Religulous

[Pinchandroll]

It's only a fact if you believe in god,since it all relies on that one book being written by him, which means your argument doesn't have any value what so ever to one that doesn't believe that book is any different than any of those other books in that they were all written by regular men.

The Council of Nicaea only met and established the Nicene Creed if you believe in God? The Roman Catholic church only added the Apocrypha if you believe in God? The Pseudepigraphal and Deuterocanonical books only exist if you believe in God? I'm not really addressing faith at all here, I'm talking about what happened historically and that has nothing to do with whether you believe in God.

I think you misunderstood my post, or didn't read it very closely. Almost all of it is a summary of the history of the church. It's just history and it's not really debatable.

[SalaciousTunare]

Originally Posted by Surlok TP

People can have no morals what so ever and simply avoid doing bad things because they don't want to spend the rest of their lives in prison.

Just because they avoid the interference of Social law doesn't mean they are all of a sudden morally right people, it just means they are looking out for their own best interests. There are a lot of things I won't do not because I think they are bad or evil or anything but because I don't want to spend my time in jail so I don't do it.


There is no such thing as right or wrong. Humans have morals because thye are taught that if they do this or that there will be consequences.

Religious people are not morally superior to people who are not, their morals exist because they want to be in god's good graces or whatever, not because they think it's right or wrong, they are never given the opportunity to make that distinction,someone else does it for them.

Again they choose order or chaos... another form of duality.

My point was, in order for there to be a moral choice there has to be a choice in the first place, two ends of a spectrum. Should you claim they choose for their own freedom rather than for their own morals is irrelevant. My point was merely that without the duality of good or evil, there would be no morality. Obviously a person with no moral center could act or not act in the interest of their own self preservation.

Morality aside, there is also the duality of order and chaos, another choice to follow, it reminds me a lot of the D&D alignment charts.

[Coren]

Originally Posted by Gryeyes

Yes im sure you are very knowledgeable of hebrew to know the distinction. The way you use the term "satan" and the assumptions you make on what "satan" is. Is extremely misinformed. When you want to understand the context of a word. You study the religion and culture that spawned the material. Protip: Its not Christianity.

You'd be suprised. I'm still learning Hebrew, but I've long since learned to not just take the KJV at face value. Those guys tried, but they didn't have a clue how to translate much of it. The "assumptions" I make on what Satan is, is rooted in what the Bible teaches; both OT and new.

[Coren]

Originally Posted by UnchainedAcolyte

Outside reasons?

Following your analogy though if we're faithful to the nature and position of God in the universe (all-knowing, all-powerful), God created that creep, knowing he would be a creep.

Okay, let's say he did know that Satan would turn out who he was. What if he didn't create him? What if mankind might have gone bad without his help and God knew that too? (Just pointing out that we have absolutely no clue what would have happened, what God knows, etc.)

What should God do? Just not create anything because of knowing something will go wrong? Or do what he did knowing in the end things would work out?

[Coren]

Originally Posted by Surlok TP

Is Coren our new Khorum? Where the fuck is he anyway?

Hehe didn't really mean to get mired in a religious debate here...just wanted to point out one issue I had with an assumption someone claimed couldn't be reconciled. I should have known what would have happened though. =)

What was there before God? Who created him? Who created the entity that created God? Who created the area that existed before God's universe? Who created the area that existed before that area,and so on and so forth?

Same goes the other way. Assuming there is no God, what created the Universe? What created the seeds that first started the process that created the Universe? Where did that come from? Where did "time" begin? There's no such thing as nothing.


(Sorry about the chain posts here.)

[Xakk]

Originally Posted by Coren

Okay, let's say he did know that Satan would turn out who he was. What if he didn't create him? What if mankind might have gone bad without his help and God knew that too? (Just pointing out that we have absolutely no clue what would have happened, what God knows, etc.)

What should God do? Just not create anything because of knowing something will go wrong? Or do what he did knowing in the end things would work out?

What if questions could go on until the end of time.
Most people will talk about how they believe God is perfect. What would a perfect God entail? He would be omnipotent and omniscient. He would know everything that had happened, could happen and would happen.

He's killed countless people and started over once already (Noah's Ark). I don't really see how the rapture is "knowing in the end things would work out".

[UnchainedAcolyte]

Originally Posted by Coren

Okay, let's say he did know that Satan would turn out who he was. What if he didn't create him? What if mankind might have gone bad without his help and God knew that too? (Just pointing out that we have absolutely no clue what would have happened, what God knows, etc.)

What should God do? Just not create anything because of knowing something will go wrong? Or do what he did knowing in the end things would work out?

How will they "work out"? Exactly according to how He planned them and put them in motion, since He is omniscient and omnipotent, correct?

[Heylel Teomim]

Originally Posted by Coren

Okay, let's say he did know that Satan would turn out who he was. What if he didn't create him? What if mankind might have gone bad without his help and God knew that too? (Just pointing out that we have absolutely no clue what would have happened, what God knows, etc.)

What should God do? Just not create anything because of knowing something will go wrong? Or do what he did knowing in the end things would work out?

He should have created it perfect if he planned on setting the rules up to require perfection. But this is like arguing if the easter bunny should paint the eggs lavender or mint green, so I'll go back to lurking.

[Surlok TP]

Originally Posted by Coren

Hehe didn't really mean to get mired in a religious debate here...just wanted to point out one issue I had with an assumption someone claimed couldn't be reconciled. I should have known what would have happened though. =)



Same goes the other way. Assuming there is no God, what created the Universe? What created the seeds that first started the process that created the Universe? Where did that come from? Where did "time" begin? There's no such thing as nothing.


(Sorry about the chain posts here.)

There isn't any answer to it, there are theories, no more real or believable than any religion is. Science attempts to go back as far as it can but it'll likely never explain it, but it will at least try. Religion can't be bothered, it can't be bothered with many things,its simply easier to ignore it or explain it out.

I am curious as to how religion explains out Time itself, because in terms of time a god can't possibly exist unless he actually created time as well, but then again,what was their before him? Every end needs a beginning in our existence, it's all based around time.

Somehow religion is exempt from that particular defining rule though, which is why no argument for it will ever be plausible to me. It's also why religion needs to come up with wordy ways of making doubt implausible, but is careful to omit certain parameters like time. Since it contradicts the very ground work of the belief. Who cares when it started? I'm going to live for eternity with my buddy Jesus! , I don't think so.

[Surlok TP]

Originally Posted by Pinchandroll

The Council of Nicaea only met and established the Nicene Creed if you believe in God? The Roman Catholic church only added the Apocrypha if you believe in God? The Pseudepigraphal and Deuterocanonical books only exist if you believe in God? I'm not really addressing faith at all here, I'm talking about what happened historically and that has nothing to do with whether you believe in God.

I think you misunderstood my post, or didn't read it very closely. Almost all of it is a summary of the history of the church. It's just history and it's not really debatable.

When it surrounds the Church yes it is debatable. Especially back as far as you are talking about,you are talking about religious people writing books and having meetings about religion, all of that is factual when you are talking about religion since it's all made up regardless of what version of the fairy tail they wanted to believe.. To believe that the church never altered anything in their favor,especially when you are referring to Catholics is madness, even for someone that believes in some crazy higher power.


Religion is just as greedy and subject to all the desires and needs and wanting of power as any other non religious organization or human being. The Catholic Church will go out of it's way to hide or deceive whenever possible to retain it's image and power. Look how long it took them to admit that priests like to face fuck little boys. If it weren't for the modern world and the speed of information that shit would have been buried and that's present day. Back when was word of mouth they could alter and hcange and do whatever the hell they wanted .

[Pinchandroll]

Originally Posted by Surlok TP

When it surrounds the Church yes it is debatable. Especially back as far as you are talking about,you are talking about religious people writing books and having meetings about religion, all of that is factual when you are talking about religion since it's all made up regardless of what version of the fairy tail they wanted to believe.. To believe that the church never altered anything in their favor,especially when you are referring to Catholics is madness, even for someone that believes in some crazy higher power.

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. You're saying that since this history involves the church, you don't believe it? No matter what you believe, you can't deny that the council of Nicaea met, and you can't deny what the results of the meeting were. Nobody would argue because it's just straight history. Likewise, the points I listed in my previous post have nothing to do with faith; they are simply history. So I'll ask you for a third time: do you have any evidence or arguments against what I wrote? Since you are concerned about which books were allegedly ommitted or purged from the Bible, I'd be interested in hearing specifically what you are referring to, and why it invalidates the entire religion and makes it impossible to have conversations with religious people.

Next, I claimed that doctrine is unchanged. I never said the members of the church were infallible, nor did I claim they "never altered anything in their favor." I simply said that the doctrine is unaffected. The core beliefs that constitute Christianity from 1700 years ago are the same today.

Religion is just as greedy and subject to all the desires and needs and wanting of power as any other non religious organization or human being. The Catholic Church will go out of it's way to hide or deceive whenever possible to retain it's image and power. Look how long it took them to admit that priests like to face fuck little boys. If it weren't for the modern world and the speed of information that shit would have been buried and that's present day. Back when was word of mouth they could alter and hcange and do whatever the hell they wanted .

This conversation really has nothing to do with the behavior of members of the Catholic church. I understand that you view the entire Church as an entity that is only concerned with money and power. I prefer to see it as a Christian church filled with imperfect people. It's unfortunate, but it is reality that in an organization that big, you are going to have bad apples. However, I believe the Catholic church has honest, righteous intentions. I do wish you would respond to the points I'm trying to make instead of taking pot shots at the Church and calling all religious people crazy based on the actions of a few people.

[Xakk]

Originally Posted by Pinchandroll

This conversation really has nothing to do with the behavior of members of the Catholic church.

Well it does when the people committing atrocities represent you.

[Chrisb3]

Ok religious guys. Simple questions.

When did you start beliving in God? Why do you belive in God?

I hear alot on the internet about why god exists/doesn't exist but nothing about where people first got these ideas.

[Zerai]

Figured it belonged. Link didn't..link for some reason.

Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God' - Telegraph

[Gryeyes]

Originally Posted by SalaciousTunare

And how do you achieve such a feat, when there is no duality. (right and wrong)

This is honestly what I think the point of existence is, it isn't Jesus or Mohammed. It is light and dark, right and wrong, good and evil.

The entire nature of the universe is even dictated by such dualities, all the way down to particles of positive and negative.

By not placing absolute values on things since the labels are not accurate. That you are completely unaware of even the concept of a non-dualistic perspective existing is pretty telling. I mean you have read the bible right? The Tree of knowledge of good and evil was forbidden. It doesn't take much insight to see Right/Wrong Good/evil are such subjective labels that they have almost no value as a description or perspective. Also in the real world right/wrong good/evil are not mutually exclusive and exist to some degree in every action.