|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 10:02 am
So what you are stating is that the word of Jesus, the word of your savior, the word of the very person you follow is insignificant and should not be followed compared to the other three written by Paul and Luke? That their word that Jesus was a sacrifice overrides Jesus' saying that people must always follow the laws of the Jews. Because as I remember Jesus wasn't Christian he was Jewish and he was delivering the message to people of the same faith however extending the open policy of conversion into Judaism. A book no matter who wrote it, no matter what it is should never contradict itself under any circumstance because then readers of the book like me will be very critical of it.
You call into question the morality of Satanism. Morality is not much seen in many Old Testament wars especially with the infanticide. So the counter statement to that is morality is and will always be the perception of the person.
Last that I feel I need to cover is that you are referring to the Occult. Satanism is a word that was used by the Church against any religion other than Catholicism, including Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, animism religions, Hinduism. The Church of Satan's founder Anton Szandor LaVey chose that name directly because of the representation of materialism and indulgence that Satan brought and to show open defiance to the Church stating that he is not part of their religion whatsoever.
Its interesting to see how people twist things into new names without knowing the history of it. Barbarian is one of those examples, its roots are Greek meaning "that which is not Greek." So I proudly say I'm a barbarian. I'm not Greek, and Satanism is another word that has been twisted around and to lump in the Church of Satan with the Occult or the Arcane is offensive to those who follow the Church of Satan as they don't ever preach such things, they preach self indulgence and self satisfaction. Not acts of killing or bloodshed, which they condemn whole heartedly unless they are provoked into attack, which is what Christianity, Islam, and Judaism also defend and support.
To inform you I am not a follower of the Church of Satan, nor am I an atheist, nor a Christian, Jew, or Muslim. I am an agnostic who studies religions and defends the truth and corrects the misconceptions. So please don't try to pull out any religion card on me.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 10:45 am
I'm not going to pull a religion card on you, you have shown many times you know what you are talking about. Though I think there are things maybe you have misunderstood. Believe it or not I respect you for what you have said.
As you said Jesus was a Jew, he lived as a Jew. His disciples were the first Christians. I am a Christian and not a Jew that basically means I believe Jesus was the son of God and he died for us. I also believe Saul/Paul was a very important man in starting the Church and heard from God regularly so yes I will believe what he says. Also I believe Luke had a more accurate account of Jesus' works as he was a doctor and as history has told me would have written things in more depth then the other two.
Also my church is very much a New Testament Church, we go by those teachings because thats when Christians were about. When Jesus left Christians came into being, Jesus was a Jew never a Christian. So yes we strive to be like him and yes we will follow what the Christians preached because Peter/Paul/Barnabas and the other Christians were setting the foundations for more people to follow. Thats what I believe and is what I have read.
Maybe I am talking about the Occult, its what I was taught to be Satanism and just so you know that wasn't in the Church, I learnt that when I wouldn't go near Christians or Christianity. Also my church is far from anything catholic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 2:12 pm
Catholicism no matter what will be the first form of mainstream Christianity and has influenced all others that follow it, be it Protestant, Lutheran, Calvinism, even Jehovah's Witnesses. Or at least that's how I feel.
Also I believe your statement about your respect towards me as I respect your religious preference. I have just always felt that if one is going to follow a religion they should always know what is in everything. I never understood why Christianity had the Old Testament if it was all meaningless to them and was not meant to be followed. I always saw it as just a historical reference Christians can use to trace the history of Messiah's. It is my belief to follow a religion right down to the last period in the sentence. Which is why I'm not so religious myself, because once I take something on I take it on completely. Also by Christianity and Judaism's Old Testament or Torah I've been condemned too many times for me to want to follow it and the New Testament as it has been shown was developed with mistranslations, misconceptions, and just plain misses for me to take the entire thing seriously.
Islam is just too big a commitment for me, half the things you have to do are amazingly expensive and I'm a poor poor person.
However all the same, I hope God blesses you many times over and that you continue to find your answers within your Holy Book while I continue to look for mine.
Oh and on Satanism, it isn't your fault. That misconception on the whole subject is something easily confused by nearly everyone. There are indeed actual worshipers of Satan who like to call themselves Satanists though they aren't very much informed also on what it is today and what it means overall.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 2:53 pm
I agree that Catholicism was the first form of Christianity but I honestly don't believe that having a Pope of such power is necessary and I don't agree with other things they do now either. I believe we have the Old Testament purely because it is historic, if you want to know how the religion came about there are the books telling you. I find it interesting as it shows God before the start of a new era as some call it. I find it useful. I would love to research more religions to be honest, I would love to know more of them but my college didn't do theology/Religious Studies and I can't do it at uni without doing it at college. Shame though because the history of them and philosophy behind religions are all fascinating, even if I don't agree with them. They are fascinating, other then the one my friend just showed me. If you want a laugh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 2:55 pm
yokomotoz Its interesting to see how people twist things into new names without knowing the history of it. Barbarian is one of those examples, its roots are Greek meaning "that which is not Greek." So I proudly say I'm a barbarian. Another funny thing about barbarians, they were basically called so because the Greeks/Romans saw them as less sufisticated and they had beards. Barbarian - "bearded one"
I didn't actually know about it's greek roots though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:07 pm
Remove Also about giving God human like qualities, no one can understand God, thats known, its a common fact otherwise people wouldn't be having such debates. The only way some people will ever understand is if you bring things down to human terms. You understand more then some people you have shown that already.
Also God might not be human does that mean he has no feelings? It says we were made in his image and that doesn't mean what we look like. So I believe he can have emotions after all he was rather angry and caring in the Bible. So I can't see him with no feelings at all because I have read otherwise. If you can't understand something why worship it? God is supposed to be infaluble/perfect. The only reason why he isn't, is because he wasn't discovered, he was invented (or atleast in my opinion) Humans are imperfect, if god is perfect he can't be human. If he isn't human, he shouldn't be as petty as humans. If he is so much better than us. And if your going to argue that he isn't perfect, then why are you following imperfection? I'll never can understand that. You mine as well be following the crack addict down the street.
If Jesus was Jewish, why would he kill himself for Christians, which at that time obviously hated each other at that time? With Christianity plagurizing the from the Jews and all, I'm sure they weren't to happy for each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 8:30 am
It says remove posted, but I don't see it!! scream gonk scream
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:50 am
I did.... its vanished...
If I can be bothered I will try and remember what I wrote and type it up again after my exam.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 8:16 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 10:34 am
Why do people follow a particular religion? bacause they have grown up with a said religion, or they have had experience with said religion from somewhere else
Is it appriopiate for them to try and make discions such as Harry Potter is the devil and should be banned? no because things like harry potter are fictional and are not supposed to be real, the devil is a figment of peoples imagination made up by the religion
Do they have a good or bad effect on society? both because some religions tell people to do good things, while some tell the worshipers to destroy infedels
Should children be forced to follow their parents religion? no because that might be forcing someone to do something agianst their will
Should people be perscuted for enforcing their religion on other people? that depends on what they are doing
How believable are they? some, not at all, but some, partially
Why did people start religions? to gain control other people
Do they make a person feel more secure? that depends what religion that they are thinking about
Do they promote free thinking or do they just surpress people? they supress people and give instrutions on what to do
Is the system they use to evalueate scripture working or should it be changed? it should be changed because it restricts people from doing things that they would normaly do
And most importantly: Does society need them? no, but people have grown so used to to religion that it would affect almost everyone in the world
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:12 pm
I laugh, I love, I hope, I try, I hurt, I need, I fear, I cry. Most of the time, people start to follow a religion because it's the religion they've grown up with; however, there are a lot of cases where a person grows up with one religion and converts to another in their adult life. On a somewhat related note, I don't understand why people will switch to different religions for, say, their spouse or any other intimate. Religion is supossed to be something you believe and have faith, not some fan-club you join to impress your girlfriend or your love-interest. If anyone wants to answer that, feel free to.
As for the believability of religion, it all depends on your fatih. Just for the sake of posting a picture:
This is why they call religion a "leap of faith." There's no factual evidence proving that a God does or doesn't exist, it's whether you choose to believe a higher power exists or not. Some people need to believe in something.
And as much as people don't want to admit it, society, in a way, does need religion, not as a way for the government to keep control of people, but as a way to give people some sort of hope for the future. While some people can cope with the fact that reality might just be a bittersweet symphony, there are others who need an incentive and a reason to get up in the morning. And that reason, for many people, is religion. As for what you said about religion being made to gain control over tpeople, V3, that's only true for some religions. There are plenty of eastern religions, such as Buddhism, that give people no reason to unwillingly obey their government.
It's true that religions, in a sense, repress people physically and mentally; however, referring back to my comment about population control, it also represses people from commiting random acts of violence. For example, the Bible says (paraphrased), "If you kill someone, you're ********. Sorry man." If you believe in Christianity/Catholicism, and its main doctrine tells you you're going to suffer eternally if you kill someone else, are you going to do it? Probably not.
Sorry if this is sorta scatterbrained. That's just how I usually am. And I know you do the same things, too. So we're really not that different, me and you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:17 pm
marshjazz Remove Also about giving God human like qualities, no one can understand God, thats known, its a common fact otherwise people wouldn't be having such debates. The only way some people will ever understand is if you bring things down to human terms. You understand more then some people you have shown that already.
Also God might not be human does that mean he has no feelings? It says we were made in his image and that doesn't mean what we look like. So I believe he can have emotions after all he was rather angry and caring in the Bible. So I can't see him with no feelings at all because I have read otherwise. If you can't understand something why worship it? God is supposed to be infaluble/perfect. The only reason why he isn't, is because he wasn't discovered, he was invented (or atleast in my opinion) Humans are imperfect, if god is perfect he can't be human. If he isn't human, he shouldn't be as petty as humans. If he is so much better than us. And if your going to argue that he isn't perfect, then why are you following imperfection? I'll never can understand that. You mine as well be following the crack addict down the street.
If Jesus was Jewish, why would he kill himself for Christians, which at that time obviously hated each other at that time? With Christianity plagurizing the from the Jews and all, I'm sure they weren't to happy for each other. Supposing god exists--and I believe that there is a creator--god, by definition is eternal. If god is eternal, then god cannot change--for if god could change then god would be temporal, not eternal. So, supposing there is an eternal god, god would have had to create everything in existence--or at least the means for everything in existence to come into existence--at the exact moment that god came into being, since god cannot change it follows that god cannot create nor destroy. If god came into being, then god is not eternal, since there was existence before god that allowed it to come into being. One then has to consider that situation a meta-god. But the cycle continues. Nothing can exist unless it was first created. Nothing can be created unless something exists to create it. The argument doesn't end, unless, of course, you subscribe to Aquinas that says that god is the beginning and the end and was not created and cannot be destroyed. He defined god as the prime-mover. He recognized the circular argument problem and that was his solution. if you accept it, fine. If not, fine. I don't really care either way. You're either right or you're wrong. Whichever you are, it's not going to change anything at all. "If Jesus was Jewish, why would he kill himself for Christians, which at that time obviously hated each other at that time? With Christianity plagurizing the from the Jews and all, I'm sure they weren't to happy for each other. " Are you ******** serious? Christians didn't exist, you stupid t**t! I'm not trying to be mean, but Paul, John, etc were all Jews until after Jesus' supposed resurrection. Also, it states, in the bible, that he died for all the world, not just a select few. Why does anyone follow anything? Nothing is perfect. Math is only theoretical. Theoretically it's perfect. Physics, theoretically, is perfect. In reality, however, it cannot be proven. If one follows your logic, one cannot use math at all, nor walk or even breathe. You can't prove anything for absolute truth. Everything is based off of assumptions. It's like symbolic logic. There are the big assumptions that we have, which everything is based off of, and provision assumptions, which are used for specific situations. Truth value is irrelevant. Which country are you a citizen of, by the way? Why do you follow the leader? If you're not an active revolutionary, then you're following by omission. If no human is perfect, then you should be leading, according to your professed philosophy, your own revolution against the world, which you fight alone, since you're not perfect either, no one should follow you. Your arguments have too many holes. Go study.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:25 pm
Tellev And as much as people don't want to admit it, society, in a way, does need religion, not as a way for the government to keep control of people, but as a way to give people some sort of hope for the future. While some people can cope with the fact that reality might just be a bittersweet symphony, there are others who need an incentive and a reason to get up in the morning. And that reason, for many people, is religion. As for what you said about religion being made to gain control over tpeople, V3, that's only true for some religions. There are plenty of eastern religions, such as Buddhism, that give people no reason to unwillingly obey their government. lol Dude, you just quoted The Verve. That's totally weird. It's also even more weird that I caught it and knew the reference. You seem to subscribe--as I do--to the Nietzschian phrase, "Religion is the opiate of the masses." What does opium do? Well, to put it simply, it creates euphoria in a dystopia. Religion gives people hope. Hope makes people slightly happier--or so they believe. Hope also allows them to be oppressed indefinitely and brutally. As for whether or not religion is necessary? I'm not so sure what I believe. Many people need hope to cope with the harshness of reality. That's why pointless rituals and superstitions rule the world. I'm not really a religion kind of guy. I'm more philosophical than religious, though I've studied religion for about 17 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:38 pm
Remove I agree that Catholicism was the first form of Christianity but I honestly don't believe that having a Pope of such power is necessary and I don't agree with other things they do now either. I believe we have the Old Testament purely because it is historic, if you want to know how the religion came about there are the books telling you. I find it interesting as it shows God before the start of a new era as some call it. I find it useful. I would love to research more religions to be honest, I would love to know more of them but my college didn't do theology/Religious Studies and I can't do it at uni without doing it at college. Shame though because the history of them and philosophy behind religions are all fascinating, even if I don't agree with them. They are fascinating, other then the one my friend just showed me. If you want a laughIf you really want to study religions, you should check out these two books: John Hick. Classical and Contemporary Readings in the Philosophy of Religion ISBN: 0131369040 It's technically a philosophy book, but it contains the biggest philosophers of religion including Aquinas, Descartes, Buber and McFague. ...And Plato too, but I'm not a fan of his. Also, Alexander Miller. An Introduction to Contemporary Metaethics. ISBN: 074562345X Metaethics is the study of what ethics actually are and where they come from--which does intersect with philosophy of human nature, but that's off topic. It discusses religious based ethical arguments as well as secular ones and ones that state that ethics don't really exist. Both of these books are incredible and I've read them in full, though I can't find my metaethics one at the moment and it's angering me. gonk crying
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
