|
Byskwik
|
Pho, whether they are fringe group or not you've just proven yourself as self righteous as those supposed Christians who wrote the doom/quake reviews. Jehovah's Witnesses are a fundamentalist religion, which means all of their beliefs (as a whole) are based on the bible and not on doctrine. ( http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/index.htm?article=start.htm - check under the topic "How is the trinity explained?") They use their own translation of the bible compiled by those who do speak Latin and Greek, but will happily discuss things using your own translation. I didn't ask you to believe in what they say, I asked you to discuss it with them. Is your faith so weak that it can't stand a simple discussion? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
Pho, whether they are fringe group or not you've just proven yourself as self righteous as those supposed Christians who wrote the doom/quake reviews Byskwik, if you want to think me to be self-righteous, then you're welcome to your opinion, but I'm sorry that you view me in this way. I'm as entitled to my opinion as anyone else as well. My opinion of the Jehovah's witnesses is based on past experience, not prejudice. I've read their literature, and I'm sorry, but to me it conflicts with the bible. I might also add that good friend of mine's mother is a Jehovah's Witness, so I have a very good source of information on what they do and do not think at my disposal. Anyway, it is my personal choice not to believe their doctrine just as it is Devlar's, Oobey's, yours Confusedus's, LeeMon's, Plague's, or anyone else's personal choice to follow their own beliefs. That's the core element of the concept of religious freedom. To quote the pagans: an it hurt no one, do as thou wilt. Just because I do not care for the doctrine of a certain religious sect doesn't make me a bigot any more than OoBeY is a bigot for disagreeing with my religious beliefs. As for discussing, have you seen nothing of my discussions with OoBeY? He's an athiest, and he knows full well I'm not out to convert him, but we can discuss the mysteries of God, and science, and the shortcomings of both religion AND science without resulting to accusations or mudslinging. I can discuss anything with anyone, so long as it is a discussion and not just an argument or an attempt to convert me towards or away from something. I'm all for the sharing of ideas and beliefs and letting people draw their own conclusions. It's my belief that God gave all creatures a brain, and that it should be put to use before just following someone or believing what they say to be true. I may be passionate about my beliefs, yes, but you know nothing about my past, or my plague of doubts that I've wrestled with over time in search of the truth, the pains I've gone through, or the revelations in my own life. I'd suggest you get to know me a LOT better before writing me off as a stereotypical self-righteous goody-two-shoes or anything else. I've never accused you of anything nor personally attacked you. I've made suppositions, yes, but I've also qualified them. Notice I say "If this, then that". That's because I make no assumptions about what you believe since frankly I don't know what you do or do not believe. I'm not out to judge you or anyone else, why then are you judging me?
The original situation here, which we've digressed from, is that you said that the trinity was not biblical. That was my original point, and my only point. I quoted what is stated in the bible because your statement contained a factual error. Like I said, you either believe it or you don't. If you don't, then there is no need to debate this, and I have no quarrel with that. However, the book, as it is written, the copy I have, says this, and that is what I was quoting. This is the book I happen to go by. It's a good book, that a lot of other fundamentalists go by as well. I see no reason to change it out for another at this time. I'm not going to start an argument here about who's the "true religion" or what translation of the bible is the "true" translation because nobody KNOWS for 100% what is the absolute truth concerning God except dead folks. The permanently dead kind... I don't count. That's why it's called faith. We take what looks like it fits the best and apply it to our lives, and find meaning in whatever we find meaning in. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
  I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
Tabun
Pixel Procrastinator
Team Member
Elite (3k+)
   
Posts: 3330
|
A book has hardly ever proven anything for me. It's a human concept, it's written by humans, translated by humans and interpreted by humans - that's at least thrice the opportunity to err. If there is a god, and it wishes me to believe in it, I hope it will use means other than any religion has sofar come up with, because I will need a feeling, not a 'proof' of any kind. ;]
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
| Tabun |
?Morituri Nolumus Mori? |
| |
|
|
|
|
Hedhunta
|
wouldnt it be funny if they somehow found out the bible was written by some dudes that were all hopped up on drugs or something? ... i mean, it could happen, everyone says 'god wrote the bible', but noone has any proof,(or disproof for that matter).. so if noone knows who actually wrote the bible(again reiterating that the bible says god does, but offers no real physical proof... [phos gonna flame me for that one]) then its possible that some dude just wrote a book and a buncha people took it way too seriously...(not to say that it is a bad thing, but alot of bad things were done 'in the name of god' in past and present..) ... i dunno, noone really knows.. nor will we ever know.. unless aliens land on the planet with their own version.. saying they left it here by accident or something..
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
Ahh, but how do you know if I'm going to flame you, Hed? Of course what you said is possible. I'll be the first to say there is no absolute empiracle proof that the bible is the exact word of God. That may surprise you, but as I've said before, I seek the truth, not what people claim the truth to be. Ignoring possibilities just because they are undesireable would be fairly blind of me, would it not? Also, Tabun is correct in that God did not literally write the bible, men did indeed hold the pens. The generally accepted Christian belief is that the Holy Spirit moved these men to write what they did, when they did it. That is, that "feeling" you speak of, to write exactly what is needed to be written in order for the jigsaw puzzle to fall together in precisely the manner needed is what God imparted unto them. Let's suppose for example, a hypothetical here, that the universe was indeed made by an almighty, omniscient being, for a specific end result. That being would then know exactly what would have to transpire in order for events to fall into place as needed to fulfill this "plan". That could even include the rise of alternate religions, atheism, what have you. Now, how do you communicate to this creation without directly interfering with it to an absurd degree? Sure, you can have visions, and premonitions, but then you know what psychiatrists think of all that, so it's not enough. So why not a written record, that while the words would be concrete and absolute to all people would also be open for interpretation, and could by circumstantial evidence prove enough to many people to believe in this God? That would then open the door to faith, but leave enough room for doubt. This means people retain their free will to choose. What inspires a person to have faith in a given thing is purely personal. To me prophecy has been the test of any religion. If there's an almighty God who wants people to believe by faith that he and he alone is the one true God, what better a way then to show people things in advance, have them write it down, even though they do not understand it at the time, and then to have later generations unravel this puzzle and see these things come to pass? Sure anyone can guess at the future, but only a being outside of time itself would know the exact future. Prediction with a 100% accuracy is impossible otherwise. To the hardened skeptic prophecy can be interpreted in any way shape or form, re-invented, and meant to mean anything you want it to as I've often heard it put. Then again, to a hardened skeptic who's made up their mind that things are a certain way and not another then no amount of evidence will ever be good enough to prove something to them. What's good enough for me might not suffice for others. We're all different, after all, but then the universe would be boring if we were all the same. The irony is that from what I know of prophecies I've seen many of the same elements and undercurrents within most religious beliefs around the world. Who am I to say which of them is ultimately right? For all I know God could have started all of them with mankind having "edited" them along the way? I think it's better to let God be the judge of that.
I think the question comes down to applicability in one's own life. If a person reads the bible, or the koran, or the Egyptian book of the dead, whatever, and finds that the lessons, rules, and events in the book relate to their own personal experience in life then they will find whatever meaning in it that is there to be offered. That is the path they will be drawn toward, and ultimately the measuring stick they use for their worldview is that of what truths they find that most closely relate to them personally. That's fine, just so long as they go in with their eyes open, and test that which they are led to believe with some degree of logic and reasoning. The one's that don't and instead buy into the rhetoric of the local snake-oil preacher become mindless sheep blindly chanting mantras repeated to them over and over. Such people are dangerous, and the world is full of too many of them. For myself, I've examined many beliefs in the search to know God, and the reason for all this creation, over a fairly long time. I've had an awful long time to try to get to know the big guy. My personal experiences led me in one direction repeatedly because certain events in this universe coincided with what I had read, and certain events in my own existence, my own struggles, my own "feelings" and revelations, and my own battles with demons also coincided with what's written in this particular book. But then, that's me personally, I could just as easily be wrong, or I could even be completely insane, but then again, I could also be right. What does it matter, except how I treat others as the end result? All the other consequences of personal sin, salvation, what have you, affect me personally and nobody else. It's in how we treat others that the true worth of our lessons and moral code come into play, regardless of the source. An honest athiest is worth more than a so-called Christian who lies, cheats, and steals, after all. I think the greater question for someone is not whether or not they believe a particular book over another, or no book at all, but the question is that of do they seek to know God? If the latter is true, they will obviously at some point embark on a lifelong quest to understand God, and what his intentions are, and what the meaning of all this is. Even science seeks to know the meaning behind all things, just from a different direction. A professor once put it that religion starts with God creating the universe, with man attempting to understand why it exists, and science starts with the universe existing and seeks to understand where it came from and why. It is natural to desire to understand that which you do not know, and that which seems mysterious, and that path does not take everyone in the same direction. If God instead doesn't exist, well then it's been interesting I suppose, but quite a disappointment to me at least that this is all there is and nothing more. It also leaves me at a loss as to how I can exist at all, as well as the source for the more "miraculous" events in my life. Either way the end result of all this has been quite a diversity of beliefs. Sometimes they can coexist, sometimes they clash horribly, and sometimes even bloodily. I guess, with all things, we'll just have to wait and see. We do all have the benefit of the opportunity to know the answer for sure whether or not God exists. It's a bloody shame that you have to die ( and rather permanently at that ) to find out for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
Tabun
Pixel Procrastinator
Team Member
Elite (3k+)
Posts: 3330
|
Science is indeed a religion, in many ways. Maybe there is a plan indeed, but I don't feel there would be a connection with the bible. My only view of god that has ever felt right, was as a god that IS the entire universe (or smaller bits of it - the gaia theory, in a way). And maybe god is a big word in this one, since it would also not surprise me if, say, the earth is a sentient 'being' in a way (complexity leading to intellingence). Where the bible of this 'religion' could be DNA. To me this sounds even more plausible and 'right' than there being a christian god struggling to get his plan too work in a world of human stupidity, but that is ofcourse very personal  Both theories have flaws apparant to me aswell - a divine/mastermind plan would not result in something as awful as human nature, if I could prevent it. If the gaia theory is right, maybe earth is struggling to get rid of us (an experiment gone haywire?), to no avail - or it just lets us muck along, realizing that enormous asteroid is due to arrive in a few hundred years anyway. A depressing option, maybe - but I'm not ruling out that mankind maybe isn't all that. Maybe we are a mistake, or the black sheep fo the children of god - in which case many theories would be wrong, simply because they assume we are created 'perfect' (that is to say, before adam & eve did the booboo thing, if you will). If the latter holds any truth, that would indeed raise many questions about the 'why' of life - but somewhere in my heart & mind I am prepared to accept 'There Is No Reason' for an answer. I'm looking forward to finding out, just not fast-forward ;] |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2003-02-20, 07:30 by Tabun »
|
Logged
|
| Tabun |
?Morituri Nolumus Mori? |
| |
|
|
|
|
Devlar
|
I think its human mentality, or illness depending on how you look at it, that places a focus on finding out what the beginning middle and end of things really are. It is beyond our perception to simple say that something could have been in existance forever.
Why are we here? Where did the universe come from? Its simple human mentality to assume there is an answer to these questions. That there is a reason for why we are here, that there was in fact a beginning of the universe (don't say the big bang or I will slap you for not knowing what the hell your talking about). Its beyond us to simply say, that the universe has been here always, that we are not here for a purpose because it would shrink our lives to the point of insignificance. Its for that reason we make religion to better cope with the answers we cannot truely accept.
Yes, Science can be likened to a religion, because just like religion it dictates a modus operandi for recieving information. It in itself is no different than the numerous philosophies out there that dictate methods of thought. The main difference is we would not be so technologically advanced as we are without science, as for religion, i'd take a good look at the 16th century.
I for one will continue my existencial ideals, in all things that are not science, because I understand the limitations of the way I think.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
games keeper
Elite
Posts: 1375
|
pho could you please shorten in your posts about something non Gen relatedbecause im really getting tired of reading your posts .  could also be the yelow)
but please zip them up a little bit.
its really nice you know so much about it and you have an answer on everething but if I fall to sleep half your speech I dont have anything about it  |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2003-02-20, 19:40 by games keeper »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lilazzkicker
|
If its too long or boring dont read it then.
I enjoy the debate/convo.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dev/null
|
[sarcasm] I for one agree with games keeper, I believe debates are MUCH better when they're presented using only three syllabol words. [/sarcasm]  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
Ahh, the irony of it all, games! Don't you know that asking me to shut up or not talk so much is about as likely to succeed as asking you to write with proper grammar and punctuation? 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
games keeper
Elite
Posts: 1375
|
sorry pho but hell if I see your texts.
also (completely of topic just for pho)
monday thay gave a program where they viewed a girl who didnt had an arse ,a vagina or anything else . actually everething came straght out of one place .
docters called it something with CLOACA in it .
(is ths a girl for you or is shee even more evoluationary then you)
p.s. since this is of topicI only want an answer from PHO . the rest of you go on and debate some more )
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
Games, if I just wanted someone to screw there are plenty of other birds out there. You don't seem to understand the concept of commitment, and chastity, of which I am sworn to both. So no, this is NOT a girl for me. You seem to mistakenly believe I have a sexual interest in human females, which I assuredly do NOT. That is equivalent to me saying that you have a sexual interest in sheep.
As for the aforementioned condition for this girl it is a birth defect among humans. You see, all other vertebrate forms of life on this world have a cloaca, mammals do not, the exception being monotremes. That is, the Echidna and the duck-billed platypus. Both also lay eggs. At a point in the evolution of placental mammals the reproductive and urinary tracts both split off from the digestive tract. For what reason, God only knows, but it did. Maybe just to make it harder for you humans to have abortions since it's oh-so easy to just smash an egg, now isn't it? Anyway, what happens during fetal development is that for a set amount of time the fetus DOES have a single opening, then at a certain point during development this area separates into the divided reproductive and rectal tracts. When this process malfunctions the separation is incomplete. In this case "cloaca" is used to describe the CONDITION, not an organ. In birds a cloaca is a normal development, in humans it is a condition that in most cases has to be corrected by surgery or the baby will die, and then they have to live their lives with permanent scarring as a result of this correction. Males born with this condition do not have a penis, so that requires reconstructive surgery as well. I know damned well how your species torments people for abnormalities, especially those sexually related, so consider what hell these people go through when growing up. I may not be very fond of mammalian anatomy as a rule, but that doesn't mean I find this sort of thing amusing when it happens to people. Nobody deserves to be born a certain way, beyond their control, and then treated like a freak by their own species for it. Try to show a little sensitivity will you?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
Hedhunta
|
pho, your response was expected, you pretty much just reiterated what i said only in about 20x the words..heh
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Devlar
|
So no, this is NOT a girl for me. You seem to mistakenly believe I have a sexual interest in human females In Character til the very end, huh? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Assamite
|
This just in: Two kids get themselves into a crazy stunt, injuring and hospitalizing themselves. Predictably, the blame goes to Jackass, but they also had the NERVE to blame SKATEBOARDING. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Devlar
|
Now if they attached dead chickens to their Jock Straps and ran through Alligator preserves, I still couldn't see blaming Jackass
People who blame TV are too worried that its their own fault
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
