EPTBuddhism and all the rest of it is just strangehoods and human spiritual empowerment and it is not of God.
Jesus is the only way to salvation and true spiritual blessing.
Seeking Religion - Page 4
| Blogs > yoshtodd |
|
TechniQ.UK
United Kingdom391 Posts
Buddhism and all the rest of it is just strangehoods and human spiritual empowerment and it is not of God. Jesus is the only way to salvation and true spiritual blessing. | ||
|
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
On February 17 2009 07:21 TechniQ.UK wrote: The only thing that can fill the spiritual void you feel is Jesus Christ. Buddhism and all the rest of it is just strangehoods and human spiritual empowerment and it is not of God. Jesus is the only way to salvation and true spiritual blessing. everything he just said, but replace Jesus Christ with a random inanimate object in your room, perhaps a box of wheat-thins. And, just for good measure, go ahead and replace Buddhism with something else too, maybe a schoolbus, or a box of lemurs. | ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
On February 17 2009 08:06 Lemonwalrus wrote: everything he just said, but replace Jesus Christ with a random inanimate object in your room, perhaps a box of wheat-thins. And, just for good measure, go ahead and replace Buddhism with something else too, maybe a schoolbus, or a box of lemurs. Are dismissing Jesus because you disagree with the bible, or because you disagree with his teachings? | ||
|
Nytefish
United Kingdom4282 Posts
I got bored with being told to believe things and that I would never be able to prove or disprove it (my parents also did a poor job lying about santa claus, tooth fairy and the easter bunny, that might have something to do with it). If I wanted answers to those questions I probably wouldn't be satisfied with what science and logic has to offer and thus have some interest in religion, but I just don't care. So what if there's nothing after death, no need to get depressed about it, just live life as it is and find whatever meaning you want. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On February 17 2009 07:21 TechniQ.UK wrote: The only thing that can fill the spiritual void you feel is Jesus Christ. Buddhism and all the rest of it is just strangehoods and human spiritual empowerment and it is not of God. Jesus is the only way to salvation and true spiritual blessing. what makes christianity better than islam or judaism? | ||
|
TechniQ.UK
United Kingdom391 Posts
The history of Islam, the history of the quran is very very dodgy (for example we have one bible. Even scholars applaud the fact that the bible has been maintained at least 95 percent accurate across all Greek, Hebrew texts used for the bible and the majority of the differences are minor word changes or grammar.) with the quran it's been heavily edited, large sections of it have been removed stuff like that. http://www.geocities.com/worldview_3/quranvbible.html That site is quite a good rebuke to the quran compared to the bible using both the scriptures in clear view. Anyway, enjoy. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On February 17 2009 10:21 TechniQ.UK wrote: Christianity is a continuation of judaism therefore the jews have rejected their messiah as prophesied We've been over this; many required prophecies have not been fulfilled. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On February 17 2009 10:21 TechniQ.UK wrote: Christianity is a continuation of judaism therefore the jews have rejected their messiah as prophesied and are still simply using the rituals that we're a shadow for the saviour to come and since they have rejected him well the bible says that Jesus is the only way to salvation and he is so they don't have Jesus they don't have salvation. The history of Islam, the history of the quran is very very dodgy (for example we have one bible. Even scholars applaud the fact that the bible has been maintained at least 95 percent accurate across all Greek, Hebrew texts used for the bible and the majority of the differences are minor word changes or grammar.) with the quran it's been heavily edited, large sections of it have been removed stuff like that. http://www.geocities.com/worldview_3/quranvbible.html That site is quite a good rebuke to the quran compared to the bible using both the scriptures in clear view. Anyway, enjoy. what? you know mary wasnt actually a virgin right? the original hebrew or greek or whatever used a word that simply meant young lady, and it was mistranslated as virgin. ya. word of god ftw. | ||
|
Chromyne
Canada561 Posts
On February 17 2009 10:38 IdrA wrote: what? you know mary wasnt actually a virgin right? the original hebrew or greek or whatever used a word that simply meant young lady, and it was mistranslated as virgin. ya. word of god ftw. The original Hebrew used is 'almah' which means 'young woman.' However, it can also mean 'virgin' mainly because from a cultural standpoint, unmarried women were usually or assumed to be virgins. Therefore the use of this word only implied that Mary was a virgin, but does not specifically state she was. When translations of Isaiah were done to Greek, even before the birth of Christ (as a prophesy), the word used meant 'virgin.' All of this points to the fact that Mary was prophesied and implied to be a virgin, but not necessarily a virgin. | ||
|
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
edit: or is it more comfortable for you to go into other threads preaching your specific version of christianity rather than to recognize you are one of the greatest enemies of reason and logical thinking? | ||
|
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
On February 17 2009 08:31 fight_or_flight wrote: Are dismissing Jesus because you disagree with the bible, or because you disagree with his teachings? If I had to pick one, I would say I dismiss Jesus because I disagree with the bible. However, in this post, I was disagreeing with the smug way that Techniq presents his religion as the truth and insults everything that isn't it. | ||
|
statix
United States1760 Posts
On February 17 2009 10:49 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: hey techniq get back in your own thread, faggot edit: or is it more comfortable for you to go into other threads preaching your specific version of christianity rather than to recognize you are one of the greatest enemies of reason and logical thinking? what's wrong with him giving his recommendation for a means to fill the OP's spiritual void? atleast he's contributing to the thread and not being a fucking tool like you in this thread and the other one. quit being a dick. you're not funny. | ||
|
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
On February 17 2009 11:16 statix wrote: what's wrong with him giving his recommendation for a means to fill the OP's spiritual void? atleast he's contributing to the thread and not being a fucking tool like you in this thread and the other one. quit being a dick. you're not funny. i'm not being a dick to be a dick or to be funny. as i think i've stated before, i don't dislike christianity or religion in general, i only dislike the flavors that discourage reason and logical thinking. techniq's style of preaching happens to be extremely loathesome to me, and in the other thread, i'm attempting to show him why his mindset is so stifling to reason. yes, i use sarcasm, yes, i pepper in personal attacks, but my points are valid and you have less of a right to tell me to shut up than the amount of right i have to tell techniq to go back to his own thread and respond to my arguments. so quit being a dick, you're not productive. | ||
|
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
the fine print to my previous post is that i find that most religions tend to stifle reason | ||
|
Mada_Jiang
Australia236 Posts
| ||
|
Chromyne
Canada561 Posts
On February 17 2009 11:19 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: i'm not being a dick to be a dick or to be funny. as i think i've stated before, i don't dislike christianity or religion in general, i only dislike the flavors that discourage reason and logical thinking. techniq's style of preaching happens to be extremely loathesome to me, and in the other thread, i'm attempting to show him why his mindset is so stifling to reason. yes, i use sarcasm, yes, i pepper in personal attacks, but my points are valid and you have less of a right to tell me to shut up than the amount of right i have to tell techniq to go back to his own thread and respond to my arguments. so quit being a dick, you're not productive. This is probably why he doesn't listen to you. Your advice may be sound but your tone is unproductive and distracts the recipient from your main points. | ||
|
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
On February 17 2009 11:41 Chromyne wrote: This is probably why he doesn't listen to you. Your advice may be sound but your tone is unproductive and distracts the recipient from your main points. the only sarcasm i used in that other thread was in metaphor to demonstrate my point i avoided personal attacks as much as possible too, and i now regret using "faggot" in this thread, but seriously, my negativity is not so overwhelming such that my argument's stopped looking like an argument. | ||
|
Chromyne
Canada561 Posts
On February 17 2009 10:49 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: hey techniq get back in your own thread, faggot edit: or is it more comfortable for you to go into other threads preaching your specific version of christianity rather than to recognize you are one of the greatest enemies of reason and logical thinking? In response to your actual post, Techniq's post was justified in a sense that he was responding to the OP; it's less 'preachy' when you're responding than when it's unwanted. Techniq's post is what he believes to be true, and truth in itself is offensive. For example: 1 + 1 = 2 (Let's just assume this to be a fact). This may offend some people who think otherwise, but it won't change the fact that 1 + 1 = 2. If one person thinks the sum is 3, and another, 1, it doesn't mean that there is no correct answer. This analogy doesn't equate perfectly but this is similar to religious pluralism. Assuming some sort of supernatural being, if there are multiple religions making different claims about the same topic (afterlife, gods, etc.) then not all can be correct. | ||
|
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
On February 17 2009 12:07 Chromyne wrote: In response to your actual post, Techniq's post was justified in a sense that he was responding to the OP; it's less 'preachy' when you're responding than when it's unwanted. Techniq's post is what he believes to be true, and truth in itself is offensive. For example: 1 + 1 = 2 (Let's just assume this to be a fact). This may offend some people who think otherwise, but it won't change the fact that 1 + 1 = 2. If one person thinks the sum is 3, and another, 1, it doesn't mean that there is no correct answer. This analogy doesn't equate perfectly but this is similar to religious pluralism. Assuming some sort of supernatural being, if there are multiple religions making different claims about the same topic (afterlife, gods, etc.) then not all can be correct. hey look i made an extremely similar point in the other thread On February 16 2009 10:40 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: also the fact that you're claiming that all atheists love sin is simply ridiculous. "god is not real" is not a justification of sin, it's one of the possible explanations of all the contradictions within support for god. ptolemy tried to slightly modify aristotlean physics to make it still work, but copernicus/newton/galileo threw them out and got the right answer. aristotle = bible ptolemy = each denomination of christianity (or even judaism and islam) copernicus/newton/galileo = agnosticism/atheism ptolemy could've been right, but he wasnt each denomination of christianity could be right since they're all tweaks of the same basic concept, and i'm not saying that all of them HAVE to be wrong, but if one of them is right, then the others have to be wrong, and adhering to one is like playing the lottery not a very good chance to further explicate this analogy, aristotle claimed that earth was at the center of the universe, and the stars were all on a spherical shell rotating around the earth. observations of the night sky matched this for the most part, except for the problem of "the wanderers" (which were actually the planets), objects that sometimes traveled with the stars, sometimes went backwards or at different speeds. aristotle ignored this contradiction completely. ptolemy attempted to fix this problem by adding the idea of epicycles, little circles that the planets made while traveling with the overall sphere of the stars. this matched rudimentary observations, but as precision got better, the observations kept getting tweaked. in fact, he moved earth slightly off the center of the universe at one point, which was really revolutionary at the time, and i can really respect hiim for this. just because he was wrong doesn't mean he was an enemy of reason. the difference between ptolemy and people like techniq.uk is that ptolemy was flexible. fast forward a thousand years+, copernicus decides to try to fix these inconsistencies by putting the sun at the center of the universe, the earth revolving around the sun, and the planets also doing so. his papers were published posthumously, because science's best friend, the catholic church, would've totally excommunicated and killed him if he challenged aristotlean physics outright (a prime example of dogma being an enemy of reason). however, once the ideas were out, they were out, and they helped lead to the development of things like kepler's laws and newtonian physics. | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11553 Posts
Traveling around the world, you meet people. Talking with these people, you get various feelings. They want help, and they are depending on people who know and can be effective. Join the Church of Scientology today! Oh and personally, I think that religion tends to mar the path of logic and the brain in general. If you are set on "choosing" a religion, the more open minded it is, the better, imo. | ||
| ||
