, 2005 5:39 pm

Im gonna stick with the science for now, cause I said I would stop with the religous debate, cause really, its totally ludacris right now.
I have no need to argue for the sake of arguing, the last word is not the most important, but the strongest word. So keeping this up is childish, Im sure you're gonna say Im hiding but you do that, it just proves my point.
And I've already pointed out how you repetedly contradict yourself and doesnt understand science nor Christianity, or Zoroastrianism for that matter.. So I harldy needs to do it again..

I'll stick to the logic and science.

Infinity - Infinity is not 0. . . Once you start dealing with infinity you cannot make such assumptions.


I never said it was. 0 = Nothing, and infinite can never be nothing or limited.


@ Monty..

Yes he can, although it would take an infinite length of time for him to do so.


You miss the whole point and just ramble mumbo jumbo here..
If he can make something he cannot lift nor move then he is not omnipotent, cause that would require a limited strength, how long time it would take does not matter.
And also, if he cannot do it in an instant, then he is not omnipotent.

Quite a ridiculous attempt this one..

It could have an infinite density in which case it's size would be finite


Density is only a mesure of mass but sure, if only infinite density was possible. But it's not. An unlimited mass cannot be squeesed into a limited size. That should go without saying.

You might need to study the term infinite a bit.

And even if he could bend those rules, it doesnt matter.
If he can make an object he cannot lift nor move, his "strength" is limited and not omnipotent.

If he cant make an object he cannot lift nor move, his "creation skills" are limited and omnipotent.

There is NO WAY out of this dilemma.. Geniuses have tried to escape it for decades but all have failed, it's quite arrogant to believe you could do it.

Think beyond three dimensions. In your model, there may not be any room for spatial movement but there's still room for temporial movement.

Alternatively, if you believe in String Theory, then it's possible to say that God could move the object through one or more of the higher subatomic dimensions.


:roll:
Yes, and in another dimension, maybe I could be a god too.
Lets stick to the normal dimensions for now shall we?

And second, if he is omnipotent he could move it without using any other dimensions than the normal 3. Once again you miss the whole point, Montypython. :)

If you are omnipotent, you can do ANYTHING.
No matter what your answear to the question is, there is only one conclusion, he cannot be omnipotent.
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 » Mon Jun 27, 2005 6:47 pm

Banker wrote:And I've already pointed out how you repetedly contradict yourself and doesnt understand science nor Christianity, or Zoroastrianism for that matter.. So I harldy needs to do it again..


Actually it has been I who has been demonstrating your contradictions and ignorance, but whatever. . .

I'll stick to the logic and science.


Neither of which seem to be your strong suite. . .

I never said it was. 0 = Nothing, and infinite can never be nothing or limited.


You said that something infinitely massive would have to have infinite volume as well. Then you argue that this means that it cannot move because since it has infinite volume it would take up all space (in an infinite region of space). This implies that infinity - infinity is 0 (or no space).


Density is only a mesure of mass but sure, if only infinite density was possible.


Umm. . . Density is mass/volume. It is not just a measure of mass. Again for one who claims to be so studied you keep getting very, very basic things wrong (this is stuff you learn when you are what 6-8 years old).

But it's not. An unlimited mass cannot be squeesed into a limited size. That should go without saying.


Actually that is not quite true. If you could accelerate an object to the speed of light it would be infinitely massive, yet have a finite volume (thus infinite density). Also black holes are talked of as being infinitely dense, though that is a mathematical statement not a physical statement.

There is NO WAY out of this dilemma.. Geniuses have tried to escape it for decades but all have failed, it's quite arrogant to believe you could do it.


It is quite easy to escape if you realize it is only a paradox in human logic. Human logic has its limits (quantum mechanics is illogical for example, yet very real) and God would be far beyond these limits.
Last edited by Stewsburntmonkey on Tue Jun 28, 2005 4:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ToRmEnToR
level5
level5
Posts: 2420
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2002 5:48 pm
Location: Israel
Contact:

Postby ToRmEnToR » Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:30 pm

I'll stick to the logic and science.


While debating on the subject of "can god create a stone he cant lift?". riighhttt...
meow
Banker
level3
level3
Posts: 437
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 6:10 pm

Postby Banker » Mon Jun 27, 2005 10:54 pm

You said that something infinitely massive would have to have infinite volume as well. Then you argue that this means that it cannot move because since it has infinite volume it would take up all space (in an infinite region of space). This implies that infinity - infinity is 0 (or no space).


Quite untrue, if 2 objects are infinite in size, then they would be of the same "size".. Unlimited size. If something is of infinite size, there cannot be anything outside of it, thus all the "space" will be "inside" the object, not outside.. Get it?


Umm. . . Density is mass/volume. It is not just a measure of mass. Again for one who claims to be so studied you keep getting very, very basic things wrong (this is stuff you learn when you are what 6-8 years old).


Density IS a mesaure of mass..
It is a mesaure of mass per unit of volume. :roll:
Go read the fuck up.

Actually that is not quite true. If you could accelerate an object to the speed of light it would be infinitely massive, yet have a finite volume (thus infinite density). Also black holes are talked of as being infinitely dense, though that is a mathematical statement not a physical statement.


The speed of light is nothing but a measure of acceleration deemed to be the fastest speed there is. I would like to see how you think you could put an infinite mass in an object of finite size through accelerating it at high speed.

And to be honest, we know pretty much nothing about black holes, about all "knowledge" of them is pretty much only theory.

And they ARE NOT believe to be infineletly dense, they are believed to only be able to hold a certain, unknown, but very high, amount of mass before they explode, alot of scientists believe that's how the big bang started, black holes swallowing everything and finally each other til there was only one remaining, which couldnt support all its mass and thus expanded rapidly. (exploded)

That could never happen if they were, or could be, infinitely dense.


It is quite easy to escape if you realize it is only a paradox in human logic. Human logic has its limits (quantum mechanics is illogical for example, yet very real) and God would be far beyond these limits.


lmao.. Not out of the main point of the dilemma..
If you think otherwise then you either miss the whole dilemma, or are too bad at logic to see it. Quite arrogant too, geniuses have been thinking about that one for a LONG ASS TIME, yet Stewsburntmonkey of Uplink forums are so wise and clever he dont even have to properly adress it to figure it out.. :lol:
Talk about a big ego.


@ Tormentor.. If you wanna join in, bring something to the table or stay out. If you have a problem with the question, argue against it with something more solid than that some stupid fuckin comment.
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 » Mon Jun 27, 2005 11:19 pm

Banker wrote:Quite untrue, if 2 objects are infinite in size, then they would be of the same "size".. Unlimited size. If something is of infinite size, there cannot be anything outside of it, thus all the "space" will be "inside" the object, not outside.. Get it?


Heh, silly rabbit, science is not for kids. . .

If you have a box that is 1 meter tall and 1 meter deep but is infinity long, its volume is infinite. If you then had another box that was 2 meters tall and 2 meters deep and infinitely long it would again have an infinite volume even though it would logically be 4 times as large as the previous box. In both cases however there are definite limits to each box in two of the three dimensions and thus things can certainly be outside their infinite volumes.

Again you seem so sure, yet are so incorrect it is quite incredible.


Density IS a mesaure of mass..
It is a mesaure of mass per unit of volume. :roll:
Go read the fuck up.


It is not a measure of mass. It is a relation of mass to volume. Knowing the density of something alone gives no information about its mass (or its volume). Again it is you who need to do the reading. . .

The speed of light is nothing but a measure of acceleration deemed to be the fastest speed there is.


The speed of light is not a measure of acceleration. Speed is a measure of change in distance over time. Acceleration is a measure of change in speed over time. Yet again you should really study some science before spouting off about things you know nothing of.

I would like to see how you think you could put an infinite mass in an object of finite size through accelerating it at high speed.


It's called the Theory of Relativity. It was explained by a man called Einstein (not to be confused with einstein ;) ), perhaps you have heard of it and of him? If not go read up (well read up anyway, it seems you need it).


And they ARE NOT believe to be infineletly dense, they are believed to only be able to hold a certain, unknown, but very high, amount of mass before they explode, alot of scientists believe that's how the big bang started, black holes swallowing everything and finally each other til there was only one remaining, which couldnt support all its mass and thus expanded rapidly. (exploded)


Do a bit of research on singularities in black holes to find out about the infinite density thing. I love how you continue to make such absolute statements with absolutely nothing to back them up.


lmao.. Not out of the main point of the dilemma..
If you think otherwise then you either miss the whole dilemma, or are too bad at logic to see it. Quite arrogant too, geniuses have been thinking about that one for a LONG ASS TIME, yet Stewsburntmonkey of Uplink forums are so wise and clever he dont even have to properly adress it to figure it out.. :lol:
Talk about a big ego.


That has nothing to do with my argument. I said that logic breaks down in many cases (quantum mechanics for instance) and that trying to apply logic (a product of man) to God is rather silly.


I think ToRmEnToR was just pointing out how artificial and stupid your paradox is.

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests