What's the one true religion?

[Hottotty]

We all know it's Christianity, of course.

My God, who is actually the son of my God, but they are one, and he is eternal, but he died once and then rose again, can turn water into wine. WINE. Let's see Buddha do that.

Discuss!

[Z.E.I.D.A.N]

Agnosticism. Everything else is just playing the guessing game.

[Hottotty]

By guessing you mean knowing with complete certainty, rit?

[Z.E.I.D.A.N]

lawl

Well when a Hindu, a Muslim and a Christian all think that they're absolutely certain, then there's obviously something going wrong..

[Hottotty]

lawl

Well when a Hindu, a Muslim and a Christian all think that they're absolutely certain, then there's obviously something going wrong..

Uh yeah. With the Muslim and the Hindu.

[Rorshach]

^That's just ignorant. Straight up saying people are wrong about something that can't be proved.

Figure your own beliefs out. Following a religion is lazy and silly unless you believe every single piece of the religion.

I'm just a little bit nihilistic. I think nothing has meaning. We can give meaning to things, but it'll still just be a thin layer of paint. Not to say I don't care about my family or anything.

On the other hand, I do subscribe to the "paint layer" that justice needs to be done.

[HGW XX/7]

Cosbyness is next to Godliness.

[Smokey]

^Wrong. Cosbyness IS Godliness.

What is Tenrikyo, anyway? That's one I've never heard of.

[Rorshach]

^I think it's a popular sect of Shinto.

[ReaganYouth]

I'm an agnostic. I believe that something up there created us, but organized religion still disgusts me.

Oh, and it's definitely Judaism.

[Hottotty]

^Wrong. Cosbyness IS Godliness.

What is Tenrikyo, anyway? That's one I've never heard of.

Vaguely similar to Shinto. Established by a Japanese lady who had seizures and thought it was divine intervention in her life and convinced 2 million people of the same thing. It's no ark floating through a world rain storm, but it's close.

[virion]

L. Ron Hubbard FTW!

[MR EPIC]

Threads like these always end well.

[Z.E.I.D.A.N]

lol, as long as MAX and Jeff stay away from here, it'll be okay ;)

[Hottotty]

Threads like these always end well.

You mean, like, with everyone becoming converted?

[Rorshach]

lol, as long as MAX and Jeff stay away from here, it'll be okay ;)

I dunno', man. I can get pretty mad when it comes to religion.

[ReaganYouth]

^Me too.

And besides, MAX is banned (thank god).

[Smokey]

You mean, like, with everyone becoming converted?

Not really. If that was the case, Andre would have converted Max years ago and we wouldn't be having these threads anymore.:P

[Hottotty]

Wait, Max is banned?

Not really. If that was the case, Andre would have converted Max years ago and we wouldn't be having these threads anymore.:P

haha I can't help it. All the political rants are killing me.

By the way, I'd like to give a shout out to everyone who didn't commit to Judaism. They're tough as nails to convert.

[Rorshach]

So you're going to try to convert us?

BWAHAHA!

Good luck. Hehe.

[Smokey]

Wait, Max is banned?

Apparently. Not sure what for, though I can think of at least one reason.

EDIT: Rorschach is a Jew?

WUDDAFUG HAX.

[Hottotty]

You don't realize it, but I've converted you already.

BEHOLD YOUR GAWD!
http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/7083/att0001515jo0.gif

EDIT:
Apparently. Not sure what for, though I can think of at least one reason.

His pretty lips?

Is it permaban?

[ReaganYouth]

I heard he was B& for harassing Tanooki in the political threads.

I won't really miss him though. He was beginning to piss me off, kinda like blokey.

[Rorshach]

^^I'm not a Jew. I'm straight up not. I assume he's trying to convert us though, considering he's used the word numerous times.

EDIT: WAS BLOKEY BANNED?!!?!!

[MR EPIC]

Yes guys. Blokeymon was banned for 3 days which means he'll be able to come back tomorrow and Max was banned for 7 days which means he'll be able to return on Friday or Saturday. It's just business, never personal.

[Smokey]

^^I'm not a Jew. I'm straight up not. I assume he's trying to convert us though, considering he's used the word numerous times.

Don't try to cover up. You've been exposed, Jew.:P

[ReaganYouth]

I'm Jewish. Well, my grandma is anyway. But she's dead.

[virion]

blokey was saying some hilarious **** to get banned though.

[Lucas]

I'm an agnostic. I believe that something up there created us, but organized religion still disgusts me.

^QFT

[virion]

^QFT

Quantum field theory?

[Lizzaroni]

None of 'em.

[Hottotty]

Christianity.

Fixed!

[Lizzaroni]

Quit being a douche.

[Z.E.I.D.A.N]

Oh, and Liz.

[MikeWolfskin]

So not going there, bad topic idea for real -_-

[brian23987]

A modified form of Baha'i with the mystic ideas taken out would work for me.

edit: with rasta bud

[Coral]

Watch what you say about AMNs cherished members Reagan!

I was born Catholic, Mom switch us to a Baptist church at age 2. I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior. Then I realized I liked Boys. For there on what I personally believe has been conflicting with what Ive been told/ partially believe.

If I had to pick on on that list Id go with the last or Christianity, but Im not 00% sure what I believe anymore.

[Lizzaroni]

I admittedly identify more with Catholicism since I was raised Catholic, and have almost always seen it more as a political statement (vs. Protestantism) than a religious one.

[Smokey]

Quantum field theory?

If you believe in that, you're retarded. Period.

A modified form of Baha'i with the mystic ideas taken out would work for me.

edit: with rasta bud

I'm taking a World Religion class this semester, and we had a couple of Baha'i come in and explain some basic tenets and stuff. I could dig some of it, but it just seems to be an effort to mesh every major religion into one super-religion, despite obvious contradictions in basic tenets.

Watch what you say about AMNs cherished members Reagan!

Um, Reagan didn't say anything about me, so I don't know what you're getting worked up about. (:P)

I was born Catholic, Mom switch us to a Baptist church at age 2. I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior. Then I realized I liked Boys. For there on what I personally believe has been conflicting with what Ive been told/ partially believe.

If I had to pick on on that list Id go with the last or Christianity, but Im not 00% sure what I believe anymore.

To my knowledge, there is nothing in the gospels that condemns homosexuals. Christ's teachings are what really matter in Christianity. The Church put in Acts and the epistles in for reference and inspiration, basically, not definitive teachings. Same with the Old Testament; that's there for historical and inspirational purposes, it's not meant to be taken in the same sense as the red letters. So if you're leaning toward Christianity, you can at least rest easy knowing that Jesus doesn't hate you for being gay.

[brian23987]

Yeah there was a really nice baha'i temple near where i grew up in illinois and i looked into them a bit when i was old enough to understand religion, i like the ideas of uniting the religions and stuff but i don't believe any religion is fundamentally correct, as philosophies they get by just as well. i also tend to think religion is just an excuse for ignorant people to stay that way. GRAVITY?!?! WHAT!?! LETS JUST KILL YOU


so why no mormonism on the list? lots of sex, what else do you need?

[Coral]

To my knowledge, there is nothing in the gospels that condemns homosexuals. Christ's teachings are what really matter in Christianity. The Church put in Acts and the epistles in for reference and inspiration, basically, not definitive teachings. Same with the Old Testament; that's there for historical and inspirational purposes, it's not meant to be taken in the same sense as the red letters. So if you're leaning toward Christianity, you can at least rest easy knowing that Jesus doesn't hate you for being gay.

*cries*

[Rensa]

Lawl, this thread feels... different... without Max. It's weird :P
Agnosticism. Everything else is just playing the guessing game.
It's always a guessing game, dude... life's all about acting on limited information.
Oh, and Liz.
Lizism?

[Smokey]

Lawl, this thread feels... different... without Max. It's weird :P

You mean...civil?:D

[Kaizoku_Kouji]

To my knowledge, there is nothing in the gospels that condemns homosexuals. Christ's teachings are what really matter in Christianity. The Church put in Acts and the epistles in for reference and inspiration, basically, not definitive teachings. Same with the Old Testament; that's there for historical and inspirational purposes, it's not meant to be taken in the same sense as the red letters. So if you're leaning toward Christianity, you can at least rest easy knowing that Jesus doesn't hate you for being gay.

There's actually a pretty big difference between "Christianity" or "the Church" and "what Jesus said about stuff". To think of Christianity as a religion based around the teachings of Jesus is intellectually dishonest. Jesus only speaks in four of the 66 books of the Bible, and even those accounts disagree on what he said and did. Paul's writings, the Councils of Nicaea, and Augustine's teachings have all had more of a hand in the shaping of Christianity as we know it, than have the actual words of Jesus. Consider also the fact that the Gospels, our only accounts of Jesus' words, date from 50-200 years after his death and those of the apostles and most eyewitnesses, and you are dealing with a religion built more upon the ideas and contrivances of ordinary men picking and choosing and making stuff up, rather than the guy they dressed up as God Jr. a century after he died.

My general point being that even though Jesus himself is never shown to have said anything against gay people, the Church of today couldn't care less. That is a huge part of why I left Christianity and why I can't look at it as legitimate anymore (another reason being the talking snake).


Anyway... true religion? For me right now it's Naturalistic Transtheism: the universe and humanity get along just fine if nobody believes in god(s), so why bother? Whether a god exists or not, worship and belief in it is unnecessary for humans to live healthy, fulfilling lives. Also, I believe that spirituality is more about the mind and one's perception of the world and their place in it, rather than any kind of soul, afterlife, deities, good vs. evil, and so on. If I had to pick a real world religion to tie that to, I'd say Theravada Buddhism.

[MR EPIC]

Smokey - You're completely 100% wrong about Jesus and homosexuality so please just stop before you even get started and don't mislead Coral. This honestly is a bad subject for any of us to be talking about and my advice would be to leave it alone and don't even throw out opinions there. Because once you do others may feel compelled to correct you, me being one of them.

[virion]

Jesus doesn't love you for being gay.

corrected. :P

[Monkeylord]

None of them.




And I urge everyone to think VERY CAREFULLY before replying to anyone in here. These threads are all 100% guaranteed to end badly, and I'm sure you're not the one who wants to get banned over it!

[Hottotty]

Wow! I started the thread as a half-joke, because I was sick of all the political talk. But still, we have to fight about something, amirite?

Personally, I think spirituality is an exclusively personal journey, even if the journey is an attempt at disproving the spiritual. How a person integrates information around them and information beyond them is, I believe, a pretty standard process. But it's also one I consider pretty sacred.

While it's fine to joke, and question, and make fun, ultimately I think any forceful interference in personal spirituality is a gross offense. I'm not sure, but I think most people innately agree with that, and that's why they harshly view the hard-sell believe-or-burn slant of organized religions.

Personally, I have never felt pressured to believe anything. I've always viewed religion less as a rule of law, and more as guide posts along the journey.

For another awful analogy, if life were a play where the physical and the divine commune like an audience and actor, religion isn't the plot, but simply the venue. It is the common ground.

Though I've hardly considered all faiths, of the ones I've read about I do like Christianity, if only because Jesus is actually quoted as saying very little in the book, and the little he says I find very easy to relate to. Stop fighting, be patient. I can handle that.

Many people insist that in order to be Christian, you must take the Old Testament as literal. I think that's suspicious. If Jesus is to be taken as the son of God, or whatever we want to call him, we ought to think his manner of speech is similar to how God might speak. So if the only representative of God is speaking in riddle and allegory, why do we insist that the Old Testament does otherwise? Let it be a book of fables. That doesn't diminish its relevance. Nor does that cloud the meanings behind the stories.

Many people also insist that if you are to be religious, you must integrate the entirety of your religion's doctrines. I think that's asinine. Laws are altered all the time. Governments shift. Virtually everything else humans do is a work in progress. Why can't spirituality be like that? I feel like religion is maybe inspired by God, but designed by people. That doesn't make it less significant to me, as some religious people might fear. But that does mean it's bound to be turned into a political gesture, and so it is fallible. Taking religious teaching with a grain of salt is actually a purer spiritual act, I think. Unlike what some people assume, I tend to think you must question what you are told in order to be spiritual.



/ramble

[Lovebird]

Rasta as ****.

[HGW XX/7]

Yeah, I was surprised when people started taking this thread seriously. I thought it was quite clearly a joke intended to get some laughs.


'Cause he's gonna convert you.


Also, MR EPIC. I'd be interested to see where Jesus says homosexuality is wrong (since you say Smokey is 100% wrong). Care to pony up the proof?

[Lovebird]

Smokey - You're completely 100% wrong about Jesus and homosexuality so please just stop before you even get started and don't mislead Coral. This honestly is a bad subject for any of us to be talking about and my advice would be to leave it alone and don't even throw out opinions there. Because once you do others may feel compelled to correct you, me being one of them.

Ummm, isn't that called a discussion? We wouldn't want that, would we? :D

[Coral]

:) I think Im going to heaven.

[Smokey]

There's actually a pretty big difference between "Christianity" or "the Church" and "what Jesus said about stuff". To think of Christianity as a religion based around the teachings of Jesus is intellectually dishonest. Jesus only speaks in four of the 66 books of the Bible, and even those accounts disagree on what he said and did. Paul's writings, the Councils of Nicaea, and Augustine's teachings have all had more of a hand in the shaping of Christianity as we know it, than have the actual words of Jesus. Consider also the fact that the Gospels, our only accounts of Jesus' words, date from 50-200 years after his death and those of the apostles and most eyewitnesses, and you are dealing with a religion built more upon the ideas and contrivances of ordinary men picking and choosing and making stuff up, rather than the guy they dressed up as God Jr. a century after he died.

My general point being that even though Jesus himself is never shown to have said anything against gay people, the Church of today couldn't care less. That is a huge part of why I left Christianity and why I can't look at it as legitimate anymore (another reason being the talking snake).

Well, being a Christian literally means being a "little Christ". Forgive me if I take the words of Christ to have more meaning than a bunch of old dudes that were born centuries after Christ.:rolleyes:

Also, the last gospel was actually written somewhere between thirty to forty years after Christ's death, I'd have to look it up again. Even the last book in the New Testament was written only about sixty years after Christ died, and that was by John, one of Jesus' original disciples.

Many people insist that in order to be Christian, you must take the Old Testament as literal. I think that's suspicious. If Jesus is to be taken as the son of God, or whatever we want to call him, we ought to think his manner of speech is similar to how God might speak. So if the only representative of God is speaking in riddle and allegory, why do we insist that the Old Testament does otherwise? Let it be a book of fables. That doesn't diminish its relevance. Nor does that cloud the meanings behind the stories.

I agree, in that the Old Testament isn't meant to be taken as gospel like Christ's words are. I don't believe they are a bunch of fables, as a lot of the history there can be backed up, but for the most part I'm with ya.

Many people also insist that if you are to be religious, you must integrate the entirety of your religion's doctrines. I think that's asinine. Laws are altered all the time. Governments shift. Virtually everything else humans do is a work in progress. Why can't spirituality be like that? I feel like religion is maybe inspired by God, but designed by people. That doesn't make it less significant to me, as some religious people might fear. But that does mean it's bound to be turned into a political gesture, and so it is fallible. Taking religious teaching with a grain of salt is actually a purer spiritual act, I think. Unlike what some people assume, I tend to think you must question what you are told in order to be spiritual.

Again, I agree, unless you're talking about the words of the individual(s) that are purported to be the big cheese of that religion. Then you aren't following that religion, you're following another/making up a new one.

And Epic, I dare you to find me a verse in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John where Jesus outright condemns homosexuality.

[virion]

Well, being a Christian literally means being a "little Christ". Forgive me if I take the words of Christ to have more meaning than a bunch of old dudes that were born centuries after Christ.:rolleyes:

the words of christ were written by these old guys born centuries after him.. that's what he was trying to say.. all the gospels written that take jesus's words were written in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.. atleast 180 years after the man was dead and gone.. so what we have as christ word is actually passed on from a couple generations.. it's like that game.. tell someone a story, and that person tells someone a story.. the last person will almost always tell a slightly different story.

And Epic, I dare you to find me a verse in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John where Jesus outright condemns homosexuality.

jesus didn't state the 10 commandment's either.

[Hottotty]

the words of christ were written by these old guys born centuries after him.. that's what he was trying to say.. all the gospels written that take jesus's words were written in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.. atleast 180 years after the man was dead and gone.. so what we have as christ word is actually passed on from a couple generations.. it's like that game.. tell someone a story, and that person tells someone a story.. the last person will almost always tell a slightly different story.

Meh. Aside from historians whipping their dicks out by saying "ZOMG I've undiscovered Christ!" with suspicious evidence and heavy conjecture, there's no evidence of exactly when Jesus' teachings were committed to script.

Of course it's impossible for us to know because we live in a script culture, but in my loose understanding of other cultures, I know there's been a few oral cultures capable of transferring detailed information over great distances and lengths of time with little degradation. I remember reading a book called The Great Cat Massacre that traced familial stories in pre-print France over six generations and found there was almost no wavering in the telling of the stories. One likely reason was because familial respect. I think respect (and fear) for God might have kept some of the oral story tellers of Jesus' life in check as well.

I'm fully aware of the politicization of Christ in the early formation of the church, I'm just pointing out the other side of the coin.

jesus didn't state the 10 commandment's either.

No, but he clearly stated he had no intention of rewriting the commandments. Rather, his intention was to elaborate on them (or distill them, as I see it).

[MR EPIC]

Smokey - You first of all have to understand why I said you were wrong before putting up narrow boundaries under which I'm supposed to reply to you. I never mentioned anything about the gospels containing a word for word admonishment of homosexuality, but what I am saying is that Jesus certainly doesn't condone it. I could easily prove that the New Testament covers all sorts of "Unnatural acts" including homosexuality, beastiality, and incest, but I see you've already dismissed the epistles and anything not contained in the gospel as "Not to be taken as seriously as what Jesus said" and that is where you've made a grave error. I not only have the experience but the knowledge of these matters to both keep this debate going and to correct any point where you're in error, but as the New Testament also says "Theological debates are never edifying" and I'm not about to sit here and let this get ugly. You can choose to see this however you'd like, but Coral is a friend of mind and my only request is that you don't fill his head up with that nonsense, unless you're willing to say more than "Jesus doesn't hate you because you're gay". With Coral I've discussed this topic at length and just short of having him pull out his Bible I've explained why homosexuality is a sin although no greater than any other. But again, you say you do not accept the entire teaching of the New Testament to be as important as the Gospels themselves so there is absolutely no reason for you and I to continue on. As I mentioned in my first post, these subjects never end well.

[ReaganYouth]

Smokey, stop defending people that don't deserve it (in this case, religious zealots).

[virion]

Meh. Aside from historians whipping their dicks out by saying "ZOMG I've undiscovered Christ!" with suspicious evidence and heavy conjecture, there's no evidence of exactly when Jesus' teachings were committed to script.

Of course it's impossible for us to know because we live in a script culture, but in my loose understanding of other cultures, I know there's been a few oral cultures capable of transferring detailed information over great distances and lengths of time with little degradation. I remember reading a book called The Great Cat Massacre that traced familial stories in pre-print France over six generations and found there was almost no wavering in the telling of the stories. One likely reason was because familial respect. I think respect (and fear) for God might have kept some of the oral story tellers of Jesus' life in check as well.

I'm fully aware of the politicization of Christ in the early formation of the church, I'm just pointing out the other side of the coin.



No, but he clearly stated he had no intention of rewriting the commandments. Rather, his intention was to elaborate on them (or distill them, as I see it).

true dat.

[Hottotty]

Smokey, stop defending people that don't deserve it (in this case, religious zealots).

Rude. I'm standing right here.

[Lucas]

I believe there is a difference between spiritualism and religion. Spiritualism is a belief in something other than the physical world. Religion is man-made institution with a history of controlling human actions.

That said, while I believe the world and the creatures that populate it were created (I also believe in evolution and science in general), I don't necessarily believe in an afterlife, or in anything beyond what we have on this Earth. I also don't try to spend time disproving such a thing, because there is no way to know the answer either way outside of putting a gun in my mouth. If there is something beyond physical life, cool, but I don't want to squander the gift of life I've been given trying to hope for something else. That would be such a waste.

I just can't stand to watch people spend their life trying to voluntarily live in misery or oppression for the sake of appeasing some human made religious standards, so at the very least, I just don't waste my time with nonsense. I would rather live my life to the fullest, and help those I care about to do the same.

[Lizzaroni]

Wow! I started the thread as a half-joke, because I was sick of all the political talk. But still, we have to fight about something, amirite?
It's called the War Room. If you want it to be lighthearted, post it in the Water Cooler. If it's posted here, it's acceptable for it to become charged, and not shocking that it would.

[Hottotty]

Hells yeah. That's why I was so surprised everyone just kept saying, "Well be careful or we ban you 4 life".

P.S. I take it I've converted you too, so I will stop trying. Gotta admit, it was eezee.

[ReaganYouth]

Rude. I'm standing right here.

Yes, let's ignore aaaaaaallllll the problems that stem from religion and all the bull**** that's carried out in dog's name on a daily basis. Let's destroy what's left of our minds by enforcing even more rules on ourselves. Yep, such is the way of Dog.

[Coral]

Reagan show just a little bit of restraint. You might not agree with some religions, but people have the right to believe them.

[JValone]

Yes, let's ignore aaaaaaallllll the problems that stem from religion and all the bull**** that's carried out in dog's name on a daily basis. Let's destroy what's left of our minds by enforcing even more rules on ourselves. Yep, such is the way of Dog.

People are going to continue to kill each other regardless of religion. Throughout history people have loved nothing more than to make distinctions and then set out on a war to wipe out those who aren't in their specific group. Shunning religion or religious individuals because it causes violence will help nothing, it only closes you off to a large segment of humanity.

People kill each other over money, property, gender, race, nationality, you name it someone's been merced because of it. I'm not a religious person myself but I dislike the attitude that religion causes violence therefore religion is wrong. Everything has caused violence at some point, if you want to make that point discuss specific individuals or sects within a religion that actively promote violence today. The Spanish Inquisition obviously doesn't speak well for followers of Christ, but the trillions in charity they've donated over the centuries does. It isn't a simple subject.

Everyone could all become atheists tomorrow and violence would not slow down whatsoever. Religion is the excuse, not the cause.

[ReaganYouth]

I realize that my comment was on the extreme side, and I apologize. I'm basically speaking from my experience, and going off of what I witness on a regular basis, religion seems like useless mind control with absolutely no benefits. As Lucas said, it's purely a man-made institution, and people shouldn't waste their lives to please some invisible being they don't even know exists.

While those fools enforce more rules on themselves, I'm gonna live my life the way only I would want to live it.

[Hottotty]

I realize that my comment was on the extreme side, and I apologize. I'm basically speaking from my experience, and going off of what I witness on a regular basis, religion seems like useless mind control with absolutely no benefits. As Lucas said, it's purely a man-made institution, and people shouldn't waste their lives to please some invisible being they don't even know exists.

While those fools enforce more rules on themselves, I'm gonna live my life the way only I would want to live it.

That's cool. Of course, as you get older you're going to inevitably realize that 90% of your decision making process is based on what you've perceived as social normalcy. Your clothing, your drinks, your manner of speech, all of it is defined by outside societal force.

As you realize how little of what you do, feel or believe is actually independently constructed, you might start to find the institution of religion a lot less offensive.

Or you might not.

[Smokey]

the words of christ were written by these old guys born centuries after him.. that's what he was trying to say.. all the gospels written that take jesus's words were written in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.. atleast 180 years after the man was dead and gone.. so what we have as christ word is actually passed on from a couple generations.. it's like that game.. tell someone a story, and that person tells someone a story.. the last person will almost always tell a slightly different story.

If that's what he was trying to say, then he's wrong. Revelation, the last book of the NT in placement as well as in the chronological sense, was written in circa 90 A.D. by John on the isle of Patmos after he was exiled by the Roman gov't. That by itself disproves that little theory. Also, most Biblical historians agree that the gospels were written within forty years of Christ's death.

Smokey - You first of all have to understand why I said you were wrong before putting up narrow boundaries under which I'm supposed to reply to you. I never mentioned anything about the gospels containing a word for word admonishment of homosexuality, but what I am saying is that Jesus certainly doesn't condone it.

Jesus doesn't say anything about it one way or the other. Thus, I am not wrong in what I said, and there was no call to say that I was.

I could easily prove that the New Testament covers all sorts of "Unnatural acts" including homosexuality, beastiality, and incest, but I see you've already dismissed the epistles and anything not contained in the gospel as "Not to be taken as seriously as what Jesus said" and that is where you've made a grave error.

Prove it, then. And how can you not believe that the words of the Son of God are to be taken just a bit more seriously than those of profane origin? Think about it for a minute.

I not only have the experience but the knowledge of these matters to both keep this debate going and to correct any point where you're in error, but as the New Testament also says "Theological debates are never edifying" and I'm not about to sit here and let this get ugly.

You can't just say that I'm wrong and then claim that it would be detrimental to the wellbeing of the thread to prove that I am. This is the War Room, for ****'s sake. So go ahead. Prove me wrong.

You can choose to see this however you'd like, but Coral is a friend of mind and my only request is that you don't fill his head up with that nonsense, unless you're willing to say more than "Jesus doesn't hate you because you're gay". With Coral I've discussed this topic at length and just short of having him pull out his Bible I've explained why homosexuality is a sin although no greater than any other.

Excuse me? Now I'm lying to Coral? Exactly how did I do that? Christ did not say that homosexuality is a sin. If the Son of God doesn't say it's a sin, who is Peter, Paul, the Pope, or you to say it is? Being a Christian does not entail following the doctrine of the Church (by the Church, I mean the decrees of the Pope, the Vatican, any Protestant council or any other such group), it means you adhere to the word of Christ. IMO, the Church quit doing that a long time ago.

But again, you say you do not accept the entire teaching of the New Testament to be as important as the Gospels themselves so there is absolutely no reason for you and I to continue on. As I mentioned in my first post, these subjects never end well.

Ask any minister, and they will tell you that the word of Christ holds more water than the word of Paul. I'm not alone in this belief. So once more, I challenge you to prove me wrong and prove that homosexuality is indeed a sin.

Smokey, stop defending people that don't deserve it (in this case, religious zealots).

Do us all a favor, please. Don't post in threads concerning religion. Better to look a fool than to open your mouth and prove it. But at least someone's offering up some kind of proof around here.:rolleyes:

[ReaganYouth]

Do us all a favor, please. Don't post in threads concerning religion. Better to look a fool than to open your mouth and prove it. But at least someone's offering up some kind of proof around here.:rolleyes:

That's like telling Sascha not to post in Nintendo threads. He does it anyway. It's also like telling Jeff and Max not to post in political threads together. Again, they do it anyway. So I'll follow their example and direct my anger at something I feel (from my own experience at least) deserves it. It provides better release than egging and spray-painting the local church on mischief night (which I did once).

That's cool. Of course, as you get older you're going to inevitably realize that 90% of your decision making process is based on what you've perceived as social normalcy. Your clothing, your drinks, your manner of speech, all of it is defined by outside societal force.

As you realize how little of what you do, feel or believe is actually independently constructed, you might start to find the institution of religion a lot less offensive.

Or you might not.

Don't get me wrong here. I still hate religion (especially Christianity) with every fiber of my being. I just should have shown more restraint.

[virion]

Prove it, then. And how can you not believe that the words of the Son of God are to be taken just a bit more seriously than those of profane origin? Think about it for a minute.

words said by someone that said that these were the words of the son of god.. much like how the rest of the bible was the word of god said by man.

[Kaizoku_Kouji]

Also, most Biblical historians agree that the gospels were written within forty years of Christ's death.
Except for John, the one radically different from the others and regarded by scholars as the least authentic, whose dating varies radically anywhere from 60 AD to 140. Regardless though, this doesn't account for the fact that even the Synoptic gospels (the first three) don't agree on what Jesus said or did. Mark doesn't even mention a virgin birth, or anything after the empty tomb (until the ending was lengthened around 150 AD). If they were written by eyewitnesses, particularly the people closest to Jesus, wouldn't they have fewer inconsistencies?

Revelation, the last book of the NT in placement as well as in the chronological sense, was written in circa 90 A.D. by John on the isle of Patmos

It's highly unlikely that the apostle John and John of Patmos were the same person, since he'd have been about 100 years old (not very likely in the iron age). And if it was the same person, it's pretty understandable for an exiled, scorned, 100-year-old guy, terrified on his deathbed, who hasn't seen the kingdom of God within his lifetime like promised, to write about how his god is going to smite all the unbelievers and win... "soon."

Being a Christian does not entail following the doctrine of the Church (by the Church, I mean the decrees of the Pope, the Vatican, any Protestant council or any other such group), it means you adhere to the word of Christ. IMO, the Church quit doing that a long time ago.

"I'm a Christian and I do this. They don't, so they're not really Christians." An example of the no true Scotsman fallacy. Also, what about that bit in the Nicene Creed/Apostle's Creed about believing in the Authority of the Holy Christian Church to forgive sins and to baptize?

Whoa... I feel like I'm somehow... channeling... MAX...

[Rensa]

Whoa... I feel like I'm somehow... channeling... MAX...
I don't normally play the gif game, but...

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/thumb/e/e0/Vaders_apprentice_kneeling.jpg/600px-Vaders_apprentice_kneeling.jpg

'Rise.'

:P

[Smokey]

That's like telling Sascha not to post in Nintendo threads. He does it anyway. It's also like telling Jeff and Max not to post in political threads together. Again, they do it anyway. So I'll follow their example and direct my anger at something I feel (from my own experience at least) deserves it. It provides better release than egging and spray-painting the local church on mischief night (which I did once).

Sascha actually manages to behave and actually sound intelligent in those threads rather than "**** NINTENDO, IZ TEH GAYZORZ". And as for Max and Jeff, they've been banned, Max several times. That's an example you want to follow?

Don't get me wrong here. I still hate religion (especially Christianity) with every fiber of my being. I just should have shown more restraint.

You say that after every outburst you make. This is gonna sound harsh, but how about thinking about what you post before you click "Submit Reply"?

words said by someone that said that these were the words of the son of god.. much like how the rest of the bible was the word of god said by man.

I can't fathom how one can accept Peter and Paul's words in the same sense that one would with those of Jesus. Look at it this way: who would logically have more legitimacy as the mouthpiece of God? The Son of God, a being of divine origin and supposedly perfect, or his disciple, who is inherently flawed and lacks the understanding of God that Christ possesses?

Except for John, the one radically different from the others and regarded by scholars as the least authentic, whose dating varies radically anywhere from 60 AD to 140. Regardless though, this doesn't account for the fact that even the Synoptic gospels (the first three) don't agree on what Jesus said or did. Mark doesn't even mention a virgin birth, or anything after the empty tomb (until the ending was lengthened around 150 AD). If they were written by eyewitnesses, particularly the people closest to Jesus, wouldn't they have fewer inconsistencies?

Stephen L. Harris, a professor and the chair of Humanities and Religious Studies at California State University in Sacramento, puts the date to be roughly 90- 100 A.D, so I was by about twenty years. That's still within John's lifetime.

Mark and Luke gained their information from eyewitnesses, as they did not travel with Christ as Matthew and John did. Also, John was the "disciple that Jesus loved", so obviously there will be more personal info concerning Jesus in the book of John than in Matthew.

It's highly unlikely that the apostle John and John of Patmos were the same person, since he'd have been about 100 years old (not very likely in the iron age). And if it was the same person, it's pretty understandable for an exiled, scorned, 100-year-old guy, terrified on his deathbed, who hasn't seen the kingdom of God within his lifetime like promised, to write about how his god is going to smite all the unbelievers and win... "soon."

I do believe that they were one and the same. Aside from that, I won't argue about prophecy with you. One can read way too many things into both the nature of prophecy as well as its origins.

"I'm a Christian and I do this. They don't, so they're not really Christians." An example of the no true Scotsman fallacy. Also, what about that bit in the Nicene Creed/Apostle's Creed about believing in the Authority of the Holy Christian Church to forgive sins and to baptize?

I did preface that with the statement that it is my opinion, and should be treated as such. Frankly, I'm not really sure why I decided to throw that last little bit in there.

Whoa... I feel like I'm somehow... channeling... MAX...

I knew there was a reason that he hadn't posted in here under his account name. Max is performing internet ventriloquism again.:rolleyes:

[virion]

I can't fathom how one can accept Peter and Paul's words in the same sense that one would with those of Jesus. Look at it this way: who would logically have more legitimacy as the mouthpiece of God? The Son of God, a being of divine origin and supposedly perfect, or his disciple, who is inherently flawed and lacks the understanding of God that Christ possesses?

i understand what you're saying completely smokey.. my viewpoint is this. the words of jesus christ are being told to us by some other man. it makes it no different really to me than the rest of the bible.

[ReaganYouth]

You say that after every outburst you make. This is gonna sound harsh, but how about thinking about what you post before you click "Submit Reply"?

I do think about what I post (usually). Just because I express an opinion you think is ignorant doesn't mean I don't think about what I say.

[Smokey]

i understand what you're saying completely smokey.. my viewpoint is this. the words of jesus christ are being told to us by some other man. it makes it no different really to me than the rest of the bible.

I can accept that.

I do think about what I post (usually). Just because I express an opinion you think is ignorant doesn't mean I don't think about what I say.

If you ever feel you have to apologize/explain for your post, generally that means you didn't think things through very well.