KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia — Three Christian churches were attacked with firebombs Friday as tensions rose in a dispute over whether Christians could use the word “Allah” in this largely Muslim nation.
Later in the day, small crowds rallied outside two major mosques in the capital, in a growing protest over a court ruling that overturned a government ban on the use of “Allah” by Roman Catholics as a translation for God.
“Allah is only for us,” said Faedzah Fuad, 28, who participated in the rally. “The Christians can use any word, we don’t care, but please don’t use the word Allah.”
There have been more attacks on churches in Malaysia, in a growing dispute over the use of the word Allah by non-Muslims.
The police say petrol bombs were thrown at a church and a convent school in the northern state of Perak, and at a church on the island of Sarawak.
Another church in the south of the country was daubed with black paint.
The attacks come days after four churches near the capital, Kuala Lumpur, were hit by petrol bombs.
The petrol bomb thrown at a guard house of a Catholic convent school in the town of Taiping, about 300km (185 miles) from Kuala Lumpur, did not explode.
Several broken bottles and paint thinners were found at the church next to the convent and one of the country's oldest Anglican churches, All Saints, also in Taiping, Reuters news agency reported.
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia — Three Christian churches were attacked with firebombs Friday as tensions rose in a dispute over whether Christians could use the word “Allah” in this largely Muslim nation.
Later in the day, small crowds rallied outside two major mosques in the capital, in a growing protest over a court ruling that overturned a government ban on the use of “Allah” by Roman Catholics as a translation for God.
“Allah is only for us,” said Faedzah Fuad, 28, who participated in the rally. “The Christians can use any word, we don’t care, but please don’t use the word Allah.”
personally i have nothing against the muslim religion, but every now and then u see news headline like these popping up that paints the whole muslims community with an image they do not deserve...
You are trying too hard to be PC.
Your reaction to Muslims attacking Churches and trying to tell people what words they are and are not allowed to say is to say that Muslims are somehow the victims... ? How about Muslims are the bad guys in this story, or at least what you quoted, and that this may or may not extend to the Muslim population as a whole.
That you managed to paint Muslims as victims from them firebombing churches is just amazing.
On January 09 2010 11:07 cz wrote: This story is a fabrication; I know this because Islam is the religion of peace, and thus what you stated cannot have happened.
i agree with u that muslim is a religion that promotes peace, however to say that an actual fact is false because it doesn't conform to ur personal bias, is pure ignorance...
the majority of muslim in malaysia and the whole muslim community definately does not support these actions, my point is that is it fair to paint an entire religious community because of a minority of that group constantly gets in the headlines?
On January 09 2010 11:07 cz wrote: This story is a fabrication; I know this because Islam is the religion of peace, and thus what you stated cannot have happened.
This 'story' or more appropriately news is real, and happened just yesterday. I should know since I stay there. After the attacks, there were reports of cars with Christian articles (rosaries, religious articles) getting smashed on the streets. This however may or may not be true.
These stories make the news because they are 'news-worthy.' I think it was Billy Graham who said something like this: you don't hear about the multitude of people who arrive by plane safely, but you definitely hear about the ones who don't.
If it's not interesting or provocative, it's less likely to make it to the news.
Mayb you can say "Islam is a religion that promotes peace", I personally would disagree, but it's a claim that can be backed up however, if you try saying "Islam is a religion that promotes tolerance" I think you would struggle far more in justifying why.
And as tolerance must have a distinct element in an interpretation of "peace" or the promotion of, then the lack of tolerance shown by the Islamic religion year by year, is evidence to suggest that it is not a religion that promotes peace. (last paragraph was very much my opinion and very little meant to be conveyed as "fact")
I may sound biased when i say this, but i don't even think there's any point in making these threads. It's been proven again and again that Islam promotes ridiculous amounts of extremism and fanatical zealotry in it's participants. I honestly think Islam holds back a quarter of the world as far as education is concerned, and is possibly the worst idealogical disaster since eugenics, even though i'm aware it's been around for far longer.
Basically Islam is a religion that refused to evolve with all of the other ones. Christianity eventually admitted that, for example, women being allowed to vote wasn't a sin, and many other things. All religions have advanced their sensibilities at least slightly to the left, other than Islam. It's frozen in time 1000 years ago when a religion like that gave it's leaders powers over the people, which was exactly what they wanted. But now that it's been essentially marginalized to certain parts of the world (predominately the Middle East, a good amount of Asia, and part of Europe) it just continues to harm people.
I would support a ban against practicing that religion, only because of the damage it does to its practitioners. And I realize that that would cause civil wars and political destabilization of large parts of the world, but I think it would be necessary considering that it causes some of the biggest problems in the world, and is (dare i say) actually holding the rest of us back from peaceful advancement.
On January 09 2010 11:07 cz wrote: This story is a fabrication; I know this because Islam is the religion of peace, and thus what you stated cannot have happened.
i agree with u that muslim is a religion that promotes peace, however to say that an actual fact is false because it doesn't conform to ur personal bias, is pure ignorance...
the majority of muslim in malaysia and the whole muslim community definately does not support these actions, my point is that is it fair to paint an entire religious community because of a minority of that group constantly gets in the headlines?
The story just repeats the facts, both of the events and reactions. It is not an editorial. It doesn't paint he community in any way. Unless, of course, you mean that by reporting the facts of Muslim violence constitutes painting Muslims in a certain way, then yes, but that is the Muslims fault, not the newspapers.
I'm just amazed that out of this story the one thing you go to is viewing Muslims as victims.
All these new articles about Muslims is starting to get ridiculous. Anyone see this one?
apparently some arab-american highschool students (in a half arab highschool) got in trouble for making these class pride shirts (and yes I know arab != muslim):
Please rephrase the title, that is really offensive to most of the Muslim tl members/ even thou I am moderate liberal Muslim I can't stand the tittle! You should rather rename it to "Muslim or Islam Dispute".
On January 09 2010 11:31 Gunman_csz wrote: Please rephrase the title, that is really offensive to most of the Muslim tl members/ even thou I am moderate liberal Muslim I can't stand the tittle! You should rather rename it to "Muslim or Islam Dispute".
I will be offended if the title is changed. Seriously.
On January 09 2010 11:31 Gunman_csz wrote: Please rephrase the title, that is really offensive to most of the Muslim tl members/ even thou I am moderate liberal Muslim I can't stand the tittle! You should rather rename it to "Muslim or Islam Dispute".
In America, angry religious zealots and purists hold picket signs of aborted babies or whatever, and scream at us telling we are sinners, then go have dinner and fall asleep.
In Asia and Europe, angry religious zealots and purists hold picket signs and try to burn things down.
brb, gotta burn down a Mormon church because they started saying Elohim. (I'm not actually Jewish, but you see the point I'm making)
They need to learn their history. It's not two different Gods. Islam is a semitic religion, just as Christianity. They both worship the God of Abraham. They have huge dogmatic differences but when it comes down to it, anybody who understands the history of them knows they worship the same god. So Allah is God and God is Allah and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to work on their logic.
On January 09 2010 11:38 MountainDewJunkie wrote: In America, angry religious zealots and purists hold picket signs of aborted babies or whatever, and scream at us telling we are sinners, then go have dinner and fall asleep.
In Asia and Europe, angry religious zealots and purists hold picket signs and try to burn things down.
No, in America they shoot abortion doctors whereas in Europe they do petitions and talk about it all.
I'd rather deal with the occasional Christian loon here than the overwhelming tide of Muslim loons in Europe.
At least when someone makes a cartoon making fun of Christianity, they don't have to be put under armed guard 24/7 because of all the assassination attempts.
On January 09 2010 11:27 ghermination wrote: I may sound biased when i say this, but i don't even think there's any point in making these threads. It's been proven again and again that Islam promotes ridiculous amounts of extremism and fanatical zealotry in it's participants. I honestly think Islam holds back a quarter of the world as far as education is concerned, and is possibly the worst idealogical disaster since eugenics, even though i'm aware it's been around for far longer.
Basically Islam is a religion that refused to evolve with all of the other ones. Christianity eventually admitted that, for example, women being allowed to vote wasn't a sin, and many other things. All religions have advanced their sensibilities at least slightly to the left, other than Islam. It's frozen in time 1000 years ago when a religion like that gave it's leaders powers over the people, which was exactly what they wanted. But now that it's been essentially marginalized to certain parts of the world (predominately the Middle East, a good amount of Asia, and part of Europe) it just continues to harm people.
I would support a ban against practicing that religion, only because of the damage it does to its practitioners. And I realize that that would cause civil wars and political destabilization of large parts of the world, but I think it would be necessary considering that it causes some of the biggest problems in the world, and is (dare i say) actually holding the rest of us back from peaceful advancement.
I expect to be flamed for this.
My post is mainly in response to you, Without the birth of Islam, Christianity and most European world would have been still swimming in mud and disease.
All religion is a crock of constructed shit - don't get me wrong however, I don't mean to say that the fault lies on the religion itself. Arabic christians have long used the word "Allah" to describe their god. The word "Allah" in Arabic is no different from the word "God" in english.
Despite escalating political rhetoric and the early-morning violence, the rallies of 200 to 300 people were far smaller than the thousands predicted by organizers.
lol - Our anti-war/discrimination protests Sydney have gone in the 10 000s yet you barely see any of it getting proper coverage in the media.
The fact that the churches were attacked is really sad and disgusting but mosques around the world get attacked for stupid reasons as well.
But to me, this is a classic case of orientalist proliferation to, yes, paint a bad image on arabs and muslims as a whole.
If anything, the fault of fundamentalist islam is due to capitalist societies planting in puppet democracies and monarchs which were not around in the first few decades of the 19th century, back then, most nations were extremely secular. But continued colonization, rule and exploitation thus, poverty forces things in the completely opposite direction.
On January 09 2010 11:38 MountainDewJunkie wrote: In America, angry religious zealots and purists hold picket signs of aborted babies or whatever, and scream at us telling we are sinners, then go have dinner and fall asleep.
In Asia and Europe, angry religious zealots and purists hold picket signs and try to burn things down.
No, in America they shoot abortion doctors whereas in Europe they do petitions and talk about it all.
Hey, fun fact:
In the U.S., violence directed toward abortion providers has killed at least eight people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort.
Compare that to the number of people murdered in Europe every year in disputes over football.
On January 09 2010 11:27 ghermination wrote: I may sound biased when i say this, but i don't even think there's any point in making these threads. It's been proven again and again that Islam promotes ridiculous amounts of extremism and fanatical zealotry in it's participants. I honestly think Islam holds back a quarter of the world as far as education is concerned, and is possibly the worst idealogical disaster since eugenics, even though i'm aware it's been around for far longer.
Basically Islam is a religion that refused to evolve with all of the other ones. Christianity eventually admitted that, for example, women being allowed to vote wasn't a sin, and many other things. All religions have advanced their sensibilities at least slightly to the left, other than Islam. It's frozen in time 1000 years ago when a religion like that gave it's leaders powers over the people, which was exactly what they wanted. But now that it's been essentially marginalized to certain parts of the world (predominately the Middle East, a good amount of Asia, and part of Europe) it just continues to harm people.
I would support a ban against practicing that religion, only because of the damage it does to its practitioners. And I realize that that would cause civil wars and political destabilization of large parts of the world, but I think it would be necessary considering that it causes some of the biggest problems in the world, and is (dare i say) actually holding the rest of us back from peaceful advancement.
I expect to be flamed for this.
My post is mainly in response to you, Without the birth of Islam, Christianity and most European world would have been still swimming in mud and disease.
All religion is a crock of constructed shit - don't get me wrong however, I don't mean to say that the fault lies on the religion itself. Arabic christians have long used the word "Allah" to describe their god. The word "Allah" in Arabic is no different from the word "God" in english.
Despite escalating political rhetoric and the early-morning violence, the rallies of 200 to 300 people were far smaller than the thousands predicted by organizers.
lol - Our anti-war/discrimination protests Sydney have gone in the 10 000s yet you barely see any of it getting proper coverage in the media.
The fact that the churches were attacked is really sad and disgusting but mosques around the world get attacked for stupid reasons as well.
But to me, this is a classic case of orientalist proliferation to, yes, paint a bad image on arabs and muslims as a whole.
If anything, the fault of fundamentalist islam is due to capitalist societies planting in puppet democracies and monarchs which were not around in the first few decades of the 19th century, back then, most nations were extremely secular. But continued colonization, rule and exploitation thus, poverty forces things in the completely opposite direction.
1. I assume you are talking about Islamic hygiene. That didn't matter because Christians and Europeans didn't follow it, thus they dealt with diseases anyway. 2. We would have figured it out.
I'm also impressed that you once again found a way to take this story and make Muslims into the victims. They are not, they are the bad guys in the story. No matter how many multi-syllabic words you throw that won't be changed.
On January 09 2010 11:27 ghermination wrote: I may sound biased when i say this, but i don't even think there's any point in making these threads. It's been proven again and again that Islam promotes ridiculous amounts of extremism and fanatical zealotry in it's participants. I honestly think Islam holds back a quarter of the world as far as education is concerned, and is possibly the worst idealogical disaster since eugenics, even though i'm aware it's been around for far longer.
Basically Islam is a religion that refused to evolve with all of the other ones. Christianity eventually admitted that, for example, women being allowed to vote wasn't a sin, and many other things. All religions have advanced their sensibilities at least slightly to the left, other than Islam. It's frozen in time 1000 years ago when a religion like that gave it's leaders powers over the people, which was exactly what they wanted. But now that it's been essentially marginalized to certain parts of the world (predominately the Middle East, a good amount of Asia, and part of Europe) it just continues to harm people.
I would support a ban against practicing that religion, only because of the damage it does to its practitioners. And I realize that that would cause civil wars and political destabilization of large parts of the world, but I think it would be necessary considering that it causes some of the biggest problems in the world, and is (dare i say) actually holding the rest of us back from peaceful advancement.
I expect to be flamed for this.
My post is mainly in response to you, Without the birth of Islam, Christianity and most European world would have been still swimming in mud and disease.
From reading all of your post you appear to not be a religious person so seems strange that you would write such an ignorant statement that would be associated with fundamentalist belief, but I shouldn't have even read your whole post when you opened it with that. That is some serious bullshit.
lol islam is a religion that is majorly practiced in third world, uncivilized barbaric nations. That uncivilized barbaric acts would be acted out in its name is no surprise [anywhere in the world, no matter how modern, etc] simply from that massive influence.
1. I assume you are talking about Islamic hygiene. That didn't matter because Christians and Europeans didn't follow it, thus they dealt with diseases anyway. 2. We would have figured it out.
From reading all of your post you appear to not be a religious person so seems strange that you would write such an ignorant statement that would be associated with fundamentalist belief, but I shouldn't have even read your whole post when you opened it with that. That is some serious bullshit.
Again both of these posts show how little you guys know about human historical progression. By saying "without islam" I by all means am not saying " Islam is the best" that is a preposterous thing to say. I see how you, XeliN assume that to be fundamentalist b.s because you see all cheap shit "CONVERT TO MY RELIGION" websites using their golden ages as testament to how great their religion is and thus everyone should convert to it - No i'm merely stating a truth which all historians and academics know much about today but is hardly ever discussed among the public circles - which is no accident.
I'm not going to spoon feed you with examples of (not just hygienic) contributions one culture has provided to the other. You do your own homework.
1. I assume you are talking about Islamic hygiene. That didn't matter because Christians and Europeans didn't follow it, thus they dealt with diseases anyway. 2. We would have figured it out.
From reading all of your post you appear to not be a religious person so seems strange that you would write such an ignorant statement that would be associated with fundamentalist belief, but I shouldn't have even read your whole post when you opened it with that. That is some serious bullshit.
Again both of these posts show how little you guys know about human historical progression. By saying "without islam" I by all means am not saying " Islam is the best" that is a preposterous thing to say. I see how you, XeliN assume that to be fundamentalist b.s because you see all cheap shit "CONVERT TO MY RELIGION" websites using their golden ages as testament to how great their religion is and thus everyone should convert to it - No i'm merely stating a truth which all historians and academics know much about today but is hardly ever discussed among the public circles - which is no accident.
I'm not going to spoon feed you with examples of (not just hygienic) contributions one culture has provided to the other. You do your own homework.
lol
1. Nobody said anything about you claiming Islam to be the best. Or at least I didn't. You just made up your own argument to argue against. 2. You didn't respond to my rebuttal at all. You just got all angry and told me to do your research to make YOUR argument.
I made my rebuttal. Please show where my rebuttal (criticism of your argument) is wrong or admit that your original argument/statements are wrong.
Religion and science. One answers the question. The other tries. Science cant explain how we originated and i dont think it ever will. Im not saying religion is right but i am saying there is no way to know. Science and logic can only answer so many questions. And debunking religion is just as impossible as trying to find out how we originated through science and logic. I personally don't believe Creationism is the answer. Because Creationism is an answer to a question we don't understand by nature on how we came to be. And it cant be creationism cause that wouldn't explain god. Don't turn this into a religion thread by calling other people who follow christianity,islam ect. stupid, cause you really are the idiot.
I'd quite like to see some evidence that justifies why you think you can predict the future.. (or more specifically why you can predict with such certainty the effects of an altered past)
On January 09 2010 12:43 StarsPride wrote: Religion and science. One answers the question. The other tries. Science cant explain how we originated and i dont think it ever will. Im not saying religion is right but i am saying there is no way to know. Science and logic can only answer so many questions. And debunking religion is just as impossible as trying to find out how we originated through science and logic. I personally don't believe Creationism is the answer. Because Creationism is an answer to a question we don't understand by nature on how we came to be. And it cant be creationism cause that wouldn't explain god. Don't turn this into a religion thread by calling other people who follow christianity,islam ect. stupid, cause you really are the idiot.
This thread has nothing to do with science vs religion.
On January 09 2010 12:43 StarsPride wrote: Religion and science. One answers the question. The other tries. Science cant explain how we originated and i dont think it ever will. Im not saying religion is right but i am saying there is no way to know. Science and logic can only answer so many questions. And debunking religion is just as impossible as trying to find out how we originated through science and logic. I personally don't believe Creationism is the answer. Because Creationism is an answer to a question we don't understand by nature on how we came to be. And it cant be creationism cause that wouldn't explain god. Don't turn this into a religion thread by calling other people who follow christianity,islam ect. stupid, cause you really are the idiot.
IMO religion attempts to answer "why" while Science attempts to answer "how". Anyways.
On January 09 2010 12:43 StarsPride wrote: Religion and science. One answers the question. The other tries. Science cant explain how we originated and i dont think it ever will. Im not saying religion is right but i am saying there is no way to know. Science and logic can only answer so many questions. And debunking religion is just as impossible as trying to find out how we originated through science and logic. I personally don't believe Creationism is the answer. Because Creationism is an answer to a question we don't understand by nature on how we came to be. And it cant be creationism cause that wouldn't explain god. Don't turn this into a religion thread by calling other people who follow christianity,islam ect. stupid, cause you really are the idiot.
This thread has nothing to do with science vs religion.
I can't understand why Christians would want to be able to refer to their god as Allah. They're basically saying "You just worship the word for god, but it really means our god." Anyone who doesn't see this as IRL trolling is blind.
Violence and bickering over the potential naming conventions of fantasy characters is hilarious.
On January 09 2010 12:50 Vedic wrote: I can't understand why Christians would want to be able to refer to their god as Allah. They're basically saying "You just worship the word for god, but it really means our god." Anyone who doesn't see this as IRL trolling is blind.
Violence and bickering over the potential naming conventions of fantasy characters is hilarious.
The idea that there is a god. Isn't fantasy but a reality. it may not be a christian or an islam god. But with no explanation to the answer god is a logical one.
On January 09 2010 12:50 Vedic wrote: I can't understand why Christians would want to be able to refer to their god as Allah. They're basically saying "You just worship the word for god, but it really means our god." Anyone who doesn't see this as IRL trolling is blind.
Violence and bickering over the potential naming conventions of fantasy characters is hilarious.
The idea that there is a god. Isn't fantasy but a reality. it may not be a christian or an islam god. But with no explanation to the answer god is a logical one.
No, no it isn't. In fact, it's as far from logical as you get - the polar opposite.
On January 09 2010 12:50 Vedic wrote: I can't understand why Christians would want to be able to refer to their god as Allah. They're basically saying "You just worship the word for god, but it really means our god." Anyone who doesn't see this as IRL trolling is blind.
Violence and bickering over the potential naming conventions of fantasy characters is hilarious.
because they speak Arabic and that is what they have always called their god?
On January 09 2010 12:43 StarsPride wrote: Religion and science. One answers the question. The other tries. Science cant explain how we originated and i dont think it ever will. Im not saying religion is right but i am saying there is no way to know. Science and logic can only answer so many questions. And debunking religion is just as impossible as trying to find out how we originated through science and logic. I personally don't believe Creationism is the answer. Because Creationism is an answer to a question we don't understand by nature on how we came to be. And it cant be creationism cause that wouldn't explain god. Don't turn this into a religion thread by calling other people who follow christianity,islam ect. stupid, cause you really are the idiot.
IMO religion attempts to answer "why" while Science attempts to answer "how". Anyways.
On January 09 2010 12:50 Vedic wrote: I can't understand why Christians would want to be able to refer to their god as Allah. They're basically saying "You just worship the word for god, but it really means our god." Anyone who doesn't see this as IRL trolling is blind.
Violence and bickering over the potential naming conventions of fantasy characters is hilarious.
because they speak Arabic and that is what they have always called their god?
On January 09 2010 11:42 konadora wrote: Why can't everyone live like people in Singapore
Everyone lives happily together
IMO, this case has more to do with education rather than religion hence Singapore's ability to live in peace compared to Malaysia.
First of all, they have failed molotovs. Second, they failed identifying the blame which was suppose to be the court who gave the verdict. Third, the issue is with a weekly Catholic publication and they attack non-Catholic churches instead. Have I mention the word "fail" enough? Hence, obviously these attackers failed education. Jeez, I'm still irked about the failed molotovs ... can't even do it right.
On January 09 2010 12:50 Vedic wrote: I can't understand why Christians would want to be able to refer to their god as Allah. They're basically saying "You just worship the word for god, but it really means our god." Anyone who doesn't see this as IRL trolling is blind.
Violence and bickering over the potential naming conventions of fantasy characters is hilarious.
The idea that there is a god. Isn't fantasy but a reality. it may not be a christian or an islam god. But with no explanation to the answer god is a logical one.
No, no it isn't. In fact, it's as far from logical as you get - the polar opposite.
Explain ur logic since u have the answer im intrigued you can answer the question that the most intelligent people in the history of man could not.
On January 09 2010 12:50 Vedic wrote: I can't understand why Christians would want to be able to refer to their god as Allah. They're basically saying "You just worship the word for god, but it really means our god." Anyone who doesn't see this as IRL trolling is blind.
Violence and bickering over the potential naming conventions of fantasy characters is hilarious.
The idea that there is a god. Isn't fantasy but a reality. it may not be a christian or an islam god. But with no explanation to the answer god is a logical one.
No, no it isn't. In fact, it's as far from logical as you get - the polar opposite.
Explain ur logic since u have the answer im intrigued you can answer the question that the most intelligent people in the history of man could not.
"Logic is the art and science of reasoning which seeks to identify and understand the principles of valid demonstration and inference."
This isn't the thread for this, and you're all sorts of wrong, so I'm not going to continue this.
On January 09 2010 12:50 Vedic wrote: I can't understand why Christians would want to be able to refer to their god as Allah. They're basically saying "You just worship the word for god, but it really means our god." Anyone who doesn't see this as IRL trolling is blind.
Violence and bickering over the potential naming conventions of fantasy characters is hilarious.
because they speak Arabic and that is what they have always called their god?
Why would Malaysian Christians speak Arabic?
to get a better understanding of how it influenced modern Malay, and how Arabic words made their way into the Malay language
On January 09 2010 12:50 Vedic wrote: I can't understand why Christians would want to be able to refer to their god as Allah. They're basically saying "You just worship the word for god, but it really means our god." Anyone who doesn't see this as IRL trolling is blind.
Violence and bickering over the potential naming conventions of fantasy characters is hilarious.
The idea that there is a god. Isn't fantasy but a reality. it may not be a christian or an islam god. But with no explanation to the answer god is a logical one.
No, no it isn't. In fact, it's as far from logical as you get - the polar opposite.
Explain ur logic since u have the answer im intrigued you can answer the question that the most intelligent people in the history of man could not.
"Logic is the art and science of reasoning which seeks to identify and understand the principles of valid demonstration and inference."
This isn't the thread for this, and you're all sorts of wrong, so I'm not going to continue this.
This is a valid arguement, its just impossible to argue whose right or wrong, and you prove ur self an idiot by saying your answer "there is no god" When stephen hawkings him self said there is a possibility but you deny the possibility?
On January 09 2010 12:50 Vedic wrote: I can't understand why Christians would want to be able to refer to their god as Allah. They're basically saying "You just worship the word for god, but it really means our god." Anyone who doesn't see this as IRL trolling is blind.
Violence and bickering over the potential naming conventions of fantasy characters is hilarious.
The idea that there is a god. Isn't fantasy but a reality. it may not be a christian or an islam god. But with no explanation to the answer god is a logical one.
No, no it isn't. In fact, it's as far from logical as you get - the polar opposite.
Explain ur logic since u have the answer im intrigued you can answer the question that the most intelligent people in the history of man could not.
"Logic is the art and science of reasoning which seeks to identify and understand the principles of valid demonstration and inference."
This isn't the thread for this, and you're all sorts of wrong, so I'm not going to continue this.
This is a valid arguement, its just impossible to argue whose right or wrong, and you prove ur self an idiot by saying your answer "there is no god" When stephen hawkings him self said there is a possibility but you deny the possibility?
Dude, either you're a troll or a massive idiot. Religion, and god for that matter, were created by humans to explain things which we don't understand. Just because you say we can't disprove it doesn't mean it's true.
On January 09 2010 12:50 Vedic wrote: I can't understand why Christians would want to be able to refer to their god as Allah. They're basically saying "You just worship the word for god, but it really means our god." Anyone who doesn't see this as IRL trolling is blind.
Violence and bickering over the potential naming conventions of fantasy characters is hilarious.
The idea that there is a god. Isn't fantasy but a reality. it may not be a christian or an islam god. But with no explanation to the answer god is a logical one.
No, no it isn't. In fact, it's as far from logical as you get - the polar opposite.
Explain ur logic since u have the answer im intrigued you can answer the question that the most intelligent people in the history of man could not.
"Logic is the art and science of reasoning which seeks to identify and understand the principles of valid demonstration and inference."
This isn't the thread for this, and you're all sorts of wrong, so I'm not going to continue this.
This is a valid arguement, its just impossible to argue whose right or wrong, and you prove ur self an idiot by saying your answer "there is no god" When stephen hawkings him self said there is a possibility but you deny the possibility?
First of all, it's "Stephen Hawking." Second, he didn't say that there is a possibility, but that he has faith. Third, stop posting in this thread that isn't about religion vs science to begin with. Fourth, even if this WAS the thread, you'd still be wrong.
On January 09 2010 11:07 cz wrote: This story is a fabrication; I know this because Islam is the religion of peace, and thus what you stated cannot have happened.
Malaysia was always like that, Muslims >>>>> all other religions. You even get extra benefits if you're a Muslim. Its also mainly caused by our dysfunctional education system that never stop saying westerners are assholes.
On January 09 2010 12:50 Vedic wrote: I can't understand why Christians would want to be able to refer to their god as Allah. They're basically saying "You just worship the word for god, but it really means our god." Anyone who doesn't see this as IRL trolling is blind.
Violence and bickering over the potential naming conventions of fantasy characters is hilarious.
The idea that there is a god. Isn't fantasy but a reality. it may not be a christian or an islam god. But with no explanation to the answer god is a logical one.
No, no it isn't. In fact, it's as far from logical as you get - the polar opposite.
Explain ur logic since u have the answer im intrigued you can answer the question that the most intelligent people in the history of man could not.
"Logic is the art and science of reasoning which seeks to identify and understand the principles of valid demonstration and inference."
This isn't the thread for this, and you're all sorts of wrong, so I'm not going to continue this.
This is a valid arguement, its just impossible to argue whose right or wrong, and you prove ur self an idiot by saying your answer "there is no god" When stephen hawkings him self said there is a possibility but you deny the possibility?
First of all, it's "Stephen Hawking." Second, he didn't say that there is a possibility, but that he has faith. Third, stop posting in this thread that isn't about religion vs science to begin with. Fourth, even if this WAS the thread, you'd still be wrong.
On January 09 2010 12:50 Vedic wrote: I can't understand why Christians would want to be able to refer to their god as Allah. They're basically saying "You just worship the word for god, but it really means our god." Anyone who doesn't see this as IRL trolling is blind.
Violence and bickering over the potential naming conventions of fantasy characters is hilarious.
The idea that there is a god. Isn't fantasy but a reality. it may not be a christian or an islam god. But with no explanation to the answer god is a logical one.
No, no it isn't. In fact, it's as far from logical as you get - the polar opposite.
Explain ur logic since u have the answer im intrigued you can answer the question that the most intelligent people in the history of man could not.
"Logic is the art and science of reasoning which seeks to identify and understand the principles of valid demonstration and inference."
This isn't the thread for this, and you're all sorts of wrong, so I'm not going to continue this.
This is a valid arguement, its just impossible to argue whose right or wrong, and you prove ur self an idiot by saying your answer "there is no god" When stephen hawkings him self said there is a possibility but you deny the possibility?
First of all, it's "Stephen Hawking." Second, he didn't say that there is a possibility, but that he has faith. Third, stop posting in this thread that isn't about religion vs science to begin with. Fourth, even if this WAS the thread, you'd still be wrong.
you are so wrong. sooooo wrong.
Yes we know many religious people would claim that Vedic is wrong. But wtf does this have to do with churches getting attacked? Go argue this somewhere else. I for one don't consider this topic to be particularly conversation-worthy but that's besides the point.
On January 09 2010 11:07 cz wrote: This story is a fabrication; I know this because Islam is the religion of peace, and thus what you stated cannot have happened.
On January 09 2010 14:40 haduken wrote: This is so retarded. Muslims do realize that their god is the same as Christian god right?
That is like saying that the Greek and Roman religions were the same; it only appears to be true if you ignore the very significant differences.
A good point but a bad example. Nobody knows where the Greek religion started, but if you delve very deep into the lore there is a lot of conflicting fables (for example, many times Zeus seems to father children out of the blue), only because as the culture of the Greeks solidified, every village with its own patron god and shrine had to add it's own beliefs to the big ball of religion, which is where you get these ridiculously complicated webs of gods and how they are related.
The Romans, who, being partially descended from and geographically located very close too the Greeks, bloomed several hundred years after them. They absorbed most of the culture and religion of the Greeks while adapting a new language, and modifying several key parts (For example, Herkales -> Hercules, Odysseus -> Ulysses, Zeus -> Jupiter etc.)
These religions were indeed very similiar and founded from the same base. Most of the lore was the same and often stories were adapted completely. For example, the Romans were acting out Philoctetes several hundred years after it had been written by the great Greek writer Sophocles, which is just one indicator of how they cannibalized much of the religion and culture of the Greeks.
In the same way, Christianity and Islam are both Abrahamic (or Semitic) faiths. They both have a very similiar basis and are both most likely descended from the same people in the same region, which would most likely be early Jews in portions of the middle east. Christianity and Islam are different from Greek and Roman faiths however, in the fact that they both developed in very different ways from the same base. I'm sure these parallel developments have a lot to do with geography as well, with people who moved one way developing what we call Christianity and people who moved another way developing Islam.
I'm sorry but someone needs to say it: There is a disturbingly large portion of muslims that are fanatics.
There is nothing cool about Islam. Sure many muslims are alright people but there is just too much bullshit in Islam with how they treat women, honor, jihad etc that I think is completely fucked up. I don't want any part of it.
Btw, about the danish cartoon writer: I'm not sure if someone posted this as news already but some muslim guy apparently broke into his house and tried to attack him. (January 2:nd)
On January 09 2010 11:38 MountainDewJunkie wrote: In America, angry religious zealots and purists hold picket signs of aborted babies or whatever, and scream at us telling we are sinners, then go have dinner and fall asleep.
In Asia and Europe, angry religious zealots and purists hold picket signs and try to burn things down.
No, in America they shoot abortion doctors whereas in Europe they do petitions and talk about it all.
in related news this 74 years old danish cartoonist dude is essentially in the witness protection program lol
"Westergaard, who has been the target of several death threats since depicting the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb-shaped turban, has been under round-the-clock protection by Danish police since February 2008."
"Efforts to protect the artist — 74-year-old Kurt Westergaard — were immediately stepped up, as he was moved to an undisclosed location."
On January 09 2010 12:43 StarsPride wrote: Religion and science. One answers the question. The other tries. Science cant explain how we originated and i dont think it ever will. Im not saying religion is right but i am saying there is no way to know. Science and logic can only answer so many questions. And debunking religion is just as impossible as trying to find out how we originated through science and logic. I personally don't believe Creationism is the answer. Because Creationism is an answer to a question we don't understand by nature on how we came to be. And it cant be creationism cause that wouldn't explain god. Don't turn this into a religion thread by calling other people who follow christianity,islam ect. stupid, cause you really are the idiot.
On January 09 2010 12:50 Vedic wrote: I can't understand why Christians would want to be able to refer to their god as Allah. They're basically saying "You just worship the word for god, but it really means our god." Anyone who doesn't see this as IRL trolling is blind.
Violence and bickering over the potential naming conventions of fantasy characters is hilarious.
The idea that there is a god. Isn't fantasy but a reality. it may not be a christian or an islam god. But with no explanation to the answer god is a logical one.
On January 09 2010 12:50 Vedic wrote: I can't understand why Christians would want to be able to refer to their god as Allah. They're basically saying "You just worship the word for god, but it really means our god." Anyone who doesn't see this as IRL trolling is blind.
Violence and bickering over the potential naming conventions of fantasy characters is hilarious.
The idea that there is a god. Isn't fantasy but a reality. it may not be a christian or an islam god. But with no explanation to the answer god is a logical one.
No, no it isn't. In fact, it's as far from logical as you get - the polar opposite.
Explain ur logic since u have the answer im intrigued you can answer the question that the most intelligent people in the history of man could not.
"Logic is the art and science of reasoning which seeks to identify and understand the principles of valid demonstration and inference."
This isn't the thread for this, and you're all sorts of wrong, so I'm not going to continue this.
This is a valid arguement, its just impossible to argue whose right or wrong, and you prove ur self an idiot by saying your answer "there is no god" When stephen hawkings him self said there is a possibility but you deny the possibility?
There is a possibility for everything. Just because the possibility exists doesn't mean that it's not so astronomically small so as to be negligible.
And it's hard to take you seriously when you type the way you do.
On January 09 2010 11:31 Gunman_csz wrote: Please rephrase the title, that is really offensive to most of the Muslim tl members/ even thou I am moderate liberal Muslim I can't stand the tittle! You should rather rename it to "Muslim or Islam Dispute".
Or he can keep the title the same and you can get over yourself.
On January 09 2010 11:41 KwarK wrote: No, in America they shoot abortion doctors whereas in Europe they do petitions and talk about it all.
That was one crazed man trying to save thems sacred baybays; this story features an organized rally.
Still, comparing America to Europe in terms of extremism is lol. Europe has no extremism anymore. We're far too grown up for that.
Bull and shit. I was going to say "well, there may not be a lot of "ethnic European" extremists, but you sure have a lot among the immigrant population", when I remembered even that assertion is going too far. The former East Germany has lots of neo Nazis. They have a political party that holds seats in a couple state governments. Germany isn't the only country with Neo Nazis either, don't even try to pretend otherwise. And though less extreme, Austria had Jörg Haider as part of a coalition government. Britain has the BNP. Forgetting all of them, during the time I lived in England the IRA set off a couple rather large bombs. Around that same time Europe had a troubling incident with ethnic cleansing (never again, except in the Balkans maybe).
And to get back to my original point, on top of all that there is your problem with a population that is less than fully integrated (which maybe you'd like to pretend isn't European, despite there being millions of them who aren't going anywhere), from which you get sweet stuff like dudes holding up "kill those who insult Islam" signs while the Bobbies stand by, or who embark on week long riots over some cartoons. And some of them were responsible for slightly more recent bombings in your fine country. You have to be fucking kidding me "Europe has no extremism".
If your post was sarcastic, I got trolled. If it wasn't, pull your head out.
On January 09 2010 11:41 KwarK wrote: No, in America they shoot abortion doctors whereas in Europe they do petitions and talk about it all.
That was one crazed man trying to save thems sacred baybays; this story features an organized rally.
Still, comparing America to Europe in terms of extremism is lol. Europe has no extremism anymore. We're far too grown up for that.
Bull and shit. I was going to say "well, there may not be a lot of "ethnic European" extremists, but you sure have a lot among the immigrant population", when I remembered even that assertion is going too far. The former East Germany has lots of neo Nazis. They have a political party that holds seats in a couple state governments. Germany isn't the only country with Neo Nazis either, don't even try to pretend otherwise. And though less extreme, Austria had Jörg Haider as part of a coalition government. Britain has the BNP. Forgetting all of them, during the time I lived in England the IRA set off a couple rather large bombs. Around that same time Europe had a troubling incident with ethnic cleansing (never again, except in the Balkans maybe).
And to get back to my original point, on top of all that there is your problem with a population that is less than fully integrated (which maybe you'd like to pretend isn't European, despite there being millions of them who aren't going anywhere), from which you get sweet stuff like dudes holding up "kill those who insult Islam" signs while the Bobbies stand by, or who embark on week long riots over some cartoons. You have to be fucking kidding me "Europe has no extremism".
If your post was sarcastic, I got trolled. If it wasn't, pull your head out.
On January 09 2010 11:07 cz wrote: This story is a fabrication; I know this because Islam is the religion of peace, and thus what you stated cannot have happened.
i agree with u that muslim is a religion that promotes peace
But what does that mean? Islamic worldview divides the world into the Dar al-Islam and the Dar al-Harb (House of Islam, and House of War respectively) which some interpret to mean a belief that the world will be at peace when the House of Islam comprises the whole world. That is to say: Islam is the religion of peace, because there will be peace when the entire world is Islamic*. Until then, all bets are off in the House of War.
That interpretation is obviously somewhat reactionary, and I am in no position to judge its accuracy (perhaps someone closer to the source can weigh in). But it's pretty easy to see how someone might see "religion of peace" and not be comforted. It all depends on the meaning.
_____ *This is assuming sectarian Shiite on Sunni violence goes away somehow, and that Arabic Muslims (Sudanese government) stop persecuting African Muslims (Darfur), and that Hamas and Fatah kiss and make up and and and
@ KwarK yeah sure we don't have any extremists in Europe...
@ MamiyaOtaru Just for clarification, the Neo Nazi political party in Germany does not hold any seats in any state government anymore. But I see your point.
@ intrudor I love that chart. Unfortunately, it is sad that it depicts reality to quite some extent...
@ StarsPride Do you come from Kansas by any chance? Ever read this?
On January 09 2010 21:51 ggrrg wrote: @ KwarK yeah sure we don't have any extremists in Europe...
@ MamiyaOtaru Just for clarification, the Neo Nazi political party in Germany does not hold any seats in any state government anymore. But I see your point.
@ intrudor I love that chart. Unfortunately, it is sad that it depicts reality to quite some extent...
@ StarsPride Do you come from Kansas by any chance? Ever read this?
May we all be touched by his noodly appendage. R'amen.
On January 09 2010 21:51 ggrrg wrote: @ MamiyaOtaru Just for clarification, the Neo Nazi political party in Germany does not hold any seats in any state government anymore. But I see your point.
I think you will find that statement inaccurate. They currently hold six seats in Mecklenburg Vorpommern, and eight in Sachsen (which is down from 12 in 2004)
I'm a little curious why you would make that assertion when the numbers are so easily verifiable. I assume it is confusion over what I meant by government. I was referring to the parliament of each state, not the ruling coalition. For obvious reasons they haven't been offered a part in any ruling coalitions, but they have seated members in the parliaments.
On January 09 2010 12:50 Vedic wrote: I can't understand why Christians would want to be able to refer to their god as Allah. They're basically saying "You just worship the word for god, but it really means our god." Anyone who doesn't see this as IRL trolling is blind.
Violence and bickering over the potential naming conventions of fantasy characters is hilarious.
No..
Muslims and christians both worship the same god. Allah is just the arabic name of God.
**Yawnn***.... Just a bunch of Malay youths who are been badly misguided and have nothing better to do. It just shows an underlying problem of racism, inequality, education system and incredibly defunct government
So, lets get back to the real deal..... a possible Flash vs Jaedong Finals!!!!!!!! : ) omgomgomgomgomgomogmomgomomgomomogmoasdaskdgaskjdsakjdhkasjckjhsakcjhas
Edit: the above poster is correct btw.... as the anthem of some states in Malaysia use the term 'Allah' and is generally accepted as the god of their respective religions
On January 09 2010 12:50 Vedic wrote: I can't understand why Christians would want to be able to refer to their god as Allah. They're basically saying "You just worship the word for god, but it really means our god." Anyone who doesn't see this as IRL trolling is blind.
Violence and bickering over the potential naming conventions of fantasy characters is hilarious.
No..
Muslims and christians both worship the same god. Allah is just the arabic name of God.
things are not as simple as you would like to think
Story gives no context of the political and social context of Malaysia. I'd urge anyone with a brain (2, 3 of you?) to stop casting judgments about religion, when it's really just a Malaysian domestic issue. You can start to see what happens when policies of exclusion are used to mitigate conflict - take note, Europe.
Also, the term 'Allah' was around before Muhammad.
On January 09 2010 22:43 chongu wrote: **Yawnn***.... Just a bunch of Malay youths who are been badly misguided and have nothing better to do. It just shows an underlying problem of racism, inequality, education system and incredibly defunct government
So, lets get back to the real deal..... a possible Flash vs Jaedong Finals!!!!!!!! : ) omgomgomgomgomgomogmomgomomgomomogmoasdaskdgaskjdsakjdhkasjckjhsakcjhas
Edit: the above poster is correct btw.... as the anthem of some states in Malaysia use the term 'Allah' and is generally accepted as the god of their respective religions
On January 09 2010 14:40 haduken wrote: This is so retarded. Muslims do realize that their god is the same as Christian god right?
That is like saying that the Greek and Roman religions were the same; it only appears to be true if you ignore the very significant differences.
A good point but a bad example. Nobody knows where the Greek religion started, but if you delve very deep into the lore there is a lot of conflicting fables (for example, many times Zeus seems to father children out of the blue), only because as the culture of the Greeks solidified, every village with its own patron god and shrine had to add it's own beliefs to the big ball of religion, which is where you get these ridiculously complicated webs of gods and how they are related.
The Romans, who, being partially descended from and geographically located very close too the Greeks, bloomed several hundred years after them. They absorbed most of the culture and religion of the Greeks while adapting a new language, and modifying several key parts (For example, Herkales -> Hercules, Odysseus -> Ulysses, Zeus -> Jupiter etc.)
These religions were indeed very similiar and founded from the same base. Most of the lore was the same and often stories were adapted completely. For example, the Romans were acting out Philoctetes several hundred years after it had been written by the great Greek writer Sophocles, which is just one indicator of how they cannibalized much of the religion and culture of the Greeks.
They were similar, but not the same and that is the point. There were a number of Roman deities, such as Janus, Terminus, the Lares, that have no equivalents in Greek myth. Some of the Roman deities originated with the Greeks but became something very different. Mars is the best example of that. Mars was associated with agriculture and fertility and, unlike Ares, was widely revered and respected and not shown to be a fool in every myth in which he appeared. And then there is the liver and entrail divining...
On January 09 2010 11:27 ghermination wrote: I may sound biased when i say this, but i don't even think there's any point in making these threads. It's been proven again and again that Islam promotes ridiculous amounts of extremism and fanatical zealotry in it's participants. I honestly think Islam holds back a quarter of the world as far as education is concerned, and is possibly the worst idealogical disaster since eugenics, even though i'm aware it's been around for far longer.
Basically Islam is a religion that refused to evolve with all of the other ones. Christianity eventually admitted that, for example, women being allowed to vote wasn't a sin, and many other things. All religions have advanced their sensibilities at least slightly to the left, other than Islam. It's frozen in time 1000 years ago when a religion like that gave it's leaders powers over the people, which was exactly what they wanted. But now that it's been essentially marginalized to certain parts of the world (predominately the Middle East, a good amount of Asia, and part of Europe) it just continues to harm people.
I would support a ban against practicing that religion, only because of the damage it does to its practitioners. And I realize that that would cause civil wars and political destabilization of large parts of the world, but I think it would be necessary considering that it causes some of the biggest problems in the world, and is (dare i say) actually holding the rest of us back from peaceful advancement.
I expect to be flamed for this.
Are you nuts or something? Islam is the most adaptable religion I saw, modern day scholars look at everyday news etc and issue new things etc. Dude i fucking hate all of these retards that just fucking ruin my RELIGION! They just show a retarded example and provided the fucking media the easiest road to throw biases into people's minds. FUCK FUCK FUCK!
On January 10 2010 02:52 MannerMan wrote: It is very sad that so many can be moved so strongly by religion.
I hope one day they can see the beautiful truths behind our existence instead of the lies and tyranny of those who oppress them with fear.
Its sad that retards start thinking "OH HEY MY RELIGION IS THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS, SAY ANYTHING AGAINST IT AND I WILL DESTROY YOU!" God these people drive me nuts, thats why religion is driving off from every single one of its roots because some people just want to take their crazy ideas and show them off like a puppet show.
REVIVE THE CRUSADERS, LET'S TAKE BACK WHATS OURS !!!
Seriously though, this is just going to create more tension between the West and the muslims...
And also, if the story is true... Then wow, wth, people are behaving like little children :s "YOu can't use Allah because that's our word" "...Allah" "MOM HE'S DOING IT AGAIN !!"
And also, God = Allah right? Christianity = Islam but only other prophets and culture and stuff right? I don't get it..
EDIT: just realized that I used the word "Allah" three times...
On January 10 2010 03:13 PanN wrote: Bunch of adults being mass controlled to remain ignorant. How else can you explain a bunch of adults fighting over the use of a word?
Nigger. Oh shit I'm being racist! My skin color is wrong, so I can't use that word! If only I produced more melanin, would it be socially acceptable!
Words by themselves have meaning, but the intention behind the words being spoken or written is very important as well.
I don't mind people wallowing in their own ignorance, but when they try to propagate it, it becomes a problem.
On January 09 2010 11:41 KwarK wrote: No, in America they shoot abortion doctors whereas in Europe they do petitions and talk about it all.
That was one crazed man trying to save thems sacred baybays; this story features an organized rally.
Still, comparing America to Europe in terms of extremism is lol. Europe has no extremism anymore. We're far too grown up for that.
Bull and shit. I was going to say "well, there may not be a lot of "ethnic European" extremists, but you sure have a lot among the immigrant population", when I remembered even that assertion is going too far. The former East Germany has lots of neo Nazis. They have a political party that holds seats in a couple state governments. Germany isn't the only country with Neo Nazis either, don't even try to pretend otherwise. And though less extreme, Austria had Jörg Haider as part of a coalition government. Britain has the BNP. Forgetting all of them, during the time I lived in England the IRA set off a couple rather large bombs. Around that same time Europe had a troubling incident with ethnic cleansing (never again, except in the Balkans maybe).
And to get back to my original point, on top of all that there is your problem with a population that is less than fully integrated (which maybe you'd like to pretend isn't European, despite there being millions of them who aren't going anywhere), from which you get sweet stuff like dudes holding up "kill those who insult Islam" signs while the Bobbies stand by, or who embark on week long riots over some cartoons. You have to be fucking kidding me "Europe has no extremism".
If your post was sarcastic, I got trolled. If it wasn't, pull your head out.
I can't properly put into the words how angry religion and its tyrants make me. Its always funny to see islamic people complaining about the injustices of the western system against thier ideals.
allah be damned, funny mohhamed cartoon be praised and let all these zealots soak up mine hits.
On January 09 2010 11:41 KwarK wrote: No, in America they shoot abortion doctors whereas in Europe they do petitions and talk about it all.
That was one crazed man trying to save thems sacred baybays; this story features an organized rally.
Still, comparing America to Europe in terms of extremism is lol. Europe has no extremism anymore. We're far too grown up for that.
Bull and shit. I was going to say "well, there may not be a lot of "ethnic European" extremists, but you sure have a lot among the immigrant population", when I remembered even that assertion is going too far. The former East Germany has lots of neo Nazis. They have a political party that holds seats in a couple state governments. Germany isn't the only country with Neo Nazis either, don't even try to pretend otherwise. And though less extreme, Austria had Jörg Haider as part of a coalition government. Britain has the BNP. Forgetting all of them, during the time I lived in England the IRA set off a couple rather large bombs. Around that same time Europe had a troubling incident with ethnic cleansing (never again, except in the Balkans maybe).
And to get back to my original point, on top of all that there is your problem with a population that is less than fully integrated (which maybe you'd like to pretend isn't European, despite there being millions of them who aren't going anywhere), from which you get sweet stuff like dudes holding up "kill those who insult Islam" signs while the Bobbies stand by, or who embark on week long riots over some cartoons. You have to be fucking kidding me "Europe has no extremism".
If your post was sarcastic, I got trolled. If it wasn't, pull your head out.
Paris riots Basque separatists Chechnya lololol
Chechnya? Europe? Seriously?
I don't know what the Basques and the Paris riots have to do with Islam either. Maybe people don't know that nobody was killed during the riots ( contrarily to the Watts riots or the LA riots in the US ). It is impressive to burn your neighbour's car ( or your own to get a compensation lol ) in front of the TV but that doesn't mean that the whole Europe is more violent or extremist than America and it has nothing to do with Islam.
Also the Basque separatists are dangerous nutjobs that rely on assassination and bombing because their ideas aren't even shared by Basque people. They are not numerous ( most of them are in prison ) and disliked by pretty much everybody lol. They have 0 political influence since Batasuna have been outlawed by both Spain and the European Court of Human Rights.
On January 09 2010 11:41 KwarK wrote: No, in America they shoot abortion doctors whereas in Europe they do petitions and talk about it all.
That was one crazed man trying to save thems sacred baybays; this story features an organized rally.
Still, comparing America to Europe in terms of extremism is lol. Europe has no extremism anymore. We're far too grown up for that.
Bull and shit. I was going to say "well, there may not be a lot of "ethnic European" extremists, but you sure have a lot among the immigrant population", when I remembered even that assertion is going too far. The former East Germany has lots of neo Nazis. They have a political party that holds seats in a couple state governments. Germany isn't the only country with Neo Nazis either, don't even try to pretend otherwise. And though less extreme, Austria had Jörg Haider as part of a coalition government. Britain has the BNP. Forgetting all of them, during the time I lived in England the IRA set off a couple rather large bombs. Around that same time Europe had a troubling incident with ethnic cleansing (never again, except in the Balkans maybe).
And to get back to my original point, on top of all that there is your problem with a population that is less than fully integrated (which maybe you'd like to pretend isn't European, despite there being millions of them who aren't going anywhere), from which you get sweet stuff like dudes holding up "kill those who insult Islam" signs while the Bobbies stand by, or who embark on week long riots over some cartoons. You have to be fucking kidding me "Europe has no extremism".
If your post was sarcastic, I got trolled. If it wasn't, pull your head out.
Paris riots Basque separatists Chechnya lololol
Chechnya? Europe? Seriously?
I wasn't sure if Russia is considered Europe or not, but it was just one example out of 3 that makes a mockery of your ridiculous "Europe has no extremism" bullshit.
As a muslim, I really dont mind anyone using the word Allah instead of the word God. They are indeed one in the same. I actually think it is a compliment to our religion.
The violoence displayed by muslims in Malaysia were wrong.
There's some ridiculous posts in here and at first I want to respond with epic flaming...but these people will just remain ignorant.
So just chill and go watch NonY get his ass whipped!
On January 09 2010 11:41 KwarK wrote: No, in America they shoot abortion doctors whereas in Europe they do petitions and talk about it all.
That was one crazed man trying to save thems sacred baybays; this story features an organized rally.
Still, comparing America to Europe in terms of extremism is lol. Europe has no extremism anymore. We're far too grown up for that.
Bull and shit. I was going to say "well, there may not be a lot of "ethnic European" extremists, but you sure have a lot among the immigrant population", when I remembered even that assertion is going too far. The former East Germany has lots of neo Nazis. They have a political party that holds seats in a couple state governments. Germany isn't the only country with Neo Nazis either, don't even try to pretend otherwise. And though less extreme, Austria had Jörg Haider as part of a coalition government. Britain has the BNP. Forgetting all of them, during the time I lived in England the IRA set off a couple rather large bombs. Around that same time Europe had a troubling incident with ethnic cleansing (never again, except in the Balkans maybe).
And to get back to my original point, on top of all that there is your problem with a population that is less than fully integrated (which maybe you'd like to pretend isn't European, despite there being millions of them who aren't going anywhere), from which you get sweet stuff like dudes holding up "kill those who insult Islam" signs while the Bobbies stand by, or who embark on week long riots over some cartoons. And some of them were responsible for slightly more recent bombings in your fine country. You have to be fucking kidding me "Europe has no extremism".
If your post was sarcastic, I got trolled. If it wasn't, pull your head out.
Paris riots Basque separatists Chechnya lololol
Chechnya? Europe? Seriously?
Geographically, Chechnya lies within Europe, yes. The division between Asia and Europe runs along the Caucasus Mountains and Ural Mountains. Perhaps you'd like to redefine that boundary?
Anyway, you and Boblion are not addressing the post he replied to, where I enumerate what I feel are somewhat stronger examples of extremism that I don't think can be so easily laughed off. Though from your post I can assume you'll pick the weakest one, mock it (even if you're wrong) and ignore the rest.
*EDIT* updated the quote of my earlier post that I edited after it was originally quoted
I don't blame the entire muslim community but I do agree with the fact that it does give muslims a bad image when ppl do something like that. One bad apple can ruin the entire bunch.
On January 09 2010 11:41 KwarK wrote: No, in America they shoot abortion doctors whereas in Europe they do petitions and talk about it all.
That was one crazed man trying to save thems sacred baybays; this story features an organized rally.
Still, comparing America to Europe in terms of extremism is lol. Europe has no extremism anymore. We're far too grown up for that.
Bull and shit. I was going to say "well, there may not be a lot of "ethnic European" extremists, but you sure have a lot among the immigrant population", when I remembered even that assertion is going too far. The former East Germany has lots of neo Nazis. They have a political party that holds seats in a couple state governments. Germany isn't the only country with Neo Nazis either, don't even try to pretend otherwise. And though less extreme, Austria had Jörg Haider as part of a coalition government. Britain has the BNP. Forgetting all of them, during the time I lived in England the IRA set off a couple rather large bombs. Around that same time Europe had a troubling incident with ethnic cleansing (never again, except in the Balkans maybe).
And to get back to my original point, on top of all that there is your problem with a population that is less than fully integrated (which maybe you'd like to pretend isn't European, despite there being millions of them who aren't going anywhere), from which you get sweet stuff like dudes holding up "kill those who insult Islam" signs while the Bobbies stand by, or who embark on week long riots over some cartoons. And some of them were responsible for slightly more recent bombings in your fine country. You have to be fucking kidding me "Europe has no extremism".
If your post was sarcastic, I got trolled. If it wasn't, pull your head out.
Paris riots Basque separatists Chechnya lololol
Chechnya? Europe? Seriously?
Geographically, Chechnya lies within Europe, yes. The division between Asia and Europe runs along the Caucasus Mountains and Ural Mountains. Perhaps you'd like to redefine that boundary?
Anyway, you and Boblion are not addressing the post he replied to, where I enumerate what I feel are somewhat stronger examples of extremism that I don't think can be so easily laughed off. Though from your post I can assume you'll pick the weakest one, mock it (even if you're wrong) and ignore the rest.
*EDIT* updated the quote of my earlier post that I edited after it was originally quoted
Well i don't know why you mix me with Kwark because if you read closely i'm not saying the same thing and actually i think that his posts were quite biaised and not really usefull.
Anyway your answer isn't really great either, even if you provide some examples and did more efforts to write it. People, especially Americans are really clueless when it comes to talk about Europe or understand what it means. Who cares if Chechnya is geographically in Europe. When ( Western ) Europeans talk about Europe it is either the Western European countries or the European Union. Culturally they are not close at all with Chechnyans. So yea war in Chechnya is irrevelant ( It is Russia fault to begin with ).
There are indeed extremists "neo nazis" in Europe but i don't really think that they are more numerous than in the United States and they don't really have the same firepower lol. Then i answered to the two others examples of ghostwriter.
Overall i kinda agree with Kwark even if his post was quite bad as he just wanted to mock Americans. ( Western ) Europe is less violent than the US. Yea you will find neo nazis in Germany, muslim extremists in England, Eta or Ira bombings in Irland or Spain, people shooting each others in Corsica or Sicilia but the average citizen is way more peaceful and doesn't live with 5 guns in his house. Yea it is quite a caricature again but when i see threads like that i believe there is a huge difference between America and Europe when it comes down to violence.
On January 10 2010 08:30 DoctorHelvetica wrote: People will of course spin this to make blanket statements about muslims in general but really things like this happen under the flag of any ideology.
1. I assume you are talking about Islamic hygiene. That didn't matter because Christians and Europeans didn't follow it, thus they dealt with diseases anyway. 2. We would have figured it out.
From reading all of your post you appear to not be a religious person so seems strange that you would write such an ignorant statement that would be associated with fundamentalist belief, but I shouldn't have even read your whole post when you opened it with that. That is some serious bullshit.
Again both of these posts show how little you guys know about human historical progression
Your posts are not only condescending, they're flat out false and contain common repeated tropes about the so-called Golden age of Islam.
Instead of lecturing people on orientalism, you need to examine your own doctrines.
On January 09 2010 11:27 ghermination wrote: I may sound biased when i say this, but i don't even think there's any point in making these threads. It's been proven again and again that Islam promotes ridiculous amounts of extremism and fanatical zealotry in it's participants. I honestly think Islam holds back a quarter of the world as far as education is concerned, and is possibly the worst idealogical disaster since eugenics, even though i'm aware it's been around for far longer.
Basically Islam is a religion that refused to evolve with all of the other ones. Christianity eventually admitted that, for example, women being allowed to vote wasn't a sin, and many other things. All religions have advanced their sensibilities at least slightly to the left, other than Islam. It's frozen in time 1000 years ago when a religion like that gave it's leaders powers over the people, which was exactly what they wanted. But now that it's been essentially marginalized to certain parts of the world (predominately the Middle East, a good amount of Asia, and part of Europe) it just continues to harm people.
I would support a ban against practicing that religion, only because of the damage it does to its practitioners. And I realize that that would cause civil wars and political destabilization of large parts of the world, but I think it would be necessary considering that it causes some of the biggest problems in the world, and is (dare i say) actually holding the rest of us back from peaceful advancement.
I expect to be flamed for this.
Are you nuts or something? Islam is the most adaptable religion I saw, modern day scholars look at everyday news etc and issue new things etc. Dude i fucking hate all of these retards that just fucking ruin my RELIGION! They just show a retarded example and provided the fucking media the easiest road to throw biases into people's minds. FUCK FUCK FUCK!
your religion ruins itself. go read the koran if you don't want to take my word for it
On January 10 2010 02:52 MannerMan wrote: It is very sad that so many can be moved so strongly by religion.
I hope one day they can see the beautiful truths behind our existence instead of the lies and tyranny of those who oppress them with fear.
LOL at the atheists and science-worshippers. Sure, if we eliminate all religion we can get rid of all that's wrong in the world. Oh wait, I forgot that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, etc. were all devout worshippers of God who didn't massacre innocent members of religious minorities. And certainly the innumerable humanitarian programs fueled by religious belief would certainly continue if everyone came to their senses and became atheist (hint: look at China for this dream state). Let's not forget that Eugenics was a direct result of scientific, not religious, ideas. Let's face it people, looking at history being inhuman is the natural state of humanity, and just because people manipulate religion (along with everything else) to justify their greed, bigotry, or racism doesn't make religion the villain. If anything, religion provides a check to some of these tendencies: without religion Hitler, Mao, etc. could still exist, but Mother Teresa could not. If you're atheist fine, but don't go calling people who differ with your OPINION ignorant misled retards because that's just announcing that you're an ignorant misled retard, and puts you on the same level as that Muslim/Christian/Hindu who right now is calling you an ignorant misled retard. Believe it or not, there is a way to rationally discuss sensitive issues like this without resorting to name calling and displays of your intellectual bigotry. Thank you very much.
The actions of Stalin and Mao Tse Tung were not resultant of their atheism, however many religions actively encourage violence. Atheism is not an ideology, it is a lack of religious belief and nothing further than that.
On January 10 2010 02:52 MannerMan wrote: It is very sad that so many can be moved so strongly by religion.
I hope one day they can see the beautiful truths behind our existence instead of the lies and tyranny of those who oppress them with fear.
LOL at the atheists and science-worshippers. Sure, if we eliminate all religion we can get rid of all that's wrong in the world. Oh wait, I forgot that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, etc. were all devout worshippers of God who didn't massacre innocent members of religious minorities. And certainly the innumerable humanitarian programs fueled by religious belief would certainly continue if everyone came to their senses and became atheist (hint: look at China for this dream state). Let's not forget that Eugenics was a direct result of scientific, not religious, ideas. Let's face it people, looking at history being inhuman is the natural state of humanity, and just because people manipulate religion (along with everything else) to justify their greed, bigotry, or racism doesn't make religion the villain. If anything, religion provides a check to some of these tendencies: without religion Hitler, Mao, etc. could still exist, but Mother Teresa could not. If you're atheist fine, but don't go calling people who differ with your OPINION ignorant mislead retards because that's just announcing that you're an ignorant mislead retard, and puts you on the same level as that Muslim/Christian/Hindu who right now is calling you an ignorant mislead retard. Believe it or not, there is a way to rationally discuss sensitive issues like this without resorting to name calling and displays of your intellectual bigotry. Thank you very much.
There's no way for YOU to rationally discuss them because you're not capable of rational thinking.
On January 10 2010 10:32 DoctorHelvetica wrote: The actions of Stalin and Mao Tse Tung were not resultant of their atheism, however many religions actively encourage violence. Atheism is not an ideology, it is a lack of religious belief and nothing further than that.
More profoundly, atheism is not just a lack of religious belief, it actually denies the existence of god actively. But I guess you may have meant that to begin with
On January 10 2010 02:52 MannerMan wrote: It is very sad that so many can be moved so strongly by religion.
I hope one day they can see the beautiful truths behind our existence instead of the lies and tyranny of those who oppress them with fear.
LOL at the atheists and science-worshippers. Sure, if we eliminate all religion we can get rid of all that's wrong in the world. Oh wait, I forgot that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, etc. were all devout worshippers of God who didn't massacre innocent members of religious minorities. And certainly the innumerable humanitarian programs fueled by religious belief would certainly continue if everyone came to their senses and became atheist (hint: look at China for this dream state). Let's not forget that Eugenics was a direct result of scientific, not religious, ideas. Let's face it people, looking at history being inhuman is the natural state of humanity, and just because people manipulate religion (along with everything else) to justify their greed, bigotry, or racism doesn't make religion the villain. If anything, religion provides a check to some of these tendencies: without religion Hitler, Mao, etc. could still exist, but Mother Teresa could not. If you're atheist fine, but don't go calling people who differ with your OPINION ignorant mislead retards because that's just announcing that you're an ignorant mislead retard, and puts you on the same level as that Muslim/Christian/Hindu who right now is calling you an ignorant mislead retard. Believe it or not, there is a way to rationally discuss sensitive issues like this without resorting to name calling and displays of your intellectual bigotry. Thank you very much.
There's no way for YOU to rationally discuss them because you're not capable of rational thinking.
I'm an applied physics major at Cornell with a 3.8 GPA. I think I'm entitled to be considered at least a somewhat rational human being. And no, I'm not denying that religion can be bad as well as good. I'm just calling out the idiots who make religion the scapegoat for all that is wrong with the world. My personal opinion on the matter is that the people involved should be tried and punished as criminals. I also think there is something seriously wrong within the Muslim religion that would inspire so many of its adherents to religious violence.
On January 10 2010 10:32 DoctorHelvetica wrote: The actions of Stalin and Mao Tse Tung were not resultant of their atheism, however many religions actively encourage violence. Atheism is not an ideology, it is a lack of religious belief and nothing further than that.
More profoundly, atheism is not just a lack of religious belief, it actually denies the existence of god actively. But I guess you may have meant that to begin with
Sorry to be knitpicking on this ;>
There are many varieties of atheism. Weak atheism does not positively deny the existence of a deity. Also "nitpick" is the correct spelling. I cavil far too much for my own good.
On January 10 2010 02:52 MannerMan wrote: It is very sad that so many can be moved so strongly by religion.
I hope one day they can see the beautiful truths behind our existence instead of the lies and tyranny of those who oppress them with fear.
LOL at the atheists and science-worshippers. Sure, if we eliminate all religion we can get rid of all that's wrong in the world. Oh wait, I forgot that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, etc. were all devout worshippers of God who didn't massacre innocent members of religious minorities. And certainly the innumerable humanitarian programs fueled by religious belief would certainly continue if everyone came to their senses and became atheist (hint: look at China for this dream state). Let's not forget that Eugenics was a direct result of scientific, not religious, ideas. Let's face it people, looking at history being inhuman is the natural state of humanity, and just because people manipulate religion (along with everything else) to justify their greed, bigotry, or racism doesn't make religion the villain. If anything, religion provides a check to some of these tendencies: without religion Hitler, Mao, etc. could still exist, but Mother Teresa could not. If you're atheist fine, but don't go calling people who differ with your OPINION ignorant mislead retards because that's just announcing that you're an ignorant mislead retard, and puts you on the same level as that Muslim/Christian/Hindu who right now is calling you an ignorant mislead retard. Believe it or not, there is a way to rationally discuss sensitive issues like this without resorting to name calling and displays of your intellectual bigotry. Thank you very much.
There's no way for YOU to rationally discuss them because you're not capable of rational thinking.
I'm an applied physics major at Cornell with a 3.8 GPA. I think I'm entitled to be considered at least a somewhat rational human being. And no, I'm not denying that religion can be bad as well as good. I'm just calling out the idiots who make religion the scapegoat for all that is wrong with the world. My personal opinion on the matter is that the people involved should be tried and punished as criminals. I also think there is something seriously wrong within the Muslim religion that would inspire so many of its adherents to religious violence.
Oh ok, you go to school therefore you MUST be rational, and it's ok for you to marginalize the people you disagree with as idiots, its just not ok for them to do it because you disagree with them. I understand now. Thanks for clearing that up.
On January 10 2010 02:52 MannerMan wrote: It is very sad that so many can be moved so strongly by religion.
I hope one day they can see the beautiful truths behind our existence instead of the lies and tyranny of those who oppress them with fear.
LOL at the atheists and science-worshippers. Sure, if we eliminate all religion we can get rid of all that's wrong in the world. Oh wait, I forgot that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, etc. were all devout worshippers of God who didn't massacre innocent members of religious minorities.
Nothing those people did was in the name of atheism.
On January 10 2010 10:32 DoctorHelvetica wrote: The actions of Stalin and Mao Tse Tung were not resultant of their atheism, however many religions actively encourage violence. Atheism is not an ideology, it is a lack of religious belief and nothing further than that.
More profoundly, atheism is not just a lack of religious belief, it actually denies the existence of god actively. But I guess you may have meant that to begin with
Sorry to be knitpicking on this ;>
There are many varieties of atheism. Weak atheism does not positively deny the existence of a deity. Also "nitpick" is the correct spelling. I cavil far too much for my own good.
It seems you are correct on both counts ^^ thought, nothing I feel particularly strong about :O
Well in the Malay language, the word for God is Allah. If we go through the English-Malay Dictionary it just says God. So what happened is the church's newspaper publication in Malay Language uses Allah to describe God. It has been that even before Malaysia was even formed. So now they trying to stop the publication from using the word Allah as they said it's only reserved for Muslims.
So they went to Federal Court and Court decide Allah can be continued to be used by the publication. So now the goverment trying to bring it to the Court of Appel or something. Then this attacks happen.
On January 09 2010 12:50 Vedic wrote: I can't understand why Christians would want to be able to refer to their god as Allah. They're basically saying "You just worship the word for god, but it really means our god." Anyone who doesn't see this as IRL trolling is blind.
Violence and bickering over the potential naming conventions of fantasy characters is hilarious.
On January 10 2010 10:27 Savant wrote: but Mother Teresa could not
Because all human goodness is divinely inspired and humanity without a God is innately evil. If it hadn't been for God forcing her to be a good person she'd have gone round dealing drugs to street kids and killing people in drive bys. Seriously?
There's so much hypocrisy in our modern societies, a lot of religion principles are unconstitutional/against the laws/immoral/whatever, but instead of asking them to fuck off with their Muhammed/Jesus, we force them to ignore the problematic passages of their respective holy books.
I wish the DNA of Richard Dawkins/Friedrich Nietzsche could be combined, and create a super-atheist who speech after speech would quote their holy scriptures and rip apart their stupid belief system.
On January 09 2010 11:27 ghermination wrote: I may sound biased when i say this, but i don't even think there's any point in making these threads. It's been proven again and again that Islam promotes ridiculous amounts of extremism and fanatical zealotry in it's participants. I honestly think Islam holds back a quarter of the world as far as education is concerned, and is possibly the worst idealogical disaster since eugenics, even though i'm aware it's been around for far longer.
Basically Islam is a religion that refused to evolve with all of the other ones. Christianity eventually admitted that, for example, women being allowed to vote wasn't a sin, and many other things. All religions have advanced their sensibilities at least slightly to the left, other than Islam. It's frozen in time 1000 years ago when a religion like that gave it's leaders powers over the people, which was exactly what they wanted. But now that it's been essentially marginalized to certain parts of the world (predominately the Middle East, a good amount of Asia, and part of Europe) it just continues to harm people.
I would support a ban against practicing that religion, only because of the damage it does to its practitioners. And I realize that that would cause civil wars and political destabilization of large parts of the world, but I think it would be necessary considering that it causes some of the biggest problems in the world, and is (dare i say) actually holding the rest of us back from peaceful advancement.
On January 09 2010 11:27 ghermination wrote: I may sound biased when i say this, but i don't even think there's any point in making these threads. It's been proven again and again that Islam promotes ridiculous amounts of extremism and fanatical zealotry in it's participants. I honestly think Islam holds back a quarter of the world as far as education is concerned, and is possibly the worst idealogical disaster since eugenics, even though i'm aware it's been around for far longer.
Basically Islam is a religion that refused to evolve with all of the other ones. Christianity eventually admitted that, for example, women being allowed to vote wasn't a sin, and many other things. All religions have advanced their sensibilities at least slightly to the left, other than Islam. It's frozen in time 1000 years ago when a religion like that gave it's leaders powers over the people, which was exactly what they wanted. But now that it's been essentially marginalized to certain parts of the world (predominately the Middle East, a good amount of Asia, and part of Europe) it just continues to harm people.
I would support a ban against practicing that religion, only because of the damage it does to its practitioners. And I realize that that would cause civil wars and political destabilization of large parts of the world, but I think it would be necessary considering that it causes some of the biggest problems in the world, and is (dare i say) actually holding the rest of us back from peaceful advancement.
The holocaust was not based on Christianity. The crusades were fought a LONG time ago when everybody fought over "holy land" you don't see Christians getting together to take over Jerusalem. I'm not religious but I'll give Christians some credit for not going overboard.
On January 10 2010 02:52 MannerMan wrote: It is very sad that so many can be moved so strongly by religion.
I hope one day they can see the beautiful truths behind our existence instead of the lies and tyranny of those who oppress them with fear.
LOL at the atheists and science-worshippers. Sure, if we eliminate all religion we can get rid of all that's wrong in the world. Oh wait, I forgot that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, etc. were all devout worshippers of God who didn't massacre innocent members of religious minorities. And certainly the innumerable humanitarian programs fueled by religious belief would certainly continue if everyone came to their senses and became atheist (hint: look at China for this dream state). Let's not forget that Eugenics was a direct result of scientific, not religious, ideas. Let's face it people, looking at history being inhuman is the natural state of humanity, and just because people manipulate religion (along with everything else) to justify their greed, bigotry, or racism doesn't make religion the villain. If anything, religion provides a check to some of these tendencies: without religion Hitler, Mao, etc. could still exist, but Mother Teresa could not. If you're atheist fine, but don't go calling people who differ with your OPINION ignorant mislead retards because that's just announcing that you're an ignorant mislead retard, and puts you on the same level as that Muslim/Christian/Hindu who right now is calling you an ignorant mislead retard. Believe it or not, there is a way to rationally discuss sensitive issues like this without resorting to name calling and displays of your intellectual bigotry. Thank you very much.
There's no way for YOU to rationally discuss them because you're not capable of rational thinking.
I'm an applied physics major at Cornell with a 3.8 GPA. I think I'm entitled to be considered at least a somewhat rational human being. And no, I'm not denying that religion can be bad as well as good. I'm just calling out the idiots who make religion the scapegoat for all that is wrong with the world. My personal opinion on the matter is that the people involved should be tried and punished as criminals. I also think there is something seriously wrong within the Muslim religion that would inspire so many of its adherents to religious violence.
God, TL General is such an awful place now. The closer we get to SC2, the more ignorant the average poster becomes.
On January 10 2010 20:25 Mykill wrote: The holocaust was not based on Christianity. The crusades were fought a LONG time ago when everybody fought over "holy land" you don't see Christians getting together to take over Jerusalem. I'm not religious but I'll give Christians some credit for not going overboard.
Christian Serbs and Croats slaughtered, raped, destroyed thousands of Muslim Bosnians (and each other) less than 20 years ago - people of the very same fucking ethnicity and language - because of a political struggle combined with a ridiculous Serb religious myth about Prince Lazarus. 15 years ago, a Jewish doctor stormed into a mosque in Hebron and killed 29 people praying and wounded 150 others The Turner Diaries still influences thousands of people, some of which decided to blow up the Federal Building in Oklahoma.
If you want to enter this discussion, maybe you should stop studying applied physics and take a course or two in history or sociology or poli sci. This clash of civilizations, 'other'ing bullshit is not only wrong, but it's the exact same process used to demonize the "West" by the disenfranchised idiots you have a problem with. A political/economic problems get reframed into a religious/cultural one, and all of the sudden you have a reason to enter direct conflict rather than use mechanisms like the political process to solve things. This is a problem with the Malaysian government, not a fucking religion.
On January 10 2010 20:25 Mykill wrote: The holocaust was not based on Christianity. The crusades were fought a LONG time ago when everybody fought over "holy land" you don't see Christians getting together to take over Jerusalem. I'm not religious but I'll give Christians some credit for not going overboard.
On January 10 2010 20:45 paulinepain wrote: funny news, bunch of idiots claiming property on words hehe, i've been in KL, i expected them to be a bit more flexible than that
In my opinion, its an attempt by the hardliners to gain more favour for electorial purposes. For 'other' stuff, its generally flexible I suppose. Non Muslims are able to drink alcohol etc no problemos here. It won't be changing anytime soon for at least years more. The general Malaysian community are becoming more aware on politics in the past few years. I believe the rest of the Muslim community in Malaysia (Most of it) are just simply 'wtf?'.
Religion does have some good points like supposingly not forcing ppl to convert but people simply abuse it. In short, its not purely that the religion is bad. The practioners are ;o. Theres a higher chance of such Muslim violence in the Middle East than here due to the culture and I assume it could be a 'relapse' of their own Dark Ages.
It will be a fact that a lot of countries will have or already had this problem at least once. And it will not stop even if religion is gone. Just my 2 cents.
On January 10 2010 20:45 paulinepain wrote: funny news, bunch of idiots claiming property on words hehe, i've been in KL, i expected them to be a bit more flexible than that
In my opinion, its an attempt by the hardliners to gain more favour for electorial purposes. For 'other' stuff, its generally flexible I suppose. Non Muslims are able to drink alcohol etc no problemos here. It won't be changing anytime soon for at least years more. The general Malaysian community are becoming more aware on politics in the past few years. I believe the rest of the Muslim community in Malaysia (Most of it) are just simply 'wtf?'.
Religion does have some good points like supposingly not forcing ppl to convert but people simply abuse it. In short, its not purely that the religion is bad. The practioners are ;o. Theres a higher chance of such Muslim violence in the Middle East than here due to the culture and I assume it could be a 'relapse' of their own Dark Ages.
It will be a fact that a lot of countries will have or already had this problem at least once. And it will not stop even if religion is gone. Just my 2 cents.
Oh dear god, the secular institution of democracy gives incentives to divide the population in order to consolidate power? Looks like playing the power broker game is more universal than previously believed!
My world has been shaken by this insinuation. Leave me for I must now rethink my life.
On January 09 2010 11:07 cz wrote: This story is a fabrication; I know this because Islam is the religion of peace, and thus what you stated cannot have happened.
All religions are "religions of peace" - until they are twisted to fit individual ideologies.
On January 10 2010 02:52 MannerMan wrote: It is very sad that so many can be moved so strongly by religion.
I hope one day they can see the beautiful truths behind our existence instead of the lies and tyranny of those who oppress them with fear.
LOL at the atheists and science-worshippers. Sure, if we eliminate all religion we can get rid of all that's wrong in the world. Oh wait, I forgot that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, etc. were all devout worshippers of God who didn't massacre innocent members of religious minorities. And certainly the innumerable humanitarian programs fueled by religious belief would certainly continue if everyone came to their senses and became atheist (hint: look at China for this dream state). Let's not forget that Eugenics was a direct result of scientific, not religious, ideas. Let's face it people, looking at history being inhuman is the natural state of humanity, and just because people manipulate religion (along with everything else) to justify their greed, bigotry, or racism doesn't make religion the villain. If anything, religion provides a check to some of these tendencies: without religion Hitler, Mao, etc. could still exist, but Mother Teresa could not. If you're atheist fine, but don't go calling people who differ with your OPINION ignorant mislead retards because that's just announcing that you're an ignorant mislead retard, and puts you on the same level as that Muslim/Christian/Hindu who right now is calling you an ignorant mislead retard. Believe it or not, there is a way to rationally discuss sensitive issues like this without resorting to name calling and displays of your intellectual bigotry. Thank you very much.
There's no way for YOU to rationally discuss them because you're not capable of rational thinking.
I'm an applied physics major at Cornell with a 3.8 GPA. I think I'm entitled to be considered at least a somewhat rational human being. And no, I'm not denying that religion can be bad as well as good. I'm just calling out the idiots who make religion the scapegoat for all that is wrong with the world. My personal opinion on the matter is that the people involved should be tried and punished as criminals. I also think there is something seriously wrong within the Muslim religion that would inspire so many of its adherents to religious violence.
On January 10 2010 20:25 Mykill wrote: The holocaust was not based on Christianity. The crusades were fought a LONG time ago when everybody fought over "holy land" you don't see Christians getting together to take over Jerusalem. I'm not religious but I'll give Christians some credit for not going overboard.
Christian Serbs and Croats slaughtered, raped, destroyed thousands of Muslim Bosnians (and each other) less than 20 years ago - people of the very same fucking ethnicity and language - because of a political struggle combined with a ridiculous Serb religious myth about Prince Lazarus. 15 years ago, a Jewish doctor stormed into a mosque in Hebron and killed 29 people praying and wounded 150 others The Turner Diaries still influences thousands of people, some of which decided to blow up the Federal Building in Oklahoma.
If you want to enter this discussion, maybe you should stop studying applied physics and take a course or two in history or sociology or poli sci. This clash of civilizations, 'other'ing bullshit is not only wrong, but it's the exact same process used to demonize the "West" by the disenfranchised idiots you have a problem with. A political/economic problems get reframed into a religious/cultural one, and all of the sudden you have a reason to enter direct conflict rather than use mechanisms like the political process to solve things. This is a problem with the Malaysian government, not a fucking religion.
Thank you jibba for this message I now know that there is still hope in this world One of the very few posts that actually make sens in this thread
OP updated, more churches are getting harrassed over the weekends...
strange thing is, no one is being held accountable after all that happened and the Malaysian government doesn't seem like they're doing anything about it, could any1 from Malaysia shed some light on wtf is going on there?
On January 09 2010 12:50 Vedic wrote: I can't understand why Christians would want to be able to refer to their god as Allah. They're basically saying "You just worship the word for god, but it really means our god." Anyone who doesn't see this as IRL trolling is blind.
Violence and bickering over the potential naming conventions of fantasy characters is hilarious.
In Malay Language, they call God, Allah.
No, in Arabic language maybe, but not in Malay language. In Malay language Allah are commonly used to describe muslim God. "Tuhan" is the correct Malay word for God. Another word is "Dewa", commonly used for polytheism(Hindu) Gods.
On January 09 2010 11:07 cz wrote: This story is a fabrication; I know this because Islam is the religion of peace, and thus what you stated cannot have happened.
All religions are "religions of peace" - until they are twisted to fit individual ideologies.
Actually it's the other way around, all religions are religions of extreme and barbaric violence. Modern people have had to twist it around so that they can still live in society without being lunatics. For example, here is a quote from the bible from Deuteronomy 20:10-14
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
Here's another fun one from Deuteronomy 22:28-29
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her
On January 10 2010 02:52 MannerMan wrote: It is very sad that so many can be moved so strongly by religion.
I hope one day they can see the beautiful truths behind our existence instead of the lies and tyranny of those who oppress them with fear.
LOL at the atheists and science-worshippers. Sure, if we eliminate all religion we can get rid of all that's wrong in the world. Oh wait, I forgot that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, etc. were all devout worshippers of God who didn't massacre innocent members of religious minorities. And certainly the innumerable humanitarian programs fueled by religious belief would certainly continue if everyone came to their senses and became atheist (hint: look at China for this dream state). Let's not forget that Eugenics was a direct result of scientific, not religious, ideas. Let's face it people, looking at history being inhuman is the natural state of humanity, and just because people manipulate religion (along with everything else) to justify their greed, bigotry, or racism doesn't make religion the villain. If anything, religion provides a check to some of these tendencies: without religion Hitler, Mao, etc. could still exist, but Mother Teresa could not. If you're atheist fine, but don't go calling people who differ with your OPINION ignorant mislead retards because that's just announcing that you're an ignorant mislead retard, and puts you on the same level as that Muslim/Christian/Hindu who right now is calling you an ignorant mislead retard. Believe it or not, there is a way to rationally discuss sensitive issues like this without resorting to name calling and displays of your intellectual bigotry. Thank you very much.
There's no way for YOU to rationally discuss them because you're not capable of rational thinking.
I'm an applied physics major at Cornell with a 3.8 GPA. I think I'm entitled to be considered at least a somewhat rational human being. And no, I'm not denying that religion can be bad as well as good. I'm just calling out the idiots who make religion the scapegoat for all that is wrong with the world. My personal opinion on the matter is that the people involved should be tried and punished as criminals. I also think there is something seriously wrong within the Muslim religion that would inspire so many of its adherents to religious violence.
On January 10 2010 20:25 Mykill wrote: The holocaust was not based on Christianity. The crusades were fought a LONG time ago when everybody fought over "holy land" you don't see Christians getting together to take over Jerusalem. I'm not religious but I'll give Christians some credit for not going overboard.
Christian Serbs and Croats slaughtered, raped, destroyed thousands of Muslim Bosnians (and each other) less than 20 years ago - people of the very same fucking ethnicity and language - because of a political struggle combined with a ridiculous Serb religious myth about Prince Lazarus. 15 years ago, a Jewish doctor stormed into a mosque in Hebron and killed 29 people praying and wounded 150 others The Turner Diaries still influences thousands of people, some of which decided to blow up the Federal Building in Oklahoma.
If you want to enter this discussion, maybe you should stop studying applied physics and take a course or two in history or sociology or poli sci. This clash of civilizations, 'other'ing bullshit is not only wrong, but it's the exact same process used to demonize the "West" by the disenfranchised idiots you have a problem with. A political/economic problems get reframed into a religious/cultural one, and all of the sudden you have a reason to enter direct conflict rather than use mechanisms like the political process to solve things. This is a problem with the Malaysian government, not a fucking religion.
I agree with what you wrote in most of your post but maybe you should take a course in modern history before you start posting about events that you have no knowledge of. Normally I wouldn't care but you're using Serbia as an example and that's where I'm from so I would appreciate if you did some research about what happened there before you start throwing around terms like destroyed and slaughtered and raped and "Serb religious myth about Prince Lazarus".
On January 09 2010 11:07 cz wrote: This story is a fabrication; I know this because Islam is the religion of peace, and thus what you stated cannot have happened.
On January 09 2010 11:07 cz wrote: This story is a fabrication; I know this because Islam is the religion of peace, and thus what you stated cannot have happened.
All religions are "religions of peace" - until they are twisted to fit individual ideologies.
Actually it's the other way around, all religions are religions of extreme and barbaric violence. Modern people have had to twist it around so that they can still live in society without being lunatics. For example, here is a quote from the bible from Deuteronomy 20:10-14
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
Here's another fun one from Deuteronomy 22:28-29
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her
LOL at the second example xD
Well, what you said is kind of what I mean. In general, religious literature does use violence in stories and in rules, etc. but (for the most part) tries to promote goodwill, peace, morality, all the good stuff. This is because the only way to spread a religion is to make it seem like its doing some kind of good to the individual: "believe in our god... or you go to hell!" The bible is obviously full of shit, but what most people get from attending church isn't "kill your family and friends" or anything terribly absurd.
Like you said, if people did follow exactly what the bible stated, this world would be... well, you know. Christians would obviously think of Christianity as a "religion of peace" rather than one of violence - either because they associate both peace and their own religion with good, or because they don't actually read the bible. Extremists of certain religions are convinced that what they are doing (killing people) will somehow benefit them; even if most followers of a certain religion believe their religion to be a "religion of peace" (though most really aren't - hence the quotation marks), any religion can be twisted to go from story violence to actual violence.
On January 10 2010 02:52 MannerMan wrote: It is very sad that so many can be moved so strongly by religion.
I hope one day they can see the beautiful truths behind our existence instead of the lies and tyranny of those who oppress them with fear.
LOL at the atheists and science-worshippers. Sure, if we eliminate all religion we can get rid of all that's wrong in the world. Oh wait, I forgot that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, etc. were all devout worshippers of God who didn't massacre innocent members of religious minorities.
There's a very, very important difference between being a murderer who is an Atheist, and a murderer BECAUSE of your religion. Honestly that one is not hard.
On January 09 2010 11:07 cz wrote: This story is a fabrication; I know this because Islam is the religion of peace, and thus what you stated cannot have happened.
All religions are "religions of peace" - until they are twisted to fit individual ideologies.
Actually it's the other way around, all religions are religions of extreme and barbaric violence. Modern people have had to twist it around so that they can still live in society without being lunatics. For example, here is a quote from the bible from Deuteronomy 20:10-14
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
Here's another fun one from Deuteronomy 22:28-29
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her
LOL at the second example xD
Well, what you said is kind of what I mean. In general, religious literature does use violence in stories and in rules, etc. but (for the most part) tries to promote goodwill, peace, morality, all the good stuff. This is because the only way to spread a religion is to make it seem like its doing some kind of good to the individual: "believe in our god... or you go to hell!" The bible is obviously full of shit, but what most people get from attending church isn't "kill your family and friends" or anything terribly absurd.
Like you said, if people did follow exactly what the bible stated, this world would be... well, you know. Christians would obviously think of Christianity as a "religion of peace" rather than one of violence - either because they associate both peace and their own religion with good, or because they don't actually read the bible. Extremists of certain religions are convinced that what they are doing (killing people) will somehow benefit them; even if most followers of a certain religion believe their religion to be a "religion of peace" (though most really aren't - hence the quotation marks), any religion can be twisted to go from story violence to actual violence.
They don't require "twisting" to become actual violence. You have to remember these aren't stories they are commands from GOD. The bible is the word of god himself. It requires "twisting" in order for there to NOT be actual violence.
On January 10 2010 02:52 MannerMan wrote: It is very sad that so many can be moved so strongly by religion.
I hope one day they can see the beautiful truths behind our existence instead of the lies and tyranny of those who oppress them with fear.
LOL at the atheists and science-worshippers. Sure, if we eliminate all religion we can get rid of all that's wrong in the world. Oh wait, I forgot that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, etc. were all devout worshippers of God who didn't massacre innocent members of religious minorities. And certainly the innumerable humanitarian programs fueled by religious belief would certainly continue if everyone came to their senses and became atheist (hint: look at China for this dream state). Let's not forget that Eugenics was a direct result of scientific, not religious, ideas. Let's face it people, looking at history being inhuman is the natural state of humanity, and just because people manipulate religion (along with everything else) to justify their greed, bigotry, or racism doesn't make religion the villain. If anything, religion provides a check to some of these tendencies: without religion Hitler, Mao, etc. could still exist, but Mother Teresa could not. If you're atheist fine, but don't go calling people who differ with your OPINION ignorant mislead retards because that's just announcing that you're an ignorant mislead retard, and puts you on the same level as that Muslim/Christian/Hindu who right now is calling you an ignorant mislead retard. Believe it or not, there is a way to rationally discuss sensitive issues like this without resorting to name calling and displays of your intellectual bigotry. Thank you very much.
There's no way for YOU to rationally discuss them because you're not capable of rational thinking.
I'm an applied physics major at Cornell with a 3.8 GPA. I think I'm entitled to be considered at least a somewhat rational human being. And no, I'm not denying that religion can be bad as well as good. I'm just calling out the idiots who make religion the scapegoat for all that is wrong with the world. My personal opinion on the matter is that the people involved should be tried and punished as criminals. I also think there is something seriously wrong within the Muslim religion that would inspire so many of its adherents to religious violence.
God, TL General is such an awful place now. The closer we get to SC2, the more ignorant the average poster becomes.
On January 10 2010 20:25 Mykill wrote: The holocaust was not based on Christianity. The crusades were fought a LONG time ago when everybody fought over "holy land" you don't see Christians getting together to take over Jerusalem. I'm not religious but I'll give Christians some credit for not going overboard.
Christian Serbs and Croats slaughtered, raped, destroyed thousands of Muslim Bosnians (and each other) less than 20 years ago - people of the very same fucking ethnicity and language - because of a political struggle combined with a ridiculous Serb religious myth about Prince Lazarus. 15 years ago, a Jewish doctor stormed into a mosque in Hebron and killed 29 people praying and wounded 150 others The Turner Diaries still influences thousands of people, some of which decided to blow up the Federal Building in Oklahoma.
If you want to enter this discussion, maybe you should stop studying applied physics and take a course or two in history or sociology or poli sci. This clash of civilizations, 'other'ing bullshit is not only wrong, but it's the exact same process used to demonize the "West" by the disenfranchised idiots you have a problem with. A political/economic problems get reframed into a religious/cultural one, and all of the sudden you have a reason to enter direct conflict rather than use mechanisms like the political process to solve things. This is a problem with the Malaysian government, not a fucking religion.
I agree with what you wrote in most of your post but maybe you should take a course in modern history before you start posting about events that you have no knowledge of. Normally I wouldn't care but you're using Serbia as an example and that's where I'm from so I would appreciate if you did some research about what happened there before you start throwing around terms like destroyed and slaughtered and raped and "Serb religious myth about Prince Lazarus".
That's funny, because I have and what I said was true. That myth was created in the early 20th century, but it was revived in the 80s and 90s by ultra nationalists. Do you want to discuss what the Serbian military was doing in 93 and 94? Regardless of the fears of another Ustashe or the ridiculous lies about militant Bosnia, Serbian nationalism was fueled by religion and vice versa.
On January 10 2010 02:52 MannerMan wrote: It is very sad that so many can be moved so strongly by religion.
I hope one day they can see the beautiful truths behind our existence instead of the lies and tyranny of those who oppress them with fear.
LOL at the atheists and science-worshippers. Sure, if we eliminate all religion we can get rid of all that's wrong in the world. Oh wait, I forgot that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, etc. were all devout worshippers of God who didn't massacre innocent members of religious minorities. And certainly the innumerable humanitarian programs fueled by religious belief would certainly continue if everyone came to their senses and became atheist (hint: look at China for this dream state). Let's not forget that Eugenics was a direct result of scientific, not religious, ideas. Let's face it people, looking at history being inhuman is the natural state of humanity, and just because people manipulate religion (along with everything else) to justify their greed, bigotry, or racism doesn't make religion the villain. If anything, religion provides a check to some of these tendencies: without religion Hitler, Mao, etc. could still exist, but Mother Teresa could not. If you're atheist fine, but don't go calling people who differ with your OPINION ignorant misled retards because that's just announcing that you're an ignorant misled retard, and puts you on the same level as that Muslim/Christian/Hindu who right now is calling you an ignorant misled retard. Believe it or not, there is a way to rationally discuss sensitive issues like this without resorting to name calling and displays of your intellectual bigotry. Thank you very much.
I'm pretty sure Hitler was the only one (out of those you listed) who killed religious minorities, and eugenics was the direct result of racism, not science.
On January 09 2010 11:07 cz wrote: This story is a fabrication; I know this because Islam is the religion of peace, and thus what you stated cannot have happened.
All religions are "religions of peace" - until they are twisted to fit individual ideologies.
Actually it's the other way around, all religions are religions of extreme and barbaric violence. Modern people have had to twist it around so that they can still live in society without being lunatics. For example, here is a quote from the bible from Deuteronomy 20:10-14
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
Here's another fun one from Deuteronomy 22:28-29
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her
LOL at the second example xD
Well, what you said is kind of what I mean. In general, religious literature does use violence in stories and in rules, etc. but (for the most part) tries to promote goodwill, peace, morality, all the good stuff. This is because the only way to spread a religion is to make it seem like its doing some kind of good to the individual: "believe in our god... or you go to hell!" The bible is obviously full of shit, but what most people get from attending church isn't "kill your family and friends" or anything terribly absurd.
Like you said, if people did follow exactly what the bible stated, this world would be... well, you know. Christians would obviously think of Christianity as a "religion of peace" rather than one of violence - either because they associate both peace and their own religion with good, or because they don't actually read the bible. Extremists of certain religions are convinced that what they are doing (killing people) will somehow benefit them; even if most followers of a certain religion believe their religion to be a "religion of peace" (though most really aren't - hence the quotation marks), any religion can be twisted to go from story violence to actual violence.
They don't require "twisting" to become actual violence. You have to remember these aren't stories they are commands from GOD. The bible is the word of god himself. It requires "twisting" in order for there to NOT be actual violence.
Then again, I know more atheists who have read the bible for fun than Christians who have read the bible out of piety. But you're right, of course
On January 10 2010 02:52 MannerMan wrote: It is very sad that so many can be moved so strongly by religion.
I hope one day they can see the beautiful truths behind our existence instead of the lies and tyranny of those who oppress them with fear.
LOL at the atheists and science-worshippers. Sure, if we eliminate all religion we can get rid of all that's wrong in the world. Oh wait, I forgot that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, etc. were all devout worshippers of God who didn't massacre innocent members of religious minorities. And certainly the innumerable humanitarian programs fueled by religious belief would certainly continue if everyone came to their senses and became atheist (hint: look at China for this dream state). Let's not forget that Eugenics was a direct result of scientific, not religious, ideas. Let's face it people, looking at history being inhuman is the natural state of humanity, and just because people manipulate religion (along with everything else) to justify their greed, bigotry, or racism doesn't make religion the villain. If anything, religion provides a check to some of these tendencies: without religion Hitler, Mao, etc. could still exist, but Mother Teresa could not. If you're atheist fine, but don't go calling people who differ with your OPINION ignorant mislead retards because that's just announcing that you're an ignorant mislead retard, and puts you on the same level as that Muslim/Christian/Hindu who right now is calling you an ignorant mislead retard. Believe it or not, there is a way to rationally discuss sensitive issues like this without resorting to name calling and displays of your intellectual bigotry. Thank you very much.
There's no way for YOU to rationally discuss them because you're not capable of rational thinking.
I'm an applied physics major at Cornell with a 3.8 GPA. I think I'm entitled to be considered at least a somewhat rational human being. And no, I'm not denying that religion can be bad as well as good. I'm just calling out the idiots who make religion the scapegoat for all that is wrong with the world. My personal opinion on the matter is that the people involved should be tried and punished as criminals. I also think there is something seriously wrong within the Muslim religion that would inspire so many of its adherents to religious violence.
God, TL General is such an awful place now. The closer we get to SC2, the more ignorant the average poster becomes.
On January 10 2010 20:25 Mykill wrote: The holocaust was not based on Christianity. The crusades were fought a LONG time ago when everybody fought over "holy land" you don't see Christians getting together to take over Jerusalem. I'm not religious but I'll give Christians some credit for not going overboard.
Christian Serbs and Croats slaughtered, raped, destroyed thousands of Muslim Bosnians (and each other) less than 20 years ago - people of the very same fucking ethnicity and language - because of a political struggle combined with a ridiculous Serb religious myth about Prince Lazarus. 15 years ago, a Jewish doctor stormed into a mosque in Hebron and killed 29 people praying and wounded 150 others The Turner Diaries still influences thousands of people, some of which decided to blow up the Federal Building in Oklahoma.
If you want to enter this discussion, maybe you should stop studying applied physics and take a course or two in history or sociology or poli sci. This clash of civilizations, 'other'ing bullshit is not only wrong, but it's the exact same process used to demonize the "West" by the disenfranchised idiots you have a problem with. A political/economic problems get reframed into a religious/cultural one, and all of the sudden you have a reason to enter direct conflict rather than use mechanisms like the political process to solve things. This is a problem with the Malaysian government, not a fucking religion.
I agree with what you wrote in most of your post but maybe you should take a course in modern history before you start posting about events that you have no knowledge of. Normally I wouldn't care but you're using Serbia as an example and that's where I'm from so I would appreciate if you did some research about what happened there before you start throwing around terms like destroyed and slaughtered and raped and "Serb religious myth about Prince Lazarus".
That's funny, because I have and what I said was true. That myth was created in the early 20th century, but it was revived in the 80s and 90s by ultra nationalists. Do you want to discuss what the Serbian military was doing in 93 and 94? Regardless of the fears of another Ustashe or the ridiculous lies about militant Bosnia, Serbian nationalism was fueled by religion and vice versa.
Serbian nationalism had nothing to do with religion. You have to understand how Yugoslavia worked to understand the source of the Serbian nationalism. It stemmed mostly from the fact that Serbia was always the most powerful nation and then centre of Yugoslavia, and in order to keep Yugoslavia together Serbia had to forgo its own national interests for the interests of the other states and for Yugoslavia as a whole. After Tito died, a lot of Serbians started to resent this, since Tito was basically holding the country together. Milosevic came along and he basically ran on a platform of "hey we're the most powerful country why should we have to let everyone else have their way, we should start promoting our own interests". Of course Serbian people loved it so he was hugely popular. This rise in Serbian nationalism combined with the rise in nationalism of all the other states and the United States denying Yugoslavia trade credits and then offering economic aid to states that declared independence is was led to the breakup. After this basically everyone was at each others throats. And i wouldn't mind discussing what the Serbian military was doing in 93 and 94 if you wouldn't mind discussing what Bosnian Muslmis were doing to Bosnian Serbs before the military got there. Or what the Croation miliatry was doing at the same time. OR maybe you'd like to discuss what the American military was doing a few years later
On January 09 2010 11:07 cz wrote: This story is a fabrication; I know this because Islam is the religion of peace, and thus what you stated cannot have happened.
All religions are "religions of peace" - until they are twisted to fit individual ideologies.
Actually it's the other way around, all religions are religions of extreme and barbaric violence. Modern people have had to twist it around so that they can still live in society without being lunatics. For example, here is a quote from the bible from Deuteronomy 20:10-14
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
Here's another fun one from Deuteronomy 22:28-29
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her
LOL at the second example xD
Well, what you said is kind of what I mean. In general, religious literature does use violence in stories and in rules, etc. but (for the most part) tries to promote goodwill, peace, morality, all the good stuff. This is because the only way to spread a religion is to make it seem like its doing some kind of good to the individual: "believe in our god... or you go to hell!" The bible is obviously full of shit, but what most people get from attending church isn't "kill your family and friends" or anything terribly absurd.
Like you said, if people did follow exactly what the bible stated, this world would be... well, you know. Christians would obviously think of Christianity as a "religion of peace" rather than one of violence - either because they associate both peace and their own religion with good, or because they don't actually read the bible. Extremists of certain religions are convinced that what they are doing (killing people) will somehow benefit them; even if most followers of a certain religion believe their religion to be a "religion of peace" (though most really aren't - hence the quotation marks), any religion can be twisted to go from story violence to actual violence.
They don't require "twisting" to become actual violence. You have to remember these aren't stories they are commands from GOD. The bible is the word of god himself. It requires "twisting" in order for there to NOT be actual violence.
i'm not religious at all, but
a) it is not worded like that at all in the bible. i have with me the king james version and it is completely different.
b) if someone were to back the "teachings" in the bible, you have to take into context when it was written. It was much more simpler times with a simple moral code. Like for your second point, which never mentions rape btw, that man having sex with the woman out of wedlock has to basically give away a fortune to the father of the woman. it is a pretty simple deterrent for premarital sexualations. unmarried sex, loose money, no good for you! dont do it!
basically for a God to explain to the masses what is right and wrong, whom still believe the world is flat for fucks sake, think how one would communicate with them. try explaining a 3D universe to someone who still wanders in a 2D world
They are moral teachings that are instilled into families, and passed down through generations and through changing times.
and in terms of these violent muslims, I find that they are just uneducated people, who are getting pissed off easily, who are being fed bullshit by those same people they rely on to communicate the message from their god. when i hear terrorists or any of this muslim extremism BS, I immediately think of some fuck redneck KKK christian who would probably react the same way as them if fucked with enough.
On January 09 2010 11:07 cz wrote: This story is a fabrication; I know this because Islam is the religion of peace, and thus what you stated cannot have happened.
All religions are "religions of peace" - until they are twisted to fit individual ideologies.
Actually it's the other way around, all religions are religions of extreme and barbaric violence. Modern people have had to twist it around so that they can still live in society without being lunatics. For example, here is a quote from the bible from Deuteronomy 20:10-14
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
Here's another fun one from Deuteronomy 22:28-29
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her
LOL at the second example xD
Well, what you said is kind of what I mean. In general, religious literature does use violence in stories and in rules, etc. but (for the most part) tries to promote goodwill, peace, morality, all the good stuff. This is because the only way to spread a religion is to make it seem like its doing some kind of good to the individual: "believe in our god... or you go to hell!" The bible is obviously full of shit, but what most people get from attending church isn't "kill your family and friends" or anything terribly absurd.
Like you said, if people did follow exactly what the bible stated, this world would be... well, you know. Christians would obviously think of Christianity as a "religion of peace" rather than one of violence - either because they associate both peace and their own religion with good, or because they don't actually read the bible. Extremists of certain religions are convinced that what they are doing (killing people) will somehow benefit them; even if most followers of a certain religion believe their religion to be a "religion of peace" (though most really aren't - hence the quotation marks), any religion can be twisted to go from story violence to actual violence.
They don't require "twisting" to become actual violence. You have to remember these aren't stories they are commands from GOD. The bible is the word of god himself. It requires "twisting" in order for there to NOT be actual violence.
i'm not religious at all, but
a) it is not worded like that at all in the bible. i have with me the king james version and it is completely different.
b) if someone were to back the "teachings" in the bible, you have to take into context when it was written. It was much more simpler times with a simple moral code. Like for your second point, which never mentions rape btw, that man having sex with the woman out of wedlock has to basically give away a fortune to the father of the woman. it is a pretty simple deterrent for premarital sexualations. unmarried sex, loose money, no good for you! dont do it!
basically for a God to explain to the masses what is right and wrong, whom still believe the world is flat for fucks sake, think how one would communicate with them. try explaining a 3D universe to someone who still wanders in a 2D world
They are moral teachings that are instilled into families, and passed down through generations and through changing times.
and in terms of these violent muslims, I find that they are just uneducated people, who are getting pissed off easily, who are being fed bullshit by those same people they rely on to communicate the message from their god. when i hear terrorists or any of this muslim extremism BS, I immediately think of some fuck redneck KKK christian who would probably react the same way as them if fucked with enough.
a) Ok yeah the passages are gonna be worded a little differently but the message is still carried across, and even if those two I quoted aren't as bad in other versions there's still hundreds of similar passages of God commanding people to murder and rape, murdering people himself, encouraging murder, genocide, rape, the taking of slaves I mean it just goes on and on.
b) Regardless of how "simple" the times are I still wouldn't teach them to slaughter each other ruthlessly and take each other as slaves and rape women. As far as the the time it was written , I don't see why that matters seeing as that the bible is supposed to be written by god. Why would god pass down morals that involve rape and murder, you don't think god is capable of the same morals we are today? And your third point I'm not even sure I understand correctly, are you saying that it's good that rapists are forced to marry the women that they rape because its a deterrent for premarital sex.. what?
Oh and by the way it also says in the bible that world is flat, so at that time, God, the creator of the universe also thought the Earth was flat, so can you really blame the people? Also if I tried to explain a 3d universe to someone who wanders in the 2d world I certainly wouldn't tell him to slaughter people or rape women.
there was no mention of rape so it just kind pisses me off you keep going off about it.. for your entire post. it is, for just about any rational person who reads it, a simple scccarrrryyy story to not engage in premarital sex. it is for a "man who is caught lying with a damsel." Not a man raping a young girl. Pretty two fucking different things.
and do you honestly know any religious person who will argue with you that rape is alright as long as i give your dad fifty bucks? No, didn't think so. Stop being a fucking tool.
anything about war, yeah, you are right and I don't care to argue anything about that. but anybody who is taking the bible that literal and will knock on my door with terms of peace or slavery, because that is what they read in the bible, then they are more of a tool than you are.
oh and btw i'd love know where they say that the world is flat. I'd love to get the passage and show my Dad to watch him explain that. Nevertheless, the bible is not a science textbook :p telling those people that the world was a sphere, floating in space, would probably cause some heads to explode.
On January 11 2010 14:06 alex5050 wrote: there was no mention of rape so it just kind pisses me off you keep going off about it.. for your entire post. it is, for just about any rational person who reads it, a simple scccarrrryyy story to not engage in premarital sex. it is for a "man who is caught lying with a damsel." Not a man raping a young girl. Pretty two fucking different things.
and do you honestly know any religious person who will argue with you that rape is alright as long as i give your dad fifty bucks? No, didn't think so. Stop being a fucking tool.
anything about war, yeah, you are right and I don't care to argue anything about that. but anybody who is taking the bible that literal and will knock on my door with terms of peace or slavery, because that is what they read in the bible, then they are more of a tool than you are.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her[/QUOTE]
No I don't know any religious person who would argue that rape would be alright. I also don't know where you got the idea that I claimed that at any point. Maybe your reading comprehension skills need a little work because it seems that not only did you gloss over the word 'raping' in my earlier post you also completely missed the entire point of the post. What I said was basically that it required "twisting" in order for religion to NOT cause violence. At no point did I make any claim on what religious people are currently doing, what they would argue, their stance on rape. I also didn't mention anything about war so I have no idea why you included that. Also at no point did I claim or even imply that people should or do take the bible literally, actually my post was much closer to implying the contrary. And yes I agree that people who take the the bible literally are tools, but I don't see why you had to call me a tool.
Edit: Sorry forgot this, here's something for your dad
Isaiah 11:12 12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)
Revelation 7:1 1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)
Job 38:13 13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)
Jeremiah 16:19 19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)
Daniel 4:11 11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)
Lol, you understand that Deuteronomy is heavily qualified by subsequent developments that are in the bible, or in the accompanying rabbinical texts, right?
On January 11 2010 11:35 synapse wrote: I'm pretty sure Hitler was the only one (out of those you listed) who killed religious minorities,
Then again, I know more atheists who have read the bible for fun than Christians who have read the bible out of piety. But you're right, of course
You're "pretty sure"? Awesome. Now I can tell the Russian Orthodox Church that Stalin's (begun by Lenin) attempt at complete eradication of the church and the slaughter and imprisonment of thousands of church leaders and priests and monks was all a fabrication!
Not really. I'd rather go to sleep. Suffice it to say, your last few posts have shown that you know very little about that which you're talking about.
If I can point you in the right direction, look at the role of the talmud in judaism. Also, distinguish between Islam and Christianity when saying things like "god wrote the bible".
Not really. I'd rather go to sleep. Suffice it to say, your last few posts have shown that you know very little about that which you're talking about.
If I can point you in the right direction, look at the role of the talmud in judaism. Also, distinguish between Islam and Christianity when saying things like "god wrote the bible".
All of that is completely irrelevant to the point that I made. It looks like based on your post you know even less about what I'm talking about.
LOL at the atheists and science-worshippers. Sure, if we eliminate all religion we can get rid of all that's wrong in the world. Oh wait, I forgot that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, etc. were all devout worshippers of God who didn't massacre innocent members of religious minorities.
Nothing those people did was in the name of atheism.
One has to be a little more sophisticated than that in addressing the issue. In particular, the idea of God being dead, of the complete freedom afforded by the lack of any foundational morality, the idea that humans were vessels to be molded by man, and not inherently endowed with rights and duties by a Creator; these were distinctly made possible by atheist belief systems such as communism. In such belief systems, humans had no instrinsic worth (why should they? The idea that humans have intrinsic worth comes via religion) and were acceptable sacrifices for the State (ultimately, both Hitler and Lenin met by way of Hegel; the State was supreme).
Whatever the faults of religion, of which there are many, its impossible to deny that we arrived at the ideas of the sacred inviolability of the individual, the inherent human rights afforded to us all, by way of religion. That's simply how those ideas were arrived at. The idea of all men being equal and guaranteed certain freedoms comes through religion. Any atheist not living in denial (including myself) needs to come to grips with that.
Not really. I'd rather go to sleep. Suffice it to say, your last few posts have shown that you know very little about that which you're talking about.
If I can point you in the right direction, look at the role of the talmud in judaism. Also, distinguish between Islam and Christianity when saying things like "god wrote the bible".
All of that is completely irrelevant to the point that I made. It looks like based on your post you know even less about what I'm talking about.
No, it isn't.
I don't think it would be easy to see the relevance coming from a position of ignorance, though.
LOL at the atheists and science-worshippers. Sure, if we eliminate all religion we can get rid of all that's wrong in the world. Oh wait, I forgot that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, etc. were all devout worshippers of God who didn't massacre innocent members of religious minorities.
Nothing those people did was in the name of atheism.
One has to be a little more sophisticated than that in addressing the issue. In particular, the idea of God being dead, of the complete freedom afforded by the lack of any foundational morality, the idea that humans were vessels to be molded by man, and not inherently endowed with rights and duties by a Creator; these were distinctly made possible by atheist belief systems such as communism. In such belief systems, humans had no instrinsic worth (why should they? The idea that humans have intrinsic worth comes via religion) and were acceptable sacrifices for the State (ultimately, both Hitler and Lenin met by way of Hegel; the State was supreme).
Whatever the faults of religion, of which there are many, its impossible to deny that we arrived at the ideas of the sacred inviolability of the individual, the inherent human rights afforded to us all, by way of religion. That's simply how those ideas were arrived at. The idea of all men being equal and guaranteed certain freedoms comes through religion. Any atheist not living in denial (including myself) needs to come to grips with that.
I strongly disagree with every single sentence you typed.
LOL at the atheists and science-worshippers. Sure, if we eliminate all religion we can get rid of all that's wrong in the world. Oh wait, I forgot that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, etc. were all devout worshippers of God who didn't massacre innocent members of religious minorities.
Nothing those people did was in the name of atheism.
One has to be a little more sophisticated than that in addressing the issue. In particular, the idea of God being dead, of the complete freedom afforded by the lack of any foundational morality, the idea that humans were vessels to be molded by man, and not inherently endowed with rights and duties by a Creator; these were distinctly made possible by atheist belief systems such as communism. In such belief systems, humans had no instrinsic worth (why should they? The idea that humans have intrinsic worth comes via religion) and were acceptable sacrifices for the State (ultimately, both Hitler and Lenin met by way of Hegel; the State was supreme).
Whatever the faults of religion, of which there are many, its impossible to deny that we arrived at the ideas of the sacred inviolability of the individual, the inherent human rights afforded to us all, by way of religion. That's simply how those ideas were arrived at. The idea of all men being equal and guaranteed certain freedoms comes through religion. Any atheist not living in denial (including myself) needs to come to grips with that.
I strongly disagree with every single sentence you typed.
On January 11 2010 12:22 daz wrote: Serbian nationalism had nothing to do with religion. You have to understand how Yugoslavia worked to understand the source of the Serbian nationalism. It stemmed mostly from the fact that Serbia was always the most powerful nation and then centre of Yugoslavia, and in order to keep Yugoslavia together Serbia had to forgo its own national interests for the interests of the other states and for Yugoslavia as a whole. After Tito died, a lot of Serbians started to resent this, since Tito was basically holding the country together. Milosevic came along and he basically ran on a platform of "hey we're the most powerful country why should we have to let everyone else have their way, we should start promoting our own interests". Of course Serbian people loved it so he was hugely popular. This rise in Serbian nationalism combined with the rise in nationalism of all the other states and the United States denying Yugoslavia trade credits and then offering economic aid to states that declared independence is was led to the breakup. After this basically everyone was at each others throats. And i wouldn't mind discussing what the Serbian military was doing in 93 and 94 if you wouldn't mind discussing what Bosnian Muslmis were doing to Bosnian Serbs before the military got there. Or what the Croation miliatry was doing at the same time. OR maybe you'd like to discuss what the American military was doing a few years later
rofl?
1. 8% + of Croatian GDP during Yugoslavia was going to Serbia (yeah all that money going out of Serbia to the other nations...). 2. A disproportional amount of government positions were held by Serbians (yeah damn that equality... hell you can even look at the voting system used where Serbia practically had 3 votes rather than 1 (Vojvodina, Kosovo and Serbia) most the time even 4 when bullying Montenegro. 3. I agree that Serbia were most probably the most powerful. They had the largest population, amount of people in the army, positions in government but they were not the most industrialised (Slovenia was). 4. Yugoslavia before they broke up was taking aid from America (Tito was hilarious when he didn't get what he wanted from America he would go to Russia and vice-versa). 5. I ain't even going to go in to the bag of worms which is the blame game to who killed who, who killed how many cause when it comes down to it both Croatia and Serbia are to blame for genocide etc.
But this is all off topic, I would agree with you though that nationalism was the main problem in Serbia / Croatia and for all the crap that happened but you cannot ignore that the nationalists used religion to rally the base.
On January 10 2010 02:52 MannerMan wrote: It is very sad that so many can be moved so strongly by religion.
I hope one day they can see the beautiful truths behind our existence instead of the lies and tyranny of those who oppress them with fear.
LOL at the atheists and science-worshippers. Sure, if we eliminate all religion we can get rid of all that's wrong in the world. Oh wait, I forgot that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, etc. were all devout worshippers of God who didn't massacre innocent members of religious minorities. And certainly the innumerable humanitarian programs fueled by religious belief would certainly continue if everyone came to their senses and became atheist (hint: look at China for this dream state). Let's not forget that Eugenics was a direct result of scientific, not religious, ideas. Let's face it people, looking at history being inhuman is the natural state of humanity, and just because people manipulate religion (along with everything else) to justify their greed, bigotry, or racism doesn't make religion the villain. If anything, religion provides a check to some of these tendencies: without religion Hitler, Mao, etc. could still exist, but Mother Teresa could not. If you're atheist fine, but don't go calling people who differ with your OPINION ignorant mislead retards because that's just announcing that you're an ignorant mislead retard, and puts you on the same level as that Muslim/Christian/Hindu who right now is calling you an ignorant mislead retard. Believe it or not, there is a way to rationally discuss sensitive issues like this without resorting to name calling and displays of your intellectual bigotry. Thank you very much.
There's no way for YOU to rationally discuss them because you're not capable of rational thinking.
I'm an applied physics major at Cornell with a 3.8 GPA. I think I'm entitled to be considered at least a somewhat rational human being. And no, I'm not denying that religion can be bad as well as good. I'm just calling out the idiots who make religion the scapegoat for all that is wrong with the world. My personal opinion on the matter is that the people involved should be tried and punished as criminals. I also think there is something seriously wrong within the Muslim religion that would inspire so many of its adherents to religious violence.
God, TL General is such an awful place now. The closer we get to SC2, the more ignorant the average poster becomes.
On January 10 2010 20:25 Mykill wrote: The holocaust was not based on Christianity. The crusades were fought a LONG time ago when everybody fought over "holy land" you don't see Christians getting together to take over Jerusalem. I'm not religious but I'll give Christians some credit for not going overboard.
Christian Serbs and Croats slaughtered, raped, destroyed thousands of Muslim Bosnians (and each other) less than 20 years ago - people of the very same fucking ethnicity and language - because of a political struggle combined with a ridiculous Serb religious myth about Prince Lazarus. 15 years ago, a Jewish doctor stormed into a mosque in Hebron and killed 29 people praying and wounded 150 others The Turner Diaries still influences thousands of people, some of which decided to blow up the Federal Building in Oklahoma.
If you want to enter this discussion, maybe you should stop studying applied physics and take a course or two in history or sociology or poli sci. This clash of civilizations, 'other'ing bullshit is not only wrong, but it's the exact same process used to demonize the "West" by the disenfranchised idiots you have a problem with. A political/economic problems get reframed into a religious/cultural one, and all of the sudden you have a reason to enter direct conflict rather than use mechanisms like the political process to solve things. This is a problem with the Malaysian government, not a fucking religion.
I agree with what you wrote in most of your post but maybe you should take a course in modern history before you start posting about events that you have no knowledge of. Normally I wouldn't care but you're using Serbia as an example and that's where I'm from so I would appreciate if you did some research about what happened there before you start throwing around terms like destroyed and slaughtered and raped and "Serb religious myth about Prince Lazarus".
That's funny, because I have and what I said was true. That myth was created in the early 20th century, but it was revived in the 80s and 90s by ultra nationalists. Do you want to discuss what the Serbian military was doing in 93 and 94? Regardless of the fears of another Ustashe or the ridiculous lies about militant Bosnia, Serbian nationalism was fueled by religion and vice versa.
Serbian nationalism had nothing to do with religion. You have to understand how Yugoslavia worked to understand the source of the Serbian nationalism. It stemmed mostly from the fact that Serbia was always the most powerful nation and then centre of Yugoslavia, and in order to keep Yugoslavia together Serbia had to forgo its own national interests for the interests of the other states and for Yugoslavia as a whole. After Tito died, a lot of Serbians started to resent this, since Tito was basically holding the country together. Milosevic came along and he basically ran on a platform of "hey we're the most powerful country why should we have to let everyone else have their way, we should start promoting our own interests". Of course Serbian people loved it so he was hugely popular. This rise in Serbian nationalism combined with the rise in nationalism of all the other states and the United States denying Yugoslavia trade credits and then offering economic aid to states that declared independence is was led to the breakup. After this basically everyone was at each others throats. And i wouldn't mind discussing what the Serbian military was doing in 93 and 94 if you wouldn't mind discussing what Bosnian Muslmis were doing to Bosnian Serbs before the military got there. Or what the Croation miliatry was doing at the same time. OR maybe you'd like to discuss what the American military was doing a few years later
This is just a political move by the Government in an attempt to gain favor from the majority. Imagine that, the Prime Minister claims that he is "powerless" to stop the protests, in the national news. The opposition would be sprayed with tear gas after 1 minute.
I know. I'm Malaysian.
Yes it is a stupid move to gain votes -- You know what conclusion can be drawn from that premise. Yes, this is really messed up, though i'm not christian.
(didn't read the 9 pages but i assume no one came with the truth since people are still arguing at the last few pages)
On January 11 2010 18:53 JieXian wrote: People people people . . .
This has nothing to do with religion.
This is just a political move by the Government in an attempt to gain favor from the majority. Imagine that, the Prime Minister claims that he is "powerless" to stop the protests, in the national news. The opposition would be sprayed with tear gas after 1 minute.
I know. I'm Malaysian.
Yes it is a stupid move to gain votes -- You know what conclusion can be drawn from that premise. Yes, this is really messed up, though i'm not christian.
(didn't read the 9 pages but i assume no one came with the truth since people are still arguing at the last few pages)
are u suggesting that the malaysian government intentionally let the muslims in malaysia to do as they please to gain their favor/vote??
On January 11 2010 18:53 JieXian wrote: People people people . . .
This has nothing to do with religion.
This is just a political move by the Government in an attempt to gain favor from the majority. Imagine that, the Prime Minister claims that he is "powerless" to stop the protests, in the national news. The opposition would be sprayed with tear gas after 1 minute.
I know. I'm Malaysian.
Yes it is a stupid move to gain votes -- You know what conclusion can be drawn from that premise. Yes, this is really messed up, though i'm not christian.
(didn't read the 9 pages but i assume no one came with the truth since people are still arguing at the last few pages)
are u suggesting that the malaysian government intentionally let the muslims in malaysia to do as they please to gain their favor/vote??
This has not been unheard of imho. Gaining the majority's vote has alway's been a shady job if the majority don't have a recent event or an exceedingly strong stimulus to vote for so-and-so, so (the party in question) could always create one.
News broadcast on the church attacks and arrests have been starting to air in my country already. Sensational, if not disturbing and outright a waste of human resources, well-being and intelligence (or whatever is left of it)
On January 11 2010 13:52 daz wrote:a) Ok yeah the passages are gonna be worded a little differently but the message is still carried across, and even if those two I quoted aren't as bad in other versions there's still hundreds of similar passages of God commanding people to murder and rape, murdering people himself, encouraging murder, genocide, rape, the taking of slaves I mean it just goes on and on.
b) Regardless of how "simple" the times are I still wouldn't teach them to slaughter each other ruthlessly and take each other as slaves and rape women. As far as the the time it was written , I don't see why that matters seeing as that the bible is supposed to be written by god. Why would god pass down morals that involve rape and murder, you don't think god is capable of the same morals we are today? And your third point I'm not even sure I understand correctly, are you saying that it's good that rapists are forced to marry the women that they rape because its a deterrent for premarital sex.. what?
Oh and by the way it also says in the bible that world is flat, so at that time, God, the creator of the universe also thought the Earth was flat, so can you really blame the people? Also if I tried to explain a 3d universe to someone who wanders in the 2d world I certainly wouldn't tell him to slaughter people or rape women.
I couldn't help but notice how confused you are regarding Biblical passages. As was stated by others, you're taking things completely out of context. Let me clear things up a little for you, and for all those others who think God is some sort of monstrous killing machine:
Yes, God ordered the mass slaughter and destruction of many towns/villages/cities. Was this some sort of spontaneous "I feel like killing people" decision? No. The people of the cities that were completely destroyed by the Israelites (following God's orders) had been living in open denial of God for hundreds upon hundreds of years. You have to remember that the law of God was KNOWN by all the inhabitants of the land; after all, Adam and Eve were taught the laws of God and were able to pass them down to all of their children and those following. Everyone knew God's laws; no one had an excuse to blatantly defy them. Yet, they went ahead and defied them. They deliberately rejected God's laws and lived in open defiance of God's original word...Sodom and Gomorrha were just two examples of cities that God Himself destroyed because of this. God tolerated their defiance of hundreds of years...literally. He gave them so many chances and so much time to turn around their ways, and they still refused. So yes, he eventually destroyed them, and the others that wouldn't listen he destroyed as well by ordering the children of Israel to completely pillage their cities and erase any semblance of their civilizations.
Which person/country/ruling body do you know of that will tolerate deliberate disobedience to explicit laws for more than even a YEAR? None, I bet. God tolerated disobedience like this for HUNDREDS of years, dude...HUNDREDS. As I said before, the people were living in deliberate defiance of God's laws - nowadays, if someone does anything in deliberate defiance of the law, they are IMMEDIATELY jailed/killed/executed/whatever. From the Bible's description, God is more merciful and more tolerant than any person/country today; he gave all these people so many chances to change their ways, and they didn't. So yes, he eventually killed them all. The Israelites themselves began to disobey God, and he gave them chance after chance after chance to turn back around. They didn't, so he started killing them off as well (destruction of their temples, direct killing/plaguing of their people, etc.) Then when Christ was sent to the earth, as was WITNESSED by his disciples in the New Testament (as well as other sources), he told the Gentiles (non-Jews) that now anyone could come to God. In other words, God chose to open salvation to anyone, even to the people that He knew would kill his only Son and torture him on the cross. Who do you know nowadays that would grant forgiveness and happiness to someone that would kill their son? No one.
So, when you talk about "mass destruction and slaughter", you're talking about mass destruction and slaughter AFTER WAITING HUNDREDS OF YEARS for people to listen to His word. It still stands that a God that gives people that much time to stop their wrongdoing is the most merciful being there is.
And no, God didn't think the world was flat - I'm not sure which atheist website shoved that trash into your head. The descriptions of the world offered by certain passages in the Bible ("ends of the earth", etc.) were the only ways that SOME writers of the Bible at that time could describe the Earth because they didn't know that it was round. But you're even more wrong than that - Paul, in his letters to various churches mentions "heavenly bodies" which is a pretty explicit allusion to planets and stars and other such "non-2D" elements. I think you don't know your Bible very well.
On January 11 2010 13:52 daz wrote:a) Ok yeah the passages are gonna be worded a little differently but the message is still carried across, and even if those two I quoted aren't as bad in other versions there's still hundreds of similar passages of God commanding people to murder and rape, murdering people himself, encouraging murder, genocide, rape, the taking of slaves I mean it just goes on and on.
b) Regardless of how "simple" the times are I still wouldn't teach them to slaughter each other ruthlessly and take each other as slaves and rape women. As far as the the time it was written , I don't see why that matters seeing as that the bible is supposed to be written by god. Why would god pass down morals that involve rape and murder, you don't think god is capable of the same morals we are today? And your third point I'm not even sure I understand correctly, are you saying that it's good that rapists are forced to marry the women that they rape because its a deterrent for premarital sex.. what?
Oh and by the way it also says in the bible that world is flat, so at that time, God, the creator of the universe also thought the Earth was flat, so can you really blame the people? Also if I tried to explain a 3d universe to someone who wanders in the 2d world I certainly wouldn't tell him to slaughter people or rape women.
I couldn't help but notice how confused you are regarding Biblical passages. As was stated by others, you're taking things completely out of context. Let me clear things up a little for you, and for all those others who think God is some sort of monstrous killing machine:
Yes, God ordered the mass slaughter and destruction of many towns/villages/cities. Was this some sort of spontaneous "I feel like killing people" decision? No. The people of the cities that were completely destroyed by the Israelites (following God's orders) had been living in open denial of God for hundreds upon hundreds of years. You have to remember that the law of God was KNOWN by all the inhabitants of the land; after all, Adam and Eve were taught the laws of God and were able to pass them down to all of their children and those following. Everyone knew God's laws; no one had an excuse to blatantly defy them. Yet, they went ahead and defied them. They deliberately rejected God's laws and lived in open defiance of God's original word...Sodom and Gomorrha were just two examples of cities that God Himself destroyed because of this. God tolerated their defiance of hundreds of years...literally. He gave them so many chances and so much time to turn around their ways, and they still refused. So yes, he eventually destroyed them, and the others that wouldn't listen he destroyed as well by ordering the children of Israel to completely pillage their cities and erase any semblance of their civilizations.
Which person/country/ruling body do you know of that will tolerate deliberate disobedience to explicit laws for more than even a YEAR? None, I bet. God tolerated disobedience like this for HUNDREDS of years, dude...HUNDREDS. As I said before, the people were living in deliberate defiance of God's laws - nowadays, if someone does anything in deliberate defiance of the law, they are IMMEDIATELY jailed/killed/executed/whatever. From the Bible's description, God is more merciful and more tolerant than any person/country today; he gave all these people so many chances to change their ways, and they didn't. So yes, he eventually killed them all. The Israelites themselves began to disobey God, and he gave them chance after chance after chance to turn back around. They didn't, so he started killing them off as well (destruction of their temples, direct killing/plaguing of their people, etc.) Then when Christ was sent to the earth, as was WITNESSED by his disciples in the New Testament (as well as other sources), he told the Gentiles (non-Jews) that now anyone could come to God. In other words, God chose to open salvation to anyone, even to the people that He knew would kill his only Son and torture him on the cross. Who do you know nowadays that would grant forgiveness and happiness to someone that would kill their son? No one.
So, when you talk about "mass destruction and slaughter", you're talking about mass destruction and slaughter AFTER WAITING HUNDREDS OF YEARS for people to listen to His word. It still stands that a God that gives people that much time to stop their wrongdoing is the most merciful being there is.
And no, God didn't think the world was flat - I'm not sure which atheist website shoved that trash into your head. The descriptions of the world offered by certain passages in the Bible ("ends of the earth", etc.) were the only ways that SOME writers of the Bible at that time could describe the Earth because they didn't know that it was round. But you're even more wrong than that - Paul, in his letters to various churches mentions "heavenly bodies" which is a pretty explicit allusion to planets and stars and other such "non-2D" elements. I think you don't know your Bible very well.
I wonder how many years of disobedience would it take before you start slaughtering your children?
On January 11 2010 13:52 daz wrote:a) Ok yeah the passages are gonna be worded a little differently but the message is still carried across, and even if those two I quoted aren't as bad in other versions there's still hundreds of similar passages of God commanding people to murder and rape, murdering people himself, encouraging murder, genocide, rape, the taking of slaves I mean it just goes on and on.
b) Regardless of how "simple" the times are I still wouldn't teach them to slaughter each other ruthlessly and take each other as slaves and rape women. As far as the the time it was written , I don't see why that matters seeing as that the bible is supposed to be written by god. Why would god pass down morals that involve rape and murder, you don't think god is capable of the same morals we are today? And your third point I'm not even sure I understand correctly, are you saying that it's good that rapists are forced to marry the women that they rape because its a deterrent for premarital sex.. what?
Oh and by the way it also says in the bible that world is flat, so at that time, God, the creator of the universe also thought the Earth was flat, so can you really blame the people? Also if I tried to explain a 3d universe to someone who wanders in the 2d world I certainly wouldn't tell him to slaughter people or rape women.
I couldn't help but notice how confused you are regarding Biblical passages. As was stated by others, you're taking things completely out of context. Let me clear things up a little for you, and for all those others who think God is some sort of monstrous killing machine:
Yes, God ordered the mass slaughter and destruction of many towns/villages/cities. Was this some sort of spontaneous "I feel like killing people" decision? No. The people of the cities that were completely destroyed by the Israelites (following God's orders) had been living in open denial of God for hundreds upon hundreds of years. You have to remember that the law of God was KNOWN by all the inhabitants of the land; after all, Adam and Eve were taught the laws of God and were able to pass them down to all of their children and those following. Everyone knew God's laws; no one had an excuse to blatantly defy them. Yet, they went ahead and defied them. They deliberately rejected God's laws and lived in open defiance of God's original word...Sodom and Gomorrha were just two examples of cities that God Himself destroyed because of this. God tolerated their defiance of hundreds of years...literally. He gave them so many chances and so much time to turn around their ways, and they still refused. So yes, he eventually destroyed them, and the others that wouldn't listen he destroyed as well by ordering the children of Israel to completely pillage their cities and erase any semblance of their civilizations.
Which person/country/ruling body do you know of that will tolerate deliberate disobedience to explicit laws for more than even a YEAR? None, I bet. God tolerated disobedience like this for HUNDREDS of years, dude...HUNDREDS. As I said before, the people were living in deliberate defiance of God's laws - nowadays, if someone does anything in deliberate defiance of the law, they are IMMEDIATELY jailed/killed/executed/whatever. From the Bible's description, God is more merciful and more tolerant than any person/country today; he gave all these people so many chances to change their ways, and they didn't. So yes, he eventually killed them all. The Israelites themselves began to disobey God, and he gave them chance after chance after chance to turn back around. They didn't, so he started killing them off as well (destruction of their temples, direct killing/plaguing of their people, etc.) Then when Christ was sent to the earth, as was WITNESSED by his disciples in the New Testament (as well as other sources), he told the Gentiles (non-Jews) that now anyone could come to God. In other words, God chose to open salvation to anyone, even to the people that He knew would kill his only Son and torture him on the cross. Who do you know nowadays that would grant forgiveness and happiness to someone that would kill their son? No one.
So, when you talk about "mass destruction and slaughter", you're talking about mass destruction and slaughter AFTER WAITING HUNDREDS OF YEARS for people to listen to His word. It still stands that a God that gives people that much time to stop their wrongdoing is the most merciful being there is.
And no, God didn't think the world was flat - I'm not sure which atheist website shoved that trash into your head. The descriptions of the world offered by certain passages in the Bible ("ends of the earth", etc.) were the only ways that SOME writers of the Bible at that time could describe the Earth because they didn't know that it was round. But you're even more wrong than that - Paul, in his letters to various churches mentions "heavenly bodies" which is a pretty explicit allusion to planets and stars and other such "non-2D" elements. I think you don't know your Bible very well.
I wonder how many years of disobedience would it take before you start slaughtering your children?
On January 11 2010 13:52 daz wrote:a) Ok yeah the passages are gonna be worded a little differently but the message is still carried across, and even if those two I quoted aren't as bad in other versions there's still hundreds of similar passages of God commanding people to murder and rape, murdering people himself, encouraging murder, genocide, rape, the taking of slaves I mean it just goes on and on.
b) Regardless of how "simple" the times are I still wouldn't teach them to slaughter each other ruthlessly and take each other as slaves and rape women. As far as the the time it was written , I don't see why that matters seeing as that the bible is supposed to be written by god. Why would god pass down morals that involve rape and murder, you don't think god is capable of the same morals we are today? And your third point I'm not even sure I understand correctly, are you saying that it's good that rapists are forced to marry the women that they rape because its a deterrent for premarital sex.. what?
Oh and by the way it also says in the bible that world is flat, so at that time, God, the creator of the universe also thought the Earth was flat, so can you really blame the people? Also if I tried to explain a 3d universe to someone who wanders in the 2d world I certainly wouldn't tell him to slaughter people or rape women.
I couldn't help but notice how confused you are regarding Biblical passages. As was stated by others, you're taking things completely out of context. Let me clear things up a little for you, and for all those others who think God is some sort of monstrous killing machine:
Yes, God ordered the mass slaughter and destruction of many towns/villages/cities. Was this some sort of spontaneous "I feel like killing people" decision? No. The people of the cities that were completely destroyed by the Israelites (following God's orders) had been living in open denial of God for hundreds upon hundreds of years. You have to remember that the law of God was KNOWN by all the inhabitants of the land; after all, Adam and Eve were taught the laws of God and were able to pass them down to all of their children and those following. Everyone knew God's laws; no one had an excuse to blatantly defy them. Yet, they went ahead and defied them. They deliberately rejected God's laws and lived in open defiance of God's original word...Sodom and Gomorrha were just two examples of cities that God Himself destroyed because of this. God tolerated their defiance of hundreds of years...literally. He gave them so many chances and so much time to turn around their ways, and they still refused. So yes, he eventually destroyed them, and the others that wouldn't listen he destroyed as well by ordering the children of Israel to completely pillage their cities and erase any semblance of their civilizations.
Which person/country/ruling body do you know of that will tolerate deliberate disobedience to explicit laws for more than even a YEAR? None, I bet. God tolerated disobedience like this for HUNDREDS of years, dude...HUNDREDS. As I said before, the people were living in deliberate defiance of God's laws - nowadays, if someone does anything in deliberate defiance of the law, they are IMMEDIATELY jailed/killed/executed/whatever. From the Bible's description, God is more merciful and more tolerant than any person/country today; he gave all these people so many chances to change their ways, and they didn't. So yes, he eventually killed them all. The Israelites themselves began to disobey God, and he gave them chance after chance after chance to turn back around. They didn't, so he started killing them off as well (destruction of their temples, direct killing/plaguing of their people, etc.) Then when Christ was sent to the earth, as was WITNESSED by his disciples in the New Testament (as well as other sources), he told the Gentiles (non-Jews) that now anyone could come to God. In other words, God chose to open salvation to anyone, even to the people that He knew would kill his only Son and torture him on the cross. Who do you know nowadays that would grant forgiveness and happiness to someone that would kill their son? No one.
So, when you talk about "mass destruction and slaughter", you're talking about mass destruction and slaughter AFTER WAITING HUNDREDS OF YEARS for people to listen to His word. It still stands that a God that gives people that much time to stop their wrongdoing is the most merciful being there is.
And no, God didn't think the world was flat - I'm not sure which atheist website shoved that trash into your head. The descriptions of the world offered by certain passages in the Bible ("ends of the earth", etc.) were the only ways that SOME writers of the Bible at that time could describe the Earth because they didn't know that it was round. But you're even more wrong than that - Paul, in his letters to various churches mentions "heavenly bodies" which is a pretty explicit allusion to planets and stars and other such "non-2D" elements. I think you don't know your Bible very well.
I wonder how many years of disobedience would it take before you start slaughtering your children?
That kind of comparison just made me lol at you
I don't see whats funny about it, he's basically saying its ok to slaughter hundreds of thousands of people brutally if you make up some rules and they disobey them for a long enough period of time. We can see that for god the period of time is hundreds of years, I'm just wondering what is the period of time he requires before he becomes turns genocidal.
On January 10 2010 02:52 MannerMan wrote: It is very sad that so many can be moved so strongly by religion.
I hope one day they can see the beautiful truths behind our existence instead of the lies and tyranny of those who oppress them with fear.
LOL at the atheists and science-worshippers. Sure, if we eliminate all religion we can get rid of all that's wrong in the world. Oh wait, I forgot that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, etc. were all devout worshippers of God who didn't massacre innocent members of religious minorities. And certainly the innumerable humanitarian programs fueled by religious belief would certainly continue if everyone came to their senses and became atheist (hint: look at China for this dream state). Let's not forget that Eugenics was a direct result of scientific, not religious, ideas. Let's face it people, looking at history being inhuman is the natural state of humanity, and just because people manipulate religion (along with everything else) to justify their greed, bigotry, or racism doesn't make religion the villain. If anything, religion provides a check to some of these tendencies: without religion Hitler, Mao, etc. could still exist, but Mother Teresa could not. If you're atheist fine, but don't go calling people who differ with your OPINION ignorant mislead retards because that's just announcing that you're an ignorant mislead retard, and puts you on the same level as that Muslim/Christian/Hindu who right now is calling you an ignorant mislead retard. Believe it or not, there is a way to rationally discuss sensitive issues like this without resorting to name calling and displays of your intellectual bigotry. Thank you very much.
There's no way for YOU to rationally discuss them because you're not capable of rational thinking.
I'm an applied physics major at Cornell with a 3.8 GPA. I think I'm entitled to be considered at least a somewhat rational human being. And no, I'm not denying that religion can be bad as well as good. I'm just calling out the idiots who make religion the scapegoat for all that is wrong with the world. My personal opinion on the matter is that the people involved should be tried and punished as criminals. I also think there is something seriously wrong within the Muslim religion that would inspire so many of its adherents to religious violence.
God, TL General is such an awful place now. The closer we get to SC2, the more ignorant the average poster becomes.
On January 10 2010 20:25 Mykill wrote: The holocaust was not based on Christianity. The crusades were fought a LONG time ago when everybody fought over "holy land" you don't see Christians getting together to take over Jerusalem. I'm not religious but I'll give Christians some credit for not going overboard.
Christian Serbs and Croats slaughtered, raped, destroyed thousands of Muslim Bosnians (and each other) less than 20 years ago - people of the very same fucking ethnicity and language - because of a political struggle combined with a ridiculous Serb religious myth about Prince Lazarus. 15 years ago, a Jewish doctor stormed into a mosque in Hebron and killed 29 people praying and wounded 150 others The Turner Diaries still influences thousands of people, some of which decided to blow up the Federal Building in Oklahoma.
If you want to enter this discussion, maybe you should stop studying applied physics and take a course or two in history or sociology or poli sci. This clash of civilizations, 'other'ing bullshit is not only wrong, but it's the exact same process used to demonize the "West" by the disenfranchised idiots you have a problem with. A political/economic problems get reframed into a religious/cultural one, and all of the sudden you have a reason to enter direct conflict rather than use mechanisms like the political process to solve things. This is a problem with the Malaysian government, not a fucking religion.
I agree with what you wrote in most of your post but maybe you should take a course in modern history before you start posting about events that you have no knowledge of. Normally I wouldn't care but you're using Serbia as an example and that's where I'm from so I would appreciate if you did some research about what happened there before you start throwing around terms like destroyed and slaughtered and raped and "Serb religious myth about Prince Lazarus".
That's funny, because I have and what I said was true. That myth was created in the early 20th century, but it was revived in the 80s and 90s by ultra nationalists. Do you want to discuss what the Serbian military was doing in 93 and 94? Regardless of the fears of another Ustashe or the ridiculous lies about militant Bosnia, Serbian nationalism was fueled by religion and vice versa.
Serbian nationalism had nothing to do with religion. You have to understand how Yugoslavia worked to understand the source of the Serbian nationalism. It stemmed mostly from the fact that Serbia was always the most powerful nation and then centre of Yugoslavia, and in order to keep Yugoslavia together Serbia had to forgo its own national interests for the interests of the other states and for Yugoslavia as a whole. After Tito died, a lot of Serbians started to resent this, since Tito was basically holding the country together. Milosevic came along and he basically ran on a platform of "hey we're the most powerful country why should we have to let everyone else have their way, we should start promoting our own interests". Of course Serbian people loved it so he was hugely popular. This rise in Serbian nationalism combined with the rise in nationalism of all the other states and the United States denying Yugoslavia trade credits and then offering economic aid to states that declared independence is was led to the breakup. After this basically everyone was at each others throats. And i wouldn't mind discussing what the Serbian military was doing in 93 and 94 if you wouldn't mind discussing what Bosnian Muslmis were doing to Bosnian Serbs before the military got there. Or what the Croation miliatry was doing at the same time. OR maybe you'd like to discuss what the American military was doing a few years later
So one person at one point of time spray painted that image onto a wall at some place and therefore Serbians slaughtered people over that religious myth?
On January 11 2010 18:53 JieXian wrote: People people people . . .
This has nothing to do with religion.
This is just a political move by the Government in an attempt to gain favor from the majority. Imagine that, the Prime Minister claims that he is "powerless" to stop the protests, in the national news. The opposition would be sprayed with tear gas after 1 minute.
I know. I'm Malaysian.
Yes it is a stupid move to gain votes -- You know what conclusion can be drawn from that premise. Yes, this is really messed up, though i'm not christian.
(didn't read the 9 pages but i assume no one came with the truth since people are still arguing at the last few pages)
are u suggesting that the malaysian government intentionally let the muslims in malaysia to do as they please to gain their favor/vote??
you know.. its pretty hard to stop a bunch of retarded people firebombing random places of worship at odd hours. Racial issues in Malaysia are taken very seriously, we have our history and the educated population definitely know that this kind of shit needs to be stopped as soon as possible before it turns into a wildfire. Malaysian government is kind of corrupted, but their far from "intentionally let the muslims in malaysia to do as they please to gain their favor/vote".
On January 11 2010 13:52 daz wrote:a) Ok yeah the passages are gonna be worded a little differently but the message is still carried across, and even if those two I quoted aren't as bad in other versions there's still hundreds of similar passages of God commanding people to murder and rape, murdering people himself, encouraging murder, genocide, rape, the taking of slaves I mean it just goes on and on.
b) Regardless of how "simple" the times are I still wouldn't teach them to slaughter each other ruthlessly and take each other as slaves and rape women. As far as the the time it was written , I don't see why that matters seeing as that the bible is supposed to be written by god. Why would god pass down morals that involve rape and murder, you don't think god is capable of the same morals we are today? And your third point I'm not even sure I understand correctly, are you saying that it's good that rapists are forced to marry the women that they rape because its a deterrent for premarital sex.. what?
Oh and by the way it also says in the bible that world is flat, so at that time, God, the creator of the universe also thought the Earth was flat, so can you really blame the people? Also if I tried to explain a 3d universe to someone who wanders in the 2d world I certainly wouldn't tell him to slaughter people or rape women.
I couldn't help but notice how confused you are regarding Biblical passages. As was stated by others, you're taking things completely out of context. Let me clear things up a little for you, and for all those others who think God is some sort of monstrous killing machine:
Yes, God ordered the mass slaughter and destruction of many towns/villages/cities. Was this some sort of spontaneous "I feel like killing people" decision? No. The people of the cities that were completely destroyed by the Israelites (following God's orders) had been living in open denial of God for hundreds upon hundreds of years. You have to remember that the law of God was KNOWN by all the inhabitants of the land; after all, Adam and Eve were taught the laws of God and were able to pass them down to all of their children and those following. Everyone knew God's laws; no one had an excuse to blatantly defy them. Yet, they went ahead and defied them. They deliberately rejected God's laws and lived in open defiance of God's original word...Sodom and Gomorrha were just two examples of cities that God Himself destroyed because of this. God tolerated their defiance of hundreds of years...literally. He gave them so many chances and so much time to turn around their ways, and they still refused. So yes, he eventually destroyed them, and the others that wouldn't listen he destroyed as well by ordering the children of Israel to completely pillage their cities and erase any semblance of their civilizations.
Which person/country/ruling body do you know of that will tolerate deliberate disobedience to explicit laws for more than even a YEAR? None, I bet. God tolerated disobedience like this for HUNDREDS of years, dude...HUNDREDS. As I said before, the people were living in deliberate defiance of God's laws - nowadays, if someone does anything in deliberate defiance of the law, they are IMMEDIATELY jailed/killed/executed/whatever. From the Bible's description, God is more merciful and more tolerant than any person/country today; he gave all these people so many chances to change their ways, and they didn't. So yes, he eventually killed them all. The Israelites themselves began to disobey God, and he gave them chance after chance after chance to turn back around. They didn't, so he started killing them off as well (destruction of their temples, direct killing/plaguing of their people, etc.) Then when Christ was sent to the earth, as was WITNESSED by his disciples in the New Testament (as well as other sources), he told the Gentiles (non-Jews) that now anyone could come to God. In other words, God chose to open salvation to anyone, even to the people that He knew would kill his only Son and torture him on the cross. Who do you know nowadays that would grant forgiveness and happiness to someone that would kill their son? No one.
So, when you talk about "mass destruction and slaughter", you're talking about mass destruction and slaughter AFTER WAITING HUNDREDS OF YEARS for people to listen to His word. It still stands that a God that gives people that much time to stop their wrongdoing is the most merciful being there is.
And no, God didn't think the world was flat - I'm not sure which atheist website shoved that trash into your head. The descriptions of the world offered by certain passages in the Bible ("ends of the earth", etc.) were the only ways that SOME writers of the Bible at that time could describe the Earth because they didn't know that it was round. But you're even more wrong than that - Paul, in his letters to various churches mentions "heavenly bodies" which is a pretty explicit allusion to planets and stars and other such "non-2D" elements. I think you don't know your Bible very well.
Wait, so if my ancestors had founded some random religion XYZ a couple hundred years back, could I use that as a legitimate excuse to purge the earth of you and your kind (assuming you don't convert, of course)? Oh, and by the way, my truth is the only truth, and my god XYZ is the only real god, despite it coming both after yours and drawing numerous ideas directly from your religion. Convert now! XYZ's mercy will only last so long...
When you speak of laws and the disobedience thereof, you are aware that the area comprised of numerous independent city states at the time? How can one declare others over whom one has no jurisdiction to be disobedient of one's own laws?
Not really. I'd rather go to sleep. Suffice it to say, your last few posts have shown that you know very little about that which you're talking about.
If I can point you in the right direction, look at the role of the talmud in judaism. Also, distinguish between Islam and Christianity when saying things like "god wrote the bible".
All of that is completely irrelevant to the point that I made. It looks like based on your post you know even less about what I'm talking about.
No, it isn't.
I don't think it would be easy to see the relevance coming from a position of ignorance, though.
What an incredibly dishonest way to argue. Call someone ignorant for reasons which you won't explain and then decline to explain them because you claim the person is in a position of ignorance.
To be honest I don't even think you read my original argument because all you seem to be doing is attempting to disprove the examples I used to back it up in a way that doesn't even seem relevant to the argument. Even if you did manage to somehow discredit those two biblical quotes I used there are hundreds more that I could have picked, it's just a coincidence that those two both happened to be from Deuteronomy. Not only that but there are even more that I could have picked from the quran so i fail to see how i need to "distinguish between Islam and Christianity when saying things like "god wrote the bible"" seeing as how the difference between Islam and Christianity is completely irrelevant to my point. Anyway since you seem to be so knowledgeable about these things I'm wondering if you could provide where the following statements were "heavily qualified by later developments" and where I could find the "accompanying rabbinical texts" to explain them, even though you didn't even do that for the first two quotes.. but I'm gonna ask anyway
3Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
Psalm 137:8-9 (King James Version)
8O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
9Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
Exodus 21:20-21 (King James Version)
20And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
Ezekiel 9:4-7 (King James Version)
4And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.
5And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity:
6Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house.
7And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city.
Isaiah 14:21 (King James Version)
21Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.
4.15. If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way.
2.190. Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
2.191. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.
2.192. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
2.193. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. But if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.
5.33. The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
8.38. Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them).
8.39. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.
9.5. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
9.29. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
On January 12 2010 01:30 daz wrote: I wonder how many years of disobedience would it take before you start slaughtering your children?
Nice dodge. My point was that you can't imply that God is a nasty killer if He put up with disobedience for more time than you, your parents, your country, or any thing or person on this earth would ever put up with - you still can't refute that.
As for me slaughtering my children, I'm not going to pretend like I'm God and can do whatever I want. God did what He did for a reason: people were disobeying him continually. However, he also sent His Son for a reason, and that was to give everyone the chance at being saved from the consequences of disobedience. In case you didn't notice, the New Testament tends to emphasize meekness and "turning the other cheek" rather than retaliation and violence like killing your kids for disobedience. God can do whatever He wants - he was completely just in killing those that disobeyed Him because they WERE disobeying Him. You wouldn't call your country's law "nasty and unjust" or whatever of carrying out punishments on those that broke the law. God was doing the same thing; in this case you're just trying to cast it in an unfair light because you don't get it quite yet.
As people, we do what God tells us, and He told us through his Son to follow his commandments and keep from sinning - also, to suffer wrongs and "turn the other cheek" instead of retaliating with physical force. He never said that we should try to copy what he did to the disobedient sinners in the deserts of Israel. I guess you still haven't read the Bible enough - it emphasizes the keeping of God's commandments and the teachings of Christ and his prophets, not for human beings to "play God" and copy God's actions that were carried out on a disobedient people in a different time.
Again, though, nice dodge, and nice job taking things out of context. I'm sure you'll keep it up.
On January 12 2010 01:30 daz wrote: I wonder how many years of disobedience would it take before you start slaughtering your children?
Nice dodge. My point was that you can't imply that God is a nasty killer if He put up with disobedience for more time than you, your parents, your country, or any thing or person on this earth would ever put up with - you still can't refute that.
As for me slaughtering my children, I'm not going to pretend like I'm God and can do whatever I want. God did what He did for a reason: people were disobeying him continually. However, he also sent His Son for a reason, and that was to give everyone the chance at being saved from the consequences of disobedience. In case you didn't notice, the New Testament tends to emphasize meekness and "turning the other cheek" rather than retaliation and violence like killing your kids for disobedience. God can do whatever He wants - he was completely just in killing those that disobeyed Him because they WERE disobeying Him. You wouldn't call your country's law "nasty and unjust" or whatever of carrying out punishments on those that broke the law. God was doing the same thing; in this case you're just trying to cast it in an unfair light because you don't get it quite yet.
As people, we do what God tells us, and He told us through his Son to follow his commandments and keep from sinning - also, to suffer wrongs and "turn the other cheek" instead of retaliating with physical force. He never said that we should try to copy what he did to the disobedient sinners in the deserts of Israel. I guess you still haven't read the Bible enough - it emphasizes the keeping of God's commandments and the teachings of Christ and his prophets, not for human beings to "play God" and copy God's actions that were carried out on a disobedient people in a different time.
Again, though, nice dodge, and nice job taking things out of context. I'm sure you'll keep it up.
It's not a dodge, disobedience is no reason to commit genocide, no matter how long it goes on. You are one sick puppy if you think its ok to murder people for disobeying.
What an incredibly dishonest way to argue. Call someone ignorant for reasons which you won't explain and then decline to explain them because you claim the person is in a position of ignorance.
I'm not the one that charged in here pretending I knew what I was quoting. I will fully admit that I'm incredibly ignorant of quite a lot when it comes to biblical scripture, but I also know enough to be able to point out grievous faults in reasoning.
I'm not even arguing here. I'm just saying you're ignorant, which you are. I gave you a few places to start research if you're actually interested.
Also, stating that a bunch of things I've said are irrelevant when you don't know what you're talking about, and thus WHY they're relevant doesn't get you off the hook.
What an incredibly dishonest way to argue. Call someone ignorant for reasons which you won't explain and then decline to explain them because you claim the person is in a position of ignorance.
I'm not the one that charged in here pretending I knew what I was quoting. I will fully admit that I'm incredibly ignorant of quite a lot when it comes to biblical scripture, but I also know enough to be able to point out grievous faults in reasoning.
I'm not even arguing here. I'm just saying you're ignorant, which you are. I gave you a few places to start research if you're actually interested.
You weren't pointing out faults in reasoning, you were pointing out a lack of knowledge. Why even call me ignorant if reasoning was my problem? Am I ignorant or am I stupid? Or maybe there some other insults you would like to hurl at me without justification?
Anyway I full acknowledge that I am ignorant in the areas that you accuse me of being ignorant, but it doesn't bother me in the slightest since they are completely irrelevant to the point that I was making and to my life in general.
Why even call me ignorant if reasoning was my problem? Am I ignorant or am I stupid? Or maybe there some other insults you would like to hurl at me without justification?
How can you construct a cogent argument if your premises are all false because you don't understand your own premises?
How are you positioned to tell me what's relevant when you admit you're completely ignorant? Is that another form of logical reasoning wherein you admit to be the worst placed person to make a decision, then make it regardless? I'd heavily suggest you learn about something before attempting to make an argument about it.
On January 09 2010 12:43 StarsPride wrote: Religion and science. One answers the question. The other tries. Science cant explain how we originated and i dont think it ever will. Im not saying religion is right but i am saying there is no way to know. Science and logic can only answer so many questions. And debunking religion is just as impossible as trying to find out how we originated through science and logic. I personally don't believe Creationism is the answer. Because Creationism is an answer to a question we don't understand by nature on how we came to be. And it cant be creationism cause that wouldn't explain god. Don't turn this into a religion thread by calling other people who follow christianity,islam ect. stupid, cause you really are the idiot.
IMO religion attempts to answer "why" while Science attempts to answer "how". Anyways.
That cliche is inaccurate.
Why, because Dawkins says so?
I think making an scientific argument about faith is ridiculous. It should be sufficient to note that no one ever sees god to rule out his existence.
On January 10 2010 08:30 DoctorHelvetica wrote: People will of course spin this to make blanket statements about muslims in general but really things like this happen under the flag of any religion.
No, things like this doesn't happen as often and with the same fanaticism in other religions compared to Islam. While your stance is a logical and reasonable, politically correct one I have a hard time seeing the reality you're describing.
Why even call me ignorant if reasoning was my problem? Am I ignorant or am I stupid? Or maybe there some other insults you would like to hurl at me without justification?
How can you construct a cogent argument if your premises are all false because you don't understand your own premises?
How are you positioned to tell me what's relevant when you admit you're completely ignorant? Is that another form of logical reasoning wherein you admit to be the worst placed person to make a decision, then make it regardless? I'd heavily suggest you learn about something before attempting to make an argument about it.
My premises aren't false and I understand them completely, they weren't even what was being questioned. You questioned the credibility of the specific examples I gave to support my premises. I have already explained why my argument doesn't rely on those two specific examples in my earlier post which you seem to have conveniently ignored.
As far as my ignorance, I think I have misspoken in my previous post which you quoted. What I meant was that I am ignorant on the heavy qualifications of Deuteronomy in later developments of the bible and that I am ignorant of accompanying rabbinical texts, not that I am "completely ignorant" on all topics discussed. At no point did I admit to being the worst person placed to make a decision, I simply admitted ignorance to things that "completely irrelevant to the point that I was making and to my life in general." To my limited knowledge, those two topics are not relevant to my argument overall, even if they discredit my specific examples, which you have only claimed that they do but not demonstrated in any way. Since I have questioned their relevance multiple times and you have yet to provide any reason at all to show why they are relevant or even to address the points I brought up I see no reason to believe that the are relevant. If you don't have anything productive to say I'm not going to respond to you anymore.
On January 11 2010 12:22 daz wrote: Serbian nationalism had nothing to do with religion. You have to understand how Yugoslavia worked to understand the source of the Serbian nationalism. It stemmed mostly from the fact that Serbia was always the most powerful nation and then centre of Yugoslavia, and in order to keep Yugoslavia together Serbia had to forgo its own national interests for the interests of the other states and for Yugoslavia as a whole. After Tito died, a lot of Serbians started to resent this, since Tito was basically holding the country together. Milosevic came along and he basically ran on a platform of "hey we're the most powerful country why should we have to let everyone else have their way, we should start promoting our own interests". Of course Serbian people loved it so he was hugely popular. This rise in Serbian nationalism combined with the rise in nationalism of all the other states and the United States denying Yugoslavia trade credits and then offering economic aid to states that declared independence is was led to the breakup. After this basically everyone was at each others throats. And i wouldn't mind discussing what the Serbian military was doing in 93 and 94 if you wouldn't mind discussing what Bosnian Muslmis were doing to Bosnian Serbs before the military got there. Or what the Croation miliatry was doing at the same time. OR maybe you'd like to discuss what the American military was doing a few years later
rofl?
1. 8% + of Croatian GDP during Yugoslavia was going to Serbia (yeah all that money going out of Serbia to the other nations...). 2. A disproportional amount of government positions were held by Serbians (yeah damn that equality... hell you can even look at the voting system used where Serbia practically had 3 votes rather than 1 (Vojvodina, Kosovo and Serbia) most the time even 4 when bullying Montenegro. 3. I agree that Serbia were most probably the most powerful. They had the largest population, amount of people in the army, positions in government but they were not the most industrialised (Slovenia was). 4. Yugoslavia before they broke up was taking aid from America (Tito was hilarious when he didn't get what he wanted from America he would go to Russia and vice-versa). 5. I ain't even going to go in to the bag of worms which is the blame game to who killed who, who killed how many cause when it comes down to it both Croatia and Serbia are to blame for genocide etc.
But this is all off topic, I would agree with you though that nationalism was the main problem in Serbia / Croatia and for all the crap that happened but you cannot ignore that the nationalists used religion to rally the base.
Most of those points may be true and honestly I admit I don't know for sure whether Serbia was actually forgoing its own interests in every area but I do know that this was the perception of Serbian people at that time and is what lead to the rise of Serbian nationalism and Slobodan Milosevic. Religion was of course a factor and a tool used by people in power but it was by no means the driving force behind the conflicts.
As far as aid from America was concerned yeah Tito was getting but he died and for some reason by the late 80's the United States had made it a goal to break up Yugoslavia. To this end in 1991 the US Congress passed a law which cut off all aid and trade credits. This was a huge blow to the already floundering economy and caused a lot of internal tension. To make matters worse the US offered to resume issuing trade credits and sending aid to the individual countries if they declared independence which made it much easier for the nationalist parties in each country to gain popular support.
On January 12 2010 04:04 daz wrote:It's not a dodge, disobedience is no reason to commit genocide, no matter how long it goes on. You are one sick puppy if you think its ok to murder people for disobeying.
You dodged again - I said in my previous post that God's commandments toward US are to live meekly and to turn the other cheek when persecution arises (a very basic reading of the New Testament will show you this). You're still stuck on the fact that God destroyed disobedient peoples by commanding the armies of the Israelites to wipe them out - this is NOT a message to us, today, to do the same thing. God was punishing those people for defying His word for so long, NOT teaching us to follow suit and commit genocide whenever someone disobeys HUMAN rules...
Plus, you're having a hard time admitting that modern-day nations would act even quicker in the face of disobedience. How long does it take you after you've committed a crime to get thrown in jail? Anywhere from an hour to a day after committing the crime. If you keep committing crimes, what happens? You either get killed outright by people defending themselves, executed by the government, or put in prison for life. And this can happen in LESS THAN A YEAR'S time - imagine someone/some government waiting HUNDREDS OF YEARS to do this same thing - that would be one merciful, tolerant government, wouldn't it? Yeah - that was how God was. He waited so long and so patiently for people to stop doing what they were doing, and when they didn't, he killed them all. Government today would do the same thing, effectively, either by execution or life prison sentences in LESS THAN A YEAR for people following the same disobedient course of action. Compared to how long God waited and all the chances He gave, people/governments nowadays are tyrants. You have no point - sorry.
Finally, I would agree with you that disobedience is no reason to commit genocide, for a HUMAN. Unfortunately, you're taking it upon yourself to judge God's actions according to your own human standards, which doesn't work...God does what God wants, and if you believe that He created the universe, then you won't be so stupid as to question why or how or when God can do things.
As it is your knowledge of the Bible is limited enough - you still dodge the fact that God showed tremendous mercy by sacrificing his only Son to save the people who killed him, and the fact that God waited millions of times longer to punish disobedient people than any person or government would wait today. GG.
On January 12 2010 07:07 daz wrote: i don't even know what to say to that other then i hope you are trolling. if not then just please don't ever have children
I dont understand, dont you get his point? He isnt saying its ok to slaugter his childern if you think that >.<
On January 12 2010 07:07 daz wrote: i don't even know what to say to that other then i hope you are trolling. if not then just please don't ever have children
I dont understand, dont you get his point? He isnt saying its ok to slaugter his childern if you think that >.<
He IS saying its ok to slaughter children, if you are God.
On January 12 2010 07:07 daz wrote: i don't even know what to say to that other then i hope you are trolling. if not then just please don't ever have children
I dont understand, dont you get his point? He isnt saying its ok to slaugter his childern if you think that >.<
He IS saying its ok to slaughter children, if you are God.
then why do you attack him and saying you hope he doesnt have children??? he talks only about God and not about himself, and that God has his reasons for doing those things. He doenst say that we are suposed to do the same.
On January 12 2010 07:07 daz wrote: i don't even know what to say to that other then i hope you are trolling. if not then just please don't ever have children
I dont understand, dont you get his point? He isnt saying its ok to slaugter his childern if you think that >.<
He IS saying its ok to slaughter children, if you are God.
then why do you attack him and saying you hope he doesnt have children??? he talks only about God and not about himself, and that God has his reasons for doing those things. He doenst say that we are suposed to do the same.
Lol I didn't say that because I thought he would slaughter them, I just hope he doesnt have children so that he doesn't pass on his inferior genes.
On January 12 2010 04:04 daz wrote:It's not a dodge, disobedience is no reason to commit genocide, no matter how long it goes on. You are one sick puppy if you think its ok to murder people for disobeying.
You dodged again - I said in my previous post that God's commandments toward US are to live meekly and to turn the other cheek when persecution arises (a very basic reading of the New Testament will show you this). You're still stuck on the fact that God destroyed disobedient peoples by commanding the armies of the Israelites to wipe them out - this is NOT a message to us, today, to do the same thing. God was punishing those people for defying His word for so long, NOT teaching us to follow suit and commit genocide whenever someone disobeys HUMAN rules...
Zzzz...there are plenty of people in the world today that defy the rules of your diety.
Plus, you're having a hard time admitting that modern-day nations would act even quicker in the face of disobedience. How long does it take you after you've committed a crime to get thrown in jail? Anywhere from an hour to a day after committing the crime. If you keep committing crimes, what happens? You either get killed outright by people defending themselves, executed by the government, or put in prison for life. And this can happen in LESS THAN A YEAR'S time - imagine someone/some government waiting HUNDREDS OF YEARS to do this same thing - that would be one merciful, tolerant government, wouldn't it? Yeah - that was how God was. He waited so long and so patiently for people to stop doing what they were doing, and when they didn't, he killed them all. Government today would do the same thing, effectively, either by execution or life prison sentences in LESS THAN A YEAR for people following the same disobedient course of action. Compared to how long God waited and all the chances He gave, people/governments nowadays are tyrants. You have no point - sorry.
Really, you're going to compare religious stipulations in an era before the advent of nationhood to modern, secular laws? o.O Also, the "HUNDREDS OF YEARS" thing has more to do with the early Israelites taking that long to build up a proper army and less to do with any sort of mercy.
Finally, I would agree with you that disobedience is no reason to commit genocide, for a HUMAN. Unfortunately, you're taking it upon yourself to judge God's actions according to your own human standards, which doesn't work...God does what God wants, and if you believe that He created the universe, then you won't be so stupid as to question why or how or when God can do things.
Ah, but the genocides were committed by humans in the name of your god. God didn't crush the heathens beneath his divine heel. Men did, in his name. Also, a god that "does what god wants", we lowly mortals be damned, doesn't sound like a particularly worthy deity to worship, no?
As it is your knowledge of the Bible is limited enough - you still dodge the fact that God showed tremendous mercy by sacrificing his only Son to save the people who killed him, and the fact that God waited millions of times longer to punish disobedient people than any person or government would wait today. GG.
It really wasn't much of a sacrifice, considering he was his own son (???). For us, it would be the equivalent of goading a small child to the point of hitting us, knowing all the while that no real harm could ever come of it, and then magnanimously forgiving the child afterward (but not before guilting the child into become our little servant).
On January 12 2010 07:07 daz wrote: i don't even know what to say to that other then i hope you are trolling. if not then just please don't ever have children
I dont understand, dont you get his point? He isnt saying its ok to slaugter his childern if you think that >.<
He IS saying its ok to slaughter children, if you are God.
then why do you attack him and saying you hope he doesnt have children??? he talks only about God and not about himself, and that God has his reasons for doing those things. He doenst say that we are suposed to do the same.
Lol I didn't say that because I thought he would slaughter them, I just hope he doesnt have children so that he doesn't pass on his inferior genes.
and how did you come to that conclusion? inferior genes?
On January 12 2010 07:07 daz wrote: i don't even know what to say to that other then i hope you are trolling. if not then just please don't ever have children
I dont understand, dont you get his point? He isnt saying its ok to slaugter his childern if you think that >.<
He IS saying its ok to slaughter children, if you are God.
then why do you attack him and saying you hope he doesnt have children??? he talks only about God and not about himself, and that God has his reasons for doing those things. He doenst say that we are suposed to do the same.
Lol I didn't say that because I thought he would slaughter them, I just hope he doesnt have children so that he doesn't pass on his inferior genes.
and how did you come to that conclusion? inferior genes?
On January 09 2010 12:43 StarsPride wrote: Religion and science. One answers the question. The other tries. Science cant explain how we originated and i dont think it ever will. Im not saying religion is right but i am saying there is no way to know. Science and logic can only answer so many questions. And debunking religion is just as impossible as trying to find out how we originated through science and logic. I personally don't believe Creationism is the answer. Because Creationism is an answer to a question we don't understand by nature on how we came to be. And it cant be creationism cause that wouldn't explain god. Don't turn this into a religion thread by calling other people who follow christianity,islam ect. stupid, cause you really are the idiot.
IMO religion attempts to answer "why" while Science attempts to answer "how". Anyways.
That cliche is inaccurate.
Why, because Dawkins says so?
I think making an scientific argument about faith is ridiculous. It should be sufficient to note that no one ever sees god to rule out his existence.
It is inaccurate because the scientific method has allowed for a number of "why"s to be answered adequately. ex: Why do the majority of primates have opposable thumbs? No magical thinking is required to answer that question.
It should also be noted that various religions have made attempts to answer a number of "how" questions, but they have generally failed pretty hard at that. ex: How is it that man came to speak a multitude of languages? Well, there was this tower that angered God...
haha some posters are thinking like an 8 year old: ''Mama, they are bad guys'' ,''Mama we are good guys, right?'' ...maan grow up there arent good or bad ones and this whole story is a dramatization i really doubt and 1 200 000 000 living ppl are so bad. They should probably say the same for Americans coz Bush ruined their reputation
skypig, how do you know what God wants? Just because it says so in some book? And who is this God? How do you know him or even that he exists? You exchange facebook messages?
And why are you so proud of your biblical knowledge? You don't even seem to be too familiar with the book that you apparently love so much.
On January 09 2010 12:43 StarsPride wrote: Religion and science. One answers the question. The other tries. Science cant explain how we originated and i dont think it ever will. Im not saying religion is right but i am saying there is no way to know. Science and logic can only answer so many questions. And debunking religion is just as impossible as trying to find out how we originated through science and logic. I personally don't believe Creationism is the answer. Because Creationism is an answer to a question we don't understand by nature on how we came to be. And it cant be creationism cause that wouldn't explain god. Don't turn this into a religion thread by calling other people who follow christianity,islam ect. stupid, cause you really are the idiot.
hahahahaha
Ya cause your religion does an excellent job of answering how we originated. "Where did we come from?" "Oh god did it and the dude happened to be there before the universe was created. Convenient isn't it? I'll also provide 0 proof for what I assert is the absolute truth and get upset if you say I'm lying or provide an alternate explanation that is just as unlikely."
My premises aren't false and I understand them completely, they weren't even what was being questioned. You questioned the credibility of the specific examples I gave to support my premises.
You recognize that the structure of an argument is such that you have premises which support a conclusion. If you have to argue that your premises are correct, those premises themselves form seperate arguments in which there are sub premises.
Either way, your main position is based on a false premise, but you don't even know what it is because you refuse to do research to learn the barebones basics of what you're talking about.
What I meant was that I am ignorant on the heavy qualifications of Deuteronomy in later developments of the bible and that I am ignorant of accompanying rabbinical texts, not that I am "completely ignorant" on all topics discussed. At no point did I admit to being the worst person placed to make a decision, I simply admitted ignorance to things that "completely irrelevant to the point that I was making and to my life in general."
If you think that's the extent of the incorrect content in your posts, rather than a few examples, you'd be rather incorrect.
Nor is that irrelevant in the least, seeing as it completely segregates the jewish, christian and islamic traditions in their use of these prior texts within the larger context of their faith and completely demolishes the point you were trying to make. If the text contains laws which are completely defunct because of subsequent developments, how would you be able to argue that they're an example of what the faith as a whole is about?
Either way, I will once again ask you to do some research on the matter.
I find it somewhat interesting that someone who seems to attempt to make an implicit argument for a rational human over a faithful one would be so vehemently opposed to gathering evidence to perform his rational calculation. Its as if you have the same blind faith that you deride in your opposites, only allotted in a different area.
On January 12 2010 07:21 Draconizard wrote: Zzzz...there are plenty of people in the world today that defy the rules of your diety.
I know - the day will come when everyone will know that they have. I just hope everyone has the chance to think about it before they die.
I hate giving examples of scary suicide notes written by atheists who realized in their last moments that God actually does exist, so I won't. I just hope you think (and pray) if you have the guts to do so.
On January 12 2010 07:21 Draconizard wrote: Really, you're going to compare religious stipulations in an era before the advent of nationhood to modern, secular laws? o.O Also, the "HUNDREDS OF YEARS" thing has more to do with the early Israelites taking that long to build up a proper army and less to do with any sort of mercy.
Sure, why can't I compare? You guys whine about "big, bad nasty God killing all these people" and fail to realize that God had (and HAS) more mercy than all the people and governments of this world combined. As I said before, most government and ruling powers would not hesitate to incarcerate and execute people who broke the law repeatedly in the space of one YEAR, let alone waiting hundreds and hundreds of years for people to shape up, like God did.
And no, "hundreds of years" has NOTHING to do with Israelites "taking that long" to build up - it's too bad you don't read your Bible. The Israelites were such a large people to begin with they could have literally walked over any city they chose; that's why the Egyptians enslaved them, because they saw how large the Israelites were getting and feared getting overrun. Oh, and by the way, this was BEFORE God lead them from Egypt and they started dominating other villages...just so you can't make the argument that they "took a long time" to build up...LOL; they were ALWAYS big, if anything they got smaller later as God started punishing them for backsliding on his laws and getting corrupted by other nations' customs and idols.
I shouldn't have to explain this to you; read the Bible for yourself. There's a reason the Dead Sea scrolls confirmed the books found in the Bible; it's because everything in the Bible was witnessed, remembered, and recorded according to God's will and holds true to this day.
On January 12 2010 07:21 Draconizard wrote: Ah, but the genocides were committed by humans in the name of your god. God didn't crush the heathens beneath his divine heel. Men did, in his name. Also, a god that "does what god wants", we lowly mortals be damned, doesn't sound like a particularly worthy deity to worship, no?
Again, read your Bible. God gave explicit orders to the children of Israel to completely eradicate those nations that defied his commandments; in fact, not only did he give this commandment, but he punished and killed those Israelites that did not completely destroy the disobedient people. King Saul was put down by God and replaced by Samuel because he failed to utterly destroy some cities that were defying God, to give just one example (out of many).
And you're still making it sound as if God is some sort of arbitrary killer - you still don't get that He did what He did because people had been disobeying Him for hundreds of years; they had no excuse. In several places in the Bible, it says "Nevertheless, it is not the will of your Father that any of these little ones should perish." It also states, "I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked." God explicitly says that He would rather have the wicked turn from his way, repent, and attach himself to God, rather than having to destroy the wicked for refusing to turn from his actions. Just to re-emphasize, neither you nor I nor anyone knows of anything or anyone on this earth that has that much mercy, patience, and tolerance to give so many chances to wrongdoers. God lifted thieves, murderers, and prostitutes out of the gutter and totally changed and saved their lives; I still hear and read about this happening today. That's not "lowly be damned", as you said, that's called "lowly be saved from eternal punishment." I guess you don't consider that mercy, but whatever - ignorance is only bliss for so long, son.
On January 12 2010 07:21 Draconizard wrote: It really wasn't much of a sacrifice, considering he was his own son (???). For us, it would be the equivalent of goading a small child to the point of hitting us, knowing all the while that no real harm could ever come of it, and then magnanimously forgiving the child afterward (but not before guilting the child into become our little servant).
It wasn't "much of a sacrifice"? Obviously you're not a father if you can talk about your own son tortured and crucified being "not much of a sacrifice." Your small child analogy is laughable - God didn't "goad" anyone, nor did He force anyone to make any choices at all. He allowed his only son to be killed, to suffer all that pain and ridicule by soldiers and by his fellow Jews on the cross. I don't see how you think that's "goading a small child into hitting us." The fact that Jesus rose from the dead doesn't change the fact that he died and was tortured as horribly as the lowliest criminal, if not worse.
And as for "guilting" the child into becoming a servant ("guilting isn't a word, just to let you know), no one that follows Christ is "guilted" into it. You choose to follow Christ and to love God after recognizing how pathetic and weak as a human being you really are, how royally trashed up the world is, and how depressing it is to live a life based on material pleasures from which you will never derive happiness. I feel so bad for the people that commit suicide because they come to this realization and are unable to stop themselves from taking their own lives because it's so disgustingly sad when it hits you. God frees you from that garbage and gives you happiness that cannot be found elsewhere, regardless of your economic status, relationships, situation, or anything else.
So no, you don't come to God because you're "guilted into it", as you said. You must be cruising a lot of ignorant atheist websites to come up with trash like this, and it makes me sad to realize that people could actually think this, but hey, it's a sick world we live in, right?
On January 12 2010 07:07 daz wrote: i don't even know what to say to that other then i hope you are trolling. if not then just please don't ever have children
You're funny, daz - this actually made me smile. You're just really, really bad at admitting that you don't have anything left to say.
When you grow the guts to refute even one point that I made, let me know. Otherwise just keep providing us with refreshing entertainment.
On January 12 2010 09:38 ghostWriter wrote: skypig, how do you know what God wants? Just because it says so in some book? And who is this God? How do you know him or even that he exists? You exchange facebook messages?
Thanks for asking. I don't pretend to know God's complete plan because no human will ever know that. I know that God is merciful towards the wicked and just towards all because the events described and witnessed in the Bible show that, and there are some parts where God explicitly states his own wishes for the salvation of humans (" 'I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked', saith the Lord.")
As for the Bible being "some book", it's the truest book I've read in my entire life - when I was younger, I didn't understand it and I didn't feel it, but now I do. I know who God is through my own experience and my own faith - I have witnessed miracles both in myself that seriously would never have happened without God. I have seen people close to me and far from me transformed in the same way. I have seen miracles that you would not believe if I told you. I have heard of others' experiences with God, as well as of the miracles and "impossible" (but possible with God, I can't really explain it) things that happened to those who followed Christ in Yugoslavia, which is where my parents came from. I had many relatives, some of which are alive to this day, who were thrown in jail in Yugoslavia for refusing to bear arms in the wars (we refuse to fight in wars). I can't talk about the things they witnessed and saw happen in those times because those things are incredibly close to them and I wouldn't subject them to open mockery from a bunch of atheists who wouldn't believe them anyway. I admit that miracles can't make you believe - there were crippled men in the Bible who had their legs instantly healed by Jesus and yet, they got up, walked away, and never looked back and gave praise to God; they were just glad to have their legs back. Just know that miracles do happen; I have experienced them, others I know and talk to have experienced them, and all followers of Christ have directly experienced God's presence and guidance themselves.
So yes, I know that God exists. No, I can't run an experiment or derive a calculus equation that explicitly proves it to your face, but then again, since when did the entirety of truth reside within scientific constructs? Since never. Scientific biases and Richard Dawkins' ramblings don't change the fact that every day of my life, I experience God's mercy and power, and I have such a powerful, filling happiness in my life that I wish everyone else could have it. Unfortunately, I know this will not happen; the Bible explicitly states that there will be those who will willfully remain ignorant of God's truth. I hate to think about it, but I know that's the way it has to be. I just hope that people start thinking and praying and opening their eyes that so often remain forced shut. There is a God. The Bible is true. Those who witnessed God's work and Christ's work put their witnessing into the Bible, and anyone who denies this has no one to blame but their own doubt and ignorance. I find it funny that people even try to challenge it when I know and feel every day that it is the truth, and that truth sets me free from all the trash that so many people in this world have to put up with. Again, I just wish that everyone else could be set free as well.
On January 12 2010 09:38 ghostWriter wrote: skypig, how do you know what God wants? Just because it says so in some book? And who is this God? How do you know him or even that he exists? You exchange facebook messages?
So yes, I know that God exists.
LoL. Quoting you is a better argument than writing a reply. "I know god exists" No you don't. Nobody does. That little voice in your head that you speak to is the product of chemicals instead your brain.
Religion is as awful as slavery, hopefully some day all of you crazies realize the ideologies you support.
On January 12 2010 14:11 reit wrote: LoL. Quoting you is a better argument than writing a reply. "I know god exists" No you don't. Nobody does. That little voice in your head that you speak to is the product of chemicals instead your brain.
Religion is as awful as slavery, hopefully some day all of you crazies realize the ideologies you support.
Richard Dawkins trained you well, little one - you're already ignorantly telling people that they "don't know" what they know. Right now you sound as ridiculous as if you were trying to tell me that I can't see my hand in front of my own face. I know that God exists; you don't. Because you don't realize and feel that God exists means that He doesn't? No - it just means you're ignorant. Your logic is flawed even by the rules of science - you're making a claim for which you have no evidence. You've practically made up your own ignorant religion in, like, two seconds right there, telling people that "they don't know" what they do INDEED know. I had no idea Dawkins' ignorance spread this fast.
And no, that "little voice" in your head that you're talking about can be any variety of things, anything EXCEPT chemicals. Chemicals can't talk, son, nor can they make you think you're hearing things. Some people have the voice of the Devil in their heads, some people have the voice of God, some people have many voices of many demons in their head that they've given themselves over to...of course, "smart people" like to call that schitzophrenia or whatever. Haha. Funny.
And yes, religion is awful - I hate religion. Religion has destroyed the truth of God and covered it with a bunch of superficial customs and empty traditions that so many people fall for. The people that actually have a living faith are few and far between (no surprise; the Bible predicts that too) and the number will continue to get smaller.
As far as I'm concerned, "slavery" is the state you're in when you don't realize that God exists and you live only to fulfill your own selfish pleasures and only ever "do good things" because people tell you that's "what's right" without even knowing WHY it's right. The rest of the time you're following society's laws under the pretense of "being good" but really you're just a slave to your passions. You find distractions like drinking heavily, doing drugs, and partying in an attempt to squelch out the emptiness you feel. It works, but only for a time. Ask people who have been through it and done it. It's nothing but a farce and a lame attempt to cover up the real problem. Seriously, it makes me sad, but at the same time happy because I know people who were stuck in that ditch for quite some time, but with God's help, they got lifted out. I wish everyone could.
On January 12 2010 15:03 skypig wrote: And yes, religion is awful - I hate religion. Religion has destroyed the truth of God and covered it with a bunch of superficial customs and empty traditions that so many people fall for. The people that actually have a living faith are few and far between (no surprise; the Bible predicts that too) and the number will continue to get smaller.
I'm a little confused on your position. You've extensively quoted the bible, but you believe that religion has destroyed and covered the truth of god. How do you know that the bible isn't simply a byproduct of flawed religion? Has everything 'true' that you know about god been told to you by voices in your head, or do you get information out of books that carry on solely through 'empty tradition'?
What would you say if I told you that I knew with total certainty, that god did not exist and that you telling me otherwise only expresses your ignorance? I can provide whatever reasoning that you have used to fill in the obvious logical gaps in the statement.
And furthermore along that line of though, I assume that you consider god from a monotheistic point of view. How do you know that the hindu gods and goddesses don't exist? What would you say if I told you that I know for certain that they do exist? That denying their existence is like denying the vision of your own hands (your example - which is also flawed), and that this denial has doomed you?
And no, that "little voice" in your head that you're talking about can be any variety of things, anything EXCEPT chemicals. Chemicals can't talk, son, nor can they make you think you're hearing things. Some people have the voice of the Devil in their heads, some people have the voice of God, some people have many voices of many demons in their head that they've given themselves over to...of course, "smart people" like to call that schitzophrenia or whatever. Haha. Funny.
This is the part that makes me suspect trolling. What about drugs with proven psychological side effects? What about drugs that are proven to reduce the effects of psychological ailments like schizophrenia? These are just chemicals affecting other chemicals.
On January 12 2010 14:11 reit wrote: LoL. Quoting you is a better argument than writing a reply. "I know god exists" No you don't. Nobody does. That little voice in your head that you speak to is the product of chemicals instead your brain.
Religion is as awful as slavery, hopefully some day all of you crazies realize the ideologies you support.
And no, that "little voice" in your head that you're talking about can be any variety of things, anything EXCEPT chemicals. Chemicals can't talk, son, nor can they make you think you're hearing things.
Most of your posts were alright, the anecdotes were unneeded, but this is just flat out wrong. The only reason you CAN hear things is because of chemicals. If you want speak of neurobiology you should at least be versed in it.
This thread will always go on and on like every discussion about religion. I think some if not all of them are violent, the irony is their beliefs state that harming others are wrong. These religious things probably are stories made up by ancient people to mind control large groups of people, to gain an easier control and access to people to fulfill their own desire for conquest. More like making people mindless sheeps. Atheists are less likely to harm others and more likely to make peace. I don't blame people having religion ingrained within them as there is no choice since young, but c'mon people are stupid to fully believe the god that they have not seen until the mental state that its right to attack others, trying to convert others, can't convert = kill etc. Atheists ftw and will always be victimized lol!
LOL at the atheists and science-worshippers. Sure, if we eliminate all religion we can get rid of all that's wrong in the world. Oh wait, I forgot that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, etc. were all devout worshippers of God who didn't massacre innocent members of religious minorities.
Nothing those people did was in the name of atheism.
One has to be a little more sophisticated than that in addressing the issue. In particular, the idea of God being dead, of the complete freedom afforded by the lack of any foundational morality, the idea that humans were vessels to be molded by man, and not inherently endowed with rights and duties by a Creator; these were distinctly made possible by atheist belief systems such as communism. In such belief systems, humans had no instrinsic worth (why should they? The idea that humans have intrinsic worth comes via religion) and were acceptable sacrifices for the State (ultimately, both Hitler and Lenin met by way of Hegel; the State was supreme).
Whatever the faults of religion, of which there are many, its impossible to deny that we arrived at the ideas of the sacred inviolability of the individual, the inherent human rights afforded to us all, by way of religion. That's simply how those ideas were arrived at. The idea of all men being equal and guaranteed certain freedoms comes through religion. Any atheist not living in denial (including myself) needs to come to grips with that.
I strongly disagree with every single sentence you typed.
On January 12 2010 15:22 T-P-S wrote: I'm a little confused on your position. You've extensively quoted the bible, but you believe that religion has destroyed and covered the truth of god. How do you know that the bible isn't simply a byproduct of flawed religion? Has everything 'true' that you know about god been told to you by voices in your head, or do you get information out of books that carry on solely through 'empty tradition'?
You're confused because you assume that the Bible "came" from religion...it didn't. The Bible is a collection of witnessings recorded by various prophets/people/followers of Christ; many of the Bible's books have been confirmed by other, separate sources like the Dead Sea scrolls. Therefore you can't dispute the validity of the writings that the Bible contains, any more than you can dispute the written records of people who suffered through the Holocaust; written records based on personal witness are considered strong evidence even by today's standards, dude.
Religion was "built" onto the Bible and was eventually blown so out of proportion that people cared more about following random traditions associated with "religion" than they cared about actually seeking God and discovering Him for themselves. This is why you see people that go to church one Sunday, but the rest of the week they pretend like God doesn't exist and do whatever they want. They don't even believe, much less have faith and experience in God - you can thank RELIGION for doing that. Religion provided an arbitrary structure to serving God and basically "told" people how they should go about seeking God and such, sometimes in ways that were completely contradictory to the Bible. Religion has produced so many different branches and divisions of so-called "Christians" it would make your head spin to keep track of them all. Religion divided up the followers of God and set them against each other; why do you think religion gets such a bad rap nowadays? It's because it's not even about God anymore and most "religious" people don't even know God - they're just interested in fighting amongst themselves about "whose religion is better/right/etc." and that's all they care about. The true faith, the experience, and the happiness has all been left behind. That's why I dislike religion; it rotted out the insides of what started as a beautiful, free chance at eternal happiness and salvation for everyone through God, and turned it into a mechanized machine of empty traditions and meaningless rituals. Oftentimes religion transgresses what the Bible explicitly teaches, which means that religion has nothing to do with the Bible's messages and witnessings; religion is just a human construct that ended up distorting and defiling the true faith in God, making it harder and harder for people to find that true faith.
And I'm not sure where you're getting "voices in your head" - I never claimed that I have voices in my head that tell me everything; I responded to someone's comment about voices that could be different things. As I said before I know God exists through my own experiences and things that I've witnessed in my life and in the lives of others.
On January 12 2010 15:22 T-P-S wrote: What would you say if I told you that I knew with total certainty, that god did not exist and that you telling me otherwise only expresses your ignorance? I can provide whatever reasoning that you have used to fill in the obvious logical gaps in the statement.
If you said that, I'd know that you were lying because you DON'T know with total certainty that God doesn't exist. Don't even bother trying to back it up - not by the laws of science, not by the laws of logic, and not by the laws of any rational human school of thought can you claim that you know that with certainty; that's a belief for which you have absolutely no evidence, and both of us know that. I'm telling you that I have "evidence" for my belief in God, but I will not pretend to be able to MAKE you believe because I know I can't. As I said before, there were people in the Bible who didn't believe in God even after He had performed miracle after miracle right in their face. Thus, I know that even if you had experienced everything I have and seen all the things that I have, you still might not believe.
On January 12 2010 15:22 T-P-S wrote: And furthermore along that line of though, I assume that you consider god from a monotheistic point of view. How do you know that the hindu gods and goddesses don't exist? What would you say if I told you that I know for certain that they do exist? That denying their existence is like denying the vision of your own hands (your example - which is also flawed), and that this denial has doomed you?
I don't know for certain that Hindu gods and goddesses don't exist; in fact I would be perfectly willing to accept that they DO exist. The Bible mentions many different gods that various people worshiped in those times (Baal, Chemosh, etc.) and never said that they were "fake." Various events in the Bible show that other gods were just powerless compared to the Lord God as they could not do the same things nor resist the power of God when it came against them. Also, Christ himself said "I am the way, the truth, and the life" and "he that goeth not in by the door, the same is a thief and a liar." Basically, Jesus warned his followers that the one way to true happiness and salvation lies with God; the one true God and no other. Do other gods exist? I don't know; they certainly could. Are those other gods worth going after? Of course not - they can't provide salvation and the happiness that the Lord God gives. Christ also said "Take heed that ye be not decieved; for many shall arise in my name, saying, 'I am Christ.' Follow not after them." Here he warns that we should not go after the prophets/gods/ that will come AFTER Jesus himself.
On January 12 2010 15:22 T-P-S wrote: This is the part that makes me suspect trolling. What about drugs with proven psychological side effects? What about drugs that are proven to reduce the effects of psychological ailments like schizophrenia? These are just chemicals affecting other chemicals.
Don't suspect trolling - "psychological side effects" are not even understood by today's scientists. Neurobiology and neuroscience are trying to figure those things out, but they're not anywhere close to understanding what those "effects" really are - if they were, they could fix and treat those disorders, which they can't...instead they just shoot those people full of more drugs and hope that it fixes them, which it doesn't. Again, "chemicals affecting chemicals" don't make you hear voices, nor do they "talk" to you. And drugs have been used for hundreds of years to put people in unstable mindsets that can mess them up really bad; I had a college professor that told us about a friend who was messed up for life after taking a hit of acid and "going through a trip" that messed him up for the rest of his life. It was so bad the professor didn't want to tell us the details. I still maintain that you're just letting "demons" into your head when you do that - you wanna put your mind into a weakened state where it can't fight off that stuff, go ahead and have fun. You'll mess yourself up. Biblical descriptions of people "with demons" or "possessed by devils" could be very accurately applied to some of the weird conditions you see people in today. As to the exact nature of what demons actually are and how they operate, I'm not sure; I know they exist and I've talked to people who have seen way freakier things than I have from that regard.
On January 13 2010 00:55 skypig wrote: The Bible is a collection of witnessings recorded by various prophets/people/followers of Christ; many of the Bible's books have been confirmed by other, separate sources like the Dead Sea scrolls.
The majority of the texts that comprise the Dead Sea scrolls are non-canonical books that claim to be the word of God our Father (who art in Heaven thy Kingdom Come thy Will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven). Clearly, those texts are the creation of Satan. That these Satanic texts were found next to Biblical texts should make us doubt the truth of those Biblical texts. Praise YHWH, we need to remove those tainted books from the Bible.
On January 13 2010 00:55 skypig wrote: The Bible is a collection of witnessings recorded by various prophets/people/followers of Christ; many of the Bible's books have been confirmed by other, separate sources like the Dead Sea scrolls.
The majority of the texts that comprise the Dead Sea scrolls are non-canonical books that claim to be the word of God our Father (who art in Heaven thy Kingdom Come thy Will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven). Clearly, those texts are the creation of Satan. That these Satanic texts were found next to Biblical texts should make us doubt the truth of those Biblical texts. Praise YHWH, we need to remove those tainted books from the Bible.
40% of the Dead Sea scroll material corresponds exactly to books that were already found in the Bible, which from a logical standpoint adds more validity and weight to the witnessing already in the Bible. The other 60% of the material was not "canonical" in the sense that it was not actually material directly FROM the Bible, but many of these "un-canonical" scrolls still describe the laws, customs, and traditions of the Jews. And the JEWS, my friend, were the people of God as written in the Old Testament. So yeah, you're right in the sense that not all the scrolls are "directly" canonical. Unfortunately for your argument, however, these scrolls describe the customs and habits of the PEOPLE that were talked about by CANONICAL texts; they provide indirect support for the topics and issues mentioned in canonical texts.
In other words, the un-canonical scrolls in no way challenge the canonical texts, nor do they contradict them; in fact, some of them actually give more detailed descriptions of events that were described IN THE BIBLE ("canonical") like the building of the Second Temple. That's more indirect support; in case you're wondering, that actually ADDS credibility to the Bible rather than detract credibility. You see, it's considered a GOOD thing if a single source of knowledge can be even partially confirmed by other separate sources - that's exactly the case with the Bible and the Dead Sea scrolls; some of the scrolls provide direct support by exactly confirming the books of the bible, while others provide indirect support by describing details of events, customs, and laws that are already covered in the canonical books.
So no - your argument doesn't stand. It seems like you were joking with the Satanist comments and thus you probably weren't that serious about the rest of your argument. You didn't really make an effort to give me a decent run for my money with an argument like this, but hey, I like busting up trashy logic anyway. Thanks.
"Chemicals can't talk, son, nor can they make you think you're hearing things."
Uh yes they can, and they do. Chemical imbalances can lead to all kinds of mental problems. The only reason why your brain works at all is because it has a bunch of chemicals moving around at all times, which are how neurons signal one another and this is how your brain works. This kind of ignorance is exactly why everyone should be forced to take basic science classes.
"The Bible mentions many different gods that various people worshiped in those times (Baal, Chemosh, etc.) and never said that they were "fake.""
Deuteronomy 20
16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.
Maybe they're not fake, but it seems like worshipping other gods is somehow wrong.
skypig, how many adulterers have you stoned? The Lord your God commands you to do so.
"I admit that miracles can't make you believe - there were crippled men in the Bible who had their legs instantly healed by Jesus and yet, they got up, walked away, and never looked back and gave praise to God; they were just glad to have their legs back. Just know that miracles do happen; I have experienced them, others I know and talk to have experienced them, and all followers of Christ have directly experienced God's presence and guidance themselves.
So yes, I know that God exists. No, I can't run an experiment or derive a calculus equation that explicitly proves it to your face, but then again, since when did the entirety of truth reside within scientific constructs? Since never. Scientific biases and Richard Dawkins' ramblings don't change the fact that every day of my life, I experience God's mercy and power, and I have such a powerful, filling happiness in my life that I wish everyone else could have it. Unfortunately, I know this will not happen; the Bible explicitly states that there will be those who will willfully remain ignorant of God's truth. I hate to think about it, but I know that's the way it has to be. I just hope that people start thinking and praying and opening their eyes that so often remain forced shut. There is a God. The Bible is true. Those who witnessed God's work and Christ's work put their witnessing into the Bible, and anyone who denies this has no one to blame but their own doubt and ignorance. I find it funny that people even try to challenge it when I know and feel every day that it is the truth, and that truth sets me free from all the trash that so many people in this world have to put up with. Again, I just wish that everyone else could be set free as well."
LOL set free. There is nothing more constricting than religion. And you know that God exists, yet you can't even provide a modicum of evidence. The bible explicitly states to hate gays and seems to allow for incest, although buttsex is disallowed.
The miracles make the stories even more outlandish. If you are looking towards any of the miracles as a basis for the foundation of your belief, you are a very gullible person. Do you actually believe that Jesus put mud on some guy's eyes and they could actually see? Perhaps the stories are all metaphors. I could understand and accept that. But most believers think that these are literal truths. None of the miracles were even remotely possible back then and even now, they can barely be reproduced by scientific advances.
I'm sure atheists pride themselves in being level-headed and sophisticated people. Why then do you guys go out of your way to be condescending to us poor blinded souls, especially considering it takes NO effort to be a devout atheist? I would personally enjoy not having to worry about anything besides my stomach, bank account, and global warming. It's also so much easier to ridicule other guys when you have nothing to defend. Unfortunately, I can't deal with the occasional feeling that the universe feels a little too well orderly and consistent, and thinking that there might be a designer, and that it'd be pretty important to find out about him if there was one.
So just what do I have to lose? I can afford to do a little less killing, stealing, lying, adultery, etc. I can afford to make myself a kinder and more compassionate person. I can even afford to be a bit narrow-minded and being called an idiot. Most importantly, I can afford to have you atheists be right and I be wrong: at least I tried.
btw I'm i no wise saying thing all/any religious views are completely valid/moral or endorsing everything done in the name of religion. I'm just saying that paying attention to spirituality is not, as you claim, an exercise in futility.
On January 12 2010 15:22 T-P-S wrote: What would you say if I told you that I knew with total certainty, that god did not exist and that you telling me otherwise only expresses your ignorance? I can provide whatever reasoning that you have used to fill in the obvious logical gaps in the statement.
If you said that, I'd know that you were lying because you DON'T know with total certainty that God doesn't exist. Don't even bother trying to back it up - not by the laws of science, not by the laws of logic, and not by the laws of any rational human school of thought can you claim that you know that with certainty; that's a belief for which you have absolutely no evidence, and both of us know that. I'm telling you that I have "evidence" for my belief in God, but I will not pretend to be able to MAKE you believe because I know I can't. As I said before, there were people in the Bible who didn't believe in God even after He had performed miracle after miracle right in their face. Thus, I know that even if you had experienced everything I have and seen all the things that I have, you still might not believe.
If you said that, I'd know that you were lying because you DON'T know with total certainty that I don't know that god doesn't exist. Don't even bother trying to back it up - not by the laws of science, not by the laws of logic, and not by the laws of any rational human school of thought can you claim that you know that I don't know that there is no god with certainty; that's a belief for which you have absolutely no evidence, and both of us know that. I'm telling you that I have "evidence" for my lack of belief in god, but I will not pretend to be able to MAKE you cease believing because I know I can't. I know that even if you had experienced everything I have and seen all the things that I have, you still might cling to belief.
This is what I meant when I said that I could provide the same faulty argumentation that you've been using for any claim. If you argue that it's impossible to deny the knowledge that someone else possesses, you surrender the basis for making any claims whatsoever.
It makes exactly as much sense to claim an absolute fact as it does to claim the lack of that fact - none.
On January 12 2010 15:22 T-P-S wrote: And furthermore along that line of though, I assume that you consider god from a monotheistic point of view. How do you know that the hindu gods and goddesses don't exist? What would you say if I told you that I know for certain that they do exist? That denying their existence is like denying the vision of your own hands (your example - which is also flawed), and that this denial has doomed you?
I don't know for certain that Hindu gods and goddesses don't exist; in fact I would be perfectly willing to accept that they DO exist.
But you do not accept that they exist in the form that the hindu religion presents them. You only accept them as some kind of lesser gods to yours. This isn't what the hindu gods are according to hinduism, and as such do you not actually accept their existence as hindu texts teach. You cannot deny that they are all-powerful and still accept their existence. If I tell you that they are the only gods with any power and that I know this as unequivocal truth, you cannot deny my knowledge of the fact without admitting that your own knowledge is fallible.
On January 12 2010 15:22 T-P-S wrote: This is the part that makes me suspect trolling. What about drugs with proven psychological side effects? What about drugs that are proven to reduce the effects of psychological ailments like schizophrenia? These are just chemicals affecting other chemicals.
Don't suspect trolling - "psychological side effects" are not even understood by today's scientists. Neurobiology and neuroscience are trying to figure those things out, but they're not anywhere close to understanding what those "effects" really are - if they were, they could fix and treat those disorders, which they can't...instead they just shoot those people full of more drugs and hope that it fixes them, which it doesn't. Again, "chemicals affecting chemicals" don't make you hear voices, nor do they "talk" to you. And drugs have been used for hundreds of years to put people in unstable mindsets that can mess them up really bad; I had a college professor that told us about a friend who was messed up for life after taking a hit of acid and "going through a trip" that messed him up for the rest of his life. It was so bad the professor didn't want to tell us the details. I still maintain that you're just letting "demons" into your head when you do that - you wanna put your mind into a weakened state where it can't fight off that stuff, go ahead and have fun. You'll mess yourself up. Biblical descriptions of people "with demons" or "possessed by devils" could be very accurately applied to some of the weird conditions you see people in today. As to the exact nature of what demons actually are and how they operate, I'm not sure; I know they exist and I've talked to people who have seen way freakier things than I have from that regard.
So far you've been reasonable, but if you're going to ignore scientific evidence directly contradicting your position, let me know now so that I don't have to waste time trying to make any logical arguments. Specific psychological processes don't need to be completely understood to see that certain chemical neural stimuli produce expected psychological changes.
On January 13 2010 07:28 Savant wrote: I'm sure atheists pride themselves in being level-headed and sophisticated people. Why then do you guys go out of your way to be condescending to us poor blinded souls, especially considering it takes NO effort to be a devout atheist? I would personally enjoy not having to worry about anything besides my stomach, bank account, and global warming. It's also so much easier to ridicule other guys when you have nothing to defend. Unfortunately, I can't deal with the occasional feeling that the universe feels a little too well orderly and consistent, and thinking that there might be a designer, and that it'd be pretty important to find out about him if there was one.
So just what do I have to lose? I can afford to do a little less killing, stealing, lying, adultery, etc. I can afford to make myself a kinder and more compassionate person. I can even afford to be a bit narrow-minded and being called an idiot. Most importantly, I can afford to have you atheists be right and I be wrong: at least I tried.
btw I'm i no wise saying thing all/any religious views are completely valid/moral or endorsing everything done in the name of religion. I'm just saying that paying attention to spirituality is not, as you claim, an exercise in futility.
Atheism has nothing to do with wanting your life to be more simple. It has nothing to do with your attitude. It has nothing to do with wanting anything, and it has nothing to do with the type of person you are. There are countless negative stereotypes assigned to one simple concept - the belief that there are no gods. It is nothing else. It doesn't matter what leads to that belief nor what results from it - those are not important to the concept of atheism. Atheism doesn't claim that paying attention to spirituality is an exercise in futility any more than discussing a book of fiction is. Just because you believe that a book isn't true doesn't mean that you can't derive pleasure or insight from discussing its contents.
If you can't shake the feeling that everything you perceive was created by some greater being, why do you make the illogical jump to the assumption that this being has to be god? Why not simply another, greater mind than yours? Religion has filled in your uncertainty with an unreasonable answer for which there is no evidence or support.
On January 13 2010 07:28 Savant wrote: I'm sure atheists pride themselves in being level-headed and sophisticated people. Why then do you guys go out of your way to be condescending to us poor blinded souls, especially considering it takes NO effort to be a devout atheist? I would personally enjoy not having to worry about anything besides my stomach, bank account, and global warming. It's also so much easier to ridicule other guys when you have nothing to defend. Unfortunately, I can't deal with the occasional feeling that the universe feels a little too well orderly and consistent, and thinking that there might be a designer, and that it'd be pretty important to find out about him if there was one.
So just what do I have to lose? I can afford to do a little less killing, stealing, lying, adultery, etc. I can afford to make myself a kinder and more compassionate person. I can even afford to be a bit narrow-minded and being called an idiot. Most importantly, I can afford to have you atheists be right and I be wrong: at least I tried.
btw I'm i no wise saying thing all/any religious views are completely valid/moral or endorsing everything done in the name of religion. I'm just saying that paying attention to spirituality is not, as you claim, an exercise in futility.
Actually, atheism is not a belief that there are no gods. It's just a lack of a belief in a god. There's a distinction. And I need more than a vaguely described "feeling" to even come close to considering that there might be a creator.
I enjoy living my life without worrying about what happens after, because there is no after. You can continue to spend a few hours a week in a building with other like-minded people so that you can pretend that everyone who disagrees with you will be punished for eternity by fire while you float around playing a harp, without a single shred of evidence for either one. And scientists have plenty to defend. Despite the overwhelming evidence, relatively simple concepts like global warming and evolution have to be defended by scientists who spend their entire lives studying these phenomena by people who probably haven't even visited the wiki page for these things.
I am proud to say that I have done no killing, maybe some stealing, some lying, no adultery as an atheist. I am a relatively kind and compassionate person. I can afford to be a bit narrow-minded and be called an idiot. I can afford to have you be right and me wrong, but at least I have at least some proof behind my assertions. Nothing about your religious beliefs makes you a better person. You are aware that states with larger religious populations tend to have higher subscriptions to Playboy magazine? You do know that there have been several prominent politicians that claim religious backgrounds that have been caught for adultery? You are aware that many priests in the Catholic church have been caught for sodomizing boys, which is not only illegal, but denounced by the bible you believe in? And the old testament is full of debauchery? In fact, there's a story where two daughters get their father drunk and become pregnant by him. Incestuous adultery, I can't wait to teach my children about the bible.
I can easily make stuff up and claim that it's true, based on my "feelings". But, the onus would be on me, as it is on you right now.
Uh yes they can, and they do. Chemical imbalances can lead to all kinds of mental problems. The only reason why your brain works at all is because it has a bunch of chemicals moving around at all times, which are how neurons signal one another and this is how your brain works. This kind of ignorance is exactly why everyone should be forced to take basic science classes.
I'm currently a junior-year biochemistry major at UCSD; I know what chemicals can and can't do. Unfortunately I also know how very limited we are in terms of understanding exactly WHAT chemicals "translate" into once their functions are completed. Any college-level text will tell you where the gaps lie in our understanding of not just the brain, but of evolutionary genetics, gene expression, cellular function, and all sorts of chemical mechanisms.
In other words, NO, we don't know what it all does, and for every new thing we discover in science, we discover ten more things that we don't quite yet know how to explain. It's the natural order of things, sorry. Again, if we knew how the brain worked like you said, we'd be able to fix all those brain disorders that our supposedly "chemicals going wrong." Yeah, right, buddy.
On January 13 2010 06:30 ghostWriter wrote:
Deuteronomy 20
16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.
Maybe they're not fake, but it seems like worshipping other gods is somehow wrong.
skypig, how many adulterers have you stoned? The Lord your God commands you to do so.
Nice quoting out of context. This is the old testament, and these commandments were for the Jews hundreds of years ago. In the new testament Christ specifically told us that we were "free from the law" and no longer servants to sin, as in the old times.
Oh, the irony: Since you like looking up Bible passages so much to attack yourself, see if you can find the passage where Jesus protects the adulterous woman by telling the people who want to stone her, "Him that is without sin, let him cast the first stone" and then all the people walked away and Jesus told the woman "Go in peace."
Again, don't quote out of context.
On January 13 2010 06:30 ghostWriter wrote:
LOL set free. There is nothing more constricting than religion. And you know that God exists, yet you can't even provide a modicum of evidence. The bible explicitly states to hate gays and seems to allow for incest, although buttsex is disallowed.
The miracles make the stories even more outlandish. If you are looking towards any of the miracles as a basis for the foundation of your belief, you are a very gullible person. Do you actually believe that Jesus put mud on some guy's eyes and they could actually see? Perhaps the stories are all metaphors. I could understand and accept that. But most believers think that these are literal truths. None of the miracles were even remotely possible back then and even now, they can barely be reproduced by scientific advances.
I can't provide evidence that you will believe because for you to believe something, it has to be experimentally replicated a hundred times, printed out on a piece of paper, graphed, and explicitly shown by an equation and then slapped into your face. I like how you limit truth to being anything that science tangibly produces. I guess by your warped logic, everything that we haven't discovered yet through science is "untrue" and "outlandish" because we haven't proven it yet by science; then when we DO discover it, it suddenly "becomes truth." I find it hard to believe that you are this ignorant of your ignorance as to what defines truth.
On January 12 2010 14:11 reit wrote: That little voice in your head that you speak to is the product of chemicals instead your brain.
Your post is also the product of chemicals inside your brain-
Water is just a bunch of protons, neutrons and electrons arranged a certain way. I guess its a fake as well.
See how stupid such a reductive, silly approach is? Everything can be understood in terms of constituent parts. That doesn't answer the question of why those constituent parts exist, or interact in certain ways, or such. Science is purely description and manipulation of natural phenomena. Science cannot answer questions of epistemology. The philosophy behind science doesn't even ALLOW statements like the one you made; "Voices in your head are just chemicals, ipso facto they don't mean anything."
I wish my fellow atheists were a little more sophisticated than some of the 8th-grade level crap on display here.
Religion is as awful as slavery, hopefully some day all of you crazies realize the ideologies you support.
So far you've been reasonable, but if you're going to ignore scientific evidence directly contradicting your position, let me know now so that I don't have to waste time trying to make any logical arguments. Specific psychological processes don't need to be completely understood to see that certain chemical neural stimuli produce expected psychological changes.
YOU are "just" the sum total of various subatomic particles arranged in chemical form. Does that mean you don't exist? Does that mean you don't act? Does that mean you're really just an automaton?
The fact that thoughts are chemical processes does absolutely nothing to affect God's presence one way or the other. The only thing it proves is that thoughts are natural phenomena just as everything else in this universe, which of course, they are, and not a mysteriously separate category of existence.
On top of that, imagine this: "Rain falling from the sky is God's tears."
"No, rain is just hydrogen and oxygen atoms arranged in certain chemical bonds, evaporated into water vapor, which forms clouds, which upon saturation..." etc.
The latter does not falsify the former, unless God is understood as being a physical person subject to physical laws, which is not the conception of God.
On January 13 2010 09:47 skypig wrote: Nice quoting out of context. This is the old testament, and these commandments were for the Jews hundreds of years ago. In the new testament Christ specifically told us that we were "free from the law" and no longer servants to sin, as in the old times.
What the Lord, our God who became man and died for our sins, specifically told us in Matthew 5:17 was that he did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets.
If you eat pork, you're probable headed to Sheol unless יהוה takes mercy on your soul.
It's always amusing how Christians so often say that they are not bound to the Old Testament, but they just as often cherry-pick bits and pieces of the Old Testament that are favourable to themselves and set it forth to rationalize and support their views.
On January 09 2010 11:07 cz wrote: This story is a fabrication; I know this because Islam is the religion of peace, and thus what you stated cannot have happened.
On January 13 2010 10:22 Mindcrime wrote: What the Lord, our God who became man and died for our sins, specifically told us in Matthew 5:17 was that he did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets.
If you eat pork, you're probable headed to Sheol unless יהוה takes mercy on your soul.
I never said Christ came to abolish the law or scripture; by contrast, the same chapter you referenced says, "I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Jesus was referencing the fact that his coming was FULFILLING the prophecies of all the old prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.) - that's why he said "fulfill."
That being said, Jesus still provided examples of how we are to go above and beyond what the law teaches. Matthew 5:21-22 has Jesus saying, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:."
So no, Christ did not come to abolish the law or the prophets. However, he did call us to rise to a new level, so to speak, as the example above shows. The phrase "them of old time" refers to those Jews that followed the law - and yet Christ says "But I say unto you", indicating that now there will be a change, and a difference from what was said before. He's not abolishing, true, but he is asking us to go above and beyond. As it says in Matthew 20, "For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." That's as point-blank as you can get; you have to go above and beyond the law to be saved. Jesus' entire purpose was to free people from the burden of the law and to offer to ALL the path that leads to salvation from God; with Christ's help, you CAN go above and beyond the law and will not be "burdened" by it any longer.
On January 13 2010 10:15 FieryBalrog wrote: YOU are "just" the sum total of various subatomic particles arranged in chemical form. Does that mean you don't exist? Does that mean you don't act? Does that mean you're really just an automaton?
The fact that thoughts are chemical processes does absolutely nothing to affect God's presence one way or the other. The only thing it proves is that thoughts are natural phenomena just as everything else in this universe, which of course, they are, and not a mysteriously separate category of existence.
On top of that, imagine this: "Rain falling from the sky is God's tears."
"No, rain is just hydrogen and oxygen atoms arranged in certain chemical bonds, evaporated into water vapor, which forms clouds, which upon saturation..." etc.
The latter does not falsify the former, unless God is understood as being a physical person subject to physical laws, which is not the conception of God.
Shoot that's an interesting point - I gotta admit I'll have to remember this one.
So far you've been reasonable, but if you're going to ignore scientific evidence directly contradicting your position, let me know now so that I don't have to waste time trying to make any logical arguments. Specific psychological processes don't need to be completely understood to see that certain chemical neural stimuli produce expected psychological changes.
YOU are "just" the sum total of various subatomic particles arranged in chemical form. Does that mean you don't exist? Does that mean you don't act? Does that mean you're really just an automaton?
The fact that thoughts are chemical processes does absolutely nothing to affect God's presence one way or the other. The only thing it proves is that thoughts are natural phenomena just as everything else in this universe, which of course, they are, and not a mysteriously separate category of existence.
On top of that, imagine this: "Rain falling from the sky is God's tears."
"No, rain is just hydrogen and oxygen atoms arranged in certain chemical bonds, evaporated into water vapor, which forms clouds, which upon saturation..." etc.
The latter does not falsify the former, unless God is understood as being a physical person subject to physical laws, which is not the conception of God.
Naturally, you can do this with any explanation. Behold:
Gravitational attraction causes an apple to accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 in free fall ---> Gravitational attraction AND GOD causes an apple to accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 in free fall ---> Gravitational attraction AND GOD AND the fact that I'm wearing a pink and blue polka dotted hat causes an apple to accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 in free fall ---> etc.
You can just pile in extraneous garbage. It's rather unnecessary, no?
I decided to take this one time to not be a lurker and actually post something in one of these controversial but ultimately pointless threads. Have fun:religion is...
On January 13 2010 14:18 Draconizard wrote: Naturally, you can do this with any explanation. Behold:
Gravitational attraction causes an apple to accelerate at 9.98 m/s^2 in free fall ---> Gravitational attraction AND GOD causes an apple to accelerate at 9.98 m/s^2 in free fall ---> Gravitational attraction AND GOD AND the fact that I'm wearing a pink and blue polka dotted hat causes an apple to accelerate at 9.98 m/s^2 in free fall ---> etc.
You can just pile in extraneous garbage. It's rather unnecessary, no?
That went straight over your head, no doubt. I don't know what you mean by adding the "AND GOD" phrase; all FieryBalrog was trying to explain was that saying something like "chemicals make your brain work, not God" is stupid because you can say that chemicals make EVERYTHING "work" because, from a microscopic standpoint, they do. However, that doesn't immediately strip everything down to "just chemicals" and remove the identity of whatever you're talking about; then you wouldn't be "you" anymore, you'd just be chemicals.
Plus you're not allowing for the fact that maybe God CREATED every individual atom to do exactly what He wanted it to and that's why chemicals work the way they work. You're also not allowing for the fact that, even if we DO know the effects of certain chemical processes, we do NOT know everything about everything; i.e. we don't know everything about the world (why gravity works, the origin of the universe, etc.), much less do we know everything about how the human brain and mind work. Saying "it works because of chemicals" or saying "such and such happens because of chemicals" is redundant and pointless; yes, of course chemicals play a role, but that doesn't lend any meaning whatsoever to what the real identity or nature of the human brain is, any more than saying that a human being is made out of chemicals lends any meaning to who that human is. Hopefully you understand now.
What Draconizard was trying to say is that there is no need for God in the explanation. The explanation makes perfect sense without God and attempting to tack God onto the end of it without any causal link is as valid as tacking any other theory on. The explanation makes sense without God. There's no gap for him to fill.
On January 13 2010 14:18 Draconizard wrote: Naturally, you can do this with any explanation. Behold:
Gravitational attraction causes an apple to accelerate at 9.98 m/s^2 in free fall ---> Gravitational attraction AND GOD causes an apple to accelerate at 9.98 m/s^2 in free fall ---> Gravitational attraction AND GOD AND the fact that I'm wearing a pink and blue polka dotted hat causes an apple to accelerate at 9.98 m/s^2 in free fall ---> etc.
You can just pile in extraneous garbage. It's rather unnecessary, no?
That went straight over your head, no doubt. I don't know what you mean by adding the "AND GOD" phrase; all FieryBalrog was trying to explain was that saying something like "chemicals make your brain work, not God" is stupid because you can say that chemicals make EVERYTHING "work" because, from a microscopic standpoint, they do. However, that doesn't immediately strip everything down to "just chemicals" and remove the identity of whatever you're talking about; then you wouldn't be "you" anymore, you'd just be chemicals.
Plus you're not allowing for the fact that maybe God CREATED every individual atom to do exactly what He wanted it to and that's why chemicals work the way they work. You're also not allowing for the fact that, even if we DO know the effects of certain chemical processes, we do NOT know everything about everything; i.e. we don't know everything about the world (why gravity works, the origin of the universe, etc.), much less do we know everything about how the human brain and mind work. Saying "it works because of chemicals" or saying "such and such happens because of chemicals" is redundant and pointless; yes, of course chemicals play a role, but that doesn't lend any meaning whatsoever to what the real identity or nature of the human brain is, any more than saying that a human being is made out of chemicals lends any meaning to who that human is. Hopefully you understand now.
to see this thought process in writing is just pure gold
On January 11 2010 18:53 JieXian wrote: People people people . . .
This has nothing to do with religion.
This is just a political move by the Government in an attempt to gain favor from the majority. Imagine that, the Prime Minister claims that he is "powerless" to stop the protests, in the national news. The opposition would be sprayed with tear gas after 1 minute.
I know. I'm Malaysian.
Yes it is a stupid move to gain votes -- You know what conclusion can be drawn from that premise. Yes, this is really messed up, though i'm not christian.
(didn't read the 9 pages but i assume no one came with the truth since people are still arguing at the last few pages)
are u suggesting that the malaysian government intentionally let the muslims in malaysia to do as they please to gain their favor/vote??
If the Prime Minister claims that he is powerless to stop this, in the news broadcasted to everyone, what else can you imply? They have proven themselves to be able to stop this kind of things almost immediately, arresting people involved -- if it is the opposition.
I don't know what you mean by "do as they like" but it gets boring after so many, though less serious, political moves disguised as religion or "Prince of the land rights"
On January 13 2010 14:18 Draconizard wrote: Naturally, you can do this with any explanation. Behold:
Gravitational attraction causes an apple to accelerate at 9.98 m/s^2 in free fall ---> Gravitational attraction AND GOD causes an apple to accelerate at 9.98 m/s^2 in free fall ---> Gravitational attraction AND GOD AND the fact that I'm wearing a pink and blue polka dotted hat causes an apple to accelerate at 9.98 m/s^2 in free fall ---> etc.
You can just pile in extraneous garbage. It's rather unnecessary, no?
That went straight over your head, no doubt. I don't know what you mean by adding the "AND GOD" phrase; all FieryBalrog was trying to explain was that saying something like "chemicals make your brain work, not God" is stupid because you can say that chemicals make EVERYTHING "work" because, from a microscopic standpoint, they do. However, that doesn't immediately strip everything down to "just chemicals" and remove the identity of whatever you're talking about; then you wouldn't be "you" anymore, you'd just be chemicals.
The only thing that went over my head is your farcical employment of logic. His post, and mine after it, were discussions on the nature of explanation. The fact that you somehow managed to pull existentialism from that is very amusing. I'm just going to avoid touching your ramblings on that (very different) topic.
Plus you're not allowing for the fact that maybe God CREATED every individual atom to do exactly what He wanted it to and that's why chemicals work the way they work. You're also not allowing for the fact that, even if we DO know the effects of certain chemical processes, we do NOT know everything about everything; i.e. we don't know everything about the world (why gravity works, the origin of the universe, etc.), much less do we know everything about how the human brain and mind work. Saying "it works because of chemicals" or saying "such and such happens because of chemicals" is redundant and pointless; yes, of course chemicals play a role, but that doesn't lend any meaning whatsoever to what the real identity or nature of the human brain is, any more than saying that a human being is made out of chemicals lends any meaning to who that human is. Hopefully you understand now.
Of course, one can simply stick deities at the beginning of any explanation. Again, it is extraneous and completely unnecessary. Anyway, I hope you realize that your above arguments are for theism in general and in no way justify your very, very specific brand of it?
How many of those who criticize Islam actually met a muslim? Every each one that i met were such a beautiful people, with zero negativity, with pure mind, strong morals, confidence and character. I can't just be lucky all the time like that. Yet i always have to read about them being bad and aggressive, and even when their homelands get assaulted and destroyed they happen to be portrayed as aggressors or barbarians. That's just sad.
Uh yes they can, and they do. Chemical imbalances can lead to all kinds of mental problems. The only reason why your brain works at all is because it has a bunch of chemicals moving around at all times, which are how neurons signal one another and this is how your brain works. This kind of ignorance is exactly why everyone should be forced to take basic science classes.
I'm currently a junior-year biochemistry major at UCSD; I know what chemicals can and can't do. Unfortunately I also know how very limited we are in terms of understanding exactly WHAT chemicals "translate" into once their functions are completed. Any college-level text will tell you where the gaps lie in our understanding of not just the brain, but of evolutionary genetics, gene expression, cellular function, and all sorts of chemical mechanisms.
In other words, NO, we don't know what it all does, and for every new thing we discover in science, we discover ten more things that we don't quite yet know how to explain. It's the natural order of things, sorry. Again, if we knew how the brain worked like you said, we'd be able to fix all those brain disorders that our supposedly "chemicals going wrong." Yeah, right, buddy.
16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.
Maybe they're not fake, but it seems like worshipping other gods is somehow wrong.
skypig, how many adulterers have you stoned? The Lord your God commands you to do so.
Nice quoting out of context. This is the old testament, and these commandments were for the Jews hundreds of years ago. In the new testament Christ specifically told us that we were "free from the law" and no longer servants to sin, as in the old times.
Oh, the irony: Since you like looking up Bible passages so much to attack yourself, see if you can find the passage where Jesus protects the adulterous woman by telling the people who want to stone her, "Him that is without sin, let him cast the first stone" and then all the people walked away and Jesus told the woman "Go in peace."
LOL set free. There is nothing more constricting than religion. And you know that God exists, yet you can't even provide a modicum of evidence. The bible explicitly states to hate gays and seems to allow for incest, although buttsex is disallowed.
The miracles make the stories even more outlandish. If you are looking towards any of the miracles as a basis for the foundation of your belief, you are a very gullible person. Do you actually believe that Jesus put mud on some guy's eyes and they could actually see? Perhaps the stories are all metaphors. I could understand and accept that. But most believers think that these are literal truths. None of the miracles were even remotely possible back then and even now, they can barely be reproduced by scientific advances.
I can't provide evidence that you will believe because for you to believe something, it has to be experimentally replicated a hundred times, printed out on a piece of paper, graphed, and explicitly shown by an equation and then slapped into your face. I like how you limit truth to being anything that science tangibly produces. I guess by your warped logic, everything that we haven't discovered yet through science is "untrue" and "outlandish" because we haven't proven it yet by science; then when we DO discover it, it suddenly "becomes truth." I find it hard to believe that you are this ignorant of your ignorance as to what defines truth.
I never said we knew everything. But at least scientists are in laboratories working hard to find out the answers to all these questions. You saying that God did it explains nothing and drinking some wine and eating some bread in some ridiculous pseudo-cannibalistic tradition helps solve nothing. The only reason why you have thought processes now is because you have chemicals moving around in your head. God is irrelevant.
Why even have the old testament at all then? Why not just have the new testament? Christians love to cherry-pick the passages that they agree with and discard the ones they don't like.
Luke 14:33 (King James Version) 33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.
Looking at how you still have a computer and an internet connection, it seems that you are disobeying Jesus' commands from THE NEW TESTAMENT! It's pretty straightforward, I wonder how you will explain this one.
Everything we don't know yet isn't untrue, it is merely unknown. But the miracles are impossible in the literal sense, so they are necessarily untrue. There's a huge difference. It's impossible to call out to a dead person that's been rotting and have them walk out of a cave alive. It's impossible to cure the blind with some mud. It's impossible to rise into heaven. I am under the impression that these are metaphors and can be useful as such. But people like you believe in them to be literal truths, which is ridiculous. And just because you believe in some writings that were written hundreds of years ago doesn't mean that your warped sense of truth IS truth. There may have been a man named Jesus alive two thousands years ago. But dying on the cross is nothing special, it happened to many people. Even Peter was crucified upside down. The only thing that makes Jesus remarkable in any way is his supposed miracles, which would only be believable to a person if it was ingrained in them since they were young and one a week for their entire lives.
I never said we knew everything. But at least scientists are in laboratories working hard to find out the answers to all these questions. You saying that God did it explains nothing and drinking some wine and eating some bread in some ridiculous pseudo-cannibalistic tradition helps solve nothing. The only reason why you have thought processes now is because you have chemicals moving around in your head. God is irrelevant.
Good - if you admit that we don't know everything (which is absolutely true), then I'm not sure why you have such a problem accepting that there could be other explanations for things than those that we have right now. You seem stuck on needing tangible experimental results to explain every single phenomenon; otherwise it "isn't true." Again, "chemicals moving around in your head" is redundant and irrelevant - I could say the same thing about YOU, that you're just a "bunch of chemicals" (because you are at the microscopic level) and therefore YOU are irrelevant and lack any special identity other than just a bunch of atoms and molecule interacting with their electron clouds. Thus you can't say that your thoughts and thought processes are "just a bunch of chemicals" because they really COULD be thoughts send by God or Satan or demons or whatever - so what if they're a bunch of chemicals; they could still be ordered and orchestrated by forces that we have not yet discovered, nor comprehend. You just said we don't know everything, so you can EVER refute that possibility. Sorry.
On January 13 2010 06:30 ghostWriter wrote: Why even have the old testament at all then? Why not just have the new testament? Christians love to cherry-pick the passages that they agree with and discard the ones they don't like.
Luke 14:33 (King James Version) 33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.
Looking at how you still have a computer and an internet connection, it seems that you are disobeying Jesus' commands from THE NEW TESTAMENT! It's pretty straightforward, I wonder how you will explain this one.
It's easy to explain things to people who quote out of context; don't worry. I'm not sure why you question "why even have the old testament then"; I never said we should discard it or ignore it, I just mentioned that the New Testament provides a "new" set of mindsets for followers of Christ to follow. The Old Testament is EXTREMELY important because it provides a detailed history of the children of Israel and how God led them out of Egypt and through the deserts to their eventual destination. It also shows how merciful and long-suffering God was (and is), and how eventually he even had to punish the Israelites for their stubborn unbelief and transgression. Finally the Old Testament provides the PROPHECIES that PREDICTED that Christ would come IN THE EXACT way that he did come. Thus the Old and New Testaments were put together for a REASON; they fit together perfectly.
The logic you use with Luke 14:33 is completely arbitrary and based on your own arbitrary standards; you assume that Jesus meant "all" in a literal, physical sense. If this was true, then Jesus and his disciples would have been walking around with literally NOTHING: no clothes, no food, no hair, no money, no shoes, etc. etc. etc. Yet, they weren't. They still ate food, carried money, wore clothes, caught fish, bought bread, and many other similar things. You're taking the phrase "all" out of context because Jesus was not using your physical, literal sense of the word "all" when he said this. By "forsaking all", Jesus meant leaving behind ALL those things in your life that hold you back from God: mainly, things that cause you to sin and to fall further from God's grace. "All" in this sense means ALL of those things that would hinder you in such a fashion. Another way of looking at it is you have to make following Christ your top priority; i.e. nothing should stand between you and your relationship with Christ, meaning you "forsake all" in favor of Jesus' teachings and following them.
Come on, man, just looking at the context and situation of that passage should have told you right away that what you were thinking was wrong. Don't just blindly read something and then spew it back out without thinking about the context first.
On January 13 2010 06:30 ghostWriter wrote: Everything we don't know yet isn't untrue, it is merely unknown. But the miracles are impossible in the literal sense, so they are necessarily untrue. There's a huge difference. It's impossible to call out to a dead person that's been rotting and have them walk out of a cave alive. It's impossible to cure the blind with some mud. It's impossible to rise into heaven. I am under the impression that these are metaphors and can be useful as such. But people like you believe in them to be literal truths, which is ridiculous. And just because you believe in some writings that were written hundreds of years ago doesn't mean that your warped sense of truth IS truth. There may have been a man named Jesus alive two thousands years ago. But dying on the cross is nothing special, it happened to many people. Even Peter was crucified upside down. The only thing that makes Jesus remarkable in any way is his supposed miracles, which would only be believable to a person if it was ingrained in them since they were young and one a week for their entire lives.
There you go again, using "the literal sense." You're so stuck on that it's funny. So, because we've NEVER SEEN someone get raised from the dead, because we've NEVER SEEN someone get cured of blindness, because we've NEVER SEEN someone rise to heaven, means it can't or didn't happen? I guess you think all the witnesses of the Bible were liars. I wonder if you think the witnesses of the Holocaust were liars too. Where do you get your logic? This is logic that even science would contradict - how many things in science have remained "undiscovered" or "impossible" for hundreds of years, and then BOOM, they're discovered, and all of a sudden they're "possible"? People used to think that the world was totally flat; people who thought it was round were looked at like crazies. Yet, the world turned out to be wrong, and "impossible" became "possible." What makes you so sure that the same thing won't happen with your "impossible miracles"? I find this particularly ironic because I know and have talked to people who have witnessed insane miracles during their lives that you would probably not believe if I told you because "they're impossible", right?
Please don't get so stuck on "literal" anymore - science contradicts you and my own experience tells me otherwise, as do the experiences of people I've talked to. You're too eager to bash on religion and it's making you say some things that, again, even science doesn't allow you to say.
Just because there could be other explanations doesn't mean that yours has any validity. I AM a bunch of chemicals and I AM irrelevant and I AM nothing but the interaction between atoms. What's so wrong with that? To say that you are something beyond is nothing but misplaced hubris. Newsflash: humans are a blip in the history of the Earth. We have been here for maybe a few million years and we will probably be gone soon. We're actually not that important.
And isn't it strange that with our modern technology, we can barely predict whether it will rain or not tomorrow and yet these random old men somehow got every prediction for the Messiah correct? The Messiah that the original believers, the Jews, completely reject as the son of God? The fact that Jesus' birth conforms so exactly to their predictions is an indication that the stories were fabricated. The premise behind them have been so ingrained in you that they don't even seem ridiculous anymore. Even in our modern times, we treat our pregnant women like they were fragile and try not to let them anywhere. It's not even moderately conceivable that someone would take their wife all the way to Bethlehem, just to give birth. And the reasoning behind the journey, that they had to go to the original town of their far, far ancestor, to take part in the census, makes absolutely no sense. Also the fact that three kings apparently followed a Star that happened to be right above Jesus' manger. Stars don't magically appear out of nowhere and they are hundreds, if not thousands and millions, of light years away, the thought that it could shine on his manger is laughably ridiculous (not to mention that the star would have had to been formed hundreds or thousands of years ago to shine for one night, since it takes that long for the light to get to earth). But oh yeah, everything is possible with God (sarcasm).
Nice interpretation. You're doing a good job of molding the scriptures to the way you think it ought to be, rather than the way it actually is. I don't give a shit what your supposed holy book says. I'm just pointing out the discrepancies that make it ludicrous for anyone to read it without a huge grain of salt. There's a difference between raising someone from the dead and experiencing the Holocaust. Raising someone from the dead by calling out to them is IMPOSSIBLE. There's a difference between scientific discoveries that haven't been found yet and scientific impossibilities. Where does "science contradict me?" Science is not an entity. It's a branch of knowledge. If you can name something that was shown to be impossible and then discovered to be possible, I'll admit that I was wrong, but all you do is post absolute statements and give no background whatsoever.
The people who believed that the world was flat thought so because it was ingrained in them, by the church, which persecuted galileo for saying that the earth was not at the center of the universe. This example only shows the danger and the threat posed by blind believe and feckless faith. The human mind is easily fooled and overawed. If so many people have seen insane miracles, you will surely be able to show me one example of a miracle that you could back up with evidence?
On January 14 2010 04:07 ghostWriter wrote: Just because there could be other explanations doesn't mean that yours has any validity. I AM a bunch of chemicals and I AM irrelevant and I AM nothing but the interaction between atoms. What's so wrong with that? To say that you are something beyond is nothing but misplaced hubris. Newsflash: humans are a blip in the history of the Earth. We have been here for maybe a few million years and we will probably be gone soon. We're actually not that important.
And isn't it strange that with our modern technology, we can barely predict whether it will rain or not tomorrow and yet these random old men somehow got every prediction for the Messiah correct? The Messiah that the original believers, the Jews, completely reject as the son of God? The fact that Jesus' birth conforms so exactly to their predictions is an indication that the stories were fabricated. The premise behind them have been so ingrained in you that they don't even seem ridiculous anymore. Even in our modern times, we treat our pregnant women like they were fragile and try not to let them anywhere. It's not even moderately conceivable that someone would take their wife all the way to Bethlehem, just to give birth. And the reasoning behind the journey, that they had to go to the original town of their far, far ancestor, to take part in the census, makes absolutely no sense. Also the fact that three kings apparently followed a Star that happened to be right above Jesus' manger. Stars don't magically appear out of nowhere and they are hundreds, if not thousands and millions, of light years away, the thought that it could shine on his manger is laughably ridiculous (not to mention that the star would have had to been formed hundreds or thousands of years ago to shine for one night, since it takes that long for the light to get to earth). But oh yeah, everything is possible with God (sarcasm).
Nice interpretation. You're doing a good job of molding the scriptures to the way you think it ought to be, rather than the way it actually is. I don't give a shit what your supposed holy book says. I'm just pointing out the discrepancies that make it ludicrous for anyone to read it without a huge grain of salt. There's a difference between raising someone from the dead and experiencing the Holocaust. Raising someone from the dead by calling out to them is IMPOSSIBLE. There's a difference between scientific discoveries that haven't been found yet and scientific impossibilities. Where does "science contradict me?" Science is not an entity. It's a branch of knowledge. If you can name something that was shown to be impossible and then discovered to be possible, I'll admit that I was wrong, but all you do is post absolute statements and give no background whatsoever.
The people who believed that the world was flat thought so because it was ingrained in them, by the church, which persecuted galileo for saying that the earth was not at the center of the universe. This example only shows the danger and the threat posed by blind believe and feckless faith. The human mind is easily fooled and overawed. If so many people have seen insane miracles, you will surely be able to show me one example of a miracle that you could back up with evidence?
A brief note, just because something is thought to be impossible by our current understanding does not mean it will always be so. It might be very unlikely, but again, to disprove the existence of something is itself impossible.
Also, I don't think you're going to reach him with a scientific dissection of his beliefs. I'm not too concerned with what he believes but rather why he believes it.
It's obvious why he believes it. The fundamentals were ingrained in him when he was a child and he's been indoctrinated at least once a week for years, while going on retreats and stuff to become even more indoctrinated.
And some things are just impossible. You can't cure blindness by rubbing mud into someone's eyes or a lame leg by telling someone to walk.
On January 14 2010 05:01 ghostWriter wrote: It's obvious why he believes it. The fundamentals were ingrained in him when he was a child and he's been indoctrinated at least once a week for years, while going on retreats and stuff to become even more indoctrinated.
And some things are just impossible. You can't cure blindness by rubbing mud into someone's eyes or a lame leg by telling someone to walk.
Oh no, I'm not defending the validity of the miracles supposedly performed by Christ in the past. I am merely saying that it is not entirely inconceivable for what would surely be deemed impossibilities today to become possible sometime in the future.
As for his indoctrination, I would have thought that being a student of the sciences (as he professes to be) would have blunted his literal interpretation of his faith somewhat.
On January 13 2010 10:22 Mindcrime wrote: What the Lord, our God who became man and died for our sins, specifically told us in Matthew 5:17 was that he did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets.
If you eat pork, you're probable headed to Sheol unless יהוה takes mercy on your soul.
I never said Christ came to abolish the law or scripture; by contrast, the same chapter you referenced says, "I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Jesus was referencing the fact that his coming was FULFILLING the prophecies of all the old prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.) - that's why he said "fulfill."
That being said, Jesus still provided examples of how we are to go above and beyond what the law teaches. Matthew 5:21-22 has Jesus saying, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:."
So no, Christ did not come to abolish the law or the prophets. However, he did call us to rise to a new level, so to speak, as the example above shows. The phrase "them of old time" refers to those Jews that followed the law - and yet Christ says "But I say unto you", indicating that now there will be a change, and a difference from what was said before. He's not abolishing, true, but he is asking us to go above and beyond. As it says in Matthew 20, "For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." That's as point-blank as you can get; you have to go above and beyond the law to be saved. Jesus' entire purpose was to free people from the burden of the law and to offer to ALL the path that leads to salvation from God; with Christ's help, you CAN go above and beyond the law and will not be "burdened" by it any longer.
I must have missed the part where the last supper was described as a five course meal of pork and shellfish.
Skypig. After Jesus's death the apostles didn't believe in the conversion of gentiles. That came later, with the conversion of Paul and his personal mission to convert non Jews. The matter was hotly debated, there was no definite consensus when Jesus left. So the guys who had been following Jesus around for the last few years somehow didn't know that the old Jewish laws had been superceded. They thought they were running a Jewish sect, not a separate religion. It's all there in the book of Acts of the Apostles. Makes you think. I mean, I don't want to contradict your interpretation of the Bible because I'm sure you know exactly what Jesus meant. I'm just curious why the guys who knew him personally didn't know what he meant.
On January 14 2010 04:07 ghostWriter wrote: Just because there could be other explanations doesn't mean that yours has any validity. I AM a bunch of chemicals and I AM irrelevant and I AM nothing but the interaction between atoms. What's so wrong with that? To say that you are something beyond is nothing but misplaced hubris. Newsflash: humans are a blip in the history of the Earth. We have been here for maybe a few million years and we will probably be gone soon. We're actually not that important.
Watch how quickly your argument falls apart: If humans really are "just atoms and molecules" and "to say they're something more is nothing but misplaced hubris", then you're saying it's perfectly okay for me to walk up to an innocent person on the street and shoot them full of bullets, or stab them to death, or whatever. Why is it okay? Because, of course, we're both "just atoms and molecules"; the bullets are "just atoms and molecules displacing other atoms and molecules"; the knife is "just atoms and molecules breaking the electric attractions between other atoms and molecules." After all, what's morality? It's not made of atoms and molecules, so it must not exist, nor be important. Dude, If you actually think that everything is that irrelevant and that nothing has meaning, you have my sympathy and my pity. I encourage you to THINK a little more about life.
On January 14 2010 04:07 ghostWriter wrote: And isn't it strange that with our modern technology, we can barely predict whether it will rain or not tomorrow and yet these random old men somehow got every prediction for the Messiah correct? The Messiah that the original believers, the Jews, completely reject as the son of God? The fact that Jesus' birth conforms so exactly to their predictions is an indication that the stories were fabricated. The premise behind them have been so ingrained in you that they don't even seem ridiculous anymore. Even in our modern times, we treat our pregnant women like they were fragile and try not to let them anywhere. It's not even moderately conceivable that someone would take their wife all the way to Bethlehem, just to give birth. And the reasoning behind the journey, that they had to go to the original town of their far, far ancestor, to take part in the census, makes absolutely no sense. Also the fact that three kings apparently followed a Star that happened to be right above Jesus' manger. Stars don't magically appear out of nowhere and they are hundreds, if not thousands and millions, of light years away, the thought that it could shine on his manger is laughably ridiculous (not to mention that the star would have had to been formed hundreds or thousands of years ago to shine for one night, since it takes that long for the light to get to earth). But oh yeah, everything is possible with God (sarcasm).
Good, you're starting to realize how pathetically limited we are, even with our "modern technology", as you mentioned. And no, the fact that Jesus' birth "conformed so exactly" to their predictions is NOT "an indication that the stories were fabricated, LOL. Where did THAT logical rule come from? If something conforms exactly to someone's predictions, then it's automatically WRONG? Just because humans are wrong so often doesn't mean they were wrong all the time. I like how you make one huge assumption after another to eventually lead you to think that "the stories must have been fabricated." Wake up, dude - you have no evidence for your claims, and you're going further and further out on the limb to try and convince me of things that my own experience and faith contradicts.
On January 14 2010 04:07 ghostWriter wrote: Nice interpretation. You're doing a good job of molding the scriptures to the way you think it ought to be, rather than the way it actually is. I don't give a shit what your supposed holy book says. I'm just pointing out the discrepancies that make it ludicrous for anyone to read it without a huge grain of salt. There's a difference between raising someone from the dead and experiencing the Holocaust. Raising someone from the dead by calling out to them is IMPOSSIBLE. There's a difference between scientific discoveries that haven't been found yet and scientific impossibilities. Where does "science contradict me?" Science is not an entity. It's a branch of knowledge. If you can name something that was shown to be impossible and then discovered to be possible, I'll admit that I was wrong, but all you do is post absolute statements and give no background whatsoever.
No, you're upset because you quoted OUT OF CONTEXT, while I quoted IN CONTEXT. In short, you don't care about trying to understand the Bible because you fallaciously believe it's made up anyway and so you're just going to grab random passages and spit them out without even trying to think about them. Jesus had a habit of talking to the common people in parables, and many, MANY of them would not understand him at all; sometimes even his own disciples would have to ask him to explain things.
Matthew 13:14-15 says, "And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isiaah, which saith, 'By hearing ye shall hear, and not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them'."
Wow, look at this: a prophecy from the OLD TESTAMENT is cited by Jesus from the NEW TESTAMENT, basically saying that people WILL NOT UNDERSTAND the Holy Word when they hear it because they are willfully ignorant and DON'T WANT to understand it. The same thing is happening with you, ghostWriter - you don't want to hear or read the Bible's teachings, much less understand them. You'd rather make your own fallacious assumptions in a lame attempt to "prove" that the Bible was "fabricated" and "made up." It's funny how you're helping fulfill Isaiah's prophecy that was written HUNDREDS OF YEARS ago, and for some reason IS STILL TRUE. Makes you think, doesn't it?
On January 14 2010 04:07 ghostWriter wrote: The people who believed that the world was flat thought so because it was ingrained in them, by the church, which persecuted galileo for saying that the earth was not at the center of the universe. This example only shows the danger and the threat posed by blind believe and feckless faith. The human mind is easily fooled and overawed. If so many people have seen insane miracles, you will surely be able to show me one example of a miracle that you could back up with evidence?
Wow are you wrong here. The belief that the world was flat was a MAJORITY OPINION in those times; in fact people who thought otherwise could be THROWN IN JAIL. And later, the MAJORITY OPINION was proven to be wrong. Just like right now, the majority of people here believe that God doesn't exist and the Bible isn't true - I can promise you that everyone will know that there is a God and that the Bible's witnessings and preachings were true.
As for me giving examples of miracles, I already said multiple times that I have seen them, experienced them, and talked with others who did the same - you think I'm lying to you or something? Is it that hard for you to believe that things that can't be "proven" by experimentation can actually HAPPEN in REAL LIFE? I already said this and I'll say it again: for me to talk about the things I've witnessed and experienced would only subject God's miracles to open mockery from all the people here - I guarantee you that you would not believe them, you would probably accuse me and the others who saw these things of being delusional and hallucinating or whatever other "intelligent" explanation you could come up with. Jesus said once, "Cast not your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." See if you can figure out what THAT one means...and no, it doesn't mean "don't throw your jewelry to wild animals", literally (since you like literal things so much).
On January 14 2010 06:04 KwarK wrote: Skypig. After Jesus's death the apostles didn't believe in the conversion of gentiles. That came later, with the conversion of Paul and his personal mission to convert non Jews. The matter was hotly debated, there was no definite consensus when Jesus left. So the guys who had been following Jesus around for the last few years somehow didn't know that the old Jewish laws had been superceded. They thought they were running a Jewish sect, not a separate religion. It's all there in the book of Acts of the Apostles. Makes you think. I mean, I don't want to contradict your interpretation of the Bible because I'm sure you know exactly what Jesus meant. I'm just curious why the guys who knew him personally didn't know what he meant.
Mark makes clear that none of the apostles understood Jesus until his death and resurrection. In Matthew 28:19, the resurrected Jesus instructs his disciples to make "disciples of all nations." Therefore according to the canonical scriptures, it's not true that the disciples did not understand their mission even after the Passion. Paul's mission was made a generation later, much too early to have been influenced by the canonical gospels. In the early-Christian era, before the canon was established, competing gnostic gospels were spread in the Jewish community. No unified theology was possible until the establishment of the canon, therefore it is to be expected that competing theologies would have emerged in the Christ-following community. What the canon eventually did was select the most credible stories on the basis of apostolicity.
So far you've been reasonable, but if you're going to ignore scientific evidence directly contradicting your position, let me know now so that I don't have to waste time trying to make any logical arguments. Specific psychological processes don't need to be completely understood to see that certain chemical neural stimuli produce expected psychological changes.
YOU are "just" the sum total of various subatomic particles arranged in chemical form. Does that mean you don't exist? Does that mean you don't act? Does that mean you're really just an automaton?
No? Where are you getting the assumption that I don't think that I exist because I'm only composed of physical matter? As for whether or not humans are 'automatons', that depends on your definition. At some level, a repeated stimulus should produce the same output even in a system as complex as the human brain. Do you consider us then to be functionally automatic?
The fact that thoughts are chemical processes does absolutely nothing to affect God's presence one way or the other. The only thing it proves is that thoughts are natural phenomena just as everything else in this universe, which of course, they are, and not a mysteriously separate category of existence.
When we have evidence to support the idea that thoughts are directed by chemical processes, and no evidence to support the idea that they are a product of god or satan, it makes the latter a less reasonable assumption.
On top of that, imagine this: "Rain falling from the sky is God's tears."
"No, rain is just hydrogen and oxygen atoms arranged in certain chemical bonds, evaporated into water vapor, which forms clouds, which upon saturation..." etc.
The latter does not falsify the former, unless God is understood as being a physical person subject to physical laws, which is not the conception of God.
Except that the quote clearly implies a physical god by using something like tears, which only exist insofar as our experience, physically. Beyond that, it's just a question of your definitions of god and tears.
most of the commentary in this thread is a bit over my head, but i just had to give a big LOL to skypig.
its been my experience that religion brings out the worst in people. instead of trying to pass on the lessons of love and understanding, religious folk tend to pass on judgement and contempt.
some people either get it or they dont. the amount of ego involved just makes me go bleh. its easy to see why more and more young people are turning away from organized religion.
On January 14 2010 09:39 esla_sol wrote: most of the commentary in this thread is a bit over my head, but i just had to give a big LOL to skypig.
its been my experience that religion brings out the worst in people. instead of trying to pass on the lessons of love and understanding, religious folk tend to pass on judgement and contempt.
some people either get it or they dont. the amount of ego involved just makes me go bleh. its easy to see why more and more young people are turning away from organized religion.
Well I hope I'm not coming across as judging other people in this thread because I'm not trying to judge; I'm trying to point out how ridiculously flawed the arguments that people traditionally use against God are. I've said multiple times that I wish everyone could have the same peace and happiness that I have from serving God, so I have no ill will toward anyone in this thread, and I apologize if I came across as "judging"...I believe that God is the one and final judge and no one else.
I know that "some people either get it or they don't", but it still bothers me to see people that actually believe and live their lives around ignorant arguments like "God doesn't exist because we can't see Him" or "God doesn't exist because we have no tangible evidence of Him."
And I don't like organized religion either; I think it pushes people away from actually experiencing God and having true faith by pulling them into empty traditions and pointless customs, many of which are completely unbiblical (I said this before as well).
Again I apologize if I came across as judging people; I'm not trying to do that, I'm only trying to shoot down flawed arguments that I see here because I think this stuff is really important to think about.
On January 14 2010 14:15 skypig wrote: I know that "some people either get it or they don't", but it still bothers me to see people that actually believe and live their lives around ignorant arguments like "God doesn't exist because we can't see Him" or "God doesn't exist because we have no tangible evidence of Him."
Yeah, they make such dumb arguments. If only they would read the True and Perfect Word of God, the King James Bible, they would come to Know Him.
Look, all I'm saying is that God exists because crocoduck doesn't.
On January 14 2010 06:04 KwarK wrote: Skypig. After Jesus's death the apostles didn't believe in the conversion of gentiles. That came later, with the conversion of Paul and his personal mission to convert non Jews. The matter was hotly debated, there was no definite consensus when Jesus left. So the guys who had been following Jesus around for the last few years somehow didn't know that the old Jewish laws had been superceded. They thought they were running a Jewish sect, not a separate religion. It's all there in the book of Acts of the Apostles. Makes you think. I mean, I don't want to contradict your interpretation of the Bible because I'm sure you know exactly what Jesus meant. I'm just curious why the guys who knew him personally didn't know what he meant.
Mark makes clear that none of the apostles understood Jesus until his death and resurrection. In Matthew 28:19, the resurrected Jesus instructs his disciples to make "disciples of all nations." Therefore according to the canonical scriptures, it's not true that the disciples did not understand their mission even after the Passion. Paul's mission was made a generation later, much too early to have been influenced by the canonical gospels. In the early-Christian era, before the canon was established, competing gnostic gospels were spread in the Jewish community. No unified theology was possible until the establishment of the canon, therefore it is to be expected that competing theologies would have emerged in the Christ-following community. What the canon eventually did was select the most credible stories on the basis of apostolicity.
This doesn't change the fact that when Paul started converting gentiles the apostles originally opposed him. The gospels were hearsay about Jesus, the apostles were guys that knew him personally. It's fairly easy to guess which side was a better judge on what Jesus wanted.
On January 14 2010 06:04 KwarK wrote: Skypig. After Jesus's death the apostles didn't believe in the conversion of gentiles. That came later, with the conversion of Paul and his personal mission to convert non Jews. The matter was hotly debated, there was no definite consensus when Jesus left. So the guys who had been following Jesus around for the last few years somehow didn't know that the old Jewish laws had been superceded. They thought they were running a Jewish sect, not a separate religion. It's all there in the book of Acts of the Apostles. Makes you think. I mean, I don't want to contradict your interpretation of the Bible because I'm sure you know exactly what Jesus meant. I'm just curious why the guys who knew him personally didn't know what he meant.
Mark makes clear that none of the apostles understood Jesus until his death and resurrection. In Matthew 28:19, the resurrected Jesus instructs his disciples to make "disciples of all nations." Therefore according to the canonical scriptures, it's not true that the disciples did not understand their mission even after the Passion. Paul's mission was made a generation later, much too early to have been influenced by the canonical gospels. In the early-Christian era, before the canon was established, competing gnostic gospels were spread in the Jewish community. No unified theology was possible until the establishment of the canon, therefore it is to be expected that competing theologies would have emerged in the Christ-following community. What the canon eventually did was select the most credible stories on the basis of apostolicity.
This doesn't change the fact that when Paul started converting gentiles the apostles originally opposed him. The gospels were hearsay about Jesus, the apostles were guys that knew him personally. It's fairly easy to guess which side was a better judge on what Jesus wanted.
Acts 15 clearly writes that the Apostles decided in favour of gentile converts. A key theme of the gospels (our accounts of the relationship between the apostles and Jesus) was that the Apostles did NOT understand what Jesus wanted. Jesus eluded their understanding at every turn. It was not until they experienced the resurrection that they understood his nature.
I for one, really have mixed feelings about islam. Ive met many muslims through my life, and have many muslim friends and all of them are generally good people but Ive also met quite a few that are really the reason for some of my "fear" of islam. I hate the fact that you cant say anything negative about islam withouth being attacked. And as a christian I want to live in a country with christian morals ethics and so on, I also want this for my kids. But the fact is that quite a few muslims wont incorporate them into the way of living here in sweden. Those that do such a thing come here to Sweden and want to take their entire country with them. For example I think its a shame that young women die over the fact that they protest against wearing burka and so on in Iran and here in sweden refugees from Iran want laws passed in Sweden that allows them to wear burka at work and so on, its crazy
On January 15 2010 00:21 faseman wrote: Hilarious thread. Thanks for the laughs, skypig.
There is a goblin living in my cupboard. Prove me wrong.
I have a feeling that the goblin exists. srsly. I have seen miracles and heard about miracles in other people's lives that conclusively prove his existence to me on a daily basis.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://o.aolcdn.com/photo-hub/news_gallery/6/4/644049/1262791312681.JPEG)
![[image loading]](http://metropolitician.blogs.com/scribblings_of_the_metrop/_files_troll_2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/2011/chartyo.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img191.imageshack.us/i/68697787.jpg/)
![[image loading]](http://g.imageshack.us/img191/68697787.jpg/1/)
![[image loading]](http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue9907/images/db06.jpg)
