# Census data suggests death of religion imminent



## BRN (Mar 22, 2011)

Link

Apparently, using recent census data, scientific models are predicting that religion is likely to die out in nine seperate countries. Personally speaking, I've no vested interest, but I'm looking forward to a shift in the times. 

The effects of morality on law and scientific experimentation could be extremely beneficial - furthered stem cell research, for example.


----------



## Xenke (Mar 22, 2011)

SIX said:


> *scientific models* are predicted that* religion*


 
Get ready for the religious to plug their ears and say NUH-UHH.


----------



## Lobar (Mar 22, 2011)

inb4 CannonFodder comes in and tells you you're deluded :V


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Mar 22, 2011)

I saw this as well. I dunno how well it's been done but I'm definitely hoping it's right. Less religion is almost certainly better.


----------



## Corto (Mar 22, 2011)

Of course _scientific_ data would say that. My religious data has a counterpoint: Science is sinful and soulless.


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 22, 2011)

In b4 "My science is better than your science".


----------



## Thatch (Mar 22, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> In b4 "My science is better than your science".


 
That's already happening. String theory battles anyone? :V

It's like a religion in it's own right.


----------



## CerbrusNL (Mar 22, 2011)

> Australia, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Switzerland.



We were the first to have gay marriage, will we be the first were religion will be extinct? 

Only time shall tell, but I'm not gonna work on any religion's survival. 'xcept for Cerbism, perhaps. :V


----------



## Tycho (Mar 22, 2011)

Thatch said:


> It's like a religion in it's own right.


 
Well, at least science and scientific theory make more sense than-

*reads articles on string theory and stuff*

never mind.


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 22, 2011)

Thatch said:


> That's already happening. String theory battles anyone? :V
> 
> It's like a religion in it's own right.


 
If you bump into a wall enough times, you will go through it unharmed. :V


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Mar 22, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> If you bump into a wall enough times, you will go through it unharmed. :V


 
I had a science teacher that honestly believed that shit.


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 22, 2011)

dinosaurdammit said:


> I had a science teacher that honestly believed that shit.


 
Did he test that theory?

But religion will not die out. As soon as the main religions we have die out, another few will pop up in it's place and claim to have the "answer" to everything.

EDIT: Anyone who says otherwise is shitting themselves.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Mar 22, 2011)

Thatch said:


> That's already happening. String theory battles anyone? :V
> 
> It's like a religion in it's own right.


 
Cultists bro.

Straight up cultists.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 22, 2011)

Because political ideologies aren't basically secular religions or anything...


----------



## Fay V (Mar 22, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> In b4 "My science is better than your science".


 My science is...oh well fuck, you were here before me it seems. I'll just leave then. 

no this is interesting in many ways.


----------



## Deo (Mar 22, 2011)

I was sad that America is not on that list. And probably never will be. Goddamn fanatics.


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 22, 2011)

Fay V said:


> My science is...oh well fuck, you were here before me it seems. I'll just leave then.
> 
> no this is interesting in many ways.



So what should we call ourselves: United Athiest Leauge or Athiest Alliance? :V


----------



## Aden (Mar 22, 2011)

I do hope they preserve the architecture for historical purposes


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Mar 22, 2011)

CerbrusNL said:


> We were the first to have gay marriage, will we be the first were religion will be extinct?
> 
> Only time shall tell, but I'm not gonna work on any religion's survival. 'xcept for Cerbism, perhaps. :V


 
I'm perfectly happy with being a completely secular nation, where everyone can be religious all they want.


----------



## Xenke (Mar 22, 2011)

Does this account for Scientology? :V


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 22, 2011)

Western-Religion has been slowly-but-surely creeping back with each gap of knowledge filled with actual knowledge, and not lack-there-of (i.e. God), with every child raped and/or molested, mentally or physically abused/brainwashed, or killed by inaction. 

I say good riddance :v it's time for another golden age of thinkers.


----------



## VoidBat (Mar 22, 2011)

Sounds like a pleasant dream.
Though religion is just one of many boils on the body of society.


----------



## LizardKing (Mar 22, 2011)

Ireland?

Didn't they just reinstate blasphemy laws or some shit?


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 22, 2011)

Lobar said:


> inb4 CannonFodder comes in and tells you you're deluded :V


 Uh dude


> Australia, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Switzerland.


This study is like saying water is wet.


----------



## Luca (Mar 22, 2011)

Glorious Unitology will spread convergence through science of life written by the markers. :V


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 22, 2011)

Luca said:


> Glorious Unitology will spread convergence through science of life written by the markers. :V


 Woohoo!
I call the guy walking around with a plasma cutter!


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Mar 22, 2011)

Well, if this article it's true, it's a shame it can't happen quicker...

Of course, I could always lend a helping hand. _*gets a chainsaw*_

Inb4 Brace raeg
Also Inb4 Rukh being a douche


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 22, 2011)

RayO_ElGatubelo said:


> Well, if this article it's true, it's a shame it can't happen quicker...


 I have a question, if no one possesses religious truth, that every culture has value and should be judged by its own standards and missionaries force their religious beliefs onto others, and that every culture has value and should be judged by it's own standards, then why make exceptions?
Also if one is not having governmental intervention preventing you from exercising your freedom of religion and by extension your freedom to reject it, doesn't that mean by hoping that religion ends you are doing the exact same by trying to create a normative effect in which people pressure religious people into your own views?


----------



## Commiecomrade (Mar 22, 2011)

Why can't we all just choose to worship what we want and let statistics be statistics?

Oh right, humanity.


----------



## Blutide (Mar 22, 2011)

SIX said:


> Link
> 
> Apparently, using recent census data, scientific models are predicting that religion is likely to die out in nine seperate countries. Personally speaking, I've no vested interest, but I'm looking forward to a shift in the times.
> 
> The effects of morality on law and scientific experimentation could be extremely beneficial - furthered stem cell research, for example.



I am curious too, to see how much farther ahead we can get but just dropping religion and just getting back to the science.


----------



## Blutide (Mar 22, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> religious truth



^ Oxymoron.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 22, 2011)

Commiecomrade said:


> Why can't we all just choose to worship what we want and let statistics be statistics?
> 
> Oh right, humanity.


 
Because I'm pretty sure the law doesn't give a rat's ass about religious discrimination unless you have like a million people _and their lawyers_ who care enough to _intimidate them_ into caring.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 22, 2011)

Guys,

All religions are ideologies.
But not all ideologies are religions.

If you need me to, I can draw you a venn diagram. :V


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 22, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> not all ideologies are religions.


 
They might as well be. Aside from the metaphysical fluff, they _all_ are ultimately about *power* and *control* over others. Hell, aside from Communism, Anarchism and Libertarianism, most don't even _hint_ at any promise of some better future, but want you to stop just short of literally crucifying yourself in homage to them (at least those Filipino "savages" somehow managed to figure out what Catholicism is really about, strip away the ideological bullshit and cut to the chase of something resembling a *spirituality* with their "barbaric" rituals).

Maybe what you should've said is all ideologies are religions, but not all beliefs are.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 22, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> They might as well be. Aside from the metaphysical fluff, they _all_ are ultimately about *power* and *control* over others.


 

"Almost" is still not "Is". The point I'm trying to make is, Just because there are still problems doesn't mean civilization as a whole can't be taking steps in the right direction. In this case it's gradually shedding the patently false ideas of gods and spirits and afterlives.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 22, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> "Almost" is still not "Is". The point I'm trying to make is, Just because there are still problems doesn't mean civilization as a whole can't be taking steps in the right direction. In this case it's gradually shedding the patently false ideas of gods and spirits and afterlives.


 
You're an idiot. What the hell makes you so certain people abandoning gods, spirits and afterlives for the sake of something more scientifically sound wouldn't ultimately lead them to a _more_ permanent state of tyrannical barbarism?! I _like_ my freedom to believe what comes naturally to me, even the freedom to _be wrong_. It allows me to grow as a person, to be creative. Frankly, I'm _glad_ some days that for all its flaws, this predominantly religious society "oppresses" the likes of you even if it oppresses me along with you, because at least religious belief entails religious _tolerance_ at some point.


----------



## Paul'o'fox (Mar 22, 2011)

I don't care, more of the gods attention for me.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 22, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> You're an idiot. What the hell makes you so certain people abandoning gods, spirits and afterlives for the sake of something more scientifically sound wouldn't ultimately lead them to a _more_ permanent state of tyrannical barbarism?! I _like_ my freedom to believe what comes naturally to me, even the freedom to _be wrong_. It allows me to grow as a person, to be creative. Frankly, I'm _glad_ some days that for all its flaws, this predominantly religious society "oppresses" the likes of you even if it oppresses me along with you, because at least religious belief entails religious _tolerance_ at some point.


 
If only I were actually arguing what you say I'm arguing instead of what I'm actually arguing...

People are free to be as wrong as they please, but they are still wrong. We shouldn't march people off to the gulag for being wrong, but we should still celebrate when they start being less wrong as a whole. Also, We can also tell that abandoning this stuff for more secular governments is better simply by comparing secular governments with Theocracies, or even secular governments with highly religious populations.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 22, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> If only I were actually arguing what you say I'm arguing instead of what I'm actually arguing...
> 
> People are free to be as wrong as they please, but they are still wrong. We shouldn't march people off to the gulag for being wrong, but we should still celebrate when they start being less wrong as a whole. Also, We can also tell that abandoning this stuff for more secular governments is better simply by comparing secular governments with Theocracies, or even secular governments with highly religious populations.


 
Well, is North Korea secular, or a theocracy? Does Somalia even _have_ a government? Is it overall a secular or theocratic "society"? I'm looking all around me and my estimate is it's hardly time to start celebrating just yet.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 22, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Well, is North Korea secular, or a theocracy? Does Somalia even _have_ a government? Is it overall a secular or theocratic "society"? I'm looking all around me and my estimate is it's hardly time to start celebrating just yet.


 
North Korea has built up cults of personality around their leader, who is told to have caused many supernatural events. A large part of what's destroying Somalia IS primarily religious, such as child soldiers and the various sect wars there. And that's not including the whole witchcraft culture there, from burning children at the stake to things like "raping a virgin will cure your aids".


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 22, 2011)

SIX said:


> Link
> 
> Apparently, *using recent census data, scientific models are predicting that religion is likely to die out in nine seperate countries*. Personally speaking, I've no vested interest, but I'm looking forward to a shift in the times.
> 
> The effects of morality on law and scientific experimentation could be extremely beneficial - furthered stem cell research, for example.


 
Interesting, but there is another social possibility:  People may simply not be "confessing" to a religion on the census forms, either due to the imagined stigma, or simply due to the attitude "It's none of your business."




Xenke said:


> Get ready for the religious to plug their ears and say NUH-UHH.


 
Get ready for the non-religious to wipe this in everyone's face.




Rakuen Growlithe said:


> I saw this as well. I dunno how well it's been done but I'm definitely hoping it's right. *Less religion is almost certainly better.*


 
That depends upon the religion.




Corto said:


> Of course _scientific_ data would say that. My religious data has a counterpoint: *Science is sinful and soulless.*


 
No, science is natural, created by God.  It's how He made the Universe work.




Wolf-Bone said:


> Because political ideologies aren't basically secular religions or anything...


 
Shush, WB!  You're giving away "company" secrets!




Deo said:


> *I was sad that America is not on that list.* And probably never will be. Goddamn fanatics.


 
According to the article, only those listed countries require religious affiliation data on their census forms.




Xenke said:


> Does this account for Scientology? :V


 
I don't think anything can account for Scientology.




Mojotech said:


> North Korea has built up cults of personality around their leader, who is told to have caused many supernatural events. A large part of what's destroying Somalia IS primarily religious, such as child soldiers and the various sect wars there. And that's not including the whole witchcraft culture there, from burning children at the stake to things like "raping a virgin will cure your aids".


 
Mojo, what you are noting is human behavior, what humans are like with or without religion.  Unless you're proposing that the end of religion would stop world violence.


----------



## Glitch (Mar 22, 2011)

I'll cheer and piss on religion's grave.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Mar 22, 2011)

Glitch said:


> I'll cheer and piss on religion's grave.


 
Sup?  Why you gotta play a brotha like that?


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 22, 2011)

Glitch said:


> I'll cheer and piss on religion's grave.


 
*"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."* ~ Mark Twain


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 22, 2011)

So Roose, what do you think of my buff anthro wolf not-Jesus? Is it sacrilegious? As FAF's resident Christian who isn't as batshit insane as Rukh I sorta value your input.


----------



## Darkwing (Mar 22, 2011)

I wouldn't be surprised. I've noticed people's faith in religion declining quite a bit. 

But I don't believe religion is bad, it's the nutjobs, if religion's gone, they will just move onto something else to be batshit insane about. Most likely politics or something.


----------



## Darkfoxx (Mar 22, 2011)

With or without religion, it wont make a difference. People will find other excuses to hate eachother. If they need any excuse in the first place, that is.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 23, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> So Roose, what do you think of my buff anthro wolf not-Jesus? *Is it sacrilegious?* As FAF's resident Christian who isn't as batshit insane as Rukh I sorta value your input.


 
No.

As for your "buff anthro wolf", I do like your avatar.  His eyes are very intense.  I also look at it this way:  God gave us imaginations for a reason, so I see no harm in using the gifts we've been given.


----------



## Xegras (Mar 23, 2011)

darkfoxx said:


> With or without religion, it wont make a difference. People will find other excuses to hate eachother. If they need any excuse in the first place, that is.


 
But religion is the only evil in the world! There is no way we would be this way it's all religions fault! Not human nature at all. :V


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 23, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> No.
> 
> As for your "buff anthro wolf", I do like your avatar.  His eyes are very intense.  I also look at it this way:  God gave us imaginations for a reason, so I see no harm in using the gifts we've been given.


 
No, I meant the drawing I linked to earlier in the thread. I'd be lying if I said the story I came up with isn't partly inspired by Christianity, but I don't want people to think that's _all_ it's meant to be, let alone sacrilegious. Hopefully that'll take care of itself when people get to see what happens before and after that scene though, the way most people realize Narnia isn't _just_ a not-allegory for Christianity starring buff anthro lion not-allegory for Jesus.


----------



## Ley (Mar 23, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Uh dude
> 
> This study is like saying water is wet.



surfactants make water wetter. :33


----------



## Ley (Mar 23, 2011)

IT's kind of off topic, but without religion, humans wouldn't have had a way to explain their world. Until science came along, the gods were the only things they knew.
It's kind of weird to think about it, but do you think Christianity was invented so that people could explain Jesus' doings and such? Just like Greek Mythology and such.. Religion is always cool to read about, but it starts sucking when people try to shove the whole 'MY RELIGION IS BETTER THING' down peoples' throats.

On topic: The 'death' of religion, huh? I doubt it. Many, far too many people claw on religion so that they can have some kind of standing over other people. Let's face it, without science, a lot of people would have died from small things. Or even worse. :c


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 23, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> No, *I meant the drawing I linked to earlier in the thread*. I'd be lying if I said the story I came up with isn't partly inspired by Christianity, but I don't want people to think that's _all_ it's meant to be, let alone sacrilegious. Hopefully that'll take care of itself when people get to see what happens before and after that scene though, the way most people realize Narnia isn't _just_ a not-allegory for Christianity starring buff anthro lion not-allegory for Jesus.


 
I checked over the thread, and didn't note any link, but are you talking about this pic?

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2541941/

If so, what I said before stands.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 23, 2011)

IIRC Rufus from Dogma basically said "religion" is fine when it's just *ideas*, and that it's only a bad thing when those ideas become, well, *Dogma*. I think, for the most part, we live in a society that could stand to be a hell of a lot less dogmatic, and I'm of the view that it's not even religious dogma that's as big a threat as political dogma -- the kind that will co-opt religion when it's convenient and then kick it to the curb once it gets what it wants. Frankly, a lot of the religious bashing I see going on smacks of the bully on the playground that picks on the target who is at once the biggest, easiest and most acceptable, and in western society that just happens to be Christianity. I'll criticize the hell out of Christianity, but that's because I want it to be a better Christianity, not because I want it to go away and never come back.

By that same token, Christians and followers of other religions could stand to be more open minded both to each others' beliefs/ways of life and think of it this way: When you go to college/university, generally you start out exploring a lot of avenues, but pretty quickly you settle on a major and with it, and study its ins and outs far more deeply than you would anything else. And no matter how much or how long you study, you still only know that one thing. Every religion to me basically looks like a different major. All its ideas are flawed, but all have a lot of value in their own right.

If I believe the various pagan deities might very well be real and/or they're all expys of one another, and above them there's a sort of Godhead, and above that still there's the unfathomable, inaccessible One True God, that's basically my own personal syncretism. I can believe that very strongly. I can believe it for the same reason a person might believe in only one of those things, because people can only believe what they were exposed to and I just happened to be exposed to a lot of different things. It's the product of me trying to reconcile various conflicting/contradicting beliefs that I saw as equally valid, without resorting to some extreme mental gymnastics, which don't come _quite_ as naturally to me as they seem most people.

I'd like to think I'm a more enriched, whole person for this. Some would say I'm practicing some bullshit "post-modern 'spiritualism'" or "buffet religion". Others would think my beliefs are invalid, no matter how sincere or firmly held they are, because they're unorthodox and not fully bound to a particular doctrine. Others still would say I'm basically no different than any other religious "nutjob". _All_ are basically thinking according to some sort of dogmatism, whether that be religious, political or just philosophical. Being too rigid is really just as bad as being too soft. Both entail weakness.


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 23, 2011)

Leybun said:


> IT's kind of off topic, but without religion, humans wouldn't have had a way to explain their world. Until science came along, the gods were the only things they knew.
> It's kind of weird to think about it, but do you think Christianity was invented so that people could explain Jesus' doings and such? Just like Greek Mythology and such.. Religion is always cool to read about, but it starts sucking when people try to shove the whole 'MY RELIGION IS BETTER THING' down peoples' throats.
> 
> On topic: The 'death' of religion, huh? I doubt it. Many, far too many people claw on religion so that they can have some kind of standing over other people. Let's face it, without science, a lot of people would have died from small things. Or even worse. :c


 All of Egypt's civilisation during the periods they were building the pyramids and that their entire civilisation was dedicate towards their religion, pretty much it was considered a honour to work on the pyramids cause they viewed the Pharaohs as though when they died becoming gods.  So think about it you are in that time and GOD wants you to build his tomb for him so that he can become immortal when he dies.
Or take the code of Hammurabi, he developed the first set of *written *laws, imagine your leader who is directly below your gods says that the gods want you to follow a set of rules and that he is just the messenger.  There were sets of laws before, but now imagine someone who can directly speak to your gods tells you they want you to follow a set of rules directly from them.


----------



## theinkfox (Mar 23, 2011)

religions will never die cause of the human nature
the people need to believe in something or in someone that is higher than they are
maybe science will replace religions in short time but only if you put it all together and then you sold it as a life style


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 23, 2011)

theinkfox said:


> religions will never die cause of the human nature
> the people need to believe in something or in someone that is higher than they are
> maybe science will replace religions in short time* but only if you put it all together and then you sold it as a life style*


 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science


----------



## theinkfox (Mar 23, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science


 interesting... and in some weird meaning, indirectly related with the "new thought movement"


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 23, 2011)

theinkfox said:


> religions will never die cause of the human nature
> the people need to believe in something or in someone that is higher than they are
> *maybe science will replace religions* in short time but only if you put it all together and then you sold it as a life style


 
Never... science does not preclude religion.  And never will.


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 23, 2011)

theinkfox said:


> interesting... and in some weird meaning, indirectly related with the "new thought movement"


I think eventually science, religion, politics will all merge together.
Religion and politics are already heavily inseparable to many people, it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to include science into that.
All we'd really need if for christian science to become politically active and bam.

If I had to make a educated guess I'd say christianity will still be here and in great numbers in 50 years, but I'd have to guess it would be heavily influenced by moral relativism, humanism and post modernism, combined with christian science and be politically active just as much.

However the very thought that in our lifetime religion will no longer be around is just utterly fucking ridiculous and borders on the level of insanity that religious individuals think that the world will ever be entirely comprised of people of their own belief.


----------



## Unsilenced (Mar 23, 2011)

Men who have predicted the falls of long-standing ideas throughout history have been notoriously wrong. Capitalism was supposed to die, then communism. We've thought we've gotten rid of nationalism, of globalization, of isolationism, and more other isms than I care to think about. 

Religion will not go away. At most it may be "replaced" with something functionally the same.  

One way or another we're not exactly in for an Atheistic utopia any time soon. Rest assured, we'll find some reason to shoot each other to ribbons.


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 23, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> Men who have predicted the falls of long-standing ideas throughout history have been notoriously wrong. Capitalism was supposed to die, then communism. We've thought we've gotten rid of nationalism, of globalization, of isolationism, and more other isms than I care to think about.
> 
> Religion will not go away. At most it may be "replaced" with something functionally the same.
> 
> One way or another we're not exactly in for an Atheistic utopia any time soon. Rest assured, we'll find some reason to shoot each other to ribbons.


 Honestly the very thought that religion will go away in our lifetime borderlines on insanity.


----------



## theinkfox (Mar 23, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Never... science does not preclude religion.  And never will.


 
actually i think that science is always trying to deny the "magical events" of every religion
the conception of the universe
the 10 biblical plagues
the historical conection between the most known religions 
and many other things

and maybe i expressed myself wrong about the "replacing thing", remember, i'm doing my best trying to think and type in english


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 23, 2011)

theinkfox said:


> actually i think that science is always trying to deny the "magical events" of every religion
> the conception of the universe
> the 10 biblical plagues
> the historical conection between the most known religions
> and many other things


 Science is only meant to disprove.
Theory is assumption based on evidence.
Fact is a theory that has enough evidence to support it.
Therefore part of science is accepting the possibility of being wrong.
I don't consider string theory to be science, because no matter how much evidence is brought against it they deny being wrong.
String theory borderlines religion in a dangerous way.


----------



## Xegras (Mar 23, 2011)

Boy you guys are gonna feel silly when god comes down to smack all your nonbelieving asses. :C


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 23, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Science is only meant to disprove.
> Theory is assumption based on evidence.
> Fact is a theory that has enough evidence to support it.
> Therefore part of science is accepting the possibility of being wrong.
> ...


 
Incorrect- You're misusing "Theory". What you're meaning to say is "Hypothesis". A proper scientific Theory is basically how the facts come together to produce an explanation- IE Theory of Gravity or Cell Theory.

String Theory is also misusing theory since it kinda lacks the whole "evidence" part, much like "Christian Scientists" (and not as in scientests who happen to be christian) and "Scientologists" are abusing the word Science.


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 23, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Incorrect- You're misusing "Theory". What you're meaning to say is "Hypothesis". A proper scientific Theory is basically how the facts come together to produce an explanation- IE Theory of Gravity or Cell Theory.
> 
> String Theory is also misusing theory since it kinda lacks the whole "evidence" part, much like "Christian Scientists" (and not as in scientests who happen to be christian) and "Scientologists" are abusing the word Science.


 Lemme guess you are going to start arguing semantics?
Mojotech you are as predictable as the deficit.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 23, 2011)

theinkfox said:


> actually i think that science is always trying to deny the "magical events" of every religion


 
'Always trying' is a little silly, because it's not really an active stance against it...No God(s)-based religion has ever proved the existence of whomever they follow. 

It's more of a neighbourly, "Hey, you gunna return my lawnmower this week? No? Okay."


----------



## theinkfox (Mar 23, 2011)

Xegras said:


> Boy you guys are gonna feel silly when god comes down to smack all your nonbelieving asses. :C


 
don't misunderstand me, i'm a believer,but i'm not related with any religion
i feel myself agnostic


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 23, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> 'Always trying' is a little silly, because it's not really an active stance against it...No God(s)-based religion has ever proved the existence of whomever they follow.


 That's cause "God/s" is fundamentally untestable.


theinkfox said:


> don't misunderstand me, i'm a believer,but i'm not related with any religion
> i feel myself agnostic


$200 says someone says something along the lines of, "go atheist".

Atheism and religion are like a old married couple that never finished their wedding night, if you know what I mean.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 23, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Lemme guess you are going to start arguing semantics?
> Mojotech you are as predictable as the deficit.


 
Well it's not my fault you don't know what words mean.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 23, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> That's cause "God/s" is fundamentally untestable.


 
Thank you captain obvious :l

Hi, I'm Dire. I'm an anti-theist that regularly attends these religious forum discusses.


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 23, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Well it's not my fault you don't know what words mean.


 The vast majority of your arguments are just arguing about semantics and then when someone calls you on it you use the same argument you just said.


----------



## theinkfox (Mar 23, 2011)

ok now my neurons are boiling
pretty deep thoughts that we are having here


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 23, 2011)

theinkfox said:


> ok now my neurons are boiling
> pretty deep thoughts that we are having here


 Religious arguments have been going on since the beginning of time and are clichÃ© beyond belief.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 23, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> The vast majority of your arguments are just arguing about semantics and then when someone calls you on it you use the same argument you just said.


 
I think you have me confused for Roose. :V The whole "It's just a theory" thing has long been a tactic of those trying to misrepresent science, and it's dissapointing that you'd use it.

But I don't really know why I'm arguing with you since it's clear from your tone that you're just trying to start another internet slapfight or raging. Either way I'm gonna stop now.


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 23, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> But I don't really know why I'm arguing with you since it's clear from your tone that you're just trying to start another internet slapfight or raging. Either way I'm gonna stop now.


 Slapfight, cause I wanna test out what someone said.


----------



## Lobar (Mar 23, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> The vast majority of your arguments are just arguing about semantics and then when someone calls you on it you use the same argument you just said.


 
The words you are trying to use already have very well-established and specific definitions, and you are trying to build an argument with them using an alternate set of definitions you simply pulled out of your ass.  In no way is this not a valid criticism of your argument.


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 23, 2011)

Lobar said:


> The words you are trying to use already have very well-established and specific definitions, and you are trying to build an argument with them using an alternate set of definitions you simply pulled out of your ass.  In no way is this not a valid criticism of your argument.


 And so begins stage 3 of a stereotypical religious argument, cherry picking a post with flaws in it then trying to build a argument off of it to invalidate all further arguments by referring back towards it.
You are expecting me to defend my post while expecting a stereotypical response.
Or expect me to act like the post didn't happen, expecting me to cover my ass.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 23, 2011)

The hell just happened.


----------



## Paul'o'fox (Mar 23, 2011)

Since I don't believe in heaven and hell, I want science to create one. That would be so cool.


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 23, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> The hell just happened.


 tl;dr
Religious arguments go through the same shit every time and are beyond predictable.
In short I'm stonewalling it.


----------



## Lobar (Mar 23, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> The hell just happened.


 
CannonFodder is playing Calvinball with the thread.


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 23, 2011)

Lobar said:


> CannonFodder is playing Calvinball with the thread.


 I <3 calvinball.
I'm having fun with this thread, are you?


----------



## theinkfox (Mar 23, 2011)

Paul'o'fox said:


> Since I don't believe in heaven and hell, I want science to create one. That would be so cool.


 
we already have artificial hells on earth, just get a job at microsoft and then you will be in hell


----------



## Paul'o'fox (Mar 23, 2011)

theinkfox said:


> we already have artificial hells on earth, just get a job at microsoft and then you will be in hell


 I meant heaven. But lol.


----------



## Xaerun (Mar 23, 2011)

I don't believe in fun.
Play nice, stay on topic, stop being dicks, or I'M COMING FOR YOOOOUUUUU, PRECIOUS
COMING FOR ALL OF YOU


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 23, 2011)

Xaerun said:


> I don't believe in fun.
> Play nice, stay on topic, stop being dicks, or I'M COMING FOR YOOOOUUUUU, PRECIOUS
> COMING FOR ALL OF YOU


 I was on topic.
I was playing nice.
I wasn't being a dick.
Blocking this thread from going into the same shit you see on religious threads =/= derail :/


----------



## Xaerun (Mar 23, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I was on topic.
> I was playing nice.
> I wasn't being a dick.
> Blocking this thread from going into the same shit you see on religious threads =/= derail :/


Ugh, _really_? Sosickofpeopleactingsopedanticthusfeelingtheneedtoquestioneveryandalldirections...
Reading your posts, you're most certainly guilty of dickery.


> Religious arguments go through the same shit every time and are beyond predictable.
> In short I'm stonewalling it.


I must have missed the part where this became your job.


*EDIT* 
Derp, apologies. The dickery quote is meant to be 


CannonFodder said:


> Slapfight, cause I wanna test out what someone said.


THEN go on to the stonewalling bit.


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 23, 2011)

Xaerun said:


> Reading your posts, you're most certainly guilty of dickery.
> I must have missed the part where this became your job. I don't suppose you could help me out there?


 You gotta admit, I do have a point, through any stretch of the imagination or math religion will still be the majority in our lifetime.
In short, "religion is dying" is sillier than the ministry of silly walks.


----------



## Xaerun (Mar 23, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> You gotta admit, I do have a point. The idea that every last religious person on the planet would drop their beliefs isridiculous.  Also I highly doubt religion will die.


I don't disagree. However, religion may well cease being a majority in areas where it counts. I have no issue with religion and find it downright fascinating- but when it starts permeating politics and how and when laws are made... then we have a problem. 


CannonFodder said:


> Also over time religion has evolved, many times absorbing other ideals into it.


Because any religion worth half a cent comes down to "don't be an asshole", I guess? The common theme is be nice to others, don't do 'evil' such as steal etc... which are always good principles to have.


----------



## Lobar (Mar 23, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> You gotta admit, I do have a point, even if one person a second became a atheist it would take 190 years for religion to die and that doesn't even take into effect population growth.  If there comes to be 9 trillion people in the world like population growth models predict, it would take 285 years for religion to die.
> In short, "religion is dying" is sillier than the ministry of silly walks.


 
Then the study linked by the OP would suggest the actual rate is in fact much faster than "one per second" :3

(you also forget that atheists have children)


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 23, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Then the study linked by the OP would suggest the actual rate is in fact much faster than "one per second" :3
> 
> (you also forget that atheists have children)


http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm
Atheism is actually dropping.


----------



## Darkfoxx (Mar 23, 2011)

Leybun said:


> Religion is always cool to read about, but it starts sucking when people try to shove the whole 'MY RELIGION IS BETTER THING' down peoples' throats.


 Oh man, this so hard. Or ya know, it's all cool untill people start shoving the whole "MY ATHEISM IS BETTER THEN ALL YOUR RELIGIONS" down people's throats.

But that never happens :V


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 23, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> Men who have predicted the falls of long-standing ideas throughout history have been notoriously wrong. Capitalism was supposed to die, then communism. We've thought we've gotten rid of nationalism, of globalization, of isolationism, and more other isms than I care to think about.
> 
> Religion will not go away. At most it may be "replaced" with something functionally the same.
> 
> One way or another we're not exactly in for *an Atheistic utopia* any time soon. Rest assured, we'll find some reason to shoot each other to ribbons.


 
Woah there, Unsilenced... that's making a judgement call you can in no way back up.  Atheism can be no more a "utopia" than religion.




theinkfox said:


> actually *i think that science is always trying to deny the "magical events" of every religion*
> the conception of the universe
> the 10 biblical plagues
> the historical conection between the most known religions
> ...


 
No, true science got it's start in religion, or at the very least, religious men who simply wanted to know more about Creation, and so studied it for a deeper understanding of God.  And you are also making an assumption that those "events" were magical.  Remember, as Arthur C. Clarke said, â€œAny sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.â€  And I would think God, having created the Universe, would know quite well how to "make magic" without violating physics, if he so chose to conduct Himself according to "The Rules."  Which, by the way, He wrote.

As for your english, you're doing fine... it's quite easy to misunderstand someone, especially online.




CannonFodder said:


> The vast majority of your arguments are just arguing about semantics and then when someone calls you on it you use the same argument you just said.


 
So, you've noticed that, too?




Mojotech said:


> *I think you have me confused for Roose.* :V The whole "It's just a theory" thing has long been a tactic of those trying to misrepresent science, and it's dissapointing that you'd use it.


 
No, he doesn't.   :V




Lastdirewolf said:


> The hell just happened.


 
I think an angel just wet his pants.




darkfoxx said:


> Oh man, this so hard. Or ya know, it's all cool untill people start shoving the whole "MY ATHEISM IS BETTER THEN ALL YOUR RELIGIONS" down people's throats.
> 
> *But that never happens* :V


 
No, it never does...   :V


----------



## Lobar (Mar 23, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm
> Atheism is actually dropping.


 
Their data appears old.  The pie chart is labeled 2000, and the chart has a note specifically crediting a net drop in religious "nones" (_not_ atheists) to the end of Communism in the USSR, and states that thatsegment is otherwise growing.


----------



## Darkfoxx (Mar 23, 2011)

I'll just leave this here.

Spot the difference.

(I know, posted it already elsewhere but for some reason that thread was closed and this is allowed to fester on. The reasoning eludes me, but such is life on the forums.)


----------



## Xaerun (Mar 23, 2011)

darkfoxx said:


> I'll just leave this here.
> 
> Spot the difference.
> 
> (I know, posted it already elsewhere but for some reason that thread was closed and this is allowed to fester on. The reasoning eludes me, but such is life on the forums.)


I used t'find reading hard too =c


----------



## Darkfoxx (Mar 23, 2011)

Xaerun said:


> I used t'find reading hard too =c


 
Your final post on that thread I missed there as it wasn't there at the time. Hard to read indeed if you dont see the post.


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Mar 23, 2011)

Paul'o'fox said:


> Since I don't believe in heaven and hell, I want science to create one. That would be so cool.


 
You know, creating heaven on earth by science is pretty much what the RaÃ«lians want to do.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Mar 23, 2011)

Canopy religion might die but human stupidity never will. I have already switch to the religion of Jersey Guido and perform, daily, my GTL rituals.


----------



## Threetails (Mar 23, 2011)

The thing about science is to really get anything out of its answers, you have to be actively a part of it and investigate its conclusions.  

When people start vesting blind faith in the conclusions of scientists, the scientists (the only ones actually doing the work) become the new clergy, and will discover that they have power to influence the masses.  This could, ultimately, corrupt science beyond recognition.

This isn't to say that science itself is shaky, or that its conclusions to date are wrong.  I'm not going to pull the whole fundie "it takes faith to believe in science" nonsense because I'm not a fundie.  

It is not science, but the scientists we have to worry about because the scientists are the human factor.

The crux of it isn't so much religion, it's that people are, for the majority: 
1. Too lazy to make their own conclusions.
2. Waiting for someone to give them a plausible answer.
3. Willing to cling to anyone who gives good enough answers with unquestioning loyalty.
4. Gullible.

It's a pipe dream to expect the whole of humanity to think critically, or for those few who do think critically to remain benevolent leaders when they realize their power.


----------



## Unsilenced (Mar 23, 2011)

darkfoxx said:


> I'll just leave this here.
> 
> Spot the difference.
> 
> (I know, posted it already elsewhere but for some reason that thread was closed and this is allowed to fester on. The reasoning eludes me, but such is life on the forums.)



The bottom one doesn't picket the funerals of war heroes or run planes into buildings. [/atheistdouchebag]


----------



## ShadowEon (Mar 23, 2011)

Those who want to be religious,will be religious regardless of what statistics say. I am not going to stop being christian regardless if it is popular or not, I find it a little sad that religion is seen as a bad thing now a days though. =/


----------



## BRN (Mar 23, 2011)

ShadowEon said:


> Those who want to be religious,will be religious regardless of what statistics say. I am not going to stop being christian regardless if it is popular or not, I find it a little sad that religion is seen as a bad thing now a days though. =/


 
Religion isn't seen as a bad thing in general; it's just a less popular ideal, as studies show.


----------



## Thatch (Mar 23, 2011)

ShadowEon said:


> Those who want to be religious,will be religious regardless of what statistics say. I am not going to stop being christian regardless if it is popular or not, I find it a little sad that religion is seen as a bad thing now a days though. =/


 
As any idea, it's seen as a bad thing because of the people who preach it.


----------



## Darkfoxx (Mar 23, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> The bottom one doesn't picket the funerals of war heroes or run planes into buildings. [/atheistdouchebag]


 
Hm. Osama B. Laden never ran any planes into any buildings. Guess he's pretty much an O.K. guy then? Since you're basically saying that if you only 'talk the talk' and not 'walk the walk' makes all the difference?


----------



## Unsilenced (Mar 23, 2011)

darkfoxx said:


> Hm. Osama B. Laden never ran any planes into any buildings. Guess he's pretty much an O.K. guy then? Since you're basically saying that if you only 'talk the talk' and not 'walk the walk' makes all the difference?


 
Do atheists commonly encourage people to kill innocents indiscriminately? I have not seen (though I suppose statistically they must exist) any atheists that advocate religiously-motivated acts of terror against civilians.

Phrases you don't hear often: "PRAISE BE TO DAWKINS!" *Boom*

The most I've seen an atheist do against religion is make annoying and self-righteous rants. Bad, yes, but hardly an act of terror.


----------



## HyBroMcYenapants (Mar 23, 2011)

RELIGION IS FOR THE WEAK MINDED


:V


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 23, 2011)

Threetails said:


> It's a pipe dream to expect the whole of humanity to think critically, or for those few who do think critically to remain benevolent leaders when they realize their power.


 
It's probably not likely that people will become entirely rational any time soon, if ever, but it's still a worthwhile goal to strive and work for even if it can never be perfected.



darkfoxx said:


> Link


 
What is it with religious types taking nonbelief so personally...


----------



## Azure (Mar 23, 2011)

To each his own got us into this mess, because they all cliqued up and said THIS IS HOW IT'S GONNA BE. Fuck religion, even as a word. Spirituality, as sketchy and ambiguous as it sounds, it's way better.


----------



## Lobar (Mar 23, 2011)

Thatch said:


> As any idea, it's seen as a bad thing because of the people who preach it.


 
No, this is a canard.  It's easy to think this way because frustration with obnoxious preachers is a common feeling and the simple assumption is that atheists are people who have carried this frustration too far.

Rather, it's the whole host of problems that come with increased religiosity, whether they preach it or not.  Intrusion into and control over private lives, anti-intellectualism, impedining science, violence against outsiders, these are all problems directly caused by religion, and they become unforgivable once you've reached the conclusion that the religions we bear these burdens for have no rational basis.


----------



## Grifff (Mar 23, 2011)

LizardKing said:


> Ireland?
> 
> Didn't they just reinstate blasphemy laws or some shit?


 
Nawh, but its good news atleast for me


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 23, 2011)

Threetails said:


> It is not science, but the scientists we have to worry about *because the scientists are the human factor*.


 
Exactly.




ShadowEon said:


> Those who want to be religious,will be religious regardless of what statistics say. I am not going to stop being christian regardless if it is popular or not, *I find it a little sad that religion is seen as a bad thing now a days though*. =/


 
Bigotry and hatred are part of humanity, and that is an even more sad thing to find.




SIX said:


> Religion isn't seen as a bad thing *in general*; it's just a less popular ideal, as studies show.


 
Thing is, "in general" doesn't cover the specifics.  Like people killing other people due to their religious beliefs.  I've run into my fair share of religious bigots and haters right here, if you want more specifics.




Unsilenced said:


> Do atheists commonly encourage people to kill innocents indiscriminately? *I have not seen (though I suppose statistically they must exist) any atheists that advocate religiously-motivated acts of terror against civilians.*
> 
> Phrases you don't hear often: "PRAISE BE TO DAWKINS!" *Boom*
> 
> The most I've seen an atheist do against religion is make annoying and self-righteous rants. Bad, yes, but hardly an act of terror.


 
Here, read these:

http://www.godweb.org/suicidebombers.htm

http://christopherhitchenswatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/john-gray-on-atheism.html

These are also interesting articles, and relevant to the concept of atheistic terrorism:

http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2010/09/james-lee-discovery-headquarters.html

http://nonprophetstatus.com/2010/09/01/an-atheist-terrorist/

Oh, and here's more info on the Tamil Tigers:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1869501,00.html

http://www.cfr.org/terrorist-organi...-aka-tamil-tigers-sri-lanka-separatists/p9242



> Experts say that *the secular, nationalist* LTTE has no operational connection with al-Qaeda, its radical Islamist affiliates, or other terrorist groups. However, some of the Tigers' innovationsâ€”such as the "jacket" apparatus worn by individual suicide bombersâ€”have been copied by al-Qaeda, the Lebanese militia Hezbollah, and Palestinian groups such as Hamas and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.


----------



## Unsilenced (Mar 23, 2011)

I read the first one and stopped there. 

Regardless of whether or not Hitler was an atheist, he didn't "kill in order to produce an atheist utopia." Atheism was not something preached by National Socialism. The Fascists killed Jews because Communism was associated with Jewish culture, but they never sought to abolish the church because they wanted the country to be atheistic. 

Basically, your link just Godwin'd this thread.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 23, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> *I read the first one and stopped there.*
> 
> Regardless of whether or not Hitler was an atheist, he didn't "kill in order to produce an atheist utopia." Atheism was not something preached by National Socialism. The Fascists killed Jews because Communism was associated with Jewish culture, but they never sought to abolish the church because they wanted the country to be atheistic.
> 
> Basically, your link just Godwin'd this thread.


 
Then continue to read.  Otherwise, you won't learn anything.  And whether you think I just "Godwin'd" this thread, it doesn't matter.  Atheists have committed acts of terrorism, and you, yourself, admitted *"The most I've seen an atheist do against religion is make annoying and self-righteous rants. Bad, yes, but hardly an act of terror."*  So, I provided links to information in order that you could see.  If you wish to remain blind, that's your choice.


----------



## Unsilenced (Mar 23, 2011)

You fail to distinguish between "an atheist killing" and "killing for atheism." 

Terrorists/suicide bombers may come from all sorts of groups, some religious and others not, but the fact that a terrorist attack was not motivated by religion doesn't mean it was motivated by atheism.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 23, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> *You fail to distinguish between "an atheist killing" and "killing for atheism."*
> 
> Terrorists/suicide bombers may come from all sorts of groups, some religious and others not, but the fact that a terrorist attack was not motivated by religion doesn't mean it was motivated by atheism.


 
Does it really matter which?  Terrorism is terrorism, violence is violence, whatever the motivation, whatever "label" you want to put on it.  You made the statement:  *"The most I've seen an atheist do against religion is make annoying and self-righteous rants."*  I provided material for your education, so you could see that atheists have killed the religious (and the non-religious, as well)... for whatever reasons they may express for doing so.  And as you may have noted, if you read the material, terrorist acts tend to be politically motivated.  Whether religious or secular in origin.




Wolf-Bone said:


> Religion or no, you are all morons. I can't fucking take you people seriously anymore, or even muster up the smallest iota of respect at this point. Note to mods: at this point, I'm pretty much here for no other reason than to troll the living fuck out of anyone and everyone. I hereby declare *you can all kiss my black ass*.


 
It is my understanding you're not black, WB... so, how can you have a black ass?

And yes, it is rather pointless to discuss such things, given none of us are God.  I'd rather just turn all these "brats" over my knee, and give them a good whuppin', but then, my knees aren't in all that great a shape, and some of these "kiddies" are rather large and heavy.  But it still stands to reason, religious or not, humanity is a mess.  I cannot see how anyone can argue against that.


----------



## Bambi (Mar 24, 2011)

SIX said:


> Religion isn't seen as a bad thing in general; it's just a less popular ideal, as studies show.


What can be inferred from these studies is that cultural changes are more or less responsible for a decline of direct responses, not so much this idea that religions are all _*suddenly*_ becoming less popular because culture is rejecting them (i.e, "x_non_belief is winning! x_belief_CLASS:buddha is winning!")

On the other hand, this study deals with the accumulated census data of people who may have/may not have specified a non-affiliate/non-religious identification in governmental surveys with this idea that religion might be going extinct in these areas -- so why use this to promote or argue the decline of religion globally?


----------



## Azure (Mar 24, 2011)

Man, I hate missing all the good WB shit. Let the man speak!!


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Mar 24, 2011)

Bambi said:


> However why are you using such specific data to promote or argue the decline of religion globally?


 
Because the non-religious look for as many reasons as possible in an attempt to make religious people feel like outcasts, or as a means to convince themselves that they're on some sort of winning team in ideology.


----------



## Duality Jack (Mar 24, 2011)

heh, Regardless of religion dieing or not I would love to just see extremism of any type dieing. Regardless of what you stand for, be it a nation, faith, ideology or perspective; if you are a fanatic, you are a problem.


----------



## Unsilenced (Mar 24, 2011)

The Drunken Ace said:


> heh, Regardless of religion dieing or not I would love to just see extremism of any type dieing. Regardless of what you stand for, be it a nation, faith, ideology or perspective; if you are a fanatic, you are a problem.


 
Extremism never dies. When a system really does go under, it's the moderates that are the first to go. The nice ones.

 It's the loons that hold to the very end, wreaking hell long after the rest of the world has moved on. 


And I see what you're trying to say Roose, and in principle I agree with it. I just don't agree with the way you or darkfoxx put it.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 24, 2011)

Azure said:


> Man, I hate missing all the good WB shit. *Let the man speak!!*


 
Yes, Xaerun... especially since his reply was most likely aimed at me, and I missed it, myself.




Unsilenced said:


> And I see what you're trying to say Roose, and in principle I agree with it. *I just don't agree with the way you or darkfoxx put it.*


 
That's fine by me... I've never claimed to be a gifted orator, so sometimes words fail me.  It can be very frustrating to want to say something, and not be able to get it out quite the way you imagined it.  I'd guess that's why I never was terribly good with drawing stuff.  Don't have the mojo to translate what I see in my head onto paper.  But you get the drift, so all is good.


----------



## Bambi (Mar 24, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Because the non-religious look for as many reasons as possible in an attempt to make religious people feel like outcasts, or as a means to convince themselves that they're on some sort of winning team in ideology.


And is it just me, or does this article read more like a propaganda piece than an informative point of view on the census studies in question? Further, what's with the rhetoric? Religion going _extinct_? _Really?_


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 24, 2011)

Bambi said:


> And is it just me, or does this article read more like a propaganda piece than an informative point of view on the census studies in question? Further, what's with the rhetoric? Religion going _extinct_? _Really?_


 
Well, There's no celebration over it, or even them saying it's a good thing or a bad thing. They're just reporting the numbers- Saying that fewer people are not subscribing to a particular region and the social mechanics they think are behind it- and the term "extinct" sums the concept up succinctly. Given that the most secular places are 40-60%, they still have a good way to go.


----------



## Xaerun (Mar 24, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Yes, Xaerun... especially since his reply was most likely aimed at me, and I missed it, myself.


 Dickery is dickery, and I couldn't care less who it was aimed at. You're free to ask him, but I can assure you it wouldn't be worth your time.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Mar 24, 2011)

Some of you guys make it sound like you're being repressed and eslaved by these HUGE RELIGIOUS ILUMINATI INSTITUTIONS, keeping you from fapping to furry porn in your parents basements.

Religious or not. This doesn't affect you in any way but perhaps bitch less about people goign to church 20 years from now.

And to the Idiot that said that religion is a boil on society.


You masturbate to furry animal humanoids on a computer screen and shove animal dildos up your asses. How retarded is that? It's almost like a religion itself.


ITT furries thinking they're better than everyone.


----------



## Lobar (Mar 24, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> You masturbate to furry animal humanoids on a computer screen and shove animal dildos up your asses. How retarded is that? It's almost like a religion itself.


 
Which religion is this almost like, exactly?  I have a friend that might be interested.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Mar 24, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Which religion is this almost like, exactly?*  I have a friend* that might be interested.


 
Is that code for "I'm interested"?

Answer: The furry Fandom :V.




edit: Thinking about it. wasn't there some cult that was marrying animals and shit out in the wilderness?

they were affiliated with the ALF.


----------



## Lobar (Mar 24, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> Is that code for "I'm interested"?
> 
> Answer: The furry Fandom :V.


 
oh fuck we're a religion? :|


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Mar 24, 2011)

Lobar said:


> oh fuck we're a religion? :|


 

Think about it. 

Now go over the social structure in the fandom...

Popufurs, admins...everything..


The furs criticizes everyone, but cant take criticism themselves.

They try to hide bad publicity and silences dissent..


Cathlic church hides pedophiles.

Furry fandom hides dog abusers.






OH SHIT.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 24, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> Think about it.
> 
> OH SHIT.



I can dig it when comparing them just as organizations, but as a religion?  Where's the supernatural stuff and talk of afterlives? Not counting those heretical therians, of course. :V


----------



## BRN (Mar 24, 2011)

Sorry to disappoint the fucked up theory but a religion is something that offers Absolution in exchange for your Belief and the Conversion of others - the ABC rule.


----------



## Waffles (Mar 24, 2011)

SIX said:


> Sorry to disappoint the fucked up theory but a religion is something that offers Absolution in exchange for your Belief and the Conversion of others - the ABC rule.


 And plus there are no furry "commandments" or "rules" really, and there no hope of "hell/heaven/whatthefuckever", and there's no higher power you bow down to.


----------



## Don (Mar 24, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> or have the bare minimum of respect I'd give most human beings for people here anymore



"People are criticizing my beliefs? holyshitwtfballs they're all monsters!"



Wolf-Bone said:


> I think the lot of you are losers with no lives.



I think you should start looking beyond what you see in the mirror. 



Wolf-Bone said:


> Now just because Cerbrus most of the mods have a policy that I have to have at least one infraction point at all times



I think this has to do with most of your posts being thinly veiled "I want to strangle you" comments more than all the mods being out to get you.



Wolf-Bone said:


> they'll ignore downright *hate speech* like this.



So you calling for the extermination of everyone that's rich/white/disagrees with you is totally okay? The irony is delicious.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 24, 2011)

Don_Wolf said:


> "People are criticizing my beliefs? holyshitwtfballs they're all monsters!"



I don't respect people with no sense of self, or self-respect (narcissism doesn't count).



			
				Don_Wolf said:
			
		

> I think you should start looking beyond what you see in the mirror.



Because No U is so much fucking harder to type, right?



			
				Don_Wolf said:
			
		

> I think this has to do with most of your posts being thinly veiled "I want to strangle you" comments more than all the mods being out to get you.



It's a pretty common reaction a lot of normal people have to sheer stupidity.



			
				Don_Wolf said:
			
		

> So you calling for the extermination of everyone that's rich/white/disagrees with you is totally okay?



I want the white race to basically self-terminate. That is to say, I want them to realize who and what they really are, which is not a social construct, but just another member of the human race, as opposed to this bullshit "Gods amongst men the various subhuman, halfbreed monkey-people of the world we must 'civilize' to prop up our artificial, over-privileged, unsustainable lifestyles off their backs for their own good." Seeing as how you benefit *directly* from that, I can see how that'd be an uncomfortable notion to you. Tough shit.



			
				Don_Wolf said:
			
		

> The irony is delicious.



Well my girlfriend's said a lot of things about my cock, but "irony" isn't a word she's used to describe it. Ever had one of those?


----------



## Unsilenced (Mar 24, 2011)

"The furry fandom is a religion" 

God damn it that statement is so fucking stupid my brain just jumped out of my skull and fled to Mexico.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Mar 24, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> That is to say, I want them to realize who and what they really are, which is not a social construct, but just another member of the human race, as opposed to this bullshit "Gods amongst men the various subhuman, halfbreed monkey-people of the world we must 'civilize' to prop up our artificial, over-privileged, unsustainable lifestyles off their backs for their own good."


 
Well, we are above everyone else.

[yt]p69XxYjfx-k[/yt]


----------



## Don (Mar 24, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Because No U is so much fucking harder to type, right?



I pride myself on _usually_ typing far more than necessary.



Wolf-Bone said:


> It's a pretty common reaction a lot of normal people have to sheer stupidity.



Shockingly enough, there are few legitimately few stupid people on this forum. Your definition of 'stupidity' essentially boils down to anyone who disagrees with you or holds different political views.



Wolf-Bone said:


> I want the white race to basically self-terminate. That is to say, I want them to realize who and what they really are, which is not a social construct, but just another member of the human race, as opposed to this bullshit "Gods amongst men the various subhuman, halfbreed monkey-people of the world we must 'civilize' to prop up our artificial, over-privileged, unsustainable lifestyles off their backs for their own good." Seeing as how you benefit *directly* from that, I can see how that'd be an uncomfortable notion to you. Tough shit.



And beyond the Southern States, this is what has happened. Go ahead and try saying that 'Gods amongst men' quote, and see just how hard you will be laughed at. The view that white people are all conquering super-men went out of fashion decades ago. As for the 'over-privileged, unsustainable lifestyles,' that's just Western society as a whole which encompasses far more people than just whites. 

What you're promoting is essentially De-Kulakization on a global scale. Eradicating the First World is an utterly ludicrous idea. We're already trying to ease the burden by promoting renewable energy and being more conservative with our usage of resources. Not to forgot the massive amounts of money we pump into the UN and charities for the less-privileged countries. The reason there's such a huge divide between the rich and poor nations is not wholly the fault of rich white capitalists. If anything, the far greater problem is the nigh-universal violence and lack of order in places like Africa. Vast amounts of the money we send is either simply seized or used to buy weapons for warlords. The parts of the third-world that aren't in civil anarchy are ruled by ruthless dictators like  Gaddafi or Ahmadinejad whom we should have no business supporting.



Wolf-Bone said:


> Well my girlfriend's said a lot of things about my cock, but "irony" isn't a word she's used to describe it. Ever had one of those?



HURR DURR I MADE A DICK JOKE


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 24, 2011)

If you're going to sit there and tell me I'm basically a *Communist* just for being *anti-racist*, but then say *I'm* the one holding on to ideas that were discredited decades ago, you're just too much of a dumbass for me to even bother continuing this discussion.


----------



## Don (Mar 24, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> If you're going to sit there and tell me I'm basically a *Communist* just for being *anti-racist*, but then say *I'm* the one holding on to ideas that were discredited decades ago, you're just too much of a dumbass for me to even bother continuing this discussion.


 
I can read *just* fine without *you* randomly bolding *words*.

Once again you resort to name-calling without actually explaining how I'm wrong. Shape the fuck up and actually post something logical before you resort to covering your eyes and ears.

The fact is, you do hold ideas that can be called Communist. From what I've gathered, you believe that privileged people should have their wealth and land taken and re-distributed to the the poor. Being 'anti-racist' is not a political ideology, and is just about as redundant as being 'anti-rain' or 'anti-people who drive slowly.' 

That brings me to another point. You constantly call people racist without any factual backing. Is there a lot of rich white men? Yes. Are they rich solely because of their skin colour? No. Compared to other factors like education, connections, place of upbringing, parental support, etc. race has very little to do with if someone is successful or not. There are tons of rich black people just as there is tons of poor white people. 

If anyone here is racist and living in the past, it is without a doubt you. You constantly bring up race when it has nothing to do with the current topic and believe all the troubles of the world are the fault of white people. I'm shocked you aren't a member of the New Black Panther Party, or have you simply not told us?


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Mar 24, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Because the non-religious look for as many reasons as possible in an attempt to make religious people feel like outcasts, or as a means to convince themselves that they're on some sort of winning team in ideology.


 
Nonsense, religious people are quite capable of doing that themselves.

"the best way to get persecuted is to put Jesus on your facebook page. the true mark of a Christian is persecution." for example.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Mar 24, 2011)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> Nonsense, religious people are quite capable of doing that themselves.
> 
> "the best way to get persecuted is to put Jesus on your facebook page. the true mark of a Christian is persecution." for example.


 
You put quotes around that as if it's from something.

Go on with the citation.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 24, 2011)

Don_Wolf said:


> I can read *just* fine without *you* randomly bolding *words*.


 
Psst, he's trolling you.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Mar 24, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> You put quotes around that as if it's from something.
> 
> Go on with the citation.


 
http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=80143

Sorry, took me a while to figure out how to strangle the adress out of the site.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Mar 24, 2011)

Can someone please comfort me and tell me they knew my comparison of the fandom to a religion/sect is a joke?

Can someone also comfort me that no one is taking Wolf-bone's idea to blend out the white race as a solution?

jesus fuck people. you scare me sometimes.


----------



## Don (Mar 24, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Psst, he's trolling you.


 
The sad thing is, I know he isn't.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Mar 24, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> "The furry fandom is a religion"
> 
> God damn it that statement is so fucking stupid my brain just jumped out of my skull and fled to Mexico.


 

Apparently you cant take a joke and flipped out! you'd think being on the internet would'ove hardened you to WORSE statements.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Mar 24, 2011)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=80143
> 
> Sorry, took me a while to figure out how to strangle the adress out of the site.


 
Alright so let me just throw this out there; who here thinks I have a persecution complex?  That my religious affiliation has come out in pretty much all of my posts and have forcefully pushed my religion on the people here?

More to the point, how does putting your religious affiliation on your facebook page mean you have a persecution complex?


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 24, 2011)

Don_Wolf said:


> The sad thing is, I know he isn't.


 
The only one people here who are actually that dense have names beginning with R.

Edit: I hope. '


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Mar 24, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> More to the point, how does putting your religious affiliation on your facebook page mean you have a persecution complex?


 
That's not a persecution complex. A persecution complex is putting your religion, which you share with 85% of your country, on your facebook status and crying when someone responds in the barest of negative manner, and then going on a rant about how the evil atheists are controlling the country and Obama is going to sacrifice your children to his Pagan Allah-gods of socialist communism.

You know, just like people say furries have a persecution complex because they start crying the moment someone says something unfriendly about them.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 24, 2011)

Yeah...persecution complex usually has something like, "Why are they  always attacking me/us?", where you feel like you are some sort of  social pariah.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 24, 2011)

Don_Wolf said:


> I can read *just* fine without *you* randomly bolding *words*.
> 
> Once again you resort to name-calling without actually explaining how I'm wrong. Shape the fuck up and actually post something logical before you resort to covering your eyes and ears. \
> 
> ...


 
Just for the record, when this guy flips his shit and shoots up some place in whatever part of Canada he lives, it ain't the same part of Canada I'm from. I don't know the guy, I didn't coax him into it, I had absolutely nothing to do with it. He's an angry motherfucker, who was angry long before he met me, and whose anger swelled out of control because people like me weren't trying to hear it.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Mar 24, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Just for the record, when this guy flips his shit and shoots up some place in whatever part of Canada he lives, it ain't the same part of Canada I'm from. I don't know the guy, I didn't coax him into it, I had absolutely nothing to do with it. He's an angry motherfucker, who was angry long before he met me, and whose anger swelled out of control because people like me weren't trying to hear it.


 

Sometimes i HONESTLY believe you're on drugs, or legitimately out of your mind.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 24, 2011)

Winning?


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 24, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Alright so let me just throw this out  there; who here thinks I have a persecution complex?  That my religious  affiliation has come out in pretty much all of my posts and have  forcefully pushed my religion on the people here?
> 
> More to the  point, how does putting your religious affiliation on your facebook page  mean you have a persecution complex?



It doesn't mean you have a persecution complex.  Not unless you start  pairing it with persecution ideology.  There are two kinds though; 

a) the kind where you're in a country where you can practice freely w/o  fear of being shot or going to jail for your beliefs but you still say  you're being persecuted because you can't force others to share your  point of view.
b) the kind where you cannot practice or admit your belief/ faith in public for fear of being jailed or shot.

My father experienced the second one in Communist Russia during the mid  60's.  Praying before eating is habitual and with him being a pastor's  son he was raised to do this before every meal.  If it wasn't for his  Canadian citizenship he would have been arrested and Russian prisons,  esp. during the 60's, weren't known for their hospitality.   There is an  example of die-hard persecution.   What the Israelis and Palestinians  are doing to each other in the Gaza strip is persecution.

The false persecution complex where people believe they're being  oppressed for their beliefs (and I'll use Canada as an example because  that is my homeland) is the one that gets my dander up.  There are  people here and people I know where (citing an argument I had once) I've  had to point out that just because they can't stand out on a public  street corner and say that homosexuality is a sin, doesn't mean that  they're being persecuted.  Being restrained from forcing others to hear  what _you _believe is correct is not oppression.  Being restrained from having any belief other then what the majority or ruling class _wants_  you to think, especially at the risk of human rights, is.  Canada has  hate-crime laws that prevent people from doing what Westboro Baptist  Church does (and this is why they were barred from entering the country  to protest).  It protects people from being oppressed in the public, and  in the workplace based on religious affiliation, sexual orientation,  political beliefs, and viewpoints.  When an individual or a person  decides to no longer respect another's way of living and force them to  assimilate to their own, that's when the law steps in.  A person can not  have their basic human rights threatened because they don't share the  same religion, viewpoint, orientation, race, etc, as another.  For an individual to say that they can't slander others in public is persecution is idiotic.  

Of course, _small acts_ of persecution happen everyday in every  country between individuals.  An Atheist scoffs at a Christian when they  go to church. A Christian sneers at a Pagan for wearing a pentacle  (this has happened to me once.  Unless the guy REALLY hates breasts  ^^; ).  Racial profiling (consciously or unconsciously) for job hiring, and preferencial treatment based on faith, colour, and orientation still happen today in 'first world', 'enlightened' countries.

But persecution, religious or otherwise is a personal choice.  We can  choose to be persecute someone, and we can choose to believe the  persecution and let others dictate what we believe and who we are.  


TL; DR.  If you post your religion on facebook, you're not saying you're  being persecuted by doing so until you actually claim to be oppressed.   Then you better have evidence to back that up or you're going to look  like an idiot.  See above thesis for reasons why.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 24, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> Sometimes i HONESTLY believe you're on drugs, or legitimately out of your mind.



Go fap to your gun magazines or something.



CAThulu said:


> It doesn't mean you have a persecution complex.  Not unless you start  pairing it with persecution ideology.  There are two kinds though;
> 
> a) the kind where you're in a country where you can practice freely w/o  fear of being shot or going to jail for your beliefs but you still say  you're being persecuted because you can't force others to share your  point of view.
> b) the kind where you cannot practice or admit your belief/ faith in public for fear of being jailed or shot.
> ...


 
The thing is, I think there is a case to be made that we've gone _at least_ a tad too far in one direction. When religious and ethnic minorities get _loads_ of concessions, the point companies are bending over backwards to accommodate their various needs, and a white Christian gets told "you have the right to work somewhere else" when they just want Sunday off so they can go to church, should it at all surprise you they resent that? I honestly feel sometimes like Canada is trying to _create_ racists just to justify multiculturalism's existence, and it severely risks a backlash I personally never want to see on my soil.


----------



## Volkodav (Mar 24, 2011)

Yessssss, finally. & the world will maybe get along better.

& Wolf-Bone, stop making us Canadians look like drug-addict assholes.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 24, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Yessssss, finally. & the world will maybe get along better.
> 
> & Wolf-Bone, stop making us Canadians look like drug-addict assholes.


 
Ayight. I'll get to that around the same time you stop making us look like a bunch of creepers who barely have a grasp on their own damned language (okay in fairness, TDA is as much to blame for that but still).


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Mar 24, 2011)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> That's not a persecution complex. A persecution complex is putting your religion, which you share with 85% of your country, on your facebook status and crying when someone responds in the barest of negative manner, and then going on a rant about how the evil atheists are controlling the country and Obama is going to sacrifice your children to his Pagan Allah-gods of socialist communism.


 
If this is what you meant, then why didn't you just say that instead of implying that anyone who puts religion on their Facebook page has a persecution complex?  Cause that's essentially what your previous quote did.

I also don't see this happening.  Like ever.  I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but in the grand scheme of those who connect to Facebook, I'm not sure this happens as often as to actually be notable.



			
				CAThulu said:
			
		

> a) the kind where you're in a country where you can practice freely w/o fear of being shot or going to jail for your beliefs but you still say you're being persecuted because you can't force others to share your point of view.



I understand what a persecution complex is.  My point is that Hakar's quote was implying that anyone who is Christian who posts anything about their religion on their Facebook, specifically a picture of Jesus, has a persecution complex.  I wanted to know how they arrived at that conclusion, and now he's clarified that he didn't actually mean to say what his quote said.

And again, I can't think of anyone within my personal network of Facebook friends who has ever complained about being oppressed for their religion.  I'd have to go looking for this kind of thing or initiate it by antagonizing someone for their religious affiliation, which kind of makes the whole idea fall flat on its face.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 24, 2011)

Xaerun said:


> Dickery is dickery, and I couldn't care less who it was aimed at. You're free to ask him, *but I can assure you it wouldn't be worth your time*.


 
That would be for me to judge... but that would actually require knowing whether or not said reply was aimed at me, personally.  Dickery to one person is not necessarily dickery to another.  However, you made a judgment call, so it's your dime.




Mojotech said:


> The only one people here who are actually that dense have names beginning with R.
> 
> Edit: *I hope. '*


 
Too bad this site doesn't have a members list, then you could have checked before opening your pie hole.




Clayton said:


> Yessssss, finally. *& the world will maybe get along better.*


 
No, it won't.


----------



## Volkodav (Mar 24, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> No, it won't.


I 200% believe religion is responsible for a huge amount of fighting and intolerance.
But, you're religious so I'm not even gonna go there with you.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 24, 2011)

Clayton said:


> *I 200% believe religion is responsible for a huge amount of fighting and intolerance.*
> But, you're religious so I'm not even gonna go there with you.


 
You're free to believe that, just as I am free to disagree.  And way to go with this "tolerance" thing you speak of...


----------



## Volkodav (Mar 24, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> You're free to believe that, just as I am free to disagree.  And way to go with this "tolerance" thing you speak of...


 That's not intolerance, that's saying _"you're religious so obviously you will disagree with me, and therefore there is no point in even trying to debate this with you"_


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 24, 2011)

Clayton said:


> That's not intolerance, that's saying _"you're religious so obviously you will disagree with me, and therefore there is no point in even trying to debate this with you"_


 
And saying that, you don't see a problem with it?  Generalizing that, just because I'm "religious", I'm not worth talking to?  And isn't that the basis of debate?  Disagreeing on a subject?  I see no reason to discuss, if I agreed with you.  Shoot... the very fact you would only debate with me if I agreed with you shows your intolerance of my viewpoint.


----------



## Volkodav (Mar 24, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> And saying that, you don't see a problem with it?  Generalizing that, just because I'm "religious", I'm not worth talking to?  And isn't that the basis of debate?  Disagreeing on a subject?  I see no reason to discuss, if I agreed with you.  Shoot... the very fact you would only debate with me if I agreed with you shows your intolerance of my viewpoint.


There is no reason to discuss this because we will basically say the same thing we've been saying.
Me: I believe if religion were gone, there would be less fighting and intolerance
You: I believe differently, because if religion stayed the way it did now.. uh... well.. I dont know
because this argument is stupid and pointless

The end. Keep assuming things, I don't care anymore.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Mar 24, 2011)

Aden said:


> I do hope they preserve the architecture for historical purposes


 
Chances are, yes. Japan isn't ultra-religious and they keep shrines around.


----------



## Azure (Mar 24, 2011)

Seriously, this thread, my mouth.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Mar 24, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Go fap to your gun magazines or something.


 HAHAHAHAHAHA.


AHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHAAHAA.


----------



## Volkodav (Mar 24, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHA.
> 
> 
> AHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHAAHAA.


 
HI TOM!!!!!!!!!!!!
what a coincidence to see you here on this day


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Mar 24, 2011)

Clayton said:


> HI TOM!!!!!!!!!!!!
> what a coincidence to see you here on this day


 

Why?

I'm around pretty much everywhere most of the time.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Mar 24, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> And saying that, you don't see a problem with it?  Generalizing that, just because I'm "religious", I'm not worth talking to?  And isn't that the basis of debate?  Disagreeing on a subject?  I see no reason to discuss, if I agreed with you.  Shoot... the very fact you would only debate with me if I agreed with you shows your intolerance of my viewpoint.


 

I think its fair to say, hes stubborn.


----------



## Volkodav (Mar 24, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> Why?
> 
> I'm around pretty much everywhere most of the time.


 *cries softly* i was jstu saying hi 



MaverickCowboy said:


> I think its fair to say, hes stubborn.


 Ya it's true, but it's not worth arguing anywyas


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 24, 2011)

What is it with guntards/Republicunts and not knowing how to use a fucking edit button?


----------



## Volkodav (Mar 24, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> What is it with guntards/Republicunts and not knowing how to use a fucking edit button?


 Wolfbone, seriously shut up. I can understand wanting Tom to bang his cock against the back of your throat until you get a bruise, but take it to PMs or Visitor Messages.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 24, 2011)

Clayton said:


> There is no reason to discuss this because we will basically say the same thing we've been saying.
> Me: I believe if religion were gone, there would be less fighting and intolerance
> You: I believe differently, because if religion stayed the way it did now.. uh... well.. I dont know because this argument is stupid and pointless
> 
> The end. *Keep assuming things*, I don't care anymore.


 
Ahhh... *"You: I believe differently, because if religion stayed the way it did now.. uh... well.. I dont know because this argument is stupid and pointless."*  So, you can make an assumption like this with a straight face?

What I have made clear is religion is not to blame for the world's violence and intolerance.  Atheists can be just as violent and intolerant as the religious.  That fact is part of human nature, not religion in and of itself.  Your assumption that there would be "less fighting and intolerance" in an atheistic world is a false assumption, with no evidence to back it up.  The very subject of this topic makes assumptions based on nine out of... how many nations on this earth?  I have to wonder:  Does the census requirment for stating religious affiliation have a slot for "Atheist", or does it simply list religions, with a space for "None" at the bottom?  Like I said, it could simply be an indication that people aren't choosing to "confess" their religious affiliations, for whatever reasons.  Not an indication that religion is "going extinct".

Now, are you going to call what I've said here *"...uh... well"*...?  I think I've been pretty clear on my viewpoint.




MaverickCowboy said:


> I think its fair to say, *hes stubborn*.


 
Yeah, two mules in a room, then.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Mar 24, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Wolfbone, seriously shut up. I can understand wanting Tom to bang his cock against the back of your throat until you get a bruise, but take it to PMs or Visitor Messages.


 

I like how people assume that because i like guns, and come off conservative they think I'm not gay :V


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 24, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> I like how people assume that because i like guns, and come off conservative they think I'm not gay :V


 
I like how people assume that because I'm "religious" I can't debate religious issues... or, apparently, any other topic.  More often than not.


----------



## Volkodav (Mar 24, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> What I have made clear is religion is not to blame for the world's violence and intolerance.  Atheists can be just as violent and intolerant as the religious.


You don't see athiests killing people in the name of their no-god, do you?  
With all this "kill the infidels" shit.. one would think that MMMAYBBBEE religion is why they're saying that.

Eh, whatever


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 24, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Wolfbone, seriously shut up. I can understand wanting Tom to bang his cock against the back of your throat until you get a bruise, but take it to PMs or Visitor Messages.



It's a good thing I don't because the way you're riding his dick right now I'd be waiting a while.



MaverickCowboy said:


> I like how people assume that because i like guns, and come off conservative they think I'm not gay :V


 
Oh don't worry, there was never any misconceptions there on my part


----------



## Volkodav (Mar 24, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> It's a good thing I don't because the way you're riding his dick right now I'd be waiting a while.


I'd ride his dick any day. Not yours though cause you complain a lot


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 24, 2011)

Clayton said:


> I'd ride his dick any day. Not yours though cause you complain a lot


 
This is sorta shaping up to be a n*gga moment, except replace "n*gga" with "faggot" and "white" with "straight".


----------



## Volkodav (Mar 24, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> This is sorta shaping up to be a n*gga moment, except replace "n*gga" with "faggot" and "white" with "straight".


 
I'm a straight white fag


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 24, 2011)

Clayton said:


> *You don't see athiests killing people in the name of their no-god, do you?*
> With all this "kill the infidels" shit.. one would think that MMMAYBBBEE religion is why they're saying that.
> 
> Eh, whatever


 
No, but they still kill, don't they?  So, whether we have religion or not, violence is human in nature, not religious.  I don't need to yell "Kill the infidels!" in order to be a mass murderer.  Also, just because someone is religious doesn't mean they kill for religious reasons.  Remember, the religious are human, too.  Violent by nature.  And willing to use any excuse to further their agenda.  Willing to blame anyone or anything other than themselves.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 24, 2011)

Clayton said:


> I'm a straight white fag


 
By one definition of "straight" at least - as in "straight up"...


----------



## Volkodav (Mar 24, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> No, but they still kill, don't they?  So, whether we have religion or not, violence is human in nature, not religious.  I don't need to yell "Kill the infidels!" in order to be a mass murderer.  Also, just because someone is religious doesn't mean they kill for religious reasons.  Remember, the religious are human, too.  Violent by nature.  And willing to use any excuse to further their agenda.  Willing to blame anyone or anything other than themselves.


 eehhh.. athiests don't kill in a religion because they don't believe in a god
Religious people kill in the name of their god.

& religious people can kill for reasons other then religion, but athiests can't  kill in the name of a god, so they dont



Wolf-Bone said:


> By one definition of "straight" at least - as in "straight up"...


 Hell yeeahh
straight up fag


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 24, 2011)

Clayton said:


> eehhh.. *athiests don't kill in a religion* because they don't believe in a god
> Religious people kill in the name of their god.
> 
> & religious people can kill for reasons other then religion, *but athiests can't  kill in the name of a god, so they dont*


 
Are you listening to yourself, Clayton?  It doesn't matter if atheists "don't kill in a religion", only that they kill.  You seem to be implying that killing in the name of God is wrong, but just killing is fine.  It doesn't matter if you "kill in the name" of God, only that you kill.  So what if atheists don't kill in the name of God... and here you are, saying atheists CAN'T kill in the name of a god?  They certainly can, if their agenda is to discredit religion.


----------



## Volkodav (Mar 24, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Are you listening to yourself, Clayton?  It doesn't matter if atheists "don't kill in a religion", only that they kill.  You seem to be implying that killing in the name of God is wrong, but just killing is fine.  It doesn't matter if you "kill in the name" of God, only that you kill.  So what if atheists don't kill in the name of God... and here you are, saying atheists CAN'T kill in the name of a god?  They certainly can, if their agenda is to discredit religion.


 
No I'm not. I'm saying that religious people can kill in the name of their god, athiests cant.
Some religious people do, but athiests cant either way


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 24, 2011)

Clayton said:


> No I'm not. I'm saying that religious people can kill in the name of their god, athiests cant.
> Some religious people do, but athiests cant either way


 
It's semantics.  Clayton is right that they can't kill in the name of a deity, because Atheists believe that none exist.  

That's not to say that Atheists can't kill in the name of their ideology, under whatever banner they choose (*cough* communism *cough*)

In other words, he's trolling and you're all falling for it.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 24, 2011)

One is speaking of motivation to kill, the other is speaking of the actual act.


----------



## Volkodav (Mar 24, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> It's semantics.  Clayton is right that they can't kill in the name of a deity, because Atheists believe that none exist.
> 
> That's not to say that Atheists can't kill in the name of their ideology, under whatever banner they choose (*cough* communism *cough*)
> 
> In other words, he's trolling and you're all falling for it.


 No, I'm 100% not trolling. Seriously.


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 24, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I understand what a persecution complex is.  My point is that Hakar's quote was implying that anyone who is Christian who posts anything about their religion on their Facebook, specifically a picture of Jesus, has a persecution complex.  I wanted to know how they arrived at that conclusion, and now he's clarified that he didn't actually mean to say what his quote said.
> 
> And again, I can't think of anyone within my personal network of Facebook friends who has ever complained about being oppressed for their religion.  I'd have to go looking for this kind of thing or initiate it by antagonizing someone for their religious affiliation, which kind of makes the whole idea fall flat on its face.



I'm going with the second paragraph since i think Hakar has clarified his meaning.  I have a facebook friend who talks about being oppressed all the time (he lives in Pakistan) and how hypocritical the west is when it comes to enforcing their morals on the middle east.  Some things I agree with, but there are times I want to reach through the monitor and smack him one.   He's lived here in Canada for a while and wants to move back, but being argumentative for the sake of doing so is a waste of energy.  Overall he's a nice guy, but he needs to get out of that country.



Lastdirewolf said:


> One is speaking of motivation to kill, the other is speaking of the actual act.



According to the bible, it's the same thing.  (No, don't ask me to look this up. It's in there.)


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 24, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> The thing is, I think there is a case to be made that we've gone _at least_ a tad too far in one direction. When religious and ethnic minorities get _loads_ of concessions, the point companies are bending over backwards to accommodate their various needs, and a white Christian gets told "you have the right to work somewhere else" when they just want Sunday off so they can go to church, should it at all surprise you they resent that? I honestly feel sometimes like Canada is trying to _create_ racists just to justify multiculturalism's existence, and it severely risks a backlash I personally never want to see on my soil.


 
This I absolutely agree to.  When there are TOO MANY concessions then the balance is just as off as if there are too little.  People need to be hired by companies based on their experience and skill, not to fill a minority quota.  As for working on Sundays, in my experience it's been pretty rare that it couldn't be requested off for church. Usually it's with a trade-off of working one Sunday a month which is pretty damn reasonable.  Hours are also flexible where people work; church normally ends at 11 am, and the average retailer opens at 12 pm, which means a christian employee can do both in one day.   

However, anyone who gets told they have the 'right to work somewhere else' if they're not allowed Sundays off to go to church can take it up with human resources for discrimination.  If they're working  a career job that will demand that they need to be available certain Sundays for emergencies (doctors, nurses, firemen, policemen, etc) and need to be on call, then it's unreasonable to ask for every Sunday off without fail.  There has to be a balance and understanding that sometimes you'll have to work that day if there's no one else to cover the shift.



Clayton said:


> No, I'm 100% not trolling. Seriously.



I wish you were.  Your arguement would make a hell of a lot more sense.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 25, 2011)

Clayton said:


> *No I'm not.* I'm saying that religious people can kill in the name of their god, athiests cant.
> Some religious people do, but athiests cant either way


 
Then you need to start listening to yourself... seriously.  And you still haven't provided any evidence to back up your claim that atheists CAN'T kill in the name of God... and "can't either way"...?  Again, you really, really need to listen to yourself, Clayton.  You're not making sense.




CAThulu said:


> It's semantics.  *Clayton is right that they can't kill in the name of a deity*, because Atheists believe that none exist.
> 
> That's not to say that Atheists can't kill in the name of their ideology, under whatever banner they choose (*cough* communism *cough*)
> 
> In other words, he's trolling and you're all falling for it.


 
No, Clayton is wrong... being an atheist doesn't mean you become unable to use religion to further your political/social agenda.  It's not "semantics" when someone uses the word CAN'T to "prove" their point.  And it also doesn't matter if he's trolling... in fact, if he is, he's only hurting himself.  And yes, if someone uses the word CAN'T, then they are indeed saying that "atheists can't kill" in the name of God.  Or whatever "ideology" they choose to use (like, say, the "banner" of religion).




Lastdirewolf said:


> One is speaking of motivation to kill, *the other is speaking of the actual act*.


 
And it is the "actual act" that matters, not the motivation... motivations can be deceiving.  Because human nature is to lie, cheat, steal, etc.  All that matters is, people kill people.  If not for one "motivation", then for another.  In either case, you cannot justify the actual act based on the "motivation".  Religion is no more responsible for killing than guns.  Only people kill people.




Clayton said:


> No, I'm 100% not trolling. Seriously.


 
From the horse's mouth.




CAThulu said:


> I wish you were.  *Your arguement would make a hell of a lot more sense.*


 
I'd love to hear your reasoning on this.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 25, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> And it is the "actual act" that matters, not the motivation... motivations can be deceiving.  Because human nature is to lie, cheat, steal, etc.  All that matters is, people kill people.  If not for one "motivation", then for another.  In either case, you cannot justify the actual act based on the "motivation".  Religion is no more responsible for killing than guns.  Only people kill people.


 
To you, it does. Clayton started and has been speaking on the side of _motivation, _and not the act, because he believes _the motivation_ derives from certain extremists in certain religions, that end up doing _the act_. 

Shit, it's like he's saying, "There would be less wars if there was no religion". And you're saying, "War will happen amongst humans regardless." Both are valid points that need further explanation. Nobody is disagreeing that war will happen amongst humans, but HIS point, as I see it, is that there would be _less_ war.

If there is no motivation, than there is no act. I know you know that, but you're dismissing the motivation way to quickly

And you don't have to justify the act to anyone, because it's personal motivation, it's not what the motivation is there for - It's for the person to cause the act.

To compare religion to guns feels proper, but not in the fashion you're doing it. I'll say for the sake of continuity in the argument, that with no religion = less wars. With no guns = less killing. 

All of this is dismissed by you, because you seem to believe of this 'inevitability' of war coming about. That there is always a certain level of war that's there.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Mar 25, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> To you, it does. Clayton started and has been speaking on the side of _motivation, _and not the act, because he believes _the motivation_ derives from certain extremists in certain religions, that end up doing _the act_.
> 
> Shit, it's like he's saying, "There would be less wars if there was no religion". And you're saying, "War will happen amongst humans regardless." Both are valid points that need further explanation. Nobody is disagreeing that war will happen amongst humans, but HIS point, as I see it, is that there would be _less_ war.
> 
> ...





Athiest, Anti gun communist WORLD GOVERNMENT YAY.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 25, 2011)

Clayton said:


> No, I'm 100% not trolling. Seriously.


 
That's what's really so sad about what you're saying.


----------



## Xegras (Mar 25, 2011)

I'm astounded you people are arguing with Clayton thinking he will make a valid point.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Mar 25, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> If this is what you meant, then why didn't you just say that instead of implying that anyone who puts religion on their Facebook page has a persecution complex?  Cause that's essentially what your previous quote did.
> 
> I also don't see this happening.  Like ever.  I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but in the grand scheme of those who connect to Facebook, I'm not sure this happens as often as to actually be notable.


 
I didn't. Yes it does.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Mar 25, 2011)

The "Furry" is a religion thing was funnier....


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 25, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> The "Furry" is a religion thing was funnier....


 
FURY IS A FETISH


----------



## Xegras (Mar 25, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> The "Furry" is a religion thing was funnier....





Lastdirewolf said:


> FURY IS A FETISH


 
YOU ARE BOTH WRONG!

It's a lifestyle! 




:V


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 25, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> To you, it does. Clayton started *and has been speaking on the side of motivation, and not the act*, because he believes _the motivation_ derives from certain extremists in certain religions, that end up doing _the act_.



But the thing is, if the motivation doesn't end in "The Act", then the motivation doesn't matter.  Conversely, if "The Act" is committed, it doesn't matter what the motivation is, simply that someone has died.  Motivation only matters in court, because, for all practial intents and purposes, "the dead" don't care why they were murdered, simply that they were.  So, yes, the motivation may derive "from certain extremists in certain religions", but then, religion is not the only motivator of human violence.




Lastdirewolf said:


> Shit, it's like he's saying, "There would be less wars if there was no religion". And you're saying, "War will happen amongst humans regardless." Both are valid points that need further explanation. Nobody is disagreeing that war will happen amongst humans, but HIS point, as I see it, *is that there would be less war*.



And I have made clear I disagree with that assessment... it's his personal speculation, not a solid, proven fact.  For all we know, less religion may mean MORE war.  Shame is, there's no way to "prove" either viewpoint, all anyone can do is speculate.




Lastdirewolf said:


> *If there is no motivation, than there is no act.* I know you know that, but you're dismissing the motivation way to quickly



Oh, so you believe all murderers need a motivation?

http://www.dreamindemon.com/2008/06/18/stafon-thompson-brian-flowers-kill-for-no-reason/

http://www.kmbc.com/r/3986454/detail.html

In any case, as I have made clear, it isn't the motivation that matters... it's the killing, itself.  Those random acts of violence.




Lastdirewolf said:


> And you don't have to justify the act to anyone, because it's personal motivation, it's not what the motivation is there for - *It's for the person to cause the act.*



Exactly... the PERSON, not the religion.




Lastdirewolf said:


> To compare religion to guns feels proper, but not in the fashion you're doing it. I'll say for the sake of continuity in the argument, that with no religion = less wars. *With no guns = less killing.*



Only that particular argument has been proven false:

http://www.theshorthorn.com/index.p...olumnist-gun-free-zones-trigger-killing-zones

http://biggovernment.com/jlott/2010/03/01/more-guns-less-crime/

And then we have this study, as well:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

And this:

http://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/0472115103-ch2.pdf




Lastdirewolf said:


> All of this is dismissed by you, *because you seem to believe of this 'inevitability' of war coming about*. That there is always a certain level of war that's there.


 
And what do you believe, Mister Wolf?




Xegras said:


> I'm astounded you people are arguing with Clayton *thinking he will make a valid point*.


 
Hey, I already know he isn't making any valid points... which is what I've been pointing out to him, for his own edification, as well as for adding to the discussion.  Call it my hobby.


----------



## Lobar (Mar 25, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> It's semantics.  Clayton is right that they can't kill in the name of a deity, because Atheists believe that none exist.
> 
> That's not to say that Atheists can't kill in the name of their ideology, under whatever banner they choose (*cough* communism *cough*)


 
Stalin never killed for the sake of atheism, nor to reap its benefits.  He oppressed religion because it was in his way of establishing total control over the people, plain and simple.  He sought that control to spread his economic and and social structure, and his personal power, but not for the sake of godlessness in its own right.  Atheism was completely incidental to the entire matter.

It would be possible for atheists to kill for atheism's sake, but it has not happened and likely will not happen.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 25, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> But the thing is, if the motivation doesn't end in "The Act", then the motivation doesn't matter.  Conversely, if "The Act" is committed, it doesn't matter what the motivation is, simply that someone has died.  Motivation only matters in court, because, for all practial intents and purposes, "the dead" don't care why they were murdered, simply that they were.  So, yes, the motivation may derive "from certain extremists in certain religions", but then, religion is not the only motivator of human violence.
> 
> And I have made clear I disagree with that assessment... it's his personal speculation, not a solid, proven fact.  For all we know, less religion may mean MORE war.  Shame is, there's no way to "prove" either viewpoint, all anyone can do is speculate.
> 
> ...


 
The motivation doesn't necessarily end in the acts, because there are open-ended motivations. This doesn't water down the motivation to become less meaningful, because that person is still out killing people. I'd hope you know that I know, that religion  isn't the only means for violence. The way you're speaking, the act doesn't matter either, because I can just say X amount of people die each year. All those people dead doesn't mean anything to anyone, other than the individuals around the dead one. 

Those links were absolutely worthless, by the way, about the murders. Just because an investigator can't find motivation, doesn't mean it's lacking. That's one of the silliest things I've ever heard.

And as I've made clear, the motivation _does_ matter, because if you can find the motivation, then you can work towards stopping a potentially bad outcome. Especially in the case of certain extremist sects of religions, where it's written in the texts they read, that they have to kill people. It may not matter personally to you, but it does matter.

What I said was:

"And you don't have to justify the act to anyone, because it's personal motivation, it's not what the motivation is there for - It's for the person to cause the act.*"

*Which you seemed to have misread, or purposefully tried to place incorrect emphasis upon. It's stating *The personal motivation is what causes the person to cause the act*.And if there motivation is religion, than we have a problem. 

First link, worthless. An opinion piece vaguely stating when three different shootings happened in a place where guns weren't allowed. This says nothing; random acts of violence doesn't prove my statement false.

You can just remove that part from my post, I don't care. I'm not here to argue it :v 

And what do I believe? I believe you're mislaying emphasis yet again.


----------



## Telnac (Mar 25, 2011)

I read that earlier today & my reaction?  Eh, yet another study mis-reported by idiots in the media who blow everything out of proportion.

The data shows several countries trending toward secularism.  Countries trending toward secularism _*!=*_ religion going extinct.  Religion becoming an insignificant factor in society?  Yeah, I can believe that, but going _*extinct?!*_  Uh... no.  Won't happen.  USSR, China and plenty of other communist countries tried to make that happen during the Cold War, and they had no luck.  I certainly don't see this happening on its own.

Short of marching every believer into concentration camps & offing them all, there will always be a remnant population who adheres to their old beliefs.  (Not that trying to kill all of the believers is very effective, as history has shown time & time again.)


----------



## Unsilenced (Mar 25, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> Can someone please comfort me and tell me they knew my comparison of the fandom to a religion/sect is a joke?
> 
> Can someone also comfort me that no one is taking Wolf-bone's idea to blend out the white race as a solution?
> 
> jesus fuck people. you scare me sometimes.



...

Poe's law.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 25, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> The motivation doesn't necessarily end in the acts, because there are open-ended motivations. This doesn't water down the motivation to become less meaningful, because that person is still out killing people. I'd hope you know that I know, that religion  isn't the only means for violence. *The way you're speaking, the act doesn't matter either, because I can just say X amount of people die each year.* All those people dead doesn't mean anything to anyone, other than the individuals around the dead one.



Yes, you could say that, but then, were talking about motivations for murder, not just general deaths.  We are talking about people killing people.  Murder as an act, itself, does matter... the motivation doesn't.  Why?  As you said:  *"The motivation doesn't necessarily end in the acts, because there are open-ended motivations."*  So, if the motivation doesn't always end in the act, then it's the actual act itself that's important.




Lastdirewolf said:


> Those links were absolutely worthless, by the way, about the murders. *Just because an investigator can't find motivation, doesn't mean it's lacking.* That's one of the silliest things I've ever heard.



It also doesn't mean there is a motivation.  If it is so hard to find, then there must be a reason, right?




Lastdirewolf said:


> And as I've made clear, the motivation _does_ matter, *because if you can find the motivation, then you can work towards stopping a potentially bad outcome*. Especially in the case of certain extremist sects of religions, where it's written in the texts they read, that they have to kill people. It may not matter personally to you, but it does matter.



Tell me something... has knowing the motivations for violent acts ever prevented those violent acts from occuring?




Lastdirewolf said:


> What I said was:
> 
> "And you don't have to justify the act to anyone, because it's personal motivation, it's not what the motivation is there for - It's for the person to cause the act.*"
> 
> *Which you seemed to have misread, or purposefully tried to place incorrect emphasis upon. It's stating *The personal motivation is what causes the person to cause the act*.And if there motivation is religion, than we have a problem.



And if the motivation is not religion, then we DON'T have a problem?  See where I'm coming from?  I did not misread or purposefully placed an "incorrect" emphasis on your words.  Incorrect?  Are you trying to say I can't take what you said, and draw attention to points within it?  Without "the person", there is no act, let alone motivation.  And religion is not the only motivator for violence.




Lastdirewolf said:


> First link, worthless. An opinion piece vaguely stating when three different shootings happened in a place where guns weren't allowed. This says nothing; *random acts of violence doesn't prove my statement false.*



Hmmm:



> *ranÂ·dom*â€‚ â€‚/ËˆrÃ¦ndÉ™m/  Show Spelled
> [ran-duhm]  Show IPA
> 
> â€“adjective
> ...





> *moÂ·tiÂ·vaÂ·tion*
> 
> Pronounced:
> /ËŒmoÊŠtÉ™ËˆveÉªÊƒÉ™n/
> ...



Perhaps you can see where a simple definition seems to question your claim that "random acts of violence" says nothing about motivation.  The two terms seem to have opposite ends, random acts "occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern" while motivation is "the act or process of giving someone a reason for doing something."  Random acts have no reason, while motivated acts require a reason.




Lastdirewolf said:


> You can just remove that part from my post, I don't care. *I'm not here to argue it* :v



Fine by me.




Lastdirewolf said:


> And what do I believe? *I believe you're mislaying emphasis yet again.*


 
No... "What do you believe about the Inevitability of War?"  Don't avoid the question.


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 25, 2011)

Telnac said:


> The data shows several countries trending toward secularism.  Countries trending toward secularism _*!=*_ religion going extinct.  Religion becoming an insignificant factor in society?  Yeah, I can believe that, but going _*extinct?!*_  Uh... no.  Won't happen.  USSR, China and plenty of other communist countries tried to make that happen during the Cold War, and they had no luck.  I certainly don't see this happening on its own.



What I see happening is that the trappings of religious faith will probably blend more and more into overall secular culture (like Christmas and Easter now in the West) where people will go through the motions of certain activities with only a passing knowledge of the reason for such rites and practically no religious conviction. Which isn't necessarily a _bad _thing.



Telnac said:


> Short of marching every believer into concentration camps & offing them all, there will always be a remnant population who adheres to their old beliefs.



Not necessarily - simple neglect and apathy towards a faith is pretty effective at eliminating it. For example, how many adherents are there these days of the old Greek and Roman gods?
The irony is that the state-backed churches like the Church of England, where their position is guaranteed in society by law, are the ones that are losing the most adherents from the look of things - simply because such churches don't _have_ to work at maintaining their position.


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 25, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Stalin never killed for the sake of atheism, nor to reap its benefits.  He oppressed religion because it was in his way of establishing total control over the people, plain and simple.  He sought that control to spread his economic and and social structure, and his personal power, but *not for the sake of godlessness in its own right*.  Atheism was completely incidental to the entire matter.
> 
> It would be possible for atheists to kill for atheism's sake, but it has not happened and likely will not happen.



TouchÃ©


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 25, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> What I see happening is that the trappings of religious faith will probably blend more and more into overall secular culture (like Christmas and Easter now in the West) where people will go through the motions of certain activities with only a passing knowledge of the reason for such rites and practically no religious conviction. Which isn't necessarily a _bad _thing.



It's already happening, to an extent, in America. The most apparent example is in our holidays. Nobody really believes in Eros, the greek god that has become Cupid, or the witches of Samhain, but we still celebrate them every year. The same is slowly happening to Christmas and Easter, which are drifting from mangers and crosses to reindeer and bunnies. Pretty much every organization that has adopted either a non-denominational or omni-denominational stance on religious issues has benefited from party stores to charities.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 25, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Yes, you could say that, but then, were talking about motivations for murder, not just general deaths.  We are talking about people killing people.  Murder as an act, itself, does matter... the motivation doesn't.  Why?  As you said:  *"The motivation doesn't necessarily end in the acts, because there are open-ended motivations."*  So, if the motivation doesn't always end in the act, then it's the actual act itself that's important.
> 
> It also doesn't mean there is a motivation.  If it is so hard to find, then there must be a reason, right?
> 
> ...


 
So ipso facto, things that end are more important than things that continue? 

If the motivation is hard to find, that says absolutely nothing on whether or not it exists. 

...I would have to say at least once, has foreknowledge stopped a murder. My guess is, that's at least partially what that whole government protection-relocation program is for. And military information mapping out what and where are known targets, and what are not. Elsewise they'd be going in blind. 

As far as what I meant by random act of violence, is that you basically selected a random act. Not that the act itself was random. That point was more muddled than I intended. 

And I'm not avoiding the question, I'm asking that you use the *whole quote*. Especially because my point is *not* the inevitability of war.


----------



## Calemeyr (Mar 25, 2011)

So if death of religion is imminent in several western nations, why not this one? Why can't science take the forefront here and let us make mutant atomic supermen?


----------



## Darkfoxx (Mar 25, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> And I see what you're trying to say Roose, and in principle I agree with it. I just don't agree with the way you or darkfoxx put it.


 
What is wrong with the way I said that I compared extremists to extremists to extremists? You argued that atheist extremists dont do things like blowung up buildings and protest at funerals, but that's a thing not many extremists do compared to how many extremists there are on the whole, and is irrelevant and missing my point. 

My point being that it doesn't matter which religion you have or dont have, extremists are dicks. The good people are the ones who can accept other people's beliefs and simply are tolerant of differing ideas and religions and can live together without any sort of hatespeech or discussions desperately trying to show the other side how stupid they think they are for being on the other side of the fence.

My little drawing was akin to me holding up a mirror. If you dont like what you see... well.


----------



## Aden (Mar 25, 2011)

1dynamofox1 said:


> So if death of religion is imminent in several western nations, why not this one?


 
Because FUCK YOU, COMMIE


----------



## Lobar (Mar 25, 2011)

darkfoxx said:


> What is wrong with the way I said that I compared extremists to extremists to extremists? You argued that atheist extremists dont do things like blowung up buildings and protest at funerals, but that's a thing not many extremists do compared to how many extremists there are on the whole, and is irrelevant and missing my point.
> 
> My point being that it doesn't matter which religion you have or dont have, extremists are dicks. The good people are the ones who can accept other people's beliefs and simply are tolerant of differing ideas and religions and can live together without any sort of hatespeech or discussions desperately trying to show the other side how stupid they think they are for being on the other side of the fence.
> 
> My little drawing was akin to me holding up a mirror. If you dont like what you see... well.


 
Ideas are not people, they have no feelings, and no value beyond their merit.  We should inflict grievous violence upon ideas, a withering assault of skepticism and doubt that only truth is capable of surviving intact.  That is what drives the engine of human knowledge.


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 25, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Ideas are not people, they have no feelings, and no value beyond their merit.  We should inflict grievous violence upon ideas, a withering assault of skepticism and doubt that only truth is capable of surviving intact.  That is what drives the engine of human knowledge.


 
If only it were that easy, but ideas are only truly volitile when weilded by people.   We can inflict all the violence we want upon ideas, but nothing will be done until the people who use bad ideas change their minds or pass away.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Mar 25, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> It's already happening, to an extent, in America. The most apparent example is in our holidays. Nobody really believes in Eros, the greek god that has become Cupid, or the witches of Samhain, but we still celebrate them every year. The same is slowly happening to Christmas and Easter, which are drifting from mangers and crosses to reindeer and bunnies. Pretty much every organization that has adopted either a non-denominational or omni-denominational stance on religious issues has benefited from party stores to charities.


 
My state University has a Chapel and manger on campus.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 25, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> So ipso facto, things that end are more important than things that continue?



If someone is motivated by "religion" to commit a violent act, it is no different then someone being motivated by greed to commit a violent act.  So, the motivation isn't the important thing.  Motivations can be positive or negative, but violent ends are always negative... death is always a negative, a loss.




Lastdirewolf said:


> If the motivation is hard to find, that says absolutely nothing on whether or not it exists.



And if the motivation is hard to find, doesn't that tell you anything?  We are always trying to find reasons, even for things that make no sense, that have no apparent reason, and may very well have no reason at all.  People can do things based on a lack of motivation.  The justice system, however, likes things neat and tidy.  Unfortunately, reality isn't that easy to define.




Lastdirewolf said:


> ...I would have to say at least once, has foreknowledge stopped a murder. My guess is, *that's at least partially what that whole government protection-relocation program is for*. And military information mapping out what and where are known targets, and what are not. Elsewise they'd be going in blind.



But you're forgetting, the witness protection program is for protecting witnesses to a crime that has already occured, in which the witness's life has been directly threatened.  So, the motivation for the criminal may be to silence the witness, but hiding the witness doesn't stop the motivation, and obviously didn't stop the original crime.  And then there's that word:  "Known."  How do you know what motivates a particular criminal until after they've already committed a crime?  What about first-time offenders?  Yes, very blind, indeed.  Motivation can only be known after the fact.  Because criminals are individuals, and motivation is an individual factor.




Lastdirewolf said:


> As far as what I meant by random act of violence, is that you basically selected a random act. Not that the act itself was random. That point was more muddled than I intended.



If you've "selected" it, then it is no longer "random".  Because random acts don't happen according to plans... that's why they're random.  Unplanned.  Not "selected".




Lastdirewolf said:


> And I'm not avoiding the question, I'm asking that you use the *whole quote*. Especially because my point is *not* the inevitability of war.


 
I did use the whole quote, but then I highlighted/bolded the part I wished to address, which I am perfectly free to do.  So let's go back, then.

This is the whole quote:



Lastdirewolf said:


> All of this is dismissed by you, because you seem to believe of this 'inevitability' of war coming about. That there is always a certain level of war that's there.


 
This is the whole quote with MY emphasis:



Lastdirewolf said:


> All of this is dismissed by you, *because you seem to believe of this 'inevitability' of war coming about*. That there is always a certain level of war that's there.


 
So, I ask again:  *"And what do you believe, Mister Wolf?"*  It's a very simple question.




Lobar said:


> Ideas are not people, they have no feelings, and no value beyond their merit.  We should inflict grievous violence upon ideas, a withering assault of skepticism and doubt that only truth is capable of surviving intact.  That is what drives the engine of human knowledge.


 
I know you're ignoring me, Lobar, but... thanks for the laugh.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 25, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> If someone is motivated by "religion" to commit a violent act, it is no different then someone being motivated by greed to commit a violent act.  So, the motivation isn't the important thing.  Motivations can be positive or negative, but violent ends are always negative... death is always a negative, a loss.
> 
> And if the motivation is hard to find, doesn't that tell you anything?  We are always trying to find reasons, even for things that make no sense, that have no apparent reason, and may very well have no reason at all.  People can do things based on a lack of motivation.  The justice system, however, likes things neat and tidy.  Unfortunately, reality isn't that easy to define.
> 
> ...


 
Motivations can be positive or negative, violent acts can be positive or negative - We're delving into extremely subjective area here now.

If the motivation is hard to find? No, it doesn't say anything. 

_"The justice system, however, likes things neat and tidy.  Unfortunately, reality isn't that easy to define"_

You just answered your own question. Murders aren't always cut and dry, but like I said before, muddled motivation doesn't mean lacking.

You're misunderstanding me again about that "random part", and confusing the issue beyond what we are both talking about. You pulled up to links that are irrelevant, and to me, they are random, because of their lack of purpose. Not the actual acts contained within the links.

The part that you are highlighting, is not my point. You can pester me about it all you want, no matter how simple it is, but the _whole_ quote is my point. 



Lastdirewolf said:


> All of this is dismissed by you, because you  seem to believe of this 'inevitability' of war coming about. *That there  is always a certain level of war that's there.*


 
That is my point. I'm not going to address something that is only taken at half value, and that you haven't even address either, other than trying to point fingers at me.


----------



## Unsilenced (Mar 25, 2011)

darkfoxx said:


> What is wrong with the way I said that I compared extremists to extremists to extremists? You argued that atheist extremists dont do things like blowung up buildings and protest at funerals, but that's a thing not many extremists do compared to how many extremists there are on the whole, and is irrelevant and missing my point.
> 
> My point being that it doesn't matter which religion you have or dont have, extremists are dicks. The good people are the ones who can accept other people's beliefs and simply are tolerant of differing ideas and religions and can live together without any sort of hatespeech or discussions desperately trying to show the other side how stupid they think they are for being on the other side of the fence.
> 
> My little drawing was akin to me holding up a mirror. If you dont like what you see... well.



It's false equivalency.  Not all dicks are created equal. Now, granted, there have been a fair number of historically notable dicks that were atheists, but there are notably few atheists that were dicks in the name of atheism. It's a key difference. 

For an atheist to be being a dick in the name of atheism, they would have to essentially go around being a dick to people because they hated absolutely everything about religion. Like a personal vendetta or something. Atheists have no commandments to follow and no higher order to obey. This means that we have less restricting our morals (though it does _not_ make us amoral by nature,) but it also means we have less to motivate us towards bigotry. It's hard to think your beliefs are better than other people's when your belief is that you have no belief.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 26, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Motivations can be positive or negative, *violent acts can be positive or negative* - We're delving into extremely subjective area here now.



Violence is always a negative, even violence used to protect life and limb.




Lastdirewolf said:


> If the motivation is hard to find? No, it doesn't say anything.



Then you are obviously stone cold deaf.




Lastdirewolf said:


> _"The justice system, however, likes things neat and tidy.  Unfortunately, reality isn't that easy to define"_
> 
> *************************************************************************
> 
> You just answered your own question. Murders aren't always cut and dry, but like I said before, *muddled motivation doesn't mean lacking*.



You know, now that I think about it, I believe we are getting away from the meat of the issue here, since the whole start of this was based on religiously motivated acts of violence somehow being singled out from every other form of motivation, as if religious violence was "special".  I have to remind you again on that point:  Humans are by nature violent, religious or not.  So, if you want to insist motivation matters, be fair, and apply the standard equally.




Lastdirewolf said:


> *You're misunderstanding me again about that "random part"*, and confusing the issue beyond what we are both talking about. You pulled up to links that are irrelevant, and to me, they are random, because of their lack of purpose. Not the actual acts contained within the links.



Nope, I'm just clarifying the difference between the definition of "random" and the definition of "motivation", both being opposites in this issue.  If something is random, that means it has no motivation, because, if it has a motivation, then it cannot be truly random.  Go back and re-read the definitiions.




Lastdirewolf said:


> *The part that you are highlighting, is not my point.* You can pester me about it all you want, no matter how simple it is, but the _whole_ quote is my point.



I'm fully aware of that, but I am asking a specific question on a specific part of your quote.  That part chosen by me, not by you.




Lastdirewolf said:


> That is my point. *I'm not going to address something that is only taken at half value*, and that you haven't even address either, other than trying to point fingers at me.


 
In other words, you don't want to answer the question.  You want to dictate to me how I should respond to what you wrote, not accept the part I've chosen to ask the question on, so I can have my answer, upon the receipt of which I would be able to further discuss your actual point.  However, since you have not expressed any interest in answering my simple question, it looks like I won't be able to discuss that particular point any further.




Unsilenced said:


> It's false equivalency.  Not all dicks are created equal. Now, granted, there have been a fair number of historically notable dicks that were atheists, *but there are notably few atheists that were dicks in the name of atheism*. It's a key difference.



Funny, but I'd say you, yourself, just made a false equivalency.  If a religious person and an atheist commit the same act of violence, it doesn't matter if they did it in the name of something or not, just that they did it, period.  As I've said before, motivation doesn't matter, only the act.  Religion is no more "at fault" than atheism.  Human nature is the one to blame.




Unsilenced said:


> For an atheist to be being a dick in the name of atheism, they would have to essentially go around being a dick to people because they hated absolutely everything about religion. Like a personal vendetta or something. Atheists have no commandments to follow and no higher order to obey. This means that we have less restricting our morals (though it does _not_ make us amoral by nature,) but it also means we have less to motivate us towards bigotry. *It's hard to think your beliefs are better than other people's when your belief is that you have no belief.*


 
Funny, but don't we have people here constantly dissing religion?  That is bigotry.  And this is bigotry:



> *bigÂ·otÂ·ry*â€‚ â€‚/ËˆbÉªgÉ™tri/  Show Spelled
> [big-uh-tree]  Show IPA
> 
> â€“noun, plural -ries.
> ...



So is this:

http://www.sodahead.com/united-stat...ly-correct-outlet-for-hatred/question-197973/


----------



## Unsilenced (Mar 26, 2011)

Motivation makes all the difference in the world to this argument, as this argument is about motivation. 

In actuality, nothing matters but the interpretation of motivation, but that's a different argument altogether. 

I never said that atheists couldn't be bigoted. It's very hard not to be in some way, because deep down everyone thinks that their right, and if you think you're right, you think someone else is wrong. And then you think your ideas are better than theirs. A rather arrogent presumption, but one we can't help but make. Once again we need to look at degrees of severity. "Nerr nerr i'm rite & ur wrong" is a completely different level from "Oh hey let's lynch that dude because his beliefs differ slightly from ours."


----------



## Lobar (Mar 26, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> If only it were that easy, but ideas are only truly volitile when weilded by people.   We can inflict all the violence we want upon ideas, but *nothing will be done until the people who use bad ideas change their minds or pass away.*


 
Causing the former is exactly the point of attacking idea so vigorously, to demonstrate how brittle they are.  Minds aren't changed by non-confrontation.


----------



## Bambi (Mar 26, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> and the term "extinct" sums the concept up succinctly.


Sure, because you're satisfied with article. I however am not satisfied with the article. For example, it appears heavily biased towards the writers point of view (who believes religion is going extinct based on the presented data.) Another issue of contention is that it also centers on an argument that reads heavily like a rousing call to arms instead of something that, should the authors conclusion be correct, could stand alone on it's own merits. It's an emotional piece supported by an already biased third party.

What's more is that there's no other takes present on that census data, which just says to me that someone is attempting to take advantage of what they perceive the present social climate concerning religion could be. Also, that the people behind the studies are looking for their own conclusions instead is rather telling on why this article came out the way it did.





Mojotech said:


> Given that the most secular places are 40-60%, they still have a good way to go.


I'd say 40-60% secular, not extinct.

Many of the places mentioned in the article have expanded populations of Moslems, Judiacs, Christians, Catholics, etc., so it stands to reason that many of these people haven't gone away, they're just independently choosing to remove themselves from old standards of social governance which isolated key elements of the communities they lived in (and that's if you had to give an unelected reason.) IMHO, the point of secularism is to elect and live with/in a status  quotient that would be capable of surviving without a co-dependence on  it's former state. So, secular, not extinct.

And if this study had any real investigative drive, they would have probably found that out before trying to be little Nietzsche's.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 26, 2011)

Bambi said:


> Sure, because you're satisfied with article. I however am not satisfied with the article. For example, it appears heavily biased towards the writers point of view (who believes religion is going extinct based on the presented data.) Another issue of contention is that it also centers on an argument that reads heavily like a rousing call to arms instead of something that, should the authors conclusion be correct, could stand alone on it's own merits. It's an emotional piece supported by an already biased third party.
> 
> What's more is that there's no other takes present on that census data, which just says to me that someone is attempting to take advantage of what they perceive the present social climate concerning religion could be. Also, that the people behind the studies are looking for their own conclusions instead is rather telling on why this article came out the way it did.



Bambi, you're a cool army bro, but You're going to have to learn how to not read too much into things. It's just a report on a study about how already heavily secular countries are becoming less religious, and a relatively neutral one like BBC usually has.



Bambi said:


> I'd say 40-60% secular, not extinct.
> 
> Many of the places mentioned in the article have expanded populations of Moslems, Judiacs, Christians, Catholics, etc., so it stands to reason that many of these people haven't gone away, they're just independently choosing to remove themselves from old standards of social governance which isolated key elements of the communities they lived in (and that's if you had to give an unelected reason.) IMHO, the point of secularism is to elect and live with/in a status  quotient that would be capable of surviving without a co-dependence on  it's former state. So, secular, not extinct.
> 
> And if this study had any real investigative drive, they would have probably found that out before trying to be little Nietzsche's.


 
Well, good thing the article isn't saying it's extinct now, but that it might in the future if current trends continue. The census, gerrymandering aside, is just a tool to see what the constituency is and how big various communities are. People who don't participate in them run the risk of being underrepresented.

But seriously, calm down.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 26, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Violence is always a negative, even violence used to protect life and limb.
> 
> Then you are obviously stone cold deaf.
> 
> ...


 
Violence is always negative, to whom? You? Well that's fairly arbitrary. I don't find violence to be always negative, and can have positive effects. Not all the time, not in all cases, and it can have drastic negative consequences too, don't get me wrong.

If motivation is hard to find, it doesn't mean it's not there. I don't know why you're fighting that point so hard, you can apply it to pretty much anything else similar and get the same result. You can see the result of something happening, but there is no hard evidence leading it to someone, so in your mind there is a very good chance that there was no reason at all that that thing happened.


----------



## Darkfoxx (Mar 26, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> It's false equivalency.  Not all dicks are created equal. Now, granted, there have been a fair number of historically notable dicks that were atheists, but there are notably few atheists that were dicks in the name of atheism. It's a key difference.
> 
> For an atheist to be being a dick in the name of atheism, they would have to essentially go around being a dick to people because they hated absolutely everything about religion. Like a personal vendetta or something. Atheists have no commandments to follow and no higher order to obey. This means that we have less restricting our morals (though it does _not_ make us amoral by nature,) but it also means we have less to motivate us towards bigotry. It's hard to think your beliefs are better than other people's when your belief is that you have no belief.


 
You are still missing my point.

At the risk of making people rage thinking i'm talking about anyone specific...

I see a lot of "religion is bad and we're better off without it" in this thread (and others). But what I'm missing is the 'extremists' in here. The world indeed is better off without any extremists whatsoever, because it is religious extremists that are causing the problems and violence, whereas most religious people (and ideas mind you) cause no violence or even hate. 
Hate religious extremists? Heck, I totally agree with that, on your side there. Hate people who believe something you might not really agree with but are still good people nonetheless? What is the matter with you? Does it affect you? No. Then why hate them with a passion and wish they would no longer be or drop their religion? They dont cause any voilence or hate. So what's it to you?

You compare violent religious muslims and violent religious christians to non violent atheists. False equivalency right there.
The image I posted compared (non violent) extremist muslims spreading hatespeech to (non violent) extremist Christians to (non violent) extremist atheists. The latter of which there seem to be a lot of here. Case in point the posts of people dancing on religion's grave at the mention of the study from the OP.

What I'm arguing here, is that this atheist extremism is no better then the extremism of so called biblehumpers filling blogs and people's minds with hate for anything that (according to their vieuws) is all that's bad and immoral on this planet and give no room for existance of other ideas and beliefs. EG, the "you're gay/atheist/non christian (fill in whatever you can think of here) so you are going to hell and burn forever" crowd. Which we can both agree on is extremely annoying at best.

I'm NOT talking about the WBC protesting at the funeral of some gay soldier or the guys who flew those airplanes into the WTC towers and comparing them to the people on the internet speaking about how they dislike religion because Al Quaida and WBC. Which you seem to assume I am, and incorrectly so.

I'm a Christian and I'm NOT a biblehumper. I'm perfectly fine with anyone's religion or lach thereof, my boyfreind is an atheist and we can even discuss religion wiht0out it turning into a mudflinging hatefest like it so often happens on the internet. However, if on any forum I'm a member of people do start the mudflinging in the direction of my (or other people's religions) damn right I'm speaking my mind and point out to them that they are no better then the biblehumpers they oh so much hate.

That was the intent of my 'spot the difference' pic, and that is what you missed: there is no difference between the three on the far left side. It was a trick question.

To reply in general to everyone who seems under the impression that no religion = less voilence: you're fooling yourselves. In most cases religion is just an excuse, and if one excuse fails or doesn't exist, people will find a different excuse. Look at Ireland for example. Protestants VS catholics. It's the SAME damn thing, but still they are using the 'differences' between them to hate eachother. It's not violence because of religion it's violence because of hate.'

Hate for the wrong reasons is always wrong no matter how good you think your reasons are.

EDIT: You know what the funny part is? That I'm cool with and accepting of other religions or lack thereof, and am extremely non violent, and all BUT any sort of extremist... is *because* of my religious upbringing. Isn't that weird, since all religions cause voilence in this world..? :V


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 26, 2011)

Well you're thinking  along the rather far end of something happening. There are religious people changing the history books, trying to teach Creationism in schools (especially fighting against 'evil'ution), trying to control politics and government, and a bunch of other things. They aren't necessarily extremists, but they're impacting a lot of people, their ways of living, and how their children are raised and what they learn.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 26, 2011)

darkfoxx said:


> Atheist Extremists.


 
Except atheist extremists aren't calling for anyone to be made second class citizens because of religious beliefs, or calling for the death or exclusion of gays and infidels, or the like.

Unless you're talking about extremists who happen to be atheists, but then we'd have to specify what they are being extremists OF, which so far are pretty much entirely dictators only interested in their own power (IE stalin, etc) or religious extremists. There seems to be a lack of people who have killed in the name of atheism itself.



darkfoxx said:


> Religion never causes violence.



You're kidding, right? Let's just take a quick peek over at Africa, where religious beliefs and superstitions are causing violence right now. Or the fact that most serial killers in america are white males that come from incredibly strict christian religious households or things like that.


----------



## Llamapotamus (Mar 26, 2011)

Bambi said:


> Sure, because you're satisfied with article. I however am not satisfied with the article. For example, it appears heavily biased towards the writers point of view (who believes religion is going extinct based on the presented data.) Another issue of contention is that it also centers on an argument that reads heavily like a rousing call to arms instead of something that, should the authors conclusion be correct, could stand alone on it's own merits. It's an emotional piece supported by an already biased third party.


 
I agree, but where would you find anyone without a bias with regards to religion?


----------



## Darkfoxx (Mar 26, 2011)

Mojotech, please read my post above yours again. I've tried to explain there that religion might be an *excuse* for homophobes to try and exclude gay people. If it was the religion in and by itself, and nothing else, I wouldn't be arguing my point here because I am Christian and I would have probably killed myself years ago when I found out that I'm bisexual.

And no, im not kidding when I say religions don't cause violence. (as I also have tried to explain my reasons for saying above, but I will just do it again, differently...) Ideas alone cannot kill or hurt anyone.
Compare it to guns. Guns dont *cause* violence, Guns are a tool in a lot of it, yes. But guns dont kill people, people kill people. With guns, but also without. Religion doesnt kill people, people kill people. Sometimes with religion, but also without. If a gun isn't available to kill someone, there's other things to be used as a weapon... if religion is absent, you can bet there will be other differences between the killer and victims that will be of use.

And if those white male serial killers would really be so very very strictly Christian, they surely would hold the ten commandements in the highest regard. The one that states "thou shallt not kill". They are not serial killers because of their religion. They are serial killers because of some brain defect or the other. I am white, male, and come from a rather strict Christian household. Guess what I'm not? A serial killer... 

See how that doesn't add up?



Lastdirewolf said:


> Well you're thinking  along the rather far end of something happening. There are religious people changing the history books, trying to teach Creationism in schools (especially fighting against 'evil'ution), trying to control politics and government, and a bunch of other things. They aren't necessarily extremists, but they're impacting a lot of people, their ways of living, and how their children are raised and what they learn.


 
People trying to change things so it's all in their favour is not something limited to religious people tho.

History has been altered left and right by all kinds of people, usually to try and hide things that couldn't see the light of day.  Not just for religious reasons, for instance look at how hard the Soviets have tried to hide what they were doing to their poilitical enemies and dissidents during the cold war. Or even more recent, the secret prisons and torture camps like Guantonomo Bay. If they'd have gotten away with it we'd still have no clue about it, and that had little to do with religion. Aside from the aspect of trying to paint any and all muslims as potential terrorists.

Politics and government are run by money and corruption, have always been, and that is impacting a lot of people, their ways of living...
Heck, in the times where church and state was not yet as seperated as it is now in most western countries, when the Catholic church was still running everything behind the curtains, it was not about religion even. It was about greed and getting things the way it would benefit those in power the most.

And TBH, I think that everyone has the right to raise their children in whichever way they see fit. That is hardly something you can complain about, and taking myself and the kids around me when I was younger as an example, the religious upbringing has in no way made them less of a better person.

If you dont believe in God and Jesus and all that, cool, no problem. To each their own. But dont go out of your way to try to somehow prove that religion is ebil because of what some members of that group have done, in that way I can also bring up so many things that any members of any groups have done wrong and use that as a reason to say that whole group is evil. Ya know, some furries are zoopholes. OMG furry is evil because of what the furries have done to harm some animals. Some women hate men. OMG all women are evil because some of them are feminist extremists. Some people in the US have enslaved and killed black people in the past.... All white people in the US must be racist because...  etc.

It's just silly. That I have to explain in full detail what I meant with that one image is silly, maybe I've not been all too clear with it but all I tried to say, extremism is bad. No matter what form it takes. If it leads to violence, hate or simply disliking of other people because of WHAT they are instead of WHO they are, it's bad.

One should judge someone else by the person that they are, not by anything other. Not by gender, race, religion, sexual preference, or anything of the sort.


----------



## Mr Meatballs (Mar 26, 2011)

*reads thread title.

About fucking time we got rid of that crutch.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 26, 2011)

darkfoxx said:


> Mojotech, please read my post above yours again. I've tried to explain there that religion might be an *excuse* for homophobes to try and exclude gay people. If it was the religion in and by itself, and nothing else, I wouldn't be arguing my point here because I am Christian and I would have probably killed myself years ago when I found out that I'm bisexual.
> 
> And no, im not kidding when I say religions don't cause violence. (as I also have tried to explain my reasons for saying above, but I will just do it again, differently...) Ideas alone cannot kill or hurt anyone.
> Compare it to guns. Guns dont *cause* violence, Guns are a tool in a lot of it, yes. But guns dont kill people, people kill people. With guns, but also without. Religion doesnt kill people, people kill people. Sometimes with religion, but also without. If a gun isn't available to kill someone, there's other things to be used as a weapon... if religion is absent, you can bet there will be other differences between the killer and victims that will be of use.
> ...


 
Religion is most definitely a negative factor against tolerance. It's not the only factor, but it is a massive one. Just ask any orthodox southern preacher. :V

The whole "It's just an excuse" excuse has never really held water. It's basically saying all the religious people who do bad things aren't actually religious, they're just doing it to further their own worldly goals. And not actually believing what's ni their bible, suffer not a witch to live etc.

First off, that group of ten commandments was thrown out immediately after it was written and replaced. Second off, They usually believe god is telling them to go out and kill people, with divine mandate trumping scripture. Hey, if it was good enough for Abraham...


----------



## Darkfoxx (Mar 26, 2011)

Alright, forget anything I've said, because we can keep talking in circles about my explanations untill the cows come home. The shortest I can say it in I've tried but here goes again.

All I tried to say, extremism is bad. No matter what form it takes. If it leads to violence, hate or simply disliking of other people because of WHAT they are instead of WHO they are, it's _bad_.

One should judge someone else by the person that they are, not by anything other. Not by gender, race, _religion_, sexual preference, or anything of the sort.

This is not limited to religious extremism as I tried to show with my little drawing. That's the holding up a mirror part I meant.

(I wonder if I'm really gonna have to keep repeating this untill the end of the world or this thread? Whichever comes first)


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 26, 2011)

darkfoxx said:


> Alright, forget anything I've said, because we can keep talking in circles about my explanations untill the cows come home. The shortest I can say it in I've tried but here goes again.
> 
> All I tried to say, extremism is bad. No matter what form it takes. If it leads to violence, hate or simply disliking of other people because of WHAT they are instead of WHO they are, it's _bad_.
> 
> ...


 
Oh, I already know all that, and agree that extremism is bad. But the point is there are more extreme extremes found in religion than in a lack of religion. The servile-to-the-gods mindset is really great for breeding those sorts of things, with their black and white absolute morality stuff. People who lack religion aren't susceptible to that, (Though they can still fall under extremist political ideals and such), but equating atheist extreimists  them to religious extremism is just not accurate because it's comparing political extremism to religious extremism.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 26, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> *Violence is always negative, to whom?* You? Well that's fairly arbitrary. I don't find violence to be always negative, and can have positive effects. Not all the time, not in all cases, and it can have drastic negative consequences too, don't get me wrong.



To everyone.  And yes, I already mentioned that violence can have positive effects, as in being used to save lives.  But the violence, itself, is always a negative  The very fact people have to use violence to defend their lives _from_ violence points to one of the great ironies of life:  That a negative action can have a positive outcome.  I don't think that's arbitrary.




Lastdirewolf said:


> If motivation is hard to find, it doesn't mean it's not there. *I don't know why you're fighting that point so hard*, you can apply it to pretty much anything else similar and get the same result. You can see the result of something happening, but there is no hard evidence leading it to someone, so in your mind there is a very good chance that there was no reason at all that that thing happened.


 
Actually, you're the one who's fighting it so hard.  I've already explained it to you, from my perspective, and you're perfectly free to disagree, but... well, you keep insisting that a person's motivation itself is important, not the act that derives from that motivation.  And you keep insisting that religious motivation is somehow different from any other form of motivation.  This is where we disagree.  You seem to believe motivation is the important part, while I believe the results of human motivation is all that matters.  Religious people kill... non-religious people kill.  So, it doesn't matter what motivated either the religious person or the non-religious person, simply that someone died in the end.  Because, you see, not all motivations end in someone's death.




darkfoxx said:


> To reply in general to everyone who seems under the impression that no religion = less voilence: you're fooling yourselves. In most cases religion is just an excuse, *and if one excuse fails or doesn't exist, people will find a different excuse*. Look at Ireland for example. Protestants VS catholics. It's the SAME damn thing, but still they are using the 'differences' between them to hate eachother. It's not violence because of religion it's violence because of hate.'
> 
> Hate for the wrong reasons is always wrong no matter how good you think your reasons are.


 
Exactly.




Mojotech said:


> Except atheist extremists aren't calling for anyone to be made second class citizens because of religious beliefs, or calling for the death or exclusion of gays and infidels, or the like.
> 
> Unless you're talking about extremists who happen to be atheists, but then we'd have to specify what they are being extremists OF, which so far are pretty much entirely dictators only interested in their own power (IE stalin, etc) or religious extremists. *There seems to be a lack of people who have killed in the name of atheism itself.*



Which doesn't matter, since the end result is death for the victim, whether their murderer claims religion or not as a "reason".




Mojotech said:


> You're kidding, right? Let's just take a quick peek over at Africa, where religious beliefs and superstitions are causing violence right now. *Or the fact that most serial killers in america are white males that come from incredibly strict christian religious households or things like that.*


 
I checked up on that, and while it seems what you claim here has a grain of truth, you (and anybody else interested) might want to read this:

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/tick/victims_1.html

Seems to me, from what I've read in the above, and elsewhere, those "religious households" were ABNORMAL.




Llamapotamus said:


> I agree, *but where would you find anyone without a bias with regards to religion?*


 
Good question...




darkfoxx said:


> And no, im not kidding when I say religions don't cause violence. (as I also have tried to explain my reasons for saying above, but I will just do it again, differently...) Ideas alone cannot kill or hurt anyone.
> Compare it to guns. Guns dont *cause* violence, Guns are a tool in a lot of it, yes. But guns dont kill people, people kill people. With guns, but also without. Religion doesnt kill people, people kill people. Sometimes with religion, but also without. If a gun isn't available to kill someone, there's other things to be used as a weapon... *if religion is absent, you can bet there will be other differences between the killer and victims that will be of use*.


 
Such as race, nationality, level of wealth, gender... I could go on.




Mr Meatballs said:


> *reads thread title.
> 
> *About fucking time we got rid of that crutch.*


 
I isn't a crutch, and it will never be "got rid of".




darkfoxx said:


> *Alright, forget anything I've said, because we can keep talking in circles about my explanations untill the cows come home.* The shortest I can say it in I've tried but here goes again.
> 
> All I tried to say, extremism is bad. No matter what form it takes. If it leads to violence, hate or simply disliking of other people because of WHAT they are instead of WHO they are, it's _bad_.
> 
> ...


 
This is Mojo you're talking to, darkfoxx... he's an anti-religious bigot, so, no matter what you say, he will never listen.  As for the underlined, been there, done that, and Mojo is still Mojo.




Mojotech said:


> Oh, I already know all that, and agree that extremism is bad. But the point is there are more extreme extremes found in religion than in a lack of religion. The servile-to-the-gods mindset is really great for breeding those sorts of things, with their black and white absolute morality stuff. People who lack religion aren't susceptible to that, (Though they can still fall under extremist political ideals and such), but equating atheist extreimists  them to religious extremism is just not accurate *because it's comparing political extremism to religious extremism*.


 
And we all know religious extremism is far worse than political extremism, right?   :V


----------



## Conker (Mar 26, 2011)

darkfoxx said:


> Mojotech, please read my post above yours again. I've tried to explain there that religion might be an *excuse* for homophobes to try and exclude gay people. If it was the religion in and by itself, and nothing else, I wouldn't be arguing my point here because I am Christian and I would have probably killed myself years ago when I found out that I'm bisexual.



In Romans 1:20-36 Paul wrote



> 25Who changed the truth  of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the  Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.  26For  this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women  did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
> 27And  likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in  their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is  unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error  which was meet.
> 28And  even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave  them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not  convenient;
> 29Being  filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness,  maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity;  whisperers,
> ...


Which sort of condemns homosexuality. Granted, the Bible I got for the scripture class I'm in has it worded more clearly as "THEY FUCKED EACH OTHER AND THEN BECAME SUPER EVIL" but this kinda works.


There ARE passages in the Bible that condemn homosexuality. These are used as the reasoning behind religious intolerance towards homosexuals.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Mar 27, 2011)

Oh hey yeah, let's have another "does the bible condemn homosexuality?" discussion. The last googolplex were so much fun and informative. I'm sure we'll hear a lot of new and intelligent points on the subject. :V


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 27, 2011)

It all comes down to which Bible you're using too :v not all Bibles use the same terms.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 27, 2011)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> Oh hey yeah, let's have another "does the bible condemn homosexuality?" discussion. The last googolplex were so much fun and informative. I'm sure we'll hear a lot of new and intelligent points on the subject. :V


 
In this corner, Darkfoxx. In the other corner, Rukh! Let's let these two duke it out on the subject, should be interesting given Rukh's "There's no interpretation possible" spin on the bible. Only on pay-per-view!


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Mar 27, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Only on pay-per-view!



Only one Sanity-point per page!


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 27, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> In this corner, Darkfoxx. In the other corner, Rukh! Let's let these two duke it out on the subject, should be interesting given Rukh's "There's no interpretation possible" spin on the bible. Only on pay-per-view!


 
So are you suggesting total derailment of the thread then?


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Mar 27, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Religion is most definitely a negative factor against tolerance. It's not the only factor, but it is a massive one. Just ask any orthodox southern preacher. :V


 
The same could be said of anyone devoutly following within a political ideology.  In the 50's you could say "Capitalism is most definitely a negative factor against tolerance" do to the fear proponents of American culture created against socialists and communists.  You could probably still make the claim that capitalism has created more disparity and evil to the world than any religion ever could.

"Massive" is a matter of perspective and can be directly related towards the region and culture of a specific area of the world, which you pointed out by bringing up an "orthodox southern preacher."

In North Korea, a massive factor against violence within the country is dissent for glorious leader.  Just ask any refugee.

In urban areas throughout the United States, a massive factor against violence is poor economic status.  Just ask any beat cop.

It's convenient when you use stereotypes to back up your points.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 27, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> The same could be said of anyone devoutly following within a political ideology.  In the 50's you could say "Capitalism is most definitely a negative factor against tolerance" do to the fear proponents of American culture created against socialists and communists.  You could probably still make the claim that capitalism has created more disparity and evil to the world than any religion ever could.
> 
> "Massive" is a matter of perspective and can be directly related towards the region and culture of a specific area of the world, which you pointed out by bringing up an "orthodox southern preacher."
> 
> ...



Except the comparison between beat cops and refugess with ministers isn't exactly fair, given beat cops and refugees aren't people in positions of highly televized leadership expressing views such as "fags caused katrina", but that's beside the point. You have to remember that the original claim I was replying to was "Religion does not cause any problems in and of itself, anyone who does bad things in its name is just using it as an excuse and not motivation.", and one of the problems it DOES cause in and of itself, or rather motivates, is people buying into literal interpretation of scripture that includes hate-inciting verses.

Edit: You're also linking this to regional things, when this is a universal problem with religions, not just a problem with southern baptists. Religion is a practical wellspring of needless human suffering. 



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So are you suggesting total derailment of the thread then?


 
Not really no. :V It's what we call a joke on the internet.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Mar 27, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Except the comparison between beat cops and refugess with ministers isn't exactly fair, given beat cops and refugees aren't people in positions of highly televized leadership expressing views such as "fags caused katrina", but that's beside the point.


 
This point actually goes against you, since cops were among those giving false reports to news organizations that people were being cannibalized, raped, and murdered within the Super Dome and surrounding area in New Orleans when Katrina hit, thus helping bring further stigma and intolerance towards the underprivileged in the deep south.



> "Religion does not cause any problems in and of itself, anyone who does bad things in its name is just using it as an excuse and not motivation.", and one of the problems it DOES cause in and of itself, or rather motivates, is people buying into literal interpretation of scripture that includes hate-inciting verses.



But it most certainly takes people to read those verses and decide to apply them to their everyday lives.  Individual people get out of religion what they take from it.  I'm an example of this just as the person who's willing to blow himself up is.  We both take religion into our lives in different ways and apply them based on our understanding of the virtues and more despicable things written in Scripture as well as our ability to distinguish what was written by a literal God or people attempting to make sense of things that happened hundreds if not thousands of years ago.

It takes people to twist a religion which once promoted tolerance, education, and scientific advancements into something that urges its followers to blow themselves up in a crowded subway station.

EDIT:



> You're also linking this to regional things, when this is a universal problem with religions, not just a problem with southern baptists. Religion is a practical wellspring of needless human suffering.



This would imply that we have large amounts of human suffering where ever religion is present.  There is a very strong religious base within the Northeast United States, yet tolerance has extended thoroughly through this area, especially recently with those who identify themselves as homosexual.  The current generation of religious individuals in this region are much more open-minded and tolerant than say those who revert to "traditional values" such as your stigma of the southern preacher.  I'd feel comfortable saying that countries like Spain and Argentina still have significant religious affiliation but whose suffering isn't caused by religious issues but more economic and status considering rampant drug use and political corruption.

Intolerance certainly leads to human suffering, but as far as religion's role in it, I'd say it's dwindling compared to political ideology and class status.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 27, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Except the comparison between beat cops and refugess with ministers isn't exactly fair, given beat cops and refugees aren't people in positions of highly televized leadership expressing views such as "fags caused katrina", but that's beside the point. You have to remember that the original claim I was replying to was "Religion does not cause any problems in and of itself, anyone who does bad things in its name is just using it as an excuse and not motivation.", and one of the problems it DOES cause in and of itself, or rather motivates, is people buying into literal interpretation of scripture that includes hate-inciting verses.


 
See, the problem is, you personally think Scripture is hate inciting.  Its not based on facts or data, its solely based on your own feelings. What you personally feel when you read something.

Now, I see you make a reference to the WBC, but something you did not know, is Phelps was always a violent man. Read the interviews with 2 of his kids who ran away because of how badly they were abused. Phelps is using his faith as an excuse, for an outlet for his anger. And nothing about that is Scriptural.

I have heard his sermons, He is always screaming, always yelling, trying to justify his anger. His sermons rarely even use Scripture. Its just him ranting. Its really quite pathetic. Nothing Phelps does is based in Scripture, he is the worst example of a Christian in the modern world.


Now, back on topic. Religion isn't dying, nor is it near death. 
Organized religion, the institution side of religion is dying. And I don't think thats a bad thing. In fact, I see it as something healthy. Call is pruning if you will.

What I see in the world, is more people are open to spirituality more than ever. More so than any other time in modern history. People are not afraid to go and research themselves. To look for the answers themselves. To ask questions.

 The article as far as I can tell does not show the actual data, the questions asked.

Many who follow a religion, do not call themselves religious. I don't call myself religious.


Oh , if religion is dying, then why is Christianity spreading through China like a wildfire, why is it spreading through central Asian countries?
Its called the 10-40 window. And Christianity is moving very fast in those areas.

Add to that the 50 year projection of Christianity from 2000-2050 shows *1,052,000,504* New believers. Thats a 52% increase.
From 1990-2000 Christianity has shown a 1.36% growth rate.

All taken from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to_be_the_fastest-growing_religion


----------



## Lobar (Mar 27, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> All taken from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to_be_the_fastest-growing_religion


 
You see no issue at all with specifically referencing the Christianity subsection and _only_ that subsection of that wiki article?


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 27, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> See, the problem is, you personally think Scripture is hate inciting.  Its not based on facts or data, its solely based on your own feelings. What you personally feel when you read something.



Because there's totally nothing hateful or negative in the bible. :V

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Phelps not a true christian.



Phelps is an awful man, but it's really arrogant of you to assume his beliefs aren't sincere. Pride is a sin you know. :V



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Christianity growing fastest.


 
Christianity is the largest, and is having the most babies. Problem is, it's also shrinking the fastest. And your link makes cases for pretty much every other religion. And how fast a religion is growing has nothing to do with its truth value. :V


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 27, 2011)

Lobar said:


> You see no issue at all with specifically referencing the Christianity subsection and _only_ that subsection of that wiki article?


 
That would be because Mojotech made references to Christianity is his comment that I responded to.
Plus you can read the full article and see, that there is only one religion with a negative growth. And that is Shintoism. But there are about 5 religions that are showing major signs of "dying" out, so to speak.

But, again, in responce to OP. Religion is not dying. In fact, its growing.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 27, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Because there's totally nothing hateful or negative in the bible. :V
> 
> http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html



Its easy to rip things completely out of context and have them say something entirely different. That entire website is great at doing that. They use chunks of verses, not even whole ones, leaving key parts out that refute the claims they are trying to make. They don't show the entire passage, which in doing so, you miss the context of what is written. That website is so full of flaws its pathetic.



Mojotech said:


> Phelps is an awful man, but it's really arrogant of you to assume his beliefs aren't sincere. Pride is a sin you know. :V



Phelps is not a Representative of Christ. Phelps is just an angry man hiding behind religion so he can use his anger. Hence why *only* his family goes to his church.
I would love, love to talk with them. I could refute almost everything they have said using Scripture against them. You see, people like that, they don't read Scripture as a whole. They take one point and run with it. Not realizing that, when you do that, its not Biblicaly based anymore.



Mojotech said:


> Christianity is the largest, and is having the most babies. Problem is, it's also shrinking the fastest. And your link makes cases for pretty much every other religion. And how fast a religion is growing has nothing to do with its truth value. :V


 

Christianity is not shrinking worldwide. In certain areas its definitely slowing. But as I said, look to central Asia. Its spreading like wildfire. Care to explain?
Christianity may be "dying" in what, these nine countries the OP linked us. But Christianity is growing leaps and bounds worldwide.

Add to that, Christ Himself spoke of a time when people would wander away from the Truth in great numbers. It was foretold. So nothing in the OP is nothing new. Religion (Christianity) "dying" was prophesied about over 2000 years ago.

Matthew 24:10-13 talks about it, 1 Timothy 4:1 talks about it, 2 Timothy 3:1-5 speaks on it, as well as 2 Timothy 3:3-4. 

So I guess what I am trying to say is, tell me something that is new. All of this has already been foretold. Its already a well known fact that many will walk away.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Mar 27, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Add to that, Christ Himself spoke of a time when people would wander away from the Truth in great numbers. It was foretold. So nothing in the OP is nothing new. Religion (Christianity) "dying" was prophesied about over 2000 years ago.
> 
> Matthew 24:10-13 talks about it, 1 Timothy 4:1 talks about it, 2 Timothy 3:1-5 speaks on it, as well as 2 Timothy 3:3-4.


 
Ugh, and this is why I stay out of religious debates mostly.  Because people on my side decide to start citing scripture instead of talking about real issues that matter today.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 27, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Ugh, and this is why I stay out of religious debates mostly.  Because people on my side decide to start citing scripture instead of talking about real issues that matter today.


 
I am just showing what the OP said is nothing new. Thats all, and giving reference to where I got it from. 

What "real" issues do you think need to be brought up in a thread topic about how religion is dying?


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 27, 2011)

Rukh, stop double posting.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Out of Context!



There is no context in which many of the things they say are acceptable. :V



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Still not a true christian!



Yes he is. He follows the bible, just like you. In fact he's more of a christian because he follows more of the bible than most people do, given most people ignore the hateful bits. :V But seriously, you're not the judge of wether or not someone is sincere in their beliefs. That's up to the person holding them.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Wildfires in Asia!


 
Probably because there's a lot of missionaries there. Again, "Fastest growing religion" doesn't mean the religion is any more true than the others,

You also need to stop torturing those numbers. Current reports list about 4% of china's population as christian. That's about, what, 50 million people? That's hardly wildfire.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 27, 2011)

Rukh, seriously, it never occurred to you that just by being a furry you're probably doing something the bible tells you not to do? I'm not even talking about porn, I'm talking about just having a fursona, thinking about anthropomorphic characters, identifying yourself with such a character in any way, shape or form. I'm pretty fucking sure using the internet itself is somehow against the bible. Someone who knows it better than me would have to explain it though.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Mar 27, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I am just showing what the OP said is nothing new. Thats all, and giving reference to where I got it from.



Here's the thing Rukh.  Scripture never has, nor ever will, be a compelling argument in any kind of debate.  Using scripture as a means to say "HEY! LOOK!  WE PREDICTED THIS!" is absurd and ridiculous as saying that God told me who was going to win the NCAA tournament.

The Bible should not be used as a means to predict what is going to happen, nor should it be used to prove, in hindsight, that God said something was going to happen after the fact.  It's gross misuse of the literature.



> What "real" issues do you think need to be brought up in a thread topic about how religion is dying?



The only point you really brought up that I think is at heart of the issue here is that the institution of religion is dying.  A lot of that, I think, has to do with the fact that society has advanced to a point where people can make something of themselves; that they can devote their time and efforts to self-improvement outside of religion.  Less and less women are becoming nuns because women can make money and enjoy lucrative careers in high positions.  Sexuality is much more mainstream and the idea of a life of chastity simply to spread the word of God isn't attractive.  So less people in the clergy means it's harder to get religion across as well as fewer ideas on how getting that message should be done.

The old implementations of rules and forcing kids to do things instead of letting them make decisions is probably a primary factor for why kids raised Catholic and so on leave the faith as well.  Why would anyone want to be part of an organization that as a kid forced you to attend classes to become a full-fledged member until you were 13?  Or while you're in that class nuns constantly discipline you and talk down to you?  People leave because their experiences suck, and I don't necessarily blame them.  Being religious and observing in your own way is much more beneficial than having to adhere to outdated practices that seem more like a chore than the celebration of faith that Catholicism bills itself as.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 27, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> The only point you really brought up that I think is at heart of the issue here is that the institution of religion is dying.  A lot of that, I think, has to do with the fact that society has advanced to a point where people can make something of themselves; that they can devote their time and efforts to self-improvement outside of religion.  Less and less women are becoming nuns because women can make money and enjoy lucrative careers in high positions.  Sexuality is much more mainstream and the idea of a life of chastity simply to spread the word of God isn't attractive.  So less people in the clergy means it's harder to get religion across as well as fewer ideas on how getting that message should be done.
> 
> The old implementations of rules and forcing kids to do things instead of letting them make decisions is probably a primary factor for why kids raised Catholic and so on leave the faith as well.  Why would anyone want to be part of an organization that as a kid forced you to attend classes to become a full-fledged member until you were 13?  Or while you're in that class nuns constantly discipline you and talk down to you?  People leave because their experiences suck, and I don't necessarily blame them.  Being religious and observing in your own way is much more beneficial than having to adhere to outdated practices that seem more like a chore than the celebration of faith that Catholicism bills itself as.


 
I'd just like to add, if you're a bit of a history nerd like I was and you're inquisitive enough, finding out later in life what you thought was "the one true church" really owes as much to Roman pagan mysticism as any sort of Judeo-Christian beliefs can fuck you up a bit. I'm still trying to decide for myself if the inherent syncretism is a bad thing in itself, or just the fact that most Catholics don't realize that's what they're actually practicing.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 27, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> There is no context in which many of the things they say are acceptable. :V


As I said, the website you linked leaves out entire parts of verses, or entire passages. And takes things said completely out of context. So again, the website you linked is full of crap basically. Its edited Bible verses to say what they want it to say.




Mojotech said:


> Yes he is. He follows the bible, just like you. In fact he's more of a christian because he follows more of the bible than most people do, given most people ignore the hateful bits. :V



Oh, so cursing is allowed in the Bible? Hateful words is allowed in the Bible? Phelps uses the word fag all the time in a derogatory hurtful way. And last time I check, cursing is something the Scripture frowns upon. Add to that, I have never, ever seen Phelps preach about the love of Jesus. And the biggest thing is, last time I check Phelps is far from the fruits of the Spirit.
Now, I don't know whether Phelps is a believer in Jesus Christ, but His actions show that he is not. And because of that, I say he is not. No true Christian would ever say thank God for IEDs. (Which Phelps says by the way because like 15 years ago someone let off an IED on his church property) 

Phelps does not follow what Scripture says, I can give point after point after point on this. But your just arguing for the sake of arguing. In any other thread, if I wasn't there, you wouldn't be defending Phelps at all. So you just picked the opposing side of an argument because I am in here. In other words, you choose the opposite side of what I am saying everytime I am in a thread, no matter the subject.




Mojotech said:


> Probably because there's a lot of missionaries there. Again, "Fastest growing religion" doesn't mean the religion is any more true than the others,
> 
> You also need to stop torturing those numbers. Current reports list about 4% of china's population as christian. That's about, what, 50 million people? That's hardly wildfire.


 
And did you know its illegal to preach the Word of God in China in a non government controlled building? Did you know that you can get aressted for teaching Scripture in a non government controlled building? Did you know  that Christians are heavily persecuted (arrested) in China just because they were Christians? One of my friends nearly was caught by government officials driving in blacked out cars. (They were preaching the word of God in a kids school camp that they were working at. My friend barely escaped in time. She and the others had to hide in the dense woods on the mountain where the school was located.)

And add to that, Christianity is growing by 2 million people a year in China. Need more statistics? I got plenty of them. And thats just China, what about the rest of central Asia where Christianity is spreading fast?


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Mar 27, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> I'd just like to add, if you're a bit of a history nerd like I was and you're inquisitive enough, finding out later in life what you thought was "the one true church" really owes as much to Roman pagan mysticism as any sort of Judeo-Christian beliefs can fuck you up a bit. I'm still trying to decide for myself if the inherent syncretism is a bad thing in itself, or just the fact that most Catholics don't realize that's what they're actually practicing.


 
See, I don't think this adds as much towards people wanting to leave Catholicism as the experiences they've had.  I'd say the members of the clergy at your local Church have more to do with people leaving the faith than finding out Christmas and Easter's dates have more to do with Equinoxes than the actual events that inspired the creation of the holidays.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 27, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> See, I don't think this adds as much towards people wanting to leave Catholicism as the experiences they've had.  I'd say the members of the clergy at your local Church have more to do with people leaving the faith than finding out Christmas and Easter's dates have more to do with Equinoxes than the actual events that inspired the creation of the holidays.


 
Actually, it's more than just that. It'd take a lot of TL;DR to explain, but essentially, when they do the whole bread and wine ritual, they're supposedly participating in the sacrifice of Jesus as if it was literally happening right there. They dance around the "Mother of God" and the saints and say they're not like the lesser gods of other pantheons _but come on_. The former, if it's true is a hell of a lot more worrisome to me than the latter, though. But you're right, a person's direct experiences with other people in any community ultimately amount to more than the underlying meaning of that community's beliefs. I've just never been able to conclude for myself if said beliefs might not be what _creates_ such toxicity.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 27, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Out of context!



There is no context in which the verses listed on that website are okay. :V



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Oh, so cursing is allowed in the Bible?



God curses many people throughout the entire bible, so yes.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Phelps does not follow what Scripture says. You're persecuting me!


 
Yes he does, it just doesn't happen to be your particular interpretation. Phelps is an asshole, but he's still a primarily bible-based Christian asshole. Also I'm not picking you out or anything, I just happen to disagree. if you don't want people criticizing your ideas you can always just stop posting.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And did you know its illegal to preach the Word of God in China in a non government controlled building? And add to that, Christianity is growing by 2 million people a year in China. Need more statistics? I got plenty of them. And thats just China, what about the rest of central Asia where Christianity is spreading fast?


 
Yes. And this is perfectly reasonable given you can get a permit and zoning to erect churches and preach in them. However, China recognizes things like child indoctrination without the consent of parents being bad- which your friend apparently does not. You and your friend should read the bible sometime, given you don't understand basic moral principles from it like "Render unto Caesars what is Caesars, Respect the laws of the king as you would God's."

I looked up that 2 million a year figure and it includes children born to christian couples. Given there are 40 million christians in china currently, that's actually more or less the expected rate of increase.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 27, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> There is no context in which the verses listed on that website are okay. :V



And thats your personal feelings. Not based on fact or data. Its based solely on what *you* think and feel. Again, thats why I said it alll boils down to your feelings. I say otherwise. I say there is context to Scripture. And when read correctly, as a whole, not just in chunks, it all makes sense.




Mojotech said:


> God curses many people throughout the entire bible, so yes.


You know very well what I meant when I said cursing, especially when I gave a clear example of it. I was talking about swearing and you know it. Case in point you took what I said out of context.





Mojotech said:


> Yes he does, it just doesn't happen to be your particular interpretation. Phelps is an asshole, but he's still a primarily bible-based Christian asshole. Also I'm not picking you out or anything, I just happen to disagree. if you don't want people criticizing your ideas you can always just stop posting.



Prove he does. Where in the Bible does it say that we get to condemn people? Show me where Phelps s following the fruits of the Spirit. Show me where its okay or Biblical for Phelps to preach what he does. You won't find it. Phelps makes excuses quoting verses taken completely out of context to continue to use his anger, to preach hatred. To preach that only he and his family are the truly saved and everyone else is going to hell. And again, go listen to one of his sermons, if you can stand his scratchy screaming voice. He doesn't preach on the Word of God. He tries and fails to preach why what he does to people is correct. And then uses ambigous verses at best that our taken out of their context to back up his hate filled speech.

It has nothing to do with interpretation on my part. I can't stand it when people say "what does this verse mean to you?" That shouldn't be the question. It should be, what does the text say. What does the word of God say. Its not what we think or want it to say, it what it does say.

Why on earth are you of all people defending this man?





Mojotech said:


> Yes. And this is perfectly reasonable given you can get a permit and zoning to erect churches and preach in them. However, China recognizes things like child indoctrination without the consent of parents being bad- which your friend apparently does not. You and your friend should read the bible sometime, given you don't understand basic moral principles from it like "Render unto Caesars what is Caesars, Respect the laws of the king as you would God's."
> 
> I looked up that 2 million a year figure and it includes children born to christian couples. Given there are 40 million christians in china currently, that's actually more or less the expected rate of increase.


 

So your for the government controlling religion? What about separation of church and state? Your also for the government coming in and dictating how a Christian can and can't worship God. That the government can come in and tell them what parts of Scripture they are to follow and what parts the government doesn't like?

Sounds an awful like a dictatorship to me.

You also fail to understand the whole context of what Jesus was saying in the passage you quoted. It does not say follow your government when they tell you do go against God's Law. God's Law trumps man's law. And always will.
God is not telling us to submit to the government in telling us how we can go about worshiping Him. Case in point, read the story of Daniel where a law was made that said you only could worship and pray to King Darius for thirty days. Well Daniel disobeyed and continued to worship and pray to God. Daniel was thrown into the lion's den, but was not killed because God shut the mouths of the lions.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 27, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Out of context!



This is not just a personal thing, the bible endorses beastiality, human sacrifice, rape, incest, murder, and a host of other abominable acts.

There is no context in which the verses listed on that website are okay. :V




Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You know very well what I meant when I said cursing, especially when I gave a clear example of it.



Yes. And I responded accurately. God has (according to your bible) cursed people both literally and figuratively. It's not my fault you haven't read the book.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Why on earth are you of all people defending this man?


 
I'm not, I'm just calling him what he is. A Christian who got his hateful ideas from the bible. 



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Sounds an awful like a dictatorship to me.


 
People are free to worship how they will in China, they're just not allowed to harass random people with it. The laws there do not prevent people from worshiping how they will, and is aimed at quashing weird cults and forbidding the stereotypical street preacher/chick tract type of preaching that's more of a dark mark on Christianity than anything. And something your friend did and you supported.


----------



## LizardKing (Mar 27, 2011)

Gonna need some more tomatoes.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 27, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> This is not just a personal thing, the bible endorses beastiality, human sacrifice, rape, incest, murder, and a host of other abominable acts.
> 
> There is no context in which the verses listed on that website are okay. :V




Okay, the Bible does not condone anything of what you listed. In fact I can give Scripture that says God hates those things.
You know nothing of context of anything in Scripture. That much is made clear. There is nothing that God has done that is an abomination.



Mojotech said:


> Yes. And I responded accurately. God has (according to your bible) cursed people both literally and figuratively. It's not my fault you haven't read the book.


And again about cursing, I said it in the context of SWEARING. I am talking about swearing. Thats it. Stop  editing what I said to make it look like something entirely different.
Oh wait, thats what you do, take everything completely out of context to have it say anything you want.




Mojotech said:


> I'm not, I'm just calling him what he is. A Christian who got his hateful ideas from the bible.


You see, you injected your feelings again here. You feel as though the Bible is filled with hate speech. No matter what is shown to you to show you you are mistaken. You always go back to your feelings.

Why don't you actually do some research on the man. He was that way well before he was a "preacher'. As I said, according to his own kids. He is a violent hateful man. Who beat his kids without any mercy. He was always and angry man, always filled with hate of anyone he didn't like. And he became a preacher after he was barred from being a Lawyer.That man is anything but a follower of Christ.
Phelps got his hate, his anger from the fact that we are all inherently evil and can do nothing good. Not one of his sermons is Biblical or Scriptural. Its all him screaming at his family that he is right and everyone else is wrong. 







Mojotech said:


> People are free to worship how they will in China, they're just not allowed to harass random people with it. The laws there do not prevent people from worshiping how they will, and is aimed at quashing weird cults and forbidding the stereotypical street preacher/chick tract type of preaching that's more of a dark mark on Christianity than anything. And something your friend did and you supported.


 
People are not free to worship in China, they are free to do it how the government wants them too. And, in their churches, right next to the cross they have to have a picture of the leader of China.
And as for my firend, the school she went to, was a workshop for young people. It was sponsored by a Christian group. You see, in many Asian countries Christians have to go under the guise of something else. Like teaching Business. Which they do, but they also equip the people with the Word of God.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 27, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> They make us display pictures of their leader! We have to lie for Jesus!


 
Oh nooooooooooooo! That's... Negligible. Many american churches happily have pictures of US presidents around.

If your group is claiming to be there for one reason and is doing it for another, that is called lying. Under US law it's punishable by false advertising. They'd probably do better if they followed the law.

But really Rukh, I honestly can't take you seriously until you go read your bible. Go read and and come back, until you do there's no point discussing it with you.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Mar 27, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Oh nooooooooooooo! That's... Negligible. Many american churches happily have pictures of US presidents around.



Not so much the presidents as the American flag and respective state flag that the church resides in.

Mine has this, Rukh.  So I don't see your point there either.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 27, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> you go read _*your*_ bible.


 
Maybe _that's_ the issue.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 27, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Not so much the presidents as the American flag and respective state flag that the church resides in.
> 
> Mine has this, Rukh.  So I don't see your point there either.


 
All the ones around here I've seen (Yes, I go to church activities with friends of mine and still and have a good time)  have presidents in the hallways and such. Might just be a local thing, but it still stands that patriotism and religion can very easily coexist.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 27, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> The old implementations of rules and forcing kids to do things instead of letting them make decisions is probably a primary factor for why *kids raised Catholic* and so on leave the faith as well.  Why would anyone want to be part of an organization that as a kid forced you to attend classes to become a full-fledged member until you were 13?  Or while you're in that class nuns constantly discipline you and talk down to you?  People leave because their experiences suck, and I don't necessarily blame them.  Being religious and observing in your own way is much more beneficial than having to adhere to outdated practices that seem more like a chore than the celebration of faith *that Catholicism* bills itself as.


 
Excuse me, but you have wandered from Christianity to Catholicism, a completely different thing.  Catholicism is based on Christianity in the same way Mormonism is based on Christianity.. it is one of the earliest cults.  And still one of the largest.




Wolf-Bone said:


> I'd just like to add, if you're a bit of a history nerd like I was and you're inquisitive enough, *finding out later in life what you thought was "the one true church" really owes as much to Roman pagan mysticism as any sort of Judeo-Christian beliefs* can fuck you up a bit. I'm still trying to decide for myself if the inherent syncretism is a bad thing in itself, or just the fact that most Catholics don't realize that's what they're actually practicing.


 
Thanks for the historical details, WB.




Wolf-Bone said:


> Actually, it's more than just that. It'd take a lot of TL;DR to explain, but essentially, when they do the whole bread and wine ritual, they're supposedly participating in the sacrifice of Jesus as if it was literally happening right there. *They dance around the "Mother of God" and the saints and say they're not like the lesser gods of other pantheons but come on.* The former, if it's true is a hell of a lot more worrisome to me than the latter, though. But you're right, a person's direct experiences with other people in any community ultimately amount to more than the underlying meaning of that community's beliefs. I've just never been able to conclude for myself if said beliefs might not be what _creates_ such toxicity.


 
I've noted this myself, a long, long time ago.  Catholicism is just a blending of Christianity and paganism.  What with all this bowing down and praying to "The Saints" as if they were equal with God.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Mar 27, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Excuse me, but you have wandered from Christianity to Catholicism, a completely different thing.  Catholicism is based on Christianity in the same way Mormonism is based on Christianity.. it is one of the earliest cults.  And still one of the largest.


 
Excuse me but I'm speaking from my own personal experiences and what I've been told by other people who grew up with me who had to attend Catholic classes and so on and so forth.  I said that my experiences may very well extend to other sects of Christianity, but unlike Rukh or anyone here, I don't attempt to speak for all Christians, just myself and those who I know who went through what I went through.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 27, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Excuse me but *I'm speaking from my own personal experiences and what I've been told by other people* who grew up with me who had to attend Catholic classes and so on and so forth.  I said that my experiences may very well extend to other sects of Christianity, but unlike Rukh or anyone here, I don't attempt to speak for all Christians, just myself and those who I know who went through what I went through.


 
I'd imagine so, but you bringing up Catholicism in the middle of a rant on Christianity was simply "changing the conversation" without preparation... a bit sudden.  No offense meant.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 27, 2011)

Guys, Catholics are Christians. :V


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Mar 27, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> I'd imagine so, but you bringing up Catholicism in the middle of a rant on Christianity was simply "changing the conversation" without preparation... a bit sudden.  No offense meant.


 
It's not really changing the subject because Christianity is a broad term.  I grew up and still am Catholic.  If you rant about Christianity you're speaking about me just as much as you're speaking about Fred Phelps unless you specify who you're talking about.  I'm not sure what the indoctrination methods are for other sects, but I can speak for Catholicism and why its clergy and retention rate of followers is falling to the point where people may say that the institution of religion is declining.



Mojotech said:


> Guys, Catholics are Christians. :V



No kidding.  :V


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 27, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> No kidding.  :V


 
The "Catholics are not christians" fundy argument is especially wierd in this case because they're more than happy to include them in figures like "Number of Christians in China" but will throw them under the bus when it suits them.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Mar 27, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> The "Catholics are not christians" fundy argument is especially wierd in this case because they're more than happy to include them in figures like "Number of Christians in China" but will throw them under the bus when it suits them.


 
It just goes back hundreds of years to England and the founding of America.  Catholics are old and busted, protestants and so on are the new hotness.  Therefore, fundies hate Catholics and the man in the big white hat.

It's funny how "traditional values" means "no Irish/Italians."


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 27, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Oh nooooooooooooo! That's... Negligible. Many american churches happily have pictures of US presidents around.
> 
> If your group is claiming to be there for one reason and is doing it for another, that is called lying. Under US law it's punishable by false advertising. They'd probably do better if they followed the law.
> 
> But really Rukh, I honestly can't take you seriously until you go read your bible. Go read and and come back, until you do there's no point discussing it with you.


 
I do read my Bible, all the time. I go to church, go to sermons multiple times a week. I go to a men's Bible study as well. I preach and teach online and I head my own ministry. So don't try and come in here and tell me to read the Word of God when you yourself can't even grasp that the Creator is real. You read the words but don't hear them. Your eyes and ears are closed to the truth of Scripture.

As I have done on many occasions, I have explained every verse someone has thrown at me. In fact I remember someone in particular that put down 40 some verses that appear to contradict each other. And I went through every single one one them giving detailed answers and explanations. More than you could do. So don't come in here, preaching to one who belongs to God. I am one of Christ's sheep, and I know His voice. You can argue and complain all you want. And nothing will change the fact that Scripture is true, God's Word is infallible and its perfect. Just because you personally don't like what Scripture says is not my problem. Its yours. All I can do is show you what God says.




Mojotech said:


> The "Catholics are not christians" fundy argument  is especially wierd in this case because they're more than happy to  include them in figures like "Number of Christians in China" but will  throw them under the bus when it suits them.


 
Its more like, not all those who claim to follow Christ actually do. Doesn't matter what denomination you are. As long as one holds to the essentials of the faith, they are a brother or sister in Christ. *(i.e., the Trinity, the Deity of Christ,  Jesus' Physical Resurrection, Virgin Birth, Salvation by Grace through  Faith alone, One God, and the Gospel being the death, burial, and  resurrection of Jesus)*


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 27, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The bible is infallible!


 
Rukh, I just gave you a list of over a thousand injustices in the bible and all you could say was "Out of context!". It doesn't matter what I say though, since it's clear you're not listening- You even probably just said "Context" to the 40 verses guy. Regardless, the conversation is supposed to be about why worldwide religion- including christianity- is declining- stop derailing the thread like you always do. :V



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Only christians who believe exactly how I do are christians!



No Rukh, all one needs to do to be a Christian is to believe in Christ. The rest is just sugar on the porridge.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 27, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Rukh, I just gave you a list of over a thousand injustices in the bible and all you could say was "Out of context!". It doesn't matter what I say though, since it's clear you're not listening- You even probably just said "Context" to the 40 verses guy.
> 
> 
> 
> No Rukh, all one needs to do to be a Christian is to believe in Christ. The rest is just sugar on the porridge.



Really? that whole discussion is actually still in the Religion Megathread, and Deo was the one who compiled 40 verses, and my entire response, which took 4 hours to write, is still in there. You can go look for it if you want.
You didn't give me a list of anything, no verses, no nothing. And I highly doubt you ever put a list of a thousand verses together and posted them.

And As I said, to be a Christian is this: 
*To believe in the Trinity, the Deity of Christ,  Jesus' Physical Resurrection,  Virgin Birth, Salvation by Grace through  Faith alone, One God, and the  Gospel being the death, burial, and  resurrection of Jesus.

*Thats what the essentials of the faith are. If one who claims to believe in Christ doesn't agree with those, then I have serious doubts of them being saved at all.

Oh, and to believe in Christ means you believe in His Word, which is contained in the Bible. You cannot separate the two.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 27, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I highly doubt you ever put a list of a thousand verses together and posted them.



http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html :V



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And As I said, to be a Christian is this: Oh, and to believe in Christ means you believe in His Word, which is contained in the Bible. You cannot separate the two.



Yes, you said that, but it is incorrect. The rest of the stuff is kinda meaningless fluff, the only definitional part of the religion is the whole Christ thing. It's not God-Jesus-Holyghost-Trinity-Resurecctiony-Virgin-Birthian.:V

Edit: But seriously, you never responded to my earlier points.



Mojotech said:


> Oh nooooooooooooo! That's... Negligible. Many american churches happily have pictures of US presidents around.
> 
> If your group is claiming to be there for one reason and is doing it for another, that is called lying. Under US law it's punishable by false advertising. They'd probably do better if they followed the law.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Mar 27, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Oh, and to believe in Christ means you believe in His Word, which is contained in the Bible. You cannot separate the two.


 
Are you saying I have to believe the Bible is 100% fact?  If so, then I guess I'm not a true Christian.  :V

I don't believe you're in authority to make the call that people have to be XYZ in order to be a Christian.  Catholic or otherwise.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 27, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Are you saying I have to believe the Bible is 100% fact?  If so, then I guess I'm not a true Christian.  :V
> 
> I don't believe you're in authority to make the call that people have to be XYZ in order to be a Christian.  Catholic or otherwise.


 
Remember, the bible is 100% literal and factual, except where people of the time didn't know better where an omniscient deity should have (Which is everywhere. Bats are not birds kay.) or it's allegorical (Which is anywhere convenient.).


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 27, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html :V
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Well first, you didn't write any verse down, or type it I should say,you just posted a link, you can't even take the time to write anything down yourself. You have to let others do the arguing for you. Why should anyone even pay attention to what you say if its not your own words? Sound familiar? Thats the same argument you use against me when I go to Christian Apologetics websites. And I already told you, that website doesn't even post complete verses, its directly deceiving and not putting down complete passages. And using one of your arguments, why should I believe a website? What proof is in that website? How does one know that they actually put down real verses? You take all that on face value because thats what you personally want the Bible to say so you can keep your disbelief of God. Again, as I have stated before, you believing what that website says boils down to your feelings. Its what you personally want.

As for the essentials of the faith, I gave them to you, not once, but twice. There is a such thing as fundamental essential doctrines in Christianity.

And again, they are as follows.
The Trinity
The Deity of Christ Jesus
Jesus' physical resurrection
The Virgin Birth
Salvation by Grace, through faith alone
One God
And The Gospel being the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ Jesus.
And the innate infallibility of the Word of God.


Without any of those, there are some serious doubts of someones salvation. All of these points are Scripture based. All of these points are nessasary.

One may say they believe that Jesus Christ is God, Good for you! Even the demons believe this, and they tremble in terror before Christ.


And as for your quote. The Churches in China are *forced* to place the picture of their leader next to the picture of Christ, or the cross. The government controls what they teach, they decide what is Scripture and what isn't. They are trying to control Christianity. And as history has shown, that doesn't work. We always find a way to spread the Word of God. Heck, in Uzbekistan its illegal to own a copy of the Bible, you can be imprisoned for it, and if your a foreigner you will be thrown out. And its illegal to preach the Word of God.Does that stop missionaries? No, not at all.

One of the things Christian groups do, is bring Business leaders who are Christians in, to teach the people on how to run a business, and while doing that they give them the Gospel. Nothing is deceitful about that. They are teaching business, and through teaching business they spread the Gospel.

Are Christians to honor countries laws where they say its illigal to be a Christian or to preach the Word or own a Bible? No, absolutely not. God's commands trump mans law. Remember the Great Commission? Go and make disciples of all nations.


No church in America is forced to do this, no church that I have been to puts pictures of countries leaders next to the picture of Christ Jesus the Lord and Savior. The government here does not control what we can and can't teach or preach. The government doesn't try and dictate what is Scripture and what isn't. The government here doesn't imprison those who follow Christ just because they follow Christ.




Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Are you saying I have to believe the  Bible is 100% fact?  If so, then I guess I'm not a true Christian.  :V
> 
> I  don't believe you're in authority to make the call that people have to  be XYZ in order to be a Christian.  Catholic or otherwise.



I am telling you you need to believe that the word of God is True, Thats its perfect, and infalliable. In fact Scripture even attests that we have to believe this, because if we don't. Then where does one stop in saying what part is true and isn't true? either you believe all of Scripture, or none of it. You don't get to pick and choose what parts you agree with and don't. Its all or nothing.

I am telling you what Scripture says. What I listed are the essentials for the faith. Those points are what Scripture says. Plain and simple.
And I don't have authority? Really? Since when do I require the authority of man to preach what Scripture says? Since when do I have to have the authority from man, to say who is saved and who isn't?


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 27, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Stuff.


 
Seriously Rukh, This is getting tiring. The only thing one needs to be a Christian is to believe in Jesus as Christ. The virgin birth, trinity, infallibility of the bible, etc, is simply not required to be a christian, it's simply the requirements of your particular denomination.

And I've been looking for the whole "Picture" thing. It's apparently patently false. As far as I can tell from some quick internet searches, there are no such requirements. All one needs to do is follow the rules and register your church/preaching area. I think you might be exaggerating from some Christian's stories of patriotic chinese people with images of their leader in their churches by their own choice.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 27, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Guys, Catholics are Christians. :V


 
Like I said, in the same way Mormons are Christian.




Term_the_Schmuck said:


> It's not really changing the subject because Christianity is a broad term.  I grew up and still am Catholic.  If you rant about Christianity you're speaking about me just as much as you're speaking about Fred Phelps unless you specify who you're talking about.  I'm not sure what the indoctrination methods are for other sects, *but I can speak for Catholicism and why its clergy and retention rate of followers is falling to the point where people may say that the institution of religion is declining*.


 
No argument there... though I did say "changing the conversation", not changing the subject.  Same subject, different conversation.  And I have to agree, if religion is falling off, it would be more in an organizational way, not necessarily in the number of people who still believe.  I haven't gone to church many in years, so, if you asked me what church I go to, I'd tell you "None."  But I still have my faith.




Mojotech said:


> The "Catholics are not christians" fundy argument is especially wierd in this case because they're more than happy to include them in figures like "Number of Christians in China" but will throw them under the bus when it suits them.


 
You're generalizing again, Mojo.  I've never considered Catholics Christians any more than I've ever considered Mormons Christians... or any other cultic offshoot.  A denomination is one thing, a cult is another.




Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I do read my Bible, all the time. I go to church, go to sermons multiple times a week. I go to a men's Bible study as well. I preach and teach online and I head my own ministry. So don't try and come in here and tell me to read the Word of God when you yourself can't even grasp that the Creator is real. You read the words but don't hear them. Your eyes and ears are closed to the truth of Scripture.
> 
> As I have done on many occasions, I have explained every verse someone has thrown at me. In fact I remember someone in particular that put down 40 some verses that appear to contradict each other. And I went through every single one one them giving detailed answers and explanations. More than you could do. So don't come in here, preaching to one who belongs to God. I am one of Christ's sheep, and I know His voice. You can argue and complain all you want. And nothing will change the fact that Scripture is true, God's Word is infallible and its perfect. Just because you personally don't like what Scripture says is not my problem. Its yours. All I can do is show you what God says.


 
Rukh, you have to realize Mojo simply will not tolerate the use of religious texts in a religious discussion.  He also won't accept anything that doesn't come from a source he approves of.




Mojotech said:


> Rukh, I just gave you a list of over a thousand injustices in the bible and all you could say was "Out of context!". It doesn't matter what I say though, since it's clear you're not listening- You even probably just said "Context" to the 40 verses guy. Regardless, *the conversation is supposed to be about why worldwide religion- including christianity- is declining*- stop derailing the thread like you always do. :V



I found these articles interesting, and relevant:

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/breaking2453432.91875.html

http://www.tomorrowsworld.org/cgi-bin/tw/tw-mag.cgi?category=Magazine39&item=1130832347

I also find it interesting how many here seem to think atheism isn't an organized "religion" set on promoting itself:

http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/03/09/is-the-atheist-movement-on-the-decline/

http://atheistagendautsa.blogspot.com/

And then we have this:

http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/atheist_agenda.htm

http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/

I'd say atheists can be just as extreme as "fundies".  Aaand, depending on where you look, as I have, above, I can show the decline of atheism worldwide, just as much as the OP's article crowed religion's "extinction".




Mojotech said:


> No Rukh, *all one needs to do to be a Christian is to believe in Christ*. The rest is just sugar on the porridge.


 
No, Mojo... Satan believes in Christ, but that doesn't make him Christian.




Mojotech said:


> Seriously Rukh, This is getting tiring. The only thing one needs to be a Christian is to believe in Jesus as Christ. The virgin birth, trinity, infallibility of the bible, etc, is simply not required to be a christian, it's simply the requirements of your particular denomination.
> 
> And I've been looking for the whole "Picture" thing. It's apparently patently false. As far as I can tell from some quick internet searches, there are no such requirements. *All one needs to do is follow the rules and register your church/preaching area.* I think you might be exaggerating from some Christian's stories of patriotic chinese people with images of their leader in their churches by their own choice.


 
Oh, so it's okay for a government to tell its people where they can worship, and to require them to REGISTER their church?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 27, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Seriously Rukh, This is getting tiring. The only thing one needs to be a Christian is to believe in Jesus as Christ. The virgin birth, trinity, infallibility of the bible, etc, is simply not required to be a christian, it's simply the requirements of your particular denomination.
> 
> And I've been looking for the whole "Picture" thing. It's apparently patently false. As far as I can tell from some quick internet searches, there are no such requirements. All one needs to do is follow the rules and register your church/preaching area. I think you might be exaggerating from some Christian's stories of patriotic chinese people with images of their leader in their churches by their own choice.


 

Well first off, as I said and now Roose said. Guess what? Even Satan and His demons believe that Jesus Christ is the son and Fam, and they tremble in terror at His mere name.

I am telling you, giving you Scripture, that there are essentials to the faith that you must believe. Because as I said, even the demons believe in Jesus as God. And they are not saved. So what now?

And just so you know, I don't adhere to any denomination. What I do adhere to, is the Word of God. Not men.

*One may say they believe that Jesus Christ is God, Good for you! Even  the demons believe this, and they tremble in terror before Christ.*


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Mar 27, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/atheist_agenda.htm
> 
> http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/


 
HAHAHAHAHA. Brb, gonna make a geocities site and start using it as evidence.

Haggai 1:15


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 27, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Satan! I'm not in a denomination


 
Santa, and anagrams thereof, don't exist. :V You have to demonstrate they do first.

And a denomination is simply a result of your checklists of beliefs. I asked earlier, determined you were a Calvinist.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Mar 27, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I am telling you you need to believe that the word of God is True, Thats its perfect, and infalliable. In fact Scripture even attests that we have to believe this, because if we don't. Then where does one stop in saying what part is true and isn't true? either you believe all of Scripture, or none of it. You don't get to pick and choose what parts you agree with and don't. Its all or nothing.



I don't know what's true or not.  Here's what I do know: the Bible is a culmination of years of revisions and editing, that there are several different versions of the Bible so we have no means of knowing which version we're supposed to believe is true, and that the themes and lessons from parables within the Bible mean much, much more than the "actual" accounts themselves.  I don't believe the Bible is 100% fact because the people who wrote, copied, and edited it WERE fallible.



> I am telling you what Scripture says. What I listed are the essentials for the faith. Those points are what Scripture says. Plain and simple.
> And I don't have authority? Really? Since when do I require the authority of man to preach what Scripture says? Since when do I have to have the authority from man, to say who is saved and who isn't?


 
You're telling me what Scripture, which I've previously covered was written over hundreds of years by fallible men, says based on your interpretations.  And you interpreting Scripture and taking it to heart in your personal life is fine.  More power to you.  But if you can look me in the eye and tell me that I'm not going to heaven because I don't devote my entire life, body and soul to believing everything that was written by guys whose morals and standards were based upon a civilization over 2000 years ago, then I don't think anyone here should take you seriously at all.

Here's the thing, you're probably not Catholic.  We're of two different sects here.  Even then I have a bit more of a liberal mindset when it comes to my religion.  If you and I can look at ourselves in the mirror and say that we believe in a just and loving God, then there is no way that He would allow His people to be condemned to an eternity of suffering simply because they didn't play for the right team or didn't try to enjoy their time here, understanding the intricacies and beauties of life without having to live in constant fear that we're not being the absolute best Christian we can be (since apparently Christians, probably from your sect, are the only ones who get to go to heaven).

Being a good person, looking out for your neighbor, being charitable, these virtues as well as those found within the Beatitudes (which are even disputed within Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are things that really, in my mind, define the kind of person that gets on God's VIP list to get past the pearly gates.  Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, so on and so forth have just as much a right to be treated with dignity and loved in the eyes of God as Christians if they live decent and fulfilling lives.  I reject Dante's idea of Purgatory for the virtuous pagans because essentially they're still in Hell for not conforming to the "correct" belief.

As far as your "authority", yes, I'd say you do need some authority in order to tell me, someone you've never met and not even within my sect of Christianity, that I am or am not going to Hell.  Claiming that you don't need authority to tell me God's intentions only confirms to me the fallibility of man to write His Word in a book, because what authority did they need in order to leave out or insert certain parts of the Bible in future publications?  You're not Saint Peter.  The person you should be worried most about saving is yourself.  After that your concerns for other people should be on trying to create more awareness and/or improving the lives of the ill, hungry, homeless, underprivileged masses who need tangible things to be saved now, not down the road.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 27, 2011)

ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> HAHAHAHAHA. Brb, gonna make a geocities site and start using it as evidence.
> 
> Haggai 1:15


 
Roose never proofreads his links. You're better off TL;DRing his posts. :V


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Mar 27, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> The "Catholics are not christians" fundy argument is especially wierd in this case because they're more than happy to include them in figures like "Number of Christians in China" but will throw them under the bus when it suits them.



From how I see it, there are Christian Catholics and non-Christian Catholics. Catholicism is less a religion, and more a societal framework. I can say this because I was raised a Catholic. Millions of people within the Catholic church have beliefs which differ from what is written in the Bible, but they're counted as being a part of the Church because they work for the Church and it's members, and they follow certain guidelines of conduct which the church has established. 

I'm an Atheist Catholic, and it's allowed.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 27, 2011)

ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> HAHAHAHAHA. Brb, gonna make a geocities site and start using it as evidence.
> 
> Haggai 1:15


 
Hey, the OP linked to a site as "evidence"... I just linked to sites with their own "evidence".




Mojotech said:


> *Roose never proofreads* his links. You're better off TL;DRing his posts. :V


 
Read what I wrote to Shanwang, above.  And I hope you get the irony of saying what you said in bold, and then declaring TL;DR.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 27, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I don't know what's true or not.  Here's what I do know: the Bible is a culmination of years of revisions and editing, that there are several different versions of the Bible so we have no means of knowing which version we're supposed to believe is true, and that the themes and lessons from parables within the Bible mean much, much more than the "actual" accounts themselves.  I don't believe the Bible is 100% fact because the people who wrote, copied, and edited it WERE fallible.



As I said, if you think parts of Scripture are untrue, then where does it end? Where doe one draw the line at what is true? If you can't take the Bible a true, then how can you say Jesus Christ is true? How can you say that God is true? Do you see where I am going with this? If you doubt one part of Scripture, then how do you not doubt all of Scripture? 
As I said, Christianity is not a pick and choose faith. Its all or nothing.

Now, as for God's Word. There are many Scripture passages that attest that His word is infallible. What part of His Word do you not understand. By saying the Word of God may not be all true, you are telling me that God is not all true. Add to that, Do you not know that God exults His own Word? Thats how perfect it is?
And, Why is the Bible called the Word of God, the living Word? Do you not know that Jesus Christ is given the same description? Jesus is the Word and He is the Living Word. To doubt the validity of God's Word, it to doubt the validity of God Himself.


Did I ever say your not saved? Did I ever say your going to Hell? No, I did not. What I did say is this: *To believe in the Trinity, the Deity of Christ,  Jesus' Physical  Resurrection,  Virgin Birth, Salvation by Grace through  Faith alone,  One God, and the  Gospel being the death, burial, and  resurrection of  Jesus, The Bible being the Word of God, that is perfect.

These are the basic tenets of the faith, regardless of your denomination. **I strongly believe that God's grace and  mercy are so extensive that within the Christian community there is a  wide range of beliefs and as long as the essentials are not violated,  then anyone who holds to those essentials but differs in the  non-essentials is my brother or sister in Christ.*
If you don't believe in any of those, well then I have serious doubts of your salvation.

As for my authority, Read Scripture, God gives us authority. Oh wait, you don't believe in the Bible... How can you say anything about God, or the faith, if you doubt HIS WORD? If the Bible is falliable, then how do you know that what was written about Jesus Christ is correct, How do you know what was written about God is correct. How do you even know that God is real?
Authority is given to all those who are believers. Its God given authority. We are all disciples of Christ, we have the same authority that the original 12 had. Think about that for a minute. Scripture tells us that we have the same exact authority that Jesus gave to the 12. We are no different from them.
I have authority because Jesus gave those he called His Sheep authority.

In short, the Bible is unlike any other book in the world. It assumes  its own validity. It does not defend itself. It simply states what is  and is not true. The Bible is either a joke or it is true. You either  believe what it says or you reject it. It calls you to be hot or cold,  and calls you to examine yourself before its holy pages and before the  holy Lord Jesus that it points to and proclaims. The Bible is the word  of God.


Now as for God and his just judgment. You forget that not one person is innocent, that not one person deserves anything but punishment for our sins. This includes everyone.
God does not choose favorites, he does not honor persons. We all deserve to be eternally separated from God. But God being full of grace gave us a 2nd chance. Thats the goodness of God.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 27, 2011)

JesusFish said:


> From how I see it, there are Christian Catholics and non-Christian Catholics. Catholicism is less a religion, and more a societal framework. I can say this because I was raised a Catholic. Millions of people within the Catholic church have beliefs which differ from what is written in the Bible, but they're counted as being a part of the Church because they work for the Church and it's members, and they follow certain guidelines of conduct which the church has established.
> 
> I'm an Atheist Catholic, and it's allowed.


 
Yeah, I can dig it. A lot of religions like that, people can be religiously X but culturally Y.  Mormons, Catholics, and Jewish people are the ones that come to mind. However, the actual catholic religion- which a lot of the people who consider themselves as catholic follow- is still a form of Christianity.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 28, 2011)

JesusFish said:


> From how I see it, there are Christian Catholics and non-Christian Catholics. Catholicism is less a religion, and more a societal framework. I can say this because I was raised a Catholic. Millions of people within the Catholic church have beliefs which differ from what is written in the Bible, but they're counted as being a part of the Church because they work for the Church and it's members, and they follow certain guidelines of conduct which the church has established.
> 
> I'm an Atheist Catholic, and it's allowed.


 
So why not go to Scientology or something? 
Where in Scripture does it say that just because you work for the church, or go to church, or were born into a Christian family, that that makes you a Christian. Doing works does not get you to heaven. Its the belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior that does, its holding to the essential doctrines of the faith.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 28, 2011)

Rukh believes in demons. And that they "tremble" at the mere thought of Jesus. That's fucking hilarious and awesome at the same time. Dude, I thought Jesus was the son of God, not the son of Sparda.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 28, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Rukh believes in demons. And that they "tremble" at the mere thought of Jesus. That's fucking hilarious and awesome at the same time. Dude, I thought Jesus was the son of God, not the son of Sparda.


 
Mark 5:1-9
They came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gerasenes. And when Jesus had stepped out of the boat, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit.  He lived among the tombs. And no one could bind him anymore, not even with a chain, for  he had often been bound with shackles and chains, but he wrenched the  chains apart, and he broke the shackles in pieces. No one had the  strength to subdue him. Night and day among the tombs and on the mountains he was always crying out and cutting himself with stones. *And when he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and fell down before him. And crying out with a loud voice, he said, "What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me.*"For he was saying to him, "Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!" And Jesus asked him, "What is your name?" He replied, "My name is Legion, for we are many."And he begged him earnestly not to send them out of the country. Now a great herd of pigs was feeding there on the hillside, and they begged him, saying, "Send us to the pigs; let us enter them."

Luke 4:31-37
 And he went down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee. And he was teaching them on the Sabbath, and they were astonished at his teaching, for his word possessed authority. And in the synagogue there was a man who had the spirit of an unclean demon, and he cried out with a loud voice, "*Ha! What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you areâ€” the Holy One of God.*"But Jesus rebuked him, saying, "Be silent and come out of him!" And when the demon had thrown him down in their midst, he came out of him, having done him no harm. And they were all amazed and said to one another, "What is this word? For  with authority and power he commands the unclean spirits, and they come  out!"And reports about him went out into every place in the surrounding region.

Demons know who Jesus is, they fear the Son of God. They know that Jesus has power over them, and they can't do anything about it. Add to that, these demons used to be angels.

And here is the cool thing, we as Christians are given that same power. We too have the authority to rebuke demons.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 28, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Rukh believes in demons. And that they "tremble" at the mere thought of Jesus. That's fucking hilarious and awesome at the same time. Dude, I thought Jesus was the son of God, not the son of Sparda.



Psychologically speaking, These sorts of statements are little more than mental masturbation- they feel empowering without them having to actually go to all that nonsense of proving their claims. :V

Either way, I'm thinking we should start submitting what he and Roose say to Fundies say the darndest things. Could make for some more good lolcow material.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 28, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Psychologically speaking, These sorts of statements are little more than mental masturbation- they feel empowering without them having to actually go to all that nonsense of proving their claims. :V
> 
> Either way, I'm thinking we should start submitting what he and Roose say to Fundies say the darndest things. Could make for some more good lolcow material.


 
I don't think Roose is a bad guy, just a little misguided. Rukh on the other hand is just a psycho. He needs to play Bayonetta, seriously. For all he knows the "angels" he believes in could be fucking demons with prettier complexions while the "demons" are the ones trying to protect him from being crushed under the weight of "The Creator"'s massive celestial breasts.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 28, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> I don't think Roose is a bad guy, just a little misguided.


 
Thanks... I think.


----------



## Lobar (Mar 28, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Where in Scripture does it say that just because you work for the church, or go to church, or were born into a Christian family, that that makes you a Christian.


 
You say so, when you cite them in statistics.  You'll disavow them for their actions, but they're still conveniently just Christian enough for accounting purposes.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 28, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> I don't think Roose is a bad guy, just a little misguided. Rukh on the other hand is just a psycho. He needs to play Bayonetta, seriously. For all he knows the "angels" he believes in could be fucking demons with prettier complexions while the "demons" are the ones trying to protect him from being crushed under the weight of "The Creator"'s massive celestial breasts.


 
I can't say I have a high opinion of Roose, given that the times I've actually tried to extend the peace pipe he's responded with nothing but condescension and further rudeness, but I think we can still agree he's really out there with his beliefs. And yeah I think this was in the last thread we had with Rukh, I'd brought up Gnosticism and the Demiurge and all that but I don't think he read it.

I actually own a copy of Bayonetta which was given to me, but didn't have and continue to have no Xbox to play it on. It's kinda ironic.




Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And here is the cool thing, we as Christians are given that same power. We too have the authority to rebuke demons.



Oh snap! 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1v2p5mCGH3Q


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 28, 2011)

Lobar said:


> You say so, when you cite them in statistics.  You'll disavow them for their actions, but they're still conveniently just Christian enough for accounting purposes.


 I was only using statistcs to prove a point. That religion is not dying. I did not say out of those numbers who was and wasn't a Christian. Thats impossible to know by looking at numbers. What I did say, is that these people call themselves Christians, and by that standard, Christianity is growing.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 28, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> I can't say I have a high opinion of Roose, given that the times I've actually tried to extend the peace pipe *he's responded with nothing but condescension and further rudeness*, but he is still really out there with his beliefs. And yeah I think this was in the last thread we had with Rukh, I'd brought up Gnosticism and the Demiurge and all that but I don't think he read it.



I give you a hard time because I enjoy our little discussions.  And I'm only "out there" in your opinion.




Mojotech said:


> I actually own a copy of Bayonetta which was given to me, but didn't have and continue to have *no Xbox to play it on*. It's kinda ironic.


 
Sounds like you need to end the irony, and get yourself an Xbox.


----------



## Lobar (Mar 28, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I was only using statistcs to prove a point. That religion is not dying. I did not say out of those numbers who was and wasn't a Christian. Thats impossible to know by looking at numbers. What I did say, is that these people call themselves Christians, and by that standard, Christianity is growing.


 
When we argue about the ills Christianity causes, we too are talking about those that self-identify as Christians, and not your entirely self-serving definition.  They study the Bible and worship Jesus and God as you do, and what they get from this, whether you agree with it are not, shapes their worldview to cause them to do terrible things.  This is what motivates us, so protesting with your definition is trying to have a different conversation entirely.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 28, 2011)

I think, after reading this list that gives all the references in the bible to God being an evil, sociopathic prick, the "God" of the bible, if he actually exists is either the "creator" of Gnosticism, or Satan. I do believe that Jesus is still sorta the key to understanding/salvation though, but not in the way I'm "supposed to". I think my belief is that Jesus was, at least in his human form, a flawed being like pretty much all of us, but as the son of the _true_ God, he _had to be_, just so that he could be sacrificed not to God, but to _us_, and by extension, Satan. God couldn't offer himself to Satan to save humanity, obviously, because that would render Satan God, and who wants that, least of all God? Of course my beliefs had already been leaning in that direction for quite some time. As an adoptee, I've _always_ sympathized with the Jesus I'd always been told/read about, and it helped that I was raised pretty much in Catholicism (I was "officially" Anglican, but my dad's side of the family is Catholic and Anglicanism is basically English Catholicism anyway), with this virtually divine "Mother of God" and "Mother of everyone all Catholics".

I've never wanted to believe _any_ father would do to their son what was done to Jesus, much less _The_ Father. But they do, all the time. Yeah, you could say I'm holding God to a standard he doesn't need to be held to, but that's just it. He doesn't _need_ to be compared to _my_ father (adopted or otherwise), because if he's God at all, he's already above everyone else. Above that kind of cruelty. But Satan is cruelty _personified_, and if you believe in something like the Demiurge, you either believe it's flawed or downright malicious, so that works on a certain level as well. And though I believe something of the substance of God is in us, we are are also products of that "other" thing, whatever that is. We weren't going to be shown just how hard that has us by the balls unless our divine, immortal, "perfect" God was "killed" by it and us. I don't believe God communicates in our highly illogical and easily manipulated languages. I believe he shows rather than tells.

There could have been one true, historical Jesus, or he could be an amalgamation of various figures. In a way, both could be true. In a way, he exists in every person who is abandoned, betrayed, treated like less than a person, etc, which is to say _everyone_ to some degree. It's not a thing to be envied or rationalized. It's a thing to be dealt with, and _rectified_. God may have created us to be flawed and even evil, but not to stay that way. The problem I have with the kind of ideology someone like Rukh preaches is it doesn't lead us towards that, but to a state of stagnation and eventual entropy. The thing is, history could have played out very differently. Someone could've saved Jesus instead of (according to the bible) told him to save himself, and if they had, there'd be not more people trying to be Christian, but _fewer_, because _they'd already be Christian_.

Stop trying to make up for things you weren't there to prevent. Stop rationalizing. Stop trying to play catch up with history, and with God. _Start over_. That's kinda what "born again" means, right?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 28, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> I think, after reading this list that gives all the references in the bible to God being an evil, sociopathic prick, the "God" of the bible, if he actually exists is either the "creator" of Gnosticism, or Satan. I do believe that Jesus is still sorta the key to understanding/salvation though, but not in the way I'm "supposed to". I think my belief is that Jesus was, at least in his human form, a flawed being like pretty much all of us, but as the son of the _true_ God, he _had to be_, just so that he could be sacrificed not to God, but to _us_, and by extension, Satan. God couldn't offer himself to Satan to save humanity, obviously, because that would render Satan God, and who wants that, least of all God? Of course my beliefs had already been leaning in that direction for quite some time. As an adoptee, I've _always_ sympathized with the Jesus I'd always been told/read about, and it helped that I was raised pretty much in Catholicism (I was "officially" Anglican, but my dad's side of the family is Catholic and Anglicanism is basically English Catholicism anyway), with this virtually divine "Mother of God" and "Mother of everyone all Catholics".
> 
> I've never wanted to believe _any_ father would do to their son what was done to Jesus, much less _The_ Father. But they do, all the time. Yeah, you could say I'm holding God to a standard he doesn't need to be held to, but that's just it. He doesn't _need_ to be compared to _my_ father (adopted or otherwise), because if he's God at all, he's already above everyone else. Above that kind of cruelty. But Satan is cruelty _personified_, and if you believe in something like the Demiurge, you either believe it's flawed or downright malicious, so that works on a certain level as well. And though I believe something of the substance of God is in us, we are are also products of that "other" thing, whatever that is. We weren't going to be shown just how hard that has us by the balls unless our divine, immortal, "perfect" God was "killed" by it and us. I don't believe God communicates in our highly illogical and easily manipulated languages. I believe he shows rather than tells.
> 
> ...


 

And here are the major problems with what you said. If Jesus was not perfect, then how could He have been the perfect sacrifice? If Jesus was sacrificed to us, what does that do to satisfy the wrath of God? Does it not make us responsible for salvation if Jesus was sacrificed to us? And doesn't that lead to a man made salvation? If this is the case, that man can save themselves, then whats the point of God sending His Son to die? And if man can save themselves, then why does Scripture say that we can't. That not one man on there own seeks God.

Jesus was fully man, and fully God. Jesus is God. And the reason why the Father had His Son killed, was so that the The Fathers wrath was satisfied. Think about it, before Christ was arrested He was in the garden and *He was sweating blood*. Do you think He was worried about the fact than man was about to kill him? Or that He was about the face the judgment of mankind? No, Jesus was a savior about to endure divine wrath. Listen to His words "My Father, if it is all possible, may this cup be taken from me." The "cup" is not in reference to a wooden cross. Its a reference to divine judgment. It is the cup of God's wrath. This is what Jesus was recoiling from in the garden. All of God's holy wrath and hatred toward sin and sinners, stored up since the beginning of the world, is about the be poured out onto Him, and He is sweating blood at the thought of it. That puts a whole new perspective on the Crucifixion of Christ.
At the Cross, Christ drank the full cup of God's wrath for us, and when He had downed the last drop, He turned the cup over and cried out, "it is finished."

This is the Gospel. The just and loving Creator of the universe has looked upon hopelessly sinful people and sent His Son, God in the flesh, to bear His wrath against sin on the cross and to show His power over sin in the Resurrection so that all who trust in Him will be reconciled to God forever.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Mar 28, 2011)

Wrote a response, it got fucked up while I was posting, will come back to this later.

In the meantime, if God gave us the authority to write the Bible and then the authority to judge who gets into Heaven, Fred Phelps is totally right and Rukh should stop stepping all over his God-given authority to be right.  :V


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 28, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> *He was sweating blood*.


 
But you insist Jesus IS God, so why would he be pouring his own hatred into himself? :V It's not like any of this was any sort of sacrifice anyway, since according to the fable he ascended up into heaven to be God anyway. The whole Trinity/Sacrifice thing is such a nonsensical concept.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 28, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Wrote a response, it got fucked up while I was posting, will come back to this later.
> 
> In the meantime, if God gave us the authority to write the Bible and then the authority to judge who gets into Heaven, Fred Phelps is totally right and Rukh should stop stepping all over his God-given authority to be right.  :V


 
I believe the Bible, comprised of the Old and New Testaments, to be the  inspired, infallible, and authoritative Word of God. In faith I hold  the Bible to be inerrant in the original writings, God-breathed, and the  complete and final authority for faith and practice. While still using  the individual writing styles of the human authors, the Holy Spirit  perfectly guided them to ensure they wrote precisely what He wanted  written, without error or omission.

So its not authority that God gave these people to write His Word. Its the fact that God decided to use these people and perfectly guided them to ensure they wrote precisely what He wanted written.

 We are to "judge" sin, but always with the goal of presenting the solution for sin and its consequencesâ€”the Lord Jesus Christ. That, is something Phelps does not do. He does not preach a solution. He basically preaches determinism, that everyone else but him and his family is just flat out screwed. And they go around gloatingly telling everyone that. Explain how that furthers the Kingdom of God? Explain how that even follows what Christ commanded us to do?

The Authority that God gives His sheep, that authority is not be be abused, because what many people forget, is with that authority comes great responsibility. We are held to a high standard. Especially those in a position of power (IE pastors, teachers, preachers of the faith) Yes, those people (myself included) are held to a higher standard because we are in positions where we lead other believers. That, is a sobering thought indeed.





Mojotech said:


> But you insist Jesus IS God, so why would he be  pouring his own hatred into himself? :V It's not like any of this was  any sort of sacrifice anyway, since according to the fable he ascended  up into heaven to be God anyway. The whole Trinity/Sacrifice thing is  such a nonsensical concept.


 
Okay, lets do a basic description of the trinity. The Godhead 3 in one. And yet one God.

God is the Son, God is the Father, and God is the Holy Spirit. The  Father is not the Son, nor is the Son the Holy Spirit. And the Holy  Spirit is not the Father.

The Father was pouring out His wrath on the Son. And Jesus was  resurrected because of the Father, and now sits on the right hand side  of the throne of God.

And yet God is all three of them. 

Am I confusing you yet?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 28, 2011)

Edit: Double post.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 28, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Am I confusing you yet?


 
So basically it's a halfassed attempt to pretend three specific fictional characters are the same person. Got it.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 28, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> the Holy Spirit  perfectly guided them to ensure they wrote precisely what He wanted  written, *without error or omission.*


 
What about all the errors, and omitted, as previously mentioned with all those Councils and such on a different thread? They systematically took various preachings and teachings from all around Christendom, uniting them into one large clump to be passed down from those with the power to do this, and down to the believers. There had to be some sort of editing, or summation done to do this - "God"breathed, or otherwise.

And then throughout several decades, centuries if I remember right; they continued to edit and whittle the Bible into what has been massively interpreted, misinterpreted, written, rewritten, errated, edited, dumbed-down, and all around used and abused in every possible literary way. Both for possibly good, and possibly bad, if not downright mistakes, but said 'mistakes' could easily have been passed into the bible and passed down. 

You say this hasn't happened, that nothings been omitted, and there has been no errors...but you're ignoring years upon years of history that was set out upon collecting and writing the history  _before it_ that was nearly completely lost in the sands of time, quite literally and metaphorically, that revealed a non-majorly-centralized Christianity amongst various cultures. Not everything was recovered, I don't even think it can be determined what WAS lost entirely.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 28, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> What about all the errors, and omitted, as previously mentioned with all those Councils and such on a different thread? They systematically took various preachings and teachings from all around Christendom, uniting them into one large clump to be passed down from those with the power to do this, and down to the believers. There had to be some sort of editing, or summation done to do this - "God"breathed, or otherwise.
> 
> And then throughout several decades, centuries if I remember right; they continued to edit and whittle the Bible into what has been massively interpreted, misinterpreted, written, rewritten, errated, edited, dumbed-down, and all around used and abused in every possible literary way. Both for possibly good, and possibly bad, if not downright mistakes, but said 'mistakes' could easily have been passed into the bible and passed down.
> 
> You say this hasn't happened, that nothings been omitted, and there has been no errors...but you're ignoring years upon years of history that was set out upon collecting and writing the history  _before it_ that was nearly completely lost in the sands of time, quite literally and metaphorically, that revealed a non-majorly-centralized Christianity amongst various cultures. Not everything was recovered, I don't even think it can be determined what WAS lost entirely.


 

Okay, I think you missed some key words in what I said:

*In faith* I hold  the Bible to be inerrant in the original writings,  God-breathed, and the  complete and final authority for faith and  practice. While still using  the individual writing styles of the human  authors, the Holy Spirit  perfectly guided them to ensure they wrote  precisely what He wanted  written, without error or omission.

The reason I hold this, is without it, the entire faith in God falls completely flat. Without His Word being true and perfect, then logically one would move to the position that none of it is true and perfect, which again logically moves to the position that God does not exist.

It is by my absolute faith, that I say the Word of God is perfect and just.

The interesting thing is, is the Bible doesn't defend itself in being the Word of God. It merely attest that it is. You are called to either believe it or not.

In short, the Bible is unlike any other book in the world. It assumes  its own validity. It does not defend itself. It simply states what is  and is not true. The Bible is either a joke or it is true. You either  believe what it says or you reject it. It calls you to be hot or cold,  and calls you to examine yourself before its holy pages and before the  holy Lord Jesus that it points to and proclaims. The Bible is the word  of God.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 28, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The Bible is the word  of God.



I'm not sure what Bible you're talking about, but I know no one Bible. If you're speaking merely of the _idea_ of the Bible, then I can kinda see what you're getting at, but even the Bible next to your bed, and probably the ones at the sermons you go to are different. Different from the ones of the next church over too (unless there was some bulk deal). This is exactly how Christianity started (splintered sects), and has been a common theme through-out. 

That's pretty much one large problematic factor, even though you don't really see it as such.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 28, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> I'm not sure what Bible you're talking about, but I know no one Bible. If you're speaking merely of the _idea_ of the Bible, then I can kinda see what you're getting at, but even the Bible next to your bed, and probably the ones at the sermons you go to are different. Different from the ones of the next church over too (unless there was some bulk deal). This is exactly how Christianity started (splintered sects), and has been a common theme through-out.
> 
> That's pretty much one large problematic factor, even though you don't really see it as such.


 
The Bible I am talking about, is the Word of God. His Word. As for what type of Bible I use, my personal Bible is the New Living Translation, But I also use the NIV and ESV.

But when I say the Bible. I mean the Bible, not a specific translation. I am speaking on the whole. God's Word is true. When I speak the Bible, it means the Bible, not a specific translation. It just means the Bible. Not sure how much clearer I can get than that.

And Denominations started because people have different opinions on the non-essentials to the faith, which is perfectly fine. It encourages discussion and deep theological talks. What I do not like is when denominations try and rework what Scripture says to fit with what society says. This kind of thinking is relativism. And its been creeping in on Christianity very rapidly. And that kind of thinking is dangerous. Because it leads to apostasy. What I do not agree with, is when denominations start arguing on the key parts, the essentials of the faith that are non arguable.

The Church as a whole is splintered, and thats the way Satan wants it. The Church as a whole is busy infighting which makes us completely ineffective for the Kingdom of God.  As Scripture says, "Why are we quarreling among ourselves" If we all hold to the essentials of the faith, then why are we fighting ourselves? I understand theological discussions, and I encourage it, but not to start arguments. If we can't discuss something in a civil matter, then its time to walk away from the discussion. Because its gone from a discussion, to an argument. Which does nothing to bring glory to God.

We are all one Body of Christ, and each one of us has a specific part to play. We each have a role only we can do. The Church as a whole needs to stop fighting and get back to basics, We need to look the the early church as an example.


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 28, 2011)

I find it highly amusing that Catholics are considered some cultish off-shoot of Christianity by certain Protestant-style Christians in this thread - when for at least half of Christianity's history the Catholic Church _was_ Christianity(1) and it was the _Protestants_ that were the ones that broke away from the central church, not the other way around.

(1) Eastern Orthodox not withstanding. Though I wonder whether Ruhk et al would consider _those_ guys "cultists" as well.


----------



## Bambi (Mar 28, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Bambi, you're a cool army bro, but You're going to have to learn how to not read too much into things.


Oh, and why's that?





Mojotech said:


> It's just a report on a study about how already heavily secular countries are becoming less religious, and a relatively neutral one like BBC usually has. ... Well, good thing the article isn't saying it's extinct now, but that it might in the future if current trends continue.


You trust what you've read? I'll wait for this to become more mainstream before making a judgment.





Mayfurr said:


> I find it highly amusing that Catholics are  considered some cultish off-shoot of Christianity by certain  Protestant-style Christians in this thread - when for at least half of  Christianity's history the Catholic Church _was_ Christianity(1)  and it was the _Protestants_ that were the ones that broke away  from the central church, not the other way around.


INB4 Muslims  pray to a different god.


----------



## BRN (Mar 28, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Okay, I think you missed some key words in what I said:
> 
> *In faith* I hold the Bible to be inerrant in the original writings, God-breathed, and the complete and final authority for faith and practice. While still using the individual writing styles of the human authors, the Holy Spirit perfectly guided them to ensure they wrote precisely what He wanted written, without error or omission.
> 
> ...


 
I admit I haven't taken part in this thread much, but I've been reading it, and I just have a problem with this.

Isn't this moving from a conclusion to a justification? As in, you have a belief, and you've utilised logical steps stemming from the conclusion of that belief in order to rationalise the belief. Essentially, you've said "I have faith that God exists so, because God exists, God exists", which is illogical, and you've noted that illogicallity is something you want to avoid. What logical reasoning suggests you should be doing is working from the evidence up to a conclusion - which really leads us to "It is possible that God exists, because if he did, his word would be true and perfect, and he would exist because the words he wrote say that he does.".

Still, using that method, one can only say that the proposition 'God exists' is a hypothetical. Therefore, the proposition "The words of the true Bible are god-breathed" can only really be "If God exists, the words of the true Bible were god-breathed."


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 28, 2011)

Rukh, for the last fucking time, other people don't exist to reinforce your beliefs and worldview for you. That seems to be the only thing you've ever tried to get out of this forum. While the rest of us are confused, somewhat doubtful and cynical, and even angry, we can at least entertain the thought that there might be something to religion, or that there might not be. We're always sure there's _something_ we're wrong about, in either case. That's entirely not you. I'm beginning to doubt that you're even mentally stable, or that you're not at least on the edge. Lately, you've begun to show cracks in your armor that reveal the real you. A depressed, lonely, miserable person who hates their job, way of life and the world around them, and you're desperately clinging to this shit as a coping mechanism. Eventually it'll fall apart and when it does, it won't be pretty.


----------



## Daisy La Liebre (Mar 28, 2011)

Fucking religion threads...


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 28, 2011)

SIX said:


> I admit I haven't taken part in this thread much, but I've been reading it, and I just have a problem with this.
> 
> Isn't this moving from a conclusion to a justification? As in, you have a belief, and you've utilised logical steps stemming from the conclusion of that belief in order to rationalise the belief. Essentially, you've said "I have faith that God exists so, because God exists, God exists", which is illogical, and you've noted that illogicallity is something you want to avoid. What logical reasoning suggests you should be doing is working from the evidence up to a conclusion - which really leads us to "It is possible that God exists, because if he did, his word would be true and perfect, and he would exist because the words he wrote say that he does.".
> 
> Still, using that method, one can only say that the proposition 'God exists' is a hypothetical. Therefore, the proposition "The words of the true Bible are god-breathed" can only really be "If God exists, the words of the true Bible were god-breathed."


 
I have faith that God exists because He has shown Himself to me. I have faith God exists because He gave me that faith. I did nothing of my own to believe in God. Man cannot find God on there own. Scripture is very clear that, that is impossible. I have faith because I have seen God work in my life, my own testimony attests that God exists. I was once one way, and now I am completely changed. And none of that change was my own doing.

Faith does not come from yourself, I think you might be confused that faith comes from us. Faith, comes from God. And because my faith came from God, I know His voice and His Word.

"Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we boast in the hope of the glory of God"

The thing is, The modern day Gospel  says, "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for  your life. Therefore, follow these steps and you can be saved." (Man Justifies himself, salvation becomes works based)

Meanwhile the biblical Gospel says, "You are an enemy of God, dead in  your sin, and in your present state of rebellion, you are not even able  to see that you need life, much less to cause yourself to come to life.  Therefore, you are radically dependent on God to do something in your  life that you could never do." (Man cannot justify himself, salvation is only possible through God)


So, I know God's Word is True because God gave me my faith in Him, Because in that Faith, I know God's voice, because again, that faith comes from God.





Wolf-Bone said:


> Rukh, for the last fucking time, other people  don't exist to reinforce your beliefs and worldview for you. That seems  to be the only thing you've ever tried to get out of this forum. While  the rest of us are confused, somewhat doubtful and cynical, and even  angry, we can at least entertain the thought that there might be  something to religion, or that there might not be. We're always sure  there's _something_ we're wrong about, in either case. That's  entirely not you. I'm beginning to doubt that you're even mentally  stable, or that you're not at least on the edge. Lately, you've begun to  show cracks in your armor that reveal the real you. A depressed,  lonely, miserable person who hates their job, way of life and the world  around them, and you're desperately clinging to this shit as a coping  mechanism. Eventually it'll fall apart and when it does, it won't be  pretty.



Do you think I am here because I need you people to reinforce my faith? No, not at all. I am here, because God said "go here" So I did. Being here has nothing to do with what I want, its about doing what God wants me to do. My faith is rock solid. And I know nothing can separate me from Christ Jesus. If I was here to be a people pleaser, then I wouldn't be a servant of Christ Jesus.

And the funny thing is, the man you described, that was me *before* my life was radically changed by God. Me now, I am a changed man. Radically changed. Peace radiates from my heart. Life does not trouble me anymore. My worries, are completely gone. I have nothing to fear. No matter how chaotic my life gets, I don't worry.
 I don't cling to my faith as a coping mechanism. I "cling" to God so to speak because I know He is all I need. I have been given living water. I need nothing else.

"Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, 'Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.'"

 "Whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

I am here to tell you about the source of that Living Water.


----------



## Lobar (Mar 28, 2011)

Jared said:


> Fucking religion threads...


 
Thanks for posting!


----------



## BRN (Mar 28, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I have faith that God exists because He has shown Himself to me. I have faith God exists because He gave me that faith. I did nothing of my own to believe in God. Man cannot find God on there own. Scripture is very clear that, that is impossible. I have faith because I have seen God work in my life, my own testimony attests that God exists. I was once one way, and now I am completely changed. And none of that change was my own doing.
> 
> Faith does not come from yourself, I think you might be confused that faith comes from us. Faith, comes from God. And because my faith came from God, I know His voice and His Word.
> 
> ...


 
I don't have faith in the existence of God. As whole-heartedly as you believe he does exist, I whole-heartedly accept he doesn't. Does that mean I'm denying God as he tries to send me faith? Or did God just never send me any?

Given your definition of God, it seems unlikely to be the second. But how could I 'deny' to receive faith in God? Am I a lesser human, too weak to receive it? Wouldn't I have to accept that God exists and is sending me faith, in order to even be able to deny receiving it? Given your logic, it seems hard to justify athiesm, let alone the existence of other religious traditions.

Furthermore, _"I know God's Word is True because God gave me my faith in Him, Because in that Faith, I know God's voice, because again, that faith comes from God."_
I've a few problems with this. Are you a special case in the eyes of God-? Why would he send you faith, but not me, or any other athiest? Aren't you just saying "I believe God exists, because God told me to believe in him" - and isn't that a cylical argument?


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 28, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> Do you think I am here because I need you people to reinforce my faith? No, not at all.



"Believe exactly what I do or go to Hell". No, not at all.



			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> I am here, because God said "go here" So I did. Being here has nothing to do with what I want, its about doing what God wants me to do.



People like you really need to stop saying "God wants this" where you should be admitting "_my ego_ wants this".



			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> And the funny thing is, the man you described, that was me before my life was radically changed by God. Me now, I am a changed man. Radically changed. Peace radiates from my heart. Life does not trouble me anymore. My worries, are completely gone. I have nothing to fear. No matter how chaotic my life gets, I don't worry.



Um, dude, it wasn't that long ago you were on here bawling about how you essentially go to work to buy the gas to go to work. So you're essentially the same person. Unless you've radically changed in such a way that you _like_ being a wage slave now, which is kinda fucked up if that's the case.



			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> I don't cling to my faith as a coping mechanism. I "cling" to God so to speak because I know He is all I need. I have been given living water. I need nothing else.
> 
> "Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, 'Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.'"
> 
> ...



Your water is muddy, polluted, heavily irradiated, and you're standing knee deep in it, worshiping not a god, but a live atomic bomb.

[yt]zdkOGH52_ms[/yt]


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Mar 28, 2011)

Bambi said:


> INB4 Muslims  pray to a different god.


 
Of course, they pray to an arab god, mine is most def white.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 28, 2011)

SIX said:


> I don't have faith in the existence of God. As whole-heartedly as you believe he does exist, I whole-heartedly accept he doesn't. Does that mean I'm denying God as he tries to send me faith? Or did God just never send me any?
> 
> Given your definition of God, it seems unlikely to be the second. But how could I 'deny' to receive faith in God? Am I a lesser human, too weak to receive it? Wouldn't I have to accept that God exists and is sending me faith, in order to even be able to deny receiving it? Given your logic, it seems hard to justify athiesm, let alone the existence of other religious traditions.
> 
> ...



Faith is given at the moment we become saved. You don't get faith before you were saved. You get faith when you are saved.

Now, you say to don't believe in the existence of God, which then leads to me saying you don't believe that there is a need for God, which then leads to, you don't believe in sin. The reason you don't believe is because you are secure in your sin. Now I will jump out on a limb here and say, to me, you don't like the idea of the biblical God because belief in God forces you to face the fact that you are accountable to such a God. So, its easier to live in denial.

So, faith is not given to men to make them believe. Faith is given to when when we are saved. You are denying God even when He is sending people to you, telling you He is real.
Think of this example,

You are waiting for God to reveal Himself to you, a man comes up gives you the message of the Gospel, but you respond "I am waiting for God to show me He is real before I believe." A woman comes up to you and shares the Good News of Christ Jesus, and again you say "I am waiting for God to send me faith before I believe." And before you know it, you have passed away in this life and you are now facing God. And you say to God, "Why didn't you reveal yourself to me?" And God responds, I gave you that man who told you about me, I gave you that woman who told you about me. I continued to put people in your life that told you about me. What more did you want?

Think, maybe, just maybe all those people that have come across to you, giving you the message of the Gospel. They are all sent by God. And you deny all of them, because, you are waiting for God to come down out of heaven and tell you face to face "Here I am" Believe. The fact of the matter is, He places people in our lives so we can hear about Him.

You are secure in your sin, and you don't believe that there is any reason you need to be saved from this place called Hell, because you don't believe in any of it.

Unbelief is the unforgivable sin, because in order to be forgiven, you must believe. And if you are secure in your sin, how can you believe? This is why God's Law is preached, because through the law we become conscious of sin. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.

Jesus is there, and He is knocking at your door. Waiting to come in.

"Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me."

He has already made the first move. He is waiting for you.





Wolf-Bone said:


> "Believe exactly what I do or go to Hell". No, not at all.



Not a pretty message is it? Truth hurts. Thel Gospel says, "You are an enemy of God, dead in your sin,  and in your present state of rebellion, you are not even able to see  that you need life, much less to cause yourself to come to life.  Therefore, you are radically dependent on God to do something in your  life that you could never do." (Ouch) 
In the Gospel God reveals the depth of our need for Him. He shows us  that there is absolutely nothing we can do to come to Him. We can't  manufacture salvation. We can't program it. We can't produce it. We  can't even initiate it. God has to open our eyes, set us free, overcome  our evil, and appease His wrath. He has to come to us. (And He already has)



Wolf-Bone said:


> People like you really need to stop saying "God wants this" where you should be admitting "_my ego_ wants this".


Again if this was about me ego, I wouldn't be a servant of Christ Jesus. I am not here to be a people pleaser, I am not here to make myself feel better. My ego, my will, my desires were completely broken and shattered 6 months ago. I have died to Christ.



Wolf-Bone said:


> Um,  dude, it wasn't that long ago you were on here bawling about how you  essentially go to work to buy the gas to go to work. So you're  essentially the same person. Unless you've radically changed in such a  way that you _like_ being a wage slave now, which is kinda fucked  up if that's the case.



Your right, I was complaining, I was worried. I let sin get a hold of me. It was wrong. Here is the funny part, not soon after that I got a random phone call from my boss telling me I was getting transferred to a store location only 5 miles from my house. Thats not the funny part though, the funny part is, now my hours got slashed so it puts me right back into the same boat I was before. What this whole situation taught me is, That I am completely dependent on God.
I know that God will not give me anything I can't handle, I know that He won't abandon me, I know that going through difficult times refines my faith in God, and makes it stronger.



Wolf-Bone said:


> Your water is muddy, polluted,  heavily irradiated, and you're standing knee deep in it, worshiping not a  god, but a live atomic bomb.


 
You can continue to think that, but thats up to you. I am not here to force people to believe, I merely deliver the message that has been laid on my heart by God. Jesus said, I can give you living water so you may never thirst again. Go anywhere else, and you will always be thirsty, you will always be trying to fill that void in your life, and it will never be fully satisfied.


----------



## Lobar (Mar 28, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Now, you say to don't believe in the existence of God, which then leads to me saying you don't believe that there is a need for God, which then leads to, you don't believe in sin. The reason you don't believe is because you are secure in your sin. Now I will jump out on a limb here and say, to me, you don't like the idea of the biblical God because belief in God forces you to face the fact that you are accountable to such a God. So, its easier to live in denial.


 
Oh FFS, we've been over it so many times, how hard is it for it to sink in that we don't believe because there is no reason to believe?  Ockham's Razor demands I not assume the existence of any unnecessary entities, so I don't.  If you're going to stick with this canard, then I am going to counter with the accusation that the only reason you believe is that you _do_ fear the threat of punishment, and the impetus of your decision to believe was solely Pascal's Wager, and that the summation of your faith amounts to one big argument from consequences.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Mar 28, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Oh FFS, we've been over it so many times, how hard is it for it to sink in that we don't believe because there is no reason to believe?  Ockham's Razor demands I not assume the existence of any unnecessary entities, so I don't.  If you're going to stick with this canard, then I am going to counter with the accusation that the only reason you believe is that you _do_ fear the threat of punishment, and the impetus of your decision to believe was solely Pascal's Wager, and that the summation of your faith amounts to one big argument from consequences.


 
Ya'll are just atheists 'cus ya'll just wanna sin all the time. :V


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Mar 28, 2011)

Okay, gonna try this again.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> As I said, if you think parts of Scripture are untrue, then where does it end? Where doe one draw the line at what is true? If you can't take the Bible a true, then how can you say Jesus Christ is true? How can you say that God is true? Do you see where I am going with this? If you doubt one part of Scripture, then how do you not doubt all of Scripture?
> As I said, Christianity is not a pick and choose faith. Its all or nothing.



I don't know where it ends.  Unlike you I don't claim to have all the answers, because frankly it's impossible to know everything in the correct context of the Bible.  You keep repeating "context!" but let's get real.  You weren't there when it was being written.  You don't know the intentions of the writers other than "God told them" which we've established, since these are fallible men, they could just be making shit up.  But frankly, the accuracy of the accounts isn't what matters in religion.  What's matters is the _message_ people take out of it.  Your "all or nothing" approach is the very thing that leads to extremism and is highly irresponsible.



> Now, as for God's Word. There are many Scripture passages that attest that His word is infallible. What part of His Word do you not understand. By saying the Word of God may not be all true, you are telling me that God is not all true. Add to that, Do you not know that God exults His own Word? Thats how perfect it is?
> And, Why is the Bible called the Word of God, the living Word? Do you not know that Jesus Christ is given the same description? Jesus is the Word and He is the Living Word. To doubt the validity of God's Word, it to doubt the validity of God Himself.


 
Of course Scripture is going to say it's His Word.  If you were a snake oil salesman and you were trying to sell your magic elixir to someone, would you tell them it's just tap water and not the tears of Christ himself?  Even if you're selling a legit product, why wouldn't you play it up as "the one and only original!  Best there is!"?  And frankly, doubting the Bible is not doubting God.  I'm doubting a book that was put together over hundreds of years by fallible men, not God Himself.  You're the only one here making that distinction because this arbitrary "ALL OR NOTHING" approach you're taking with religion.



> Did I ever say your not saved? Did I ever say your going to Hell? No, I did not. What I did say is this: *To believe in the Trinity, the Deity of Christ,  Jesus' Physical  Resurrection,  Virgin Birth, Salvation by Grace through  Faith alone,  One God, and the  Gospel being the death, burial, and  resurrection of  Jesus, The Bible being the Word of God, that is perfect.
> 
> These are the basic tenets of the faith, regardless of your denomination. **I strongly believe that God's grace and  mercy are so extensive that within the Christian community there is a  wide range of beliefs and as long as the essentials are not violated,  then anyone who holds to those essentials but differs in the  non-essentials is my brother or sister in Christ.*
> If you don't believe in any of those, well then I have serious doubts of your salvation.



You are implying it.  And denomination apparently matters because many people believe Catholics are going to Hell while Protestants have the true Christian answer.  If there's so much dispute between Christianity in what's right and what's wrong since there's many people just like you who claim God has spoken to them, then I seriously doubt the validity of your claims as well as anyone else's.

And besides, what if I wasn't Christian?  What if I'm a Jew, God's Chosen People?  Suddenly I'm on the fast-track to hell because I was playing for the wrong team, even if I was the best human being I could possibly be. That's kind of fucked up.



> As for my authority, Read Scripture, God gives us authority. Oh wait, you don't believe in the Bible... How can you say anything about God, or the faith, if you doubt HIS WORD? If the Bible is falliable, then how do you know that what was written about Jesus Christ is correct, How do you know what was written about God is correct. How do you even know that God is real?
> Authority is given to all those who are believers. Its God given authority. We are all disciples of Christ, we have the same authority that the original 12 had. Think about that for a minute. Scripture tells us that we have the same exact authority that Jesus gave to the 12. We are no different from them.
> I have authority because Jesus gave those he called His Sheep authority.



So God gave us authority to mess with His Word then?  You do know that eating meat on a Friday was an offense punishable by death right?  Jews aren't supposed to work on the Sabbath, yet Jewish scholars decided to make something called an "eruv" (literally "loophole") to get around the inconvenience of "God's Word".

If we are going to take the Bible literally, Jesus gave authority to Simon Peter and he became the first Pope.  That man had God-appointed authority.  Henry VIII decided to give himself authority because he didn't like the Pope and wanted to be able to divorce, Martin Luther, Joseph Smith, and so on all decided to appoint themselves messengers of God in order to achieve their own goals.  

So what you're literally saying is God gave us authority to spin His Word however we want to achieve our own goals.  And if that's the case then why wouldn't the writers of the Bible decide to do whatever they wanted with the Bible?  To be honest, the argument of God-given authority is no where near compelling at all, especially because the most well-known Christian version of God-given authority is known as "Manifest Destiny" and if you know anything about history, you know how deluding and self-serving that concept is.



> In short, the Bible is unlike any other book in the world. It assumes  its own validity. It does not defend itself. It simply states what is  and is not true. The Bible is either a joke or it is true. You either  believe what it says or you reject it. It calls you to be hot or cold,  and calls you to examine yourself before its holy pages and before the  holy Lord Jesus that it points to and proclaims. The Bible is the word  of God.



The Bible is a collection of stories put together, copied, and edited by fallible men who very well could simply be putting their marks on a religious text.  The biography of Jesus is no where near as important as the messages of peace and good will that people can take out of it, applying the concepts that are still relevant in today's society and not being as concerned about the mentioning of witches and fiery death.  It's essentially how Mel Gibson still doesn't really "get" Christianity in my eyes because he focuses more on Jesus the person and less about Jesus "the idea".



> Now as for God and his just judgment. You forget that not one person is innocent, that not one person deserves anything but punishment for our sins. This includes everyone.
> God does not choose favorites, he does not honor persons. We all deserve to be eternally separated from God. But God being full of grace gave us a 2nd chance. Thats the goodness of God.


 
No one person is completely innocent, but to live in constant fear that we're not living up to His expectations all the time is a ridiculous notion and not exactly the point of living, in my mind.  God doesn't choose favorites, so then maybe that means we don't have the right answer, maybe the Jews, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists do.

We are fallible creatures, but I believe in the inherent goodness in the human race.  I don't believe we are born evil, that we are cursed with the gift of life.  We live in this world today and we can make the world a better place by living up to our potential as creative, intelligent, and caring people.  Sure, we're not all perfect, but do we deserve an eternity of hellfire?  Goodness no, and I'm sure God probably sees it the same way, if you and I are going to agree that this God is a just and loving one.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 28, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Oh FFS, we've been over it so many times, how hard is it for it to sink in that we don't believe because there is no reason to believe?  Ockham's Razor demands I not assume the existence of any unnecessary entities, so I don't.  If you're going to stick with this canard, then I am going to counter with the accusation that the only reason you believe is that you _do_ fear the threat of punishment, and the impetus of your decision to believe was solely Pascal's Wager, and that the summation of your faith amounts to one big argument from consequences.


 
"Occams Razor demands..." You hold to Science like a religion. (Go figure)  You go around touting Science as your holy book. And when anyone challenges you you come out and say "Science can't be wrong, its proven itself to be right." (Is this not the very same thing you accuse me of doing with Christianity?) Science to you is your religion, your faith is in Science. My faith is in God, Christianity. You hold to Science, I hold to God.

No, Scripture is very clear that the only reason people refuse to believe in God, is because they are secure in their sin.

This is the reality about humanity. We are each born with an evil God  hating heart. Genesis 8:21 says that every inclination of man's heart is  evil from childhood, and Jesus' words in Luke 11:13 assume that we know  we are evil. Many people will say "I have always loved God," but the  reality is, no one has. We may have loved a god we made up in our minds,  but the God of the Bible, we hate.

In our evil we rebelled against God. We take the law of God, written in  His Word and on our hearts, and we disobey it. This is the picture of  the very first sin in Genesis 3. Even if God has told us not to eat from  the tree of knowledge, we are going to do it anyway.

We spurn of Creator's authority over us. God beckons storm clouds, and  they come. He tells the wind to blow and the rain to fall, and they obey  immediately. He speaks to the mountains, "you go there," and to the  seas, "you stop here," and they do it. Everything in all creation  responds in obedience to the Creator...until we get to you and me. We  have the audacity to look God in the face and say, "No."

The Bible describes us as enemies of God and objects of His wrath. We  are spiritually dead and eternally separated from God.  What's worse is  that we can do nothing to change our status before God. No one who is  morally evil can choose good, no man who is a slave can set himself  free, no woman who is blind can give herself sight, no one who is an  object of wrath can appease that wrath, and no person who is dead can  cause himself to come to life.

My sole decision to believe is not because of pascals wager. Its not a guess, I do not say well I have nothing to lose if I am wrong. Because I know that I am not wrong.
I believe in God, because He wooed me, I believe in God, because He came and rescued me. The fact of the matter is Christ Jesus died for us, to appease the wrath of God and take our place in the debt sin created. So because Christ willingly let God pour out His wrath on Him, I myself am willingly dieing to myself so I can follow Christ.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 28, 2011)

Science...and Christianity...are on two hugely different ends of the spectrum. And your idea that people always need to have faith in something, that they need to believe in something higher than them, is silly Rukh. Not everyone is lumped into this "blind-believer" role.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 28, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Okay, gonna try this again.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know where it ends.  Unlike you I don't claim to have all the answers, because frankly it's impossible to know everything in the correct context of the Bible.  You keep repeating "context!" but let's get real.  You weren't there when it was being written.  You don't know the intentions of the writers other than "God told them" which we've established, since these are fallible men, they could just be making shit up.  But frankly, the accuracy of the accounts isn't what matters in religion.  What's matters is the _message_ people take out of it.  Your "all or nothing" approach is the very thing that leads to extremism and is highly irresponsible.



No, what matters is belief in Christ Jesus. Thats what matters. The all or nothing aprouch is preached in the Bible. Christ's words himself "So, because you are lukewarmâ€”neither hot nor coldâ€”I am about to spit you out of my mouth." HELLO!!!! Jesus is telling us that Christianity is an all or nothing aprouch. You can't follow the ideals of Jesus and not believe that He is Lord and Savior and expect to get to Heaven. You can't even define your faith or tell anyone who Jesus is because you can't use the Bible, because you say its not true. Again I ask you, if the Bible is fallible, then how is any of it true. You basically are forced to throw it all away and are left with NOTHING. Lets make this clear, Do you think the God of this universe, the Creator of all things would let His Word, the Word even He exalts be muddled up by man? Do you think He is not in control of EVERYTHING?



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> So, because you are lukewarmâ€”neither hot nor coldâ€”I am about to spit you out of my mouth.Of course Scripture is going to say it's His Word.  If you were a snake oil salesman and you were trying to sell your magic elixir to someone, would you tell them it's just tap water and not the tears of Christ himself?  Even if you're selling a legit product, why wouldn't you play it up as "the one and only original!  Best there is!"?  And frankly, doubting the Bible is not doubting God.  I'm doubting a book that was put together over hundreds of years by fallible men, not God Himself.  You're the only one here making that distinction because this arbitrary "ALL OR NOTHING" approach you're taking with religion.



Again, To doubt the validity of God's Word, is to doubt God. They are one in the same. You cannot separate His Word from Himself. *We know the Bible is the word of God because it says so. *This will not convince unbelievers, but the redeemed know the Bible is  the word of God because Holy Spirit who lives in us bears witness to  this truth. Christians know and trust God's word because they hear and know the voice of Jesus. 

John 10:1-4,27, ''Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by  the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is  a thief and a robber. "But he who enters by the door is a shepherd  of the sheep.  ''To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his  voice, and he calls his own sheep by name, and leads them out.  ''When  he puts forth all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him  because they know his voice. *My sheep hear My voice, and I know them,  and they follow Me." *


*If you claim to follow Christ, then you had better act like it. Put up  or shut up, so to speak. Put money where your mouth is, walk your talk.  Show me don't tell me. There is no picking and choosing what parts of  the Bible you like and don't like. You don't get to choose to believe in  only some of it. Its either all true or not. Stand by your faith  completely, or don't stand by it at all.*



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> You are implying it.  And denomination apparently matters because many people believe Catholics are going to Hell while Protestants have the true Christian answer.  If there's so much dispute between Christianity in what's right and what's wrong since there's many people just like you who claim God has spoken to them, then I seriously doubt the validity of your claims as well as anyone else's.


I am implying it now, yeah. And thats because of what you have said in this comment I am commenting right now. Believing in the idea of Jesus is not salvation. Believing that He was just a good man with sound teachings does not save you. Believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that He is Lord and Savior and His Word is perfect, that saves you.



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> And besides, what if I wasn't Christian?  What if I'm a Jew, God's Chosen People?  Suddenly I'm on the fast-track to hell because I was playing for the wrong team, even if I was the best human being I could possibly be. That's kind of fucked up.


You have made it abundantly clear that your not dude. (Yes, harsh words) You have made it abudently clear that your still under the Law because you think Jesus is only an Idea, because you don't hold the the essentials of the faith, because you doubt the Word's of Christ. Remember John 1:1? In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. *Jesus, is God's Word incarnate* dude. The Bible is called the Word of God and so is Christ Jesus. You can't deny that, not separate them from each other.





Term_the_Schmuck said:


> So God gave us authority to mess with His Word then?  You do know that eating meat on a Friday was an offense punishable by death right?  Jews aren't supposed to work on the Sabbath, yet Jewish scholars decided to make something called an "eruv" (literally "loophole") to get around the inconvenience of "God's Word".
> 
> If we are going to take the Bible literally, Jesus gave authority to Simon Peter and he became the first Pope.  That man had God-appointed authority.  Henry VIII decided to give himself authority because he didn't like the Pope and wanted to be able to divorce, Martin Luther, Joseph Smith, and so on all decided to appoint themselves messengers of God in order to achieve their own goals.
> 
> So what you're literally saying is God gave us authority to spin His Word however we want to achieve our own goals.  And if that's the case then why wouldn't the writers of the Bible decide to do whatever they wanted with the Bible?  To be honest, the argument of God-given authority is no where near compelling at all, especially because the most well-known Christian version of God-given authority is known as "Manifest Destiny" and if you know anything about history, you know how deluding and self-serving that concept is.



God dis not give us the authority to spin His Word. His Word is unchanging because He is unchanging. People take His word and twist it into what they want yes, But that doesn't they are in the right. I could give you Scripture passage after Scripture passage telling us about the authority that God gave us, heck Just read Genesis. Oh, wait, thats right, you don't believe in anything the Bible says...So in other words, you have nothing to give someone on God's ultimate plan, you can't claim any knowedge of Christ Jesus because well, that knowledge comes from Scripture, or someone told you about Jesus because they themselves read Scripture.





Term_the_Schmuck said:


> The Bible is a collection of stories put together, copied, and edited by fallible men who very well could simply be putting their marks on a religious text.  The biography of Jesus is no where near as important as the messages of peace and good will that people can take out of it, applying the concepts that are still relevant in today's society and not being as concerned about the mentioning of witches and fiery death.  It's essentially how Mel Gibson still doesn't really "get" Christianity in my eyes because he focuses more on Jesus the person and less about Jesus "the idea".



And now we get to the heart of the matter. Jesus is not a concept or an idea. The biography of Jesus is the most important thing in the Gospel. Without Jesus, there is no salvation. The Bible, contains the infallible Word of God. You don't get Christianity because its not about peace and goodwill, its not a feel good idea, The entire Gospel is about Christ Jesus who is Lord and Savior. The Entire Bible is the story of the Plan of Salvation. Its not abouit applying "concepts" , its not about picking and choosing what you think is relevant. That kind of belief DOES NOT SAVE YOU.





Term_the_Schmuck said:


> No one person is completely innocent, but to live in constant fear that we're not living up to His expectations all the time is a ridiculous notion and not exactly the point of living, in my mind.  God doesn't choose favorites, so then maybe that means we don't have the right answer, maybe the Jews, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists do.
> 
> We are fallible creatures, but I believe in the inherent goodness in the human race.  I don't believe we are born evil, that we are cursed with the gift of life.  We live in this world today and we can make the world a better place by living up to our potential as creative, intelligent, and caring people.  Sure, we're not all perfect, but do we deserve an eternity of hellfire?  Goodness no, and I'm sure God probably sees it the same way, if you and I are going to agree that this God is a just and loving one.



There is no one good. Not one person. Scripture is clear on that. *For all have fallen short of the glory of God.
Romans 3:10-18
*As it is written:    *â€œThere is no one righteous, not even one; 
  there is no one who understands; 
   there is no one who seeks God. 
 All have turned away, 
   they have together become worthless; 
there is no one who does good, 
   not even one.â€*
 â€œTheir throats are open graves; 
   their tongues practice deceit.â€
â€œThe poison of vipers is on their lips.â€
 â€œTheir mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.â€
 â€œTheir feet are swift to shed blood; 
  ruin and misery mark their ways, 
 and the way of peace they do not know.â€
  â€œThere is no fear of God before their eyes.â€ 

Jesus told us that everyone who sins is a slave to sin, and Paul went as  far as saying that we are captives of the devil himself. And because we  are slaves to sin, we are blinded to God's truth. Ephesians 4:18 says  that we are darkened in our understanding and our hearts are like stone.  According to 2 Corinthians 4:4, we can't even see Christ because of the  depth of our spiritual blindness.

The Bible describes us as enemies of God and objects of His wrath. We  are spiritually dead and eternally separated from God.  What's worse is  that we can do nothing to change our status before God. No one who is  morally evil can choose good, no man who is a slave can set himself  free, no woman who is blind can give herself sight, no one who is an  object of wrath can appease that wrath, and no person who is dead can  cause himself to come to life.

The Gospel confronts us with the hopelessness of our sinful condition.  But we don't like what we see of ourselves in the Gospel, so we shrink  back from it. We live in a land of self improvement. Certainly there are  steps we can take to make ourselves better. So we modify what the  Gospel says about us.

We are not evil, we think, and certainly not spiritually dead. Haven't  you heard the power of positive thinking? I can become a better me and  experience my best life now. That's why God is there--to make that  happen. My life is not going right, but God loves me and has a plan to  fix my life. I simply need to follow certain steps, think certain  things, and check off certain boxes, then I am good.

Both our diagnosis of the situation and our conclusion regarding the  solution fit nicely into a culture that exalts self sufficiency, self  esteem, and self confidence. We already have a fairly high view of our  morality, so when we add a superstitious prayer, a subsequent dose of  church attendance, and obedience to some of the Bible, we feel pretty  sure that we will be all right in the end.

Note the contrast, however, when you diagnose the problem biblically.  The modern day Gospel  says, "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for  your life. Therefore, follow these steps and you can be saved."  Meanwhile the biblical Gospel says, "You are an enemy of God, dead in  your sin, and in your present state of rebellion, you are not even able  to see that you need life, much less to cause yourself to come to life.  Therefore, you are radically dependent on God to do something in your  life that you could never do."

The former sells books and draws crowds. The latter saves souls. Which is more important?


----------



## Discord Nova (Mar 28, 2011)

Wow im christian but i dont take ot that rediculously serious, especially on a FORUM. Un less its a christian forum we cant really preach the bible because it OFFENDS people, dude....


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Mar 28, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> No, what matters is belief in Christ Jesus. Thats what matters. The all or nothing aprouch is preached in the Bible. Christ's words himself "So, because you are lukewarmâ€”neither hot nor coldâ€”I am about to spit you out of my mouth." HELLO!!!! Jesus is telling us that Christianity is an all or nothing aprouch. You can't follow the ideals of Jesus and not believe that He is Lord and Savior and expect to get to Heaven. You can't even define your faith or tell anyone who Jesus is because you can't use the Bible, because you say its not true. Again I ask you, if the Bible is fallible, then how is any of it true. You basically are forced to throw it all away and are left with NOTHING. Lets make this clear, Do you think the God of this universe, the Creator of all things would let His Word, the Word even He exalts be muddled up by man? Do you think He is not in control of EVERYTHING?


 
Would God let His Word be muddled by man?  Well, to be honest, yes.  Since you want to take the Bible as fact, God essentially set us up to our own demise by putting the apple tree in the Garden.  Why risk spoiling his creations by arbitrarily putting an apple tree in the Garden that Adam and Eve couldn't eat from?  Scripture shows God as a bit of a sociopath at times, which really works if you're going to get people to be Christian by making them live in constant fear of the unknown, the same tactics used by governments today for their people to give up their freedoms for "security".

The Bible isn't the crux of the religion.  You personally decided to set that as the benchmark of your faith in God.  I decide to set my benchmark on people who've done something with their faith to improve the lives of the less fortunate, who follow the examples of Christ through their actions.  Guys like Dikembe Mutombo reaffirm my faith in not only God, but the potential for the human race to rise up and overcome.



> Again, To doubt the validity of God's Word, is to doubt God. They are one in the same. You cannot separate His Word from Himself. *We know the Bible is the word of God because it says so. *This will not convince unbelievers, but the redeemed know the Bible is  the word of God because Holy Spirit who lives in us bears witness to  this truth. Christians know and trust God's word because they hear and know the voice of Jesus.



You're setting that benchmark for yourself.  You see doubting the Bible as a sin, I see it as not buying into literature's best marketing ploy.  You're using circular logic to explain why the Bible HAS to be true.  If I want to look at God's Word, then all I have to do is drive 5 minutes to the beach, watch the sun come up over the Atlantic, hear the seagulls waking up and calling out with each other mixing in to the music of the waves breaking over the shoreline.  That speaks volumes more to me than "Listen to me, or else."



> *If you claim to follow Christ, then you had better act like it. Put up  or shut up, so to speak. Put money where your mouth is, walk your talk.  Show me don't tell me. There is no picking and choosing what parts of  the Bible you like and don't like. You don't get to choose to believe in  only some of it. Its either all true or not. Stand by your faith  completely, or don't stand by it at all.*



You mad bro?  It seems like you're more upset about the idea that I can worship Christ and God without having to put in the extensive man-hours you have in study groups and so on.  You refuse to believe that anyone can choose to worship a Christian God outside your prearranged rituals which don't exactly inspire anyone to want to join in the faith.  The Catholic Church already observed this idea once before when they decided to switch things up and celebrating mass in English instead of the traditional Latin.  When that happened it was seen as probably one of the biggest blasphemies one could think of, yet because the people in charge decide it's okay, then we're supposed to take it as it is, regardless if that's God's true intentions or not.



> I am implying it now, yeah. And thats because of what you have said in this comment I am commenting right now. Believing in the idea of Jesus is not salvation. Believing that He was just a good man with sound teachings does not save you. Believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that He is Lord and Savior and His Word is perfect, that saves you.



Well as the great Jeff Bridges said:

[yt]XVCtkzIXYzQ[/yt]



> You have made it abundantly clear that your not dude. (Yes, harsh words) You have made it abudently clear that your still under the Law because you think Jesus is only an Idea, because you don't hold the the essentials of the faith, because you doubt the Word's of Christ. Remember John 1:1? In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. *Jesus, is God's Word incarnate* dude. The Bible is called the Word of God and so is Christ Jesus. You can't deny that, not separate them from each other.



I never said Jesus is only an Idea.  I said that the idea is bigger than the man himself.  Basing the religion solely on the suffering of Jesus instead of his teachings on humility and good will is what leads to things like the Crusades where people kill in His name.  I'm fairly certain God wouldn't have sent himself down here to be a martyr just to give people another reason to kill each other.  Somewhere along the lines people stopped listening to his words and focused more on his death and resurrection, which is cool and all, but it's kind of missing the point of being a better person if that's someone's justification for intolerance and waging holy wars.



> God dis not give us the authority to spin His Word. His Word is unchanging because He is unchanging. People take His word and twist it into what they want yes, But that doesn't they are in the right. I could give you Scripture passage after Scripture passage telling us about the authority that God gave us, heck Just read Genesis. Oh, wait, thats right, you don't believe in anything the Bible says...So in other words, you have nothing to give someone on God's ultimate plan, you can't claim any knowedge of Christ Jesus because well, that knowledge comes from Scripture, or someone told you about Jesus because they themselves read Scripture.



You've done nothing but spin His Word since you started posting here on religion.  Every instance of violence that was ordained by God or his followers as mentioned in the Bible you've dismissed as "out of context" or "that's just not right, it's like this."  Which is fine if that's how you want to see it, but the fact of the matter is that's what's written in the text and you nor I can deny that there's some pretty messed up laws and policies listed in the Bible whose punishments often are carried out by death.

You keep talking about God giving us authority, but the one Scripture passage that essentially nullifies it all is John 8:7 "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".  And since you're so intent on believing that there's absolutely no good in pretty much anyone, then that pretty much kills any passage you'd like to bring up about our authority to pass judgment on other people.



> And now we get to the heart of the matter. Jesus is not a concept or an idea. The biography of Jesus is the most important thing in the Gospel. Without Jesus, there is no salvation. The Bible, contains the infallible Word of God. You don't get Christianity because its not about peace and goodwill, its not a feel good idea, The entire Gospel is about Christ Jesus who is Lord and Savior. The Entire Bible is the story of the Plan of Salvation. Its not abouit applying "concepts" , its not about picking and choosing what you think is relevant. That kind of belief DOES NOT SAVE YOU.



You're implying that we need saving.  Again, if we're going to take the Bible literally here, God pretty much slapped us on the wrist, kicked us out of Eden and said "Good luck!".  Aside from delivering commandments and letting Jesus bum around Mesopotamia for a few years, he essentially has give us free reign to choose our own paths.  Saving implies that we are in some sort of danger.  As I said, I don't believe we are inherently bad creatures.  We become bad based on our action and in those instances, yes we might require the need to be saved.  As for me and the countless other Christians like myself, I don't believe that there's an urgent need to be saved right away otherwise Satan's got a big ol' crater of lava warmed up for me.

Again, I think this is more about you being mad that I'm worshiping in my own way under Catholicism and not putting in the time and effort you are.  I dare say you might even be jealous of the fact that I can live in clear conscious and my relationship with God is on a "fist bump, pound a few brews back with my bro J.C." kind of way.



> There is no one good. Not one person. Scripture is clear on that.



That's a pretty good scare tactic in order to make people believe they need salvation from something they didn't do.



> Jesus told us that everyone who sins is a slave to sin, and Paul went as  far as saying that we are captives of the devil himself. And because we  are slaves to sin, we are blinded to God's truth. Ephesians 4:18 says  that we are darkened in our understanding and our hearts are like stone.  According to 2 Corinthians 4:4, we can't even see Christ because of the  depth of our spiritual blindness.



Ephesians and Corinthians are essentially St. Paul using old school Facebook (it was called "letters" back then, kids) to keep in touch with other Christians and let them know what he essentially believed God wanted and expected from his people.  This is specifically NOT the Word of God since Paul takes ownership as author of the letters.  It's all him, attempting to remember what Jesus told him years before while he was in prison.  And I don't know if you realize this, but memory has a tendency to fade and we don't always remember things verbatim as they were told to us unless they were written down at the time.  As far as we know, Jesus didn't have a personal stenographer following him around as he was cruising through Israel.  So for those letters we're going off of the memory of a man secluded in prison for God knows how long in desert heat.



> The Bible describes us as enemies of God and objects of His wrath. We  are spiritually dead and eternally separated from God.  What's worse is  that we can do nothing to change our status before God. No one who is  morally evil can choose good, no man who is a slave can set himself  free, no woman who is blind can give herself sight, no one who is an  object of wrath can appease that wrath, and no person who is dead can  cause himself to come to life.



You have a very Dark Ages view of God, don't you?  You're essentially arguing that God resents us, which kinds of goes against the whole "loving God" idea.  I think you're living in the wrong age to still cling so closely on to Old Testament, vengeful God who's going to smite us at the drop of a hat.  Are you like the chick on You Tube who said that the Japanese Earthquake was God's doing?  That he was answering prayers during the Lent season in order to make people more aware of him by killing a bunch of people and spewing radiation everywhere?



> We are not evil, we think, and certainly not spiritually dead. Haven't  you heard the power of positive thinking? I can become a better me and  experience my best life now. That's why God is there--to make that  happen. My life is not going right, but God loves me and has a plan to  fix my life. I simply need to follow certain steps, think certain  things, and check off certain boxes, then I am good.



God's plan doesn't necessarily help anyone get through their lives.  You can believe in fate and destiny, but really, I'd like to think that a person's own ability to recognize something they want and drive to achieve it is a much better story than, "God willed that Term_the_Schmuck becomes a video producer, and so it was."  My life is right, I've done very little that I've regretted and I'm living a decent life attempting to educate my fellow man on the lives and issues surrounding us everyday that normally never see the light of day.  That is the purpose I've created for myself and I didn't need to ask God to tell me what that purpose was going to be.  "God helps those who help themselves" and all that.



> Note the contrast, however, when you diagnose the problem biblically.  The modern day Gospel  says, "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for  your life. Therefore, follow these steps and you can be saved."  Meanwhile the biblical Gospel says, "You are an enemy of God, dead in  your sin, and in your present state of rebellion, you are not even able  to see that you need life, much less to cause yourself to come to life.  Therefore, you are radically dependent on God to do something in your  life that you could never do."
> 
> The former sells books and draws crowds. The latter saves souls. Which is more important?



The former does more to help people live their lives to the fullest and can help improve their quality of life or opinions of themselves.  The latter is a scare tactic which was developed by people wanting power more than them wanting to help save people.  Save people by doing good deeds, don't try to save them by scaring them into blind faith.  Otherwise you run the risk of someone going on a killing spree exacting God's judgment on innocent people because he wants to "save them".

So which is more important?  The one that doesn't rely on 17th century Puritan logic.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 28, 2011)

QuinnWOLF said:


> Wow im christian but i dont take ot that rediculously serious, especially on a FORUM. Un less its a christian forum we cant really preach the bible because it OFFENDS people, dude....


 
"In everything we do, do it for the glory of God."

Being a christian doesn't mean only being a Christian when one feels like it or when its convenient. It means being a christian at all times. Just because people find Christianity offensive doesn't mean we don't speak the Gospel. "Remember Go forth and make disciples of all nations." That does not say, go forth and only preach to those who want to hear or where you are welcome. If people don't like the message, they don't have to read it. They are not being forced. Its not like I am hacking FA and putting what I say on its front page, nor am I duct taping people to their chairs and taping their eyes open forcing them to read what I write.

No where in Scripture does it say we are not to preach the Word of God just because some people find it offensive.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 28, 2011)

I swear to God this motherfucker is not even talking to us as much as to himself.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 28, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The former sells books and draws crowds. The latter saves souls. Which is more important?


 
So the Bible has not only been changed, and things omitted, but it has been changed to _sell itself, and lure people in with nice kind words?

_Faith and Begorrah! A revelation!


----------



## Riley (Mar 28, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> *We know the Bible is the word of God because it says so. *


 
I am a magical flying octagon that exists in all 29 dimensions simultaneously, and am currently waging celestial battles with copies of myself from each one.

*I am right because I say so.*

Herpderp.



> *There is no picking and choosing what parts of  the Bible you like and don't like.*


*

*Haha, hypocrisy, I get it.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 28, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Would God let His Word be muddled by man?  Well, to be honest, yes.  Since you want to take the Bible as fact, God essentially set us up to our own demise by putting the apple tree in the Garden.  Why risk spoiling his creations by arbitrarily putting an apple tree in the Garden that Adam and Eve couldn't eat from?  Scripture shows God as a bit of a sociopath at times, which really works if you're going to get people to be Christian by making them live in constant fear of the unknown, the same tactics used by governments today for their people to give up their freedoms for "security".


God gave us that choice so we would freely love Him. If He didn't give us that choice then it would be forced love. And forced love is not real love.



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> The Bible isn't the crux of the religion.  You personally decided to set that as the benchmark of your faith in God.  I decide to set my benchmark on people who've done something with their faith to improve the lives of the less fortunate, who follow the examples of Christ through their actions.  Guys like Dikembe Mutombo reaffirm my faith in not only God, but the potential for the human race to rise up and overcome.


Belief in Christ Jesus is the crux of the Bible. But just because you believe, that doesn't mean one is saved. For even the demons believe in Jesus. And the Human Race apart from God can accomplish nothing good. 




Term_the_Schmuck said:


> You're setting that benchmark for yourself.  You see doubting the Bible as a sin, I see it as not buying into literature's best marketing ploy.  You're using circular logic to explain why the Bible HAS to be true.  If I want to look at God's Word, then all I have to do is drive 5 minutes to the beach, watch the sun come up over the Atlantic, hear the seagulls waking up and calling out with each other mixing in to the music of the waves breaking over the shoreline.  That speaks volumes more to me than "Listen to me, or else."



But my question is, if you don't read the Word of God, where do you  learn about Christ and His teachings? Where do you learn why Christ had  to come and save us. And what we are being saved from? The thing is, you aleady know of God's Word, you can't claim ignorance from it. You have seen it, read it, and said its not true.





Term_the_Schmuck said:


> You mad bro?  It seems like you're more upset about the idea that I can worship Christ and God without having to put in the extensive man-hours you have in study groups and so on.  You refuse to believe that anyone can choose to worship a Christian God outside your prearranged rituals which don't exactly inspire anyone to want to join in the faith.  The Catholic Church already observed this idea once before when they decided to switch things up and celebrating mass in English instead of the traditional Latin.  When that happened it was seen as probably one of the biggest blasphemies one could think of, yet because the people in charge decide it's okay, then we're supposed to take it as it is, regardless if that's God's true intentions or not.


No, I am upset that you and many others turn Christianity into this free flowing lovey dovey faith and God just pats you on the back and says "Oh, its okay, try harder next time." You see God is not just a God of love. Just limiting Him to that is woefully inadequate. He is also a God of perfect justice and wrath. I am upset that you try and conform what little Scripture you do agree with into, to modern society. You don't get to change what God says, you don't get to choose what is, and is not relevant. The Christianity you paint is not the Christianity that in the Gospel. 
Remember, Matthew 7:21-23?

Not everyone who says to me, â€˜Lord, Lord,â€™  will enter the kingdom of heaven, *but only the one who does the will of  my Father who is in heaven.*   Many will say to me on that day, â€˜Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in  your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform  many miracles?â€™  Then I will tell them plainly, â€˜I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!â€™

Think about that. Christ said many times that not all those who think they are saved really are, The road is narrow, and Christ Himself said it is the path of the few. My greatest fear, is that many of the so called "Christians" Are not ready to face judgment. Because they will be in for one rude awakening.







Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I never said Jesus is only an Idea.  I said that the idea is bigger than the man himself.  Basing the religion solely on the suffering of Jesus instead of his teachings on humility and good will is what leads to things like the Crusades where people kill in His name.  I'm fairly certain God wouldn't have sent himself down here to be a martyr just to give people another reason to kill each other.  Somewhere along the lines people stopped listening to his words and focused more on his death and resurrection, which is cool and all, but it's kind of missing the point of being a better person if that's someone's justification for intolerance and waging holy wars



basing the faith solely on conjecture and personal feelings doesn't work either dude. Saying that the Bible preaches some form of universalism is flat out wrong. The reason the Father sent His Son to Die, was to save us not from sin per say, but from the wrath of God. Because we are under the judgment of sin.

We are not saved from our sins because Jesus was falsely tried by Jewish  and Roman officials and sentenced by Pilate to die. Neither are we  saved because the Roman persecutors thrust nails into the hands and feet  of Christ and hung Him on a cross.

Do we really think that the false judgment of men heaped upon Christ  would pay for a debt for all of humankind's sin? Do we really think that  a crown of thorns and whips and nails and a wooden cross and all the  other facets of the crucifixion that we glamorize are powerful enough to  save us?

Picture Christ in the garden of Gethsemane. As He kneels before His  Father, drops of sweat and blood fall together from His head. Why is He  is such pain and agony? The answer is not because He is afraid of  crucifixion. He is not trembling because of what the Roman soldiers are  about to do to him.
Listen to His words, "My Father, if it is all possible, may this cup be  taken from me." This "cup" is not a reference to a wooden cross; it is a  reference of divine judgment. It is the cup of God's wrath.

This is what Jesus was recoiling from in the garden. All of God's holy  wrath and hatred toward sin and sinners, stored up since the beginning  of the world, is about to be poured out on Him, and He is sweating blood  at the thought of it.





Term_the_Schmuck said:


> You've done nothing but spin His Word since you started posting here on religion.  Every instance of violence that was ordained by God or his followers as mentioned in the Bible you've dismissed as "out of context" or "that's just not right, it's like this."  Which is fine if that's how you want to see it, but the fact of the matter is that's what's written in the text and you nor I can deny that there's some pretty messed up laws and policies listed in the Bible whose punishments often are carried out by death.
> 
> You keep talking about God giving us authority, but the one Scripture passage that essentially nullifies it all is John 8:7 "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".  And since you're so intent on believing that there's absolutely no good in pretty much anyone, then that pretty much kills any passage you'd like to bring up about our authority to pass judgment on other people.



Every time God instructed His people to kill, or anytime God has struck someone down, God was completely justified in doing so.

Actually, we have authority to pass judgment.

John 7:24
Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.â€ 

1 Corinthians 2:15
The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 

Proverbs 31:9
Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy. 

Galations 6:1
Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are  spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on  yourself, lest you too be tempted. 

Matthew 7:15
â€œBeware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 

That verse is casting judgment on false teachers, and we are to emulate Christ.

Matthew 7:12
â€œSo whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. 

Matthew 18:15â€“17 
â€œIf your brother sins against you,a go and show him his fault, just  between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother  over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that  â€˜every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three  witnesses.â€™ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and  if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a  pagan or a tax collector.  

James 5:20 
remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins. 

2 Timothy 4:2 
Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct,  rebuke and encourageâ€”with great patience and careful instruction. 

What is being talked about in the verse you put up, is condemning someone. Which, is entirely different that judging someone. 
Scripture tells us what is right and what is wrong. And when we hold to  that, then yes, we as Christians will be judging others. How else does  one point out sin, or be able to say [insert here] is wrong. How can we  hold to Scripture if we cannot discern right from wrong?

We are to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). We are to proclaim  what God's Word says about sin. 2 Timothy 4:2  instructs us, "Preach the  Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and  encourage â€” with great patience and careful instruction." We are to  "judge" sin, but always with the goal of presenting the solution for sin  and its consequencesâ€”the Lord Jesus Christ (John 14:6).                                                

And lastly, if we cannot judge people, then we cannot forgive people.  Because the first step in forgiveness is judging someone. Because you  have to judge what someone did to you was wrong. And if you cannot judge  someones behavior, how can you forgive them?




Term_the_Schmuck said:


> You're implying that we need saving.  Again, if we're going to take the Bible literally here, God pretty much slapped us on the wrist, kicked us out of Eden and said "Good luck!".  Aside from delivering commandments and letting Jesus bum around Mesopotamia for a few years, he essentially has give us free reign to choose our own paths.  Saving implies that we are in some sort of danger.  As I said, I don't believe we are inherently bad creatures.  We become bad based on our action and in those instances, yes we might require the need to be saved.  As for me and the countless other Christians like myself, I don't believe that there's an urgent need to be saved right away otherwise Satan's got a big ol' crater of lava warmed up for me.
> 
> Again, I think this is more about you being mad that I'm worshiping in my own way under Catholicism and not putting in the time and effort you are.  I dare say you might even be jealous of the fact that I can live in clear conscious and my relationship with God is on a "fist bump, pound a few brews back with my bro J.C." kind of way.
> 
> That's a pretty good scare tactic in order to make people believe they need salvation from something they didn't do.



Dude, are you suggesting that humanity doesn't need saving? Hello!!! Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death  through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all  sinned.

The moment we were born, we were born into the bondage of slavery. And that slavery would be sin. For all have sinned all fallen short of the glory of God. Not one man does good. What part of these verses do you not understand? Scripture tells us flat out we are evil from the get-go. Not one person seeks after God alone. We are inherently evil. Again, I could put up passage after passage that says this. But yet again, you personally don't like that so you just rip those pages out and throw them away. You are trying to make Christianity conform to what you want it to say, and not what it really says.








Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Ephesians and Corinthians are essentially St. Paul using old school Facebook (it was called "letters" back then, kids) to keep in touch with other Christians and let them know what he essentially believed God wanted and expected from his people.  This is specifically NOT the Word of God since Paul takes ownership as author of the letters.  It's all him, attempting to remember what Jesus told him years before while he was in prison.  And I don't know if you realize this, but memory has a tendency to fade and we don't always remember things verbatim as they were told to us unless they were written down at the time.  As far as we know, Jesus didn't have a personal stenographer following him around as he was cruising through Israel.  So for those letters we're going off of the memory of a man secluded in prison for God knows how long in desert heat.



Hello!! Yet again, the Only time Paul met face to face with Christ was on the road to Damacus when Saul was persecuting the Church. Then and their he ceased being Saul and became Paul. But Paul never met Jesus before Christ ascended to heaven. And the only thing Jesus Christ said to Paul face to face was "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me." Thats it. Jesus did not give Paul a sparknotes copy of His teachings on the road to Damascus. And yet again, to say that an entire chunk of the Bible is not the Word of God, well let me put it bluntly, thats blasphemous.

Who are you to decide what is, and isn't not Scripture in the Bible? Who are you so say when God is right and when He is wrong? Who are you indeed. Were you there in the beginning before time itself began?
And staright from the LORD:

*â€œBrace yourself like a man; 
   I will question you, 
   and you shall answer me.  â€œWould you discredit my justice? 
   Would you condemn me to justify yourself? 
 Do you have an arm like Godâ€™s, 
   and can your voice thunder like his? 
Then adorn yourself with glory and splendor, 
   and clothe yourself in honor and majesty. 
 Unleash the fury of your wrath, 
   look at all who are proud and bring them low, 
 look at all who are proud and humble them, 
   crush the wicked where they stand. 
 Bury them all in the dust together; 
   shroud their faces in the grave. *
*
There is a God, you are not Him.*



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> You have a very Dark Ages view of God, don't you?  You're essentially arguing that God resents us, which kinds of goes against the whole "loving God" idea.  I think you're living in the wrong age to still cling so closely on to Old Testament, vengeful God who's going to smite us at the drop of a hat.  Are you like the chick on You Tube who said that the Japanese Earthquake was God's doing?  That he was answering prayers during the Lent season in order to make people more aware of him by killing a bunch of people and spewing radiation everywhere?


No, I understand that God is more than just a loving Father. I don't try and put Him in a box and define Him. I don't shy away from hard passages just because they say things that hurt or are hard to read. I understand that yes, God is a God of love, mercy and Grace, but He is also a God of righteous wrath. I am telling you that we are absoluetely nothing without God. I am telling you that every single person on this planet is under judgment. You cannot preach Salvation without telling people what they need to be saved from.

The most basic concept of all of this, is this: God is not merely saving us from sin, He is saving us from HIS OWN JUDGMENT AND WRATH. One could even say, that God is saving us from Himself.



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> God's plan doesn't necessarily help anyone get through their lives.  You can believe in fate and destiny, but really, I'd like to think that a person's own ability to recognize something they want and drive to achieve it is a much better story than, "God willed that Term_the_Schmuck becomes a video producer, and so it was."  My life is right, I've done very little that I've regretted and I'm living a decent life attempting to educate my fellow man on the lives and issues surrounding us everyday that normally never see the light of day.  That is the purpose I've created for myself and I didn't need to ask God to tell me what that purpose was going to be.  "God helps those who help themselves" and all that.



We have no abilities apart from God. What the Lord gave to us, He can take away. We own NOTHING.

God helps us because we CANNOT help ourselves, Trying to say we can help ourselves turns salvation into a works based system.



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> The former does more to help people live their lives to the fullest and can help improve their quality of life or opinions of themselves.  The latter is a scare tactic which was developed by people wanting power more than them wanting to help save people.  Save people by doing good deeds, don't try to save them by scaring them into blind faith.  Otherwise you run the risk of someone going on a killing spree exacting God's judgment on innocent people because he wants to "save them".
> 
> So which is more important?  The one that doesn't rely on 17th century Puritan logic.


 
The former is an Americanized Gospel that lets us continue what we like to do. The former does not show us or tell us to completely surrender everything we are to Christ, pick up our own cross and follow Him. The Former preaches this life is good and we deserve all these things. The former teaches that its up to us to save ourselves and salvation is a works based system. The former gives man credit where no credit is due.

The Latter paints the clear picture of what Jesus taught. It paints a clear picture of why Jesus died, and what He died for. The latter preaches the unadulterated, pure, Word of God. And it shows us how desperately wee need Jesus Christ.

remember, God doesn't need us, Jesus doesn't need us.

And the latter Gospel is why men and women risk their lives around the world to know more about Him. This is why we must avoid cheap caricatures of Christianity that fail to exalt the revelation of God in His Word. This is why you and I cannot settle for anything less than a God centered, Christ exhausting, self denying Gospel.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 28, 2011)

Jesus fucking holy TL;DR Batman


----------



## LizardKing (Mar 28, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Jesus fucking holy TL;DR Batman


 
When you say this it's a good indication of way-too-much-fucking-text syndrome.


----------



## Riley (Mar 28, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Jesus fucking holy TL;DR Batman


 
Well, it _is_ Rukh, so you can be sure half of it's just copypasta'd bible quotes, and the rest is basically just repeating all those in ways that are hilariously bigoted.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 28, 2011)

No Rukh that is not true I am not a Jew I am *Frencsh*
but
I think you are right still, I am not very pure and I am working on my purity
*VODKER TRIPUL DISTILED*

That is what brother Rukh says
and
he is a... Borned Again CHRISTMUS

Rukh I would like to be borned again
but
I do not want to go near me mum's fanny again
I would think I like to be born out of a right beautiful lady
who has a fanny what has not been stretched as much


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 28, 2011)

This reminds me of what had happened Friday: A bunch of Christians entered the mosque a block away from my house and interrupted the Muslim's friday prayer to preach the word of their Christian God.


----------



## Thatch (Mar 28, 2011)

"Thou shall not kill"



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Every time God instructed His people to kill, or anytime God has struck someone down, God was completely justified in doing so.


 
Oh, alright, I think I'll listen to God and go kill me some infidels, then.


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 28, 2011)

Thatch said:


> Oh, alright, I think I'll listen to God and go kill me some infidels, then.


 
Remember: it is wrong to kill....unless God says so.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 28, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> I swear to God this motherfucker is not even talking to us as much as to himself.


 


Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> This reminds me of what had happened Friday: A bunch of Christians entered the mosque a block away from my house and interrupted the Muslim's friday prayer to preach the word of their Christian God.


 
Rukh is basically the internet equivalent of one of those street corner preachers. Like in the first two minutesish of this movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Eam-z1bwrk

Even if we bother shouting him down it's not like he'll ever listen. The psychology behind fundies is fascinating and fightening.


----------



## Thatch (Mar 28, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Remember: it is wrong to kill....unless God says so.


 
But God speaks to me. All I do is fulfill his wishes.



He chose me for his holy task.


----------



## Discord Nova (Mar 28, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> This reminds me of what had happened Friday: A bunch of Christians entered the mosque a block away from my house and interrupted the Muslim's friday prayer to preach the word of their Christian God.


/
Even though i am a christian, i find this fucking retarded. Cant the muslims believe in their god? I mean im not gonna force someone to believe what i believe, its just plain retarded.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 28, 2011)

QuinnWOLF said:


> /
> Even though i am a christian, i find this fucking retarded. Cant the muslims believe in their god? I mean im not gonna force someone to believe what i believe, its just plain retarded.


 
You do realize you guys are supposed to believe in the same God, right?


----------



## Discord Nova (Mar 28, 2011)

Oh what i meant was that everyone can have their own beliefs. Im a christian, and i have different beliefs than the muslims. I believe people are entitled to their own beliefs, whether they be an atheist or anything else.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 28, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> You do realize you guys are supposed to believe in the same God, right?


 
Not even close dude. Allah does not equal Yahweh.


----------



## Bambi (Mar 28, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Not even close dude. Allah does not equal Yahweh.


Historically and culturally, he does.

Different scripture, same God; same messengers and angles.

Gibral=Gabriel.


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 28, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Not even close dude. Allah does not equal Yahweh.


 
It's all the same Abrahamic religion, just more circle jerking on whose religion is correct. :V
Same region, same circle-jerk.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Mar 28, 2011)

Bambi said:


> Historically and culturally, he does.
> 
> Different scripture, same God; same messengers and angles.
> 
> Gibral=Gabriel.


 
Blame God for blessing Ishmael.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Matthew 7:15
> â€œBeware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
> 
> That verse is casting judgment on false teachers, and we are to emulate Christ.



I'll be remembering this one Freddy.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 28, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> It's all the same Abrahamic religion, just more circle jerking on whose religion is correct. :V
> Same region, same circle-jerk.


 
Do I really, really have to spell out the differences and show that God is not the same as Allah?

They deny Christ as the Son of God. Anyone who denies the Son of God, denies the Father, ergo Islam does not worship the real biblical God.




ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> Blame God for blessing Ishmael.


 
Blame Abram for that actually, Abram was not faithful to God when God send He would have a son with his wife. (at the age of 90)
So he slept with his servant and his servant became pregnant at gave birth to Ishmael.


----------



## Grendel (Mar 28, 2011)

I follow a loose amalgamation of Judaisism, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism. It suits me. As for the death of religion I find this interesting but unlikely. The closer religion is to "death" the more fundamental and obsessive it's followers will become to counter the percieved threat. They will see themselves as martyrs. I sadly suspect that any such decline or end to religion will be marked by bloodshed.


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 28, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Do I really, really have to spell out the differences and show that God is not the same as Allah?
> 
> They deny Christ as the Son of God. Anyone who denies the Son of God, denies the Father, ergo Islam does not worship the real biblical God.


 
And this is the type of Circle-jerk attitude I am referring to. if the Abrahimic religions weren't so uptight and had the "Good book" up their ass to realize that the scriptures, myth AND THE SAME GOD are one in the same.
Preachyness aside, you need to bone up on your history on the middle east...and talk to some unbiased Muslims and jews.
maybe take an Arabic and hebrew class while you are at it.


----------



## Lobar (Mar 28, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Do I really, really have to spell out the differences and show that God is not the same as Allah?
> 
> They deny Christ as the Son of God. Anyone who denies the Son of God, denies the Father, ergo Islam does not worship the real biblical God.


 
So do Jews, are you going to tell them they don't worship the same God that commanded Moses to lead them out of Egypt?


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Mar 28, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Blame Abram for that actually, Abram was not faithful to God when God send He would have a son with his wife. (at the age of 90)
> So he slept with his servant and his servant became pregnant at gave birth to Ishmael.


 
God still didn't have to bless Ishmael, the onus is on Him.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 28, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> And this is the type of Circle-jerk attitude I am referring to. if the Abrahimic religions weren't so uptight and had the "Good book" up their ass to realize that the scriptures, myth AND THE SAME GOD are one in the same.
> Preachyness aside, you need to bone up on your history on the middle east...and talk to some unbiased Muslims and jews.
> maybe take an Arabic and hebrew class while you are at it.


 
And people like you should sit down and study Christianity and Islam side by side you you can see the major differences between the 2 books. That they contradict each other. Two things that contradict each other cannot both be true. Add to that if you studied both you would realize that we don't worship the same God.


----------



## Riley (Mar 28, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And people like you should sit down and study Christianity and Islam side by side you you can see the major differences between the 2 books. That they contradict each other. Two things that contradict each other cannot both be true. Add to that if you studied both you would realize that we don't worship the same God.


 Religion contradicting itself?!  Say it ain't so!


----------



## Bambi (Mar 28, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Do I really, really have to spell out the differences and show that God is not the same as Allah?


What's the effort?

Muhammad believed in the religion of your God. His diction of the messages Gabriel brought to him are the Quran. Also? In arabic, Allah is the literal word for the God of Abraham. And the Quran is just a completed diction of Gabriels verses to Muhammad from God; different scriptures, different cultures, same deity.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> They deny Christ as the Son of God. Anyone who denies the Son of God, denies the Father, ergo Islam does not worship the real biblical God.


It is a universal belief in the God of Abraham.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Blame Abram for that actually, Abram was not faithful to God when God send He would have a son with his wife. (at the age of 90)
> So he slept with his servant and his servant became pregnant at gace birth to Ishmael.


A xenophobic parable to acknowledge the tribal and cultural differences of Mesopotamia and the peoples of Arabia, as well as to acknowledge the integration of monotheistic belief systems in places where polytheism once ruled supreme, is still a xenophobic parable. A story meant to read the history of another people like they're the bastard sons of God, all of you forgetting very keenly that according to your own rules, God loves them just as equally as he loves you.

And wanted that to happen.


----------



## Grendel (Mar 28, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And people like you should sit down and study Christianity and Islam side by side you you can see the major differences between the 2 books. That they contradict each other. Two things that contradict each other cannot both be true. Add to that if you studied both you would realize that we don't worship the same God.



The similarities far outweigh the differences. If you judge the Scriptures of each by their small differences you are missing the wonder of the Word of God. By ignoring or dismissing these numerous similarities with no true reason or backing you are pruposefully being obtuse.


----------



## Grendel (Mar 28, 2011)

Bambi said:


> God loves them just as equally as he loves you.



This is the important thing here. Beyond all insignificant and petty differences God loves us all.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Mar 28, 2011)

Grendel said:


> This is the important thing here. Beyond all insignificant and petty differences God loves us all.


 
Just before he wants to kill everyone, according to Ruhk according to scripture.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 28, 2011)

Riley said:


> Religion contradicting itself?!  Say it ain't so!


 
And his, of course, is correct. Amirite?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 28, 2011)

Lobar said:


> So do Jews, are you going to tell them they don't worship the same God that commanded Moses to lead them out of Egypt?


 Read Scripture, Jesus said the Jews denied him. The promise of eternal life was originally meant for just the Jews. But since the Jews denied Christ, now eternal life it made available to all. Second, as Jesus said, anyone who denies me denies the Father. Can get any clearer than that.


Bambi said:


> What's the effort?
> 
> Muhammad believed in the religion of your God. His diction of the messages Gabriel brought to him are the Quran. Also? In arabic, Allah is the literal word for the God of Abraham. And the Quran is just a completed diction of Gabriels verses to Muhammad from God; different scriptures, different cultures, same deity.It is a universal belief in the God of Abraham.A xenophobic parable to acknowledge the tribal and cultural differences of Mesopotamia and the peoples of Arabia, as well as to acknowledge the integration of monotheistic belief systems in places where polytheism once ruled supreme, is still a xenophobic parable. A story meant to read the history of another people like they're the bastard sons of God, all of you forgetting very keenly that according to your own rules, God loves them just as equally as he loves you.



  Mohammad is more in line with the Jewish Law then with Christianity. Both of those religions teach only the Law. And yet not one person can fully obey the Law, not one person is justified by the Law, not one person is saved by the Law. Christianity teaches that man can only be saved by grace, not by works. Add to that Islam tells us that God is not a God of love, mercy or grace. Islam teaches that salvation is by good works. But, here is the problem:

The Law of God is perfect.  We are not.  God is perfect and Holy.  We  are not.  We are not able to keep the Law of God because we are finite,  limited, and affected by sin.  So we have to ask how can anyone ever  hope to please God through keeping the Law?  How can anyone ever hope to  please God and attain heaven by doing good deeds?  It is not ourselves  that we must please, but a Holy and Pure God.

Mohammad only reiterated what the Torah says, he only rewrote for his own people the Law of Moses. But he left out the key fact of the Messiah. He left out that not one man can keep the Law.

And as I said before, Islam teaches Jesus was just a prophet, but how can a mere prophet forgive sins? How can a mere prphet say he is equal with the Father? How can a mere prophet say that salvation is only through him alone?

A mere prophet cannot say these things. So, Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic or He really is the Son of God. And nobody says Jesus' teachings are bad, a lunatic wouldn't teach what He did he certainly isn't a liar. So that leaves us with only one possibility. That Jesus is God.

And lastly Jesus is the ONLY one who said "I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me."


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 28, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Two things that contradict each other cannot both be true. .


 
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

Here is a list of 457 contradictions in the bible.

The Bible contradicts the Bible.

Because they contradict, either the bible is false or the bible is false.

Congrats Rukh, you just proved the bible false!


----------



## Lobar (Mar 28, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Read Scripture, Jesus said the Jews denied him. The promise of eternal life was originally meant for just the Jews. But since the Jews denied Christ, now eternal life it made available to all. Second, as Jesus said, anyone who denies me denies the Father. Can get any clearer than that.


 
It can get clearer than that, "yes" or "no" work pretty well.  For all your answer's supposed clarity it comes across as quite a dodge.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 28, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
> 
> Here is a list of 457 contradictions in the bible.
> 
> ...


 

How many times have I said, that entire website (Yes I have been there and have read what they claim) Leaves out key verses, they shorten verses to say what they want it to say, leave out Key passages to make it appear that they are correct. But when one digs into Scripture and reads it as a whole, it is shown how wrong that website is.

Ad to that, I asked you before, You expect me to believe a website? How do you know they are actually putting down real Scripture passges? How do you know what they write is correct? How do you know they are not leaving anything out? You don't know, you take it all on face value. And if you can't even to the research yourself, why should anyone listen to you?

You accuse me of copy pasting and yet here you are doing the same exact thing... 

As I said before, when Deo put of 40 some verses that appear to contradict each other, I went through every single verse, and gave full detailed explanations for all of them. And after that people just moved onto to another "argument" and changed subjects. You can dig through the Religion Megathread and see for yourself.

But if your not willing to actually do the research yourself, then don't expect me to entertain anything you say.



Lobar said:


> It can get clearer than that, "yes" or "no" work  pretty well.  For all your answer's supposed clarity it comes across as  quite a dodge.


 
Jesus did say He was God,

John 8:56-59
Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.â€ â€œYou are not yet fifty years old,â€ they said to him, â€œand you have seen Abraham!â€ 
â€œVery truly I tell you,â€ Jesus answered, *â€œbefore Abraham was born, I am!*â€ (Guess who else said I AM? God...) At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds. 



Now, why did the Jews want to kill Jesus? Its explained here:
John 10:33
"We are not stoning you for any good work,â€ they replied, â€œbut for blasphemy, *because you, a mere man, claim to be God.â€

*The Jews understood what Jesus was saying, Jesus said He was God.

So yes, Jesus was very clear in saying He is God.


----------



## Aleu (Mar 28, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> How many times have I said, that entire website (Yes I have been there and have read what they claim) Leaves out key verses, they shorten verses to say what they want it to say, leave out Key passages to make it appear that they are correct. But when one digs into Scripture and reads it as a whole, it is shown how wrong that website is.
> 
> Ad to that, I asked you before, You expect me to believe a website? How do you know they are actually putting down real Scripture passges? How do you know what they write is correct? How do you know they are not leaving anything out? You don't know, you take it all on face value. And if you can't even to the research yourself, why should anyone listen to you?
> 
> ...


 He actually links to the source. You don't. You not only copy-paste but plagiarize.

Explain to me why we are expected to believe someone who says "I am God." 
I can do nice things and claim to be a goddess yet you'll say I'm a fake.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 28, 2011)

AleutheWolf said:


> He actually links to the source. You don't. You not only copy-paste but plagiarize.
> 
> Explain to me why we are expected to believe someone who says "I am God."
> I can do nice things and claim to be a goddess yet you'll say I'm a fake.



I have linked, but everyone's response is "Why should we believe what this website says?" So it doesn't matter if I link what Christian websites I go to or not.

And for why you should believe in God, Read the teachings of Jesus. If you say that His teachings are good, then why do you doubt His claim? Either Jesus is a lunatic, a liar, or He really is God.
Jesus didn't do just nice things, He cast out demons, He raised people from the dead with just His voice, He controls the whether with His mere outstretched hand. No man can do those things. He foretold of His death on a cross and His ressurection in 3 days. Jesus fulfilled over 80 Messianic Prophecies. The statistics for that to happen are nearly impossible. 

God beckons storm clouds, and they come. He tells the wind to blow and  the rain to fall, and they obey immediately. He speaks to the mountains,  "you go there," and to the seas, "you stop here," and they do it.  Everything in all creation responds in obedience to the Creator...until  we get to you and me. We have the audacity to look God in the face and  say, "No."


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 28, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> How do I know these bible verses are true? I answered 40 bible quotes! You're just copy pasting!


 
You've read the entire bible already, yes? You should have already seen these then. I personally checked each of them against my bible. This IS the supposed word after all, so you should be aware of all these verses. So here's 475ish for you to reply to. Better get cracking!

And unlike you, I don't lie about where I get them. Wheras YOU have a reputation for repeated lying, and have before- even in this very thread- said that lying for your god is a good thing. This is not how one builds credibility.


----------



## Aleu (Mar 29, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I have linked, but everyone's response is "Why should we believe what this website says?" So it doesn't matter if I link what Christian websites I go to or not.
> 
> And for why you should believe in God, Read the teachings of Jesus. If you say that His teachings are good, then why do you doubt His claim? Either Jesus is a lunatic, a liar, or He really is God.
> Jesus didn't do just nice things, He cast out demons, He raised people from the dead with just His voice, He controls the whether with His mere outstretched hand. No man can do those things. He foretold of His death on a cross and His ressurection in 3 days. Jesus fulfilled over 80 Messianic Prophecies. The statistics for that to happen are nearly impossible.
> ...



Dude, I've never seen you link anything. At all. Period. Maybe after you were called out on plagiarism but never linking off the bat.

Also, I killed myself, went to Hell, and fought Satan himself. Worship me :V


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 29, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> And as I said before, Islam teaches Jesus was just a prophet, but how can a mere prophet forgive sins? How can a mere prphet say he is equal with the Father? How can a mere prophet say that salvation is only through him alone?



Um, he can't. That's sorta just it. They don't believe him to be what you believe him to be. Hell, they don't even believe he was crucified, but imo their reasons for believing that bit are as ridiculous as you believing Muslims to be followers of a false god just because they don't believe Jesus to be a manifestation of that god. Yet they believe he and not Muhammed, the supposed last prophet will return for the Apocalypse. No one ever accused their beliefs of being too straight forward, but they're still entitled to believe what they do.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 29, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> You've read the entire bible already, yes? You should have already seen these then. I personally checked each of them against my bible. This IS the supposed word after all, so you should be aware of all these verses. So here's 475ish for you to reply to. Better get cracking!


 
Do you want me to go through the entire list and actually post it up on here? Seriously? I can. And you shouldn't challenge me in that, I am rather well known for putting up massive posts. Can you imagine how big that post would be? Would you even read it to begin with? Or, like always would you just say too long, didn't read. And then change the subject?
I work the rest of this week, so it will take me time to go through and explain 457 verses. But I can.




Wolf-Bone said:


> Um, he can't. That's sorta just it. They don't  believe him to be what you believe him to be. Hell, they don't even  believe he was crucified, but imo their reasons for believing that bit  are as ridiculous as you believing Muslims to be followers of a false  god just because they don't believe Jesus to be a manifestation of that  god. Yet they believe he and not Muhammed, the supposed last prophet  will return for the Apocalypse. No one ever accused their beliefs of  being too straight forward, but they're still entitled to believe what  they do.


 
Yet Islam hold Jesus as just a prophet. But this prophet said He is God. Which according to Law, any man (Who is not the Son of God) Claiming to be God, is blasphemy. So Islam teaches Blasphemy by their own belief in Jesus not being God.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 29, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> hoe pig



Yes, you most certainly are.



			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> Yet Islam hold Jesus as just a prophet. But this prophet said He is God. Which according to Law, any man (Who is not the Son of God) Claiming to be God, is blasphemy. So Islam teaches Blasphemy by their own belief in Jesus not being God.



Do you know for a fact they believe their version of Jesus claimed all those things though? I know they believe the bits about his miracles being true, reasoning that a human can work miracles through God's will, but they also believe he "ascended" without dying first, so they don't believe the same things about Jesus as Christians.


----------



## Bambi (Mar 29, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Read Scripture, Jesus said the Jews denied him. The promise of eternal life was originally meant for just the Jews. *But since the Jews denied Christ, now eternal life it made available to all.*


Apparently a Jew doesn't have to practice Christianity to be saved by God. Now it's the same scenario with Muslims, in that they too don't have to practice Judaic scripture in order to be saved by the God of Abraham. 





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Second, as Jesus said, anyone who denies me denies the Father. Can get any clearer than that.


Okay, so what's the contention with Muslims having a different scripture for the same God?





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Mohammad is more in line with the Jewish Law then with Christianity.


And if it wasn't for Jews, you more than likely would not have had Christianity.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 29, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Do you know for a fact they believe their version of Jesus claimed all those things though? I know they believe the bits about his miracles being true, reasoning that a human can work miracles through God's will, but they also believe he "ascended" without dying first, so they don't believe the same things about Jesus as Christians.


 
Again, a mere prophet cannot be a prophet from God is HE CLAIMS TO BE GOD. That would put him on equal status with God. And that is why Lucifer was cast out of Heaven, he wanted to be God.
And by the Law, a mere man, even a prophet cannot claim to be perfect, without sin, and certainly cannot claim to be equal with God. Those things are blasphemous for a mere man to claim.
So Islam just onits those parts by saying the Bible isn't correct. Even thou we have manuscript proof that Jesus said that He is God.

So, yet again, if Jesus is not God, then Islam teaches blasphemy because a mere prophet cannot claim to be God and be a prophet of God.



Bambi said:


> Apparently a Jew doesn't have to practice  Christianity to be saved by God, just the same as a Muslim doesn't have  practice Judaism for that.



In order to be saved by God, one has to believe in the essentials of Christ teachings: 
the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, Jesus' Physical Resurrection, Virgin Birth, Salvation by Grace through Faith alone, One God, and the Gospel being the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus



Bambi said:


> Okay, than are Jews or Muslims worse?


As I said, *anyone* who denies Christ, denies the Father.



Bambi said:


> And if it wasn't for Jews, you more than likely would not have had Christianity.


[FONT=&quot] 
If it wasn't for God making the promise to redeem mankind, if It wasn't for God being who He is, If it wasn't for God...None of us would even be here.
[/FONT]


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 29, 2011)

Bambi said:
			
		

> And if it wasn't for Jews, you more than likely would not have had Christianity.



We'd probably have a hybrid of Zoroastrianism, Egyptian, Greek, Roman and other European pagan religions. And if anything, we'd probably have a less confusing and muddled religion for it. Although without the Jews, who would've Rome and subsequent empires/kingdoms a scapegoat?


----------



## Bambi (Mar 29, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So, yet again, if Jesus is not God, then Islam teaches blasphemy because a mere prophet cannot claim to be God and be a prophet of God.


No, it follows that if the above statement is true, than Islam teaches AGAINST blaspheming against God.

Let's make this more clear: If Jesus was not God, and still claimed to be so, and Islam warned it's followers against those claiming to be God, it wouldn't be teaching blasphemy, but warning against impostors.





Wolf-Bone said:


> We'd probably have a hybrid of Zoroastrianism,  Egyptian, Greek, Roman and other European pagan religions. And if  anything, we'd probably have a less confusing and muddled religion for  it. Although without the Jews, who would've Rome and subsequent  empires/kingdoms a scapegoat?


Same scapegoats as before.

Nomads, slaves, and civilizations perceived to be lesser than the Romans  themselves. Of course, the irony always was that Romes troubles were  always Romes fault.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 29, 2011)

Bambi said:


> No, it follows that if the above statement is true, than Islam teaches AGAINST blaspheming against God.
> 
> Let's make this more clear: If Jesus was not God, and still claimed to be so, and Islam warned it's followers against those claiming to be God, it wouldn't be teaching blasphemy, but warning against impostors.Same scapegoats as before.


 
*Then why does Islam regard Jesus as a Prophet and Hold Him up with the likes of Abraham, and David?* Why does Islam hold up Jesus as an example to follow if He was preaching Blasphemy?


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 29, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> Again, a mere prophet cannot be a prophet from God is HE CLAIMS TO BE GOD. That would put him on equal staus with God. And that is why Lucifer was cast out of Heaven, he wanted to be God.
> And by the Law, a mere man, even a prophet cannot claim to be perfect, without sin, and certainly cannot claim to be equal with God. Those things are blasphemous for a mere man to claim.
> So Islam just onits those parts by saying the Bible isn't correct. Even thou we have manuscript proof that Jesus said that He is God.
> 
> So, yet again, if Jesus is not God, then Islam teaches blasphemy because a mere prophet cannot claim to be God and be a prophet of God.



I like how you don't even answer the fucking question, most likely because you can't, and go into some circular logic. You know, there's nothing wrong with just saying "I don't know" and shutting the fuck up. That said, I think if you really cared about knowing Jesus, you'd want to know what others claim to know about him. What I know is Muslims revere Jesus, consider him to be Muslim, and consider him, like Christians, to be the the one to return for the Apocalypse. So they clearly hold him in very high regard, so much in fact that they don't believe he was crucified because they don't believe God allows such a thing to happen to people who are as good a Muslim as they believe him to be. They only seem to omit the parts that would make Jesus God incarnate or a bad Muslim, so I doubt they believe he claimed to be God, but in any event, nowhere in the bible does Jesus say "oh hai gaiz what's going on here? btw I totally did write this shit lol brb - Jesus, ps: Muslims and Jews are gay" so your claim of there being a "manuscript" are bullshit.



			
				Bambi said:
			
		

> No, it follows that if the above statement is true, than Islam teaches AGAINST blaspheming against God.
> 
> Let's make this more clear: If Jesus was not God, and still claimed to be so, and Islam warned it's followers against those claiming to be God, it wouldn't be teaching blasphemy, but warning against impostors.



Just to clarify, are you saying Islam says Jesus claimed to be God as a lesson against blasphemy? Because that doesn't sound like the way Muslims view Jesus based on everything I've read about Jesus as a figure of Islam.


----------



## Bambi (Mar 29, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Just to clarify, are you saying Islam says Jesus claimed to be God as a lesson against blasphemy?


I was responding to Rukh's claims of Islam inadvertently teaching blaspheme by preaching that Christ was a HUMAN prophet, nothing more.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> *Then why does Islam regard Jesus as a  Prophet and Hold Him up with the likes of Abraham, and David?* Why  does Islam hold up Jesus as an example to follow if He was preaching  Blasphemy?


Because Prophets can be human without having divine blood. Abraham was as much a prophet as he was a leader of his people. God incarnate? Nope. Just a human being acting on Gods will. David, divine? Nope. Just a human being acting on Gods will; and so according to Muslims, Jesus too was not divine, but a human being acting on Gods will.


----------



## Bambi (Mar 29, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> In order to be saved by God, one has to believe in the essentials of Christ teachings: ... etc.,


So the Jews and Muslims are SOL? But you also think the Jews are the chosen people, correct? Even though they're not going to be saved according to you on the technicality that they don't believe that Christ was the son of God?

EDIT:REQUESTINGAMERGEMERGEMERGE


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 29, 2011)

Bambi said:


> I was responding to Rukh's claims of Islam inadvertently teaching blaspheme by preaching that Christ was a HUMAN prophet, nothing more.


 
Oh, okay. Yeah, they consider Jesus not to just be a Muslim, but a precursor to Muhammad, so from their point of view, Jesus didn't teach blasphemy, but the polar opposite. I still think their beliefs regarding him are pretty flawed/crazy though, like the way they'll agree with Christians that he was born of a virgin, but not that he was crucified or that he even died at all. As if any of that would factor in to the argument that he was what they say he is, which is a human prophet and teacher who God performed miracles through. Sometimes it seems like religions just go with whatever they throw at the wall that sticks.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 29, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> I like how you don't even answer the fucking question, most likely because you can't, and go into some circular logic. You know, there's nothing wrong with just saying "I don't know" and shutting the fuck up. That said, I think if you really cared about knowing Jesus, you'd want to know what others claim to know about him. What I know is Muslims revere Jesus, consider him to be Muslim, and consider him, like Christians, to be the the one to return for the Apocalypse. So they clearly hold him in very high regard, so much in fact that they don't believe he was crucified because they don't believe God allows such a thing to happen to people who are as good a Muslim as they believe him to be. They only seem to omit the parts that would make Jesus God incarnate or a bad Muslim, so I doubt they believe he claimed to be God, but in any event, nowhere in the bible does Jesus say "oh hai gaiz what's going on here? btw I totally did write this shit lol brb - Jesus, ps: Muslims and Jews are gay" so your claim of there being a "manuscript" are bullshit.



Why would Jesus, according to Islam, who is just a mere man, come back again? What would be the purpose for a mere man to return again? A mere man cannot save people, a mere man cannot forgive peoples sins, a mere man cannot claim equal status with God and be revered.
Islam omits the key parts about Jesus, and when those key parts are omitted, Jesus' entire teachings fall apart.

I don't think you understand what I am saying. According to the Law of the Prophets, no man can claim equal status with God. And since Islam teaches the Law of the Prophets, then Jesus according to their own laws cannot be a revered Prophet because of who Christ said He was. Jesus said He is God. And according to Islam, that is blasphemy. So they omit the exact words Jesus said to make Jesus fit into their own teachings.

 And about the manuscript part, We have over 26,000 ancient manuscripts of the New Testament which contain the Words of Jesus. We know, exactly what Jesus said.
You doubt the NT manuscripts, even though we have 5,600 ancient manuscripts all saying the same thing.

You don't doubt what Plato taught, even though we only have 7 ancient manuscripts about him, or Aristotle who we only have 49 ancient manuscripts about him and his teachings. Yet you doubt the words of Christ, even when we have 5,600 ancient documents and that the earliest copy dates back to 130 AD, less than 100 years after Jesus, and only 60 years after the fall of Jerusalem.
Yet the earliest copy of Plato came around 1200 years after Plato had died, and the earliest copy of Aristotle came 1400 years after he died.

As you can see, there are thousands more New Testament Greek manuscripts  than any other ancient writing.  The internal consistency of the New  Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure.  That is an amazing  accuracy.  In addition there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac,  Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages.  The total supporting New  Testament manuscript base is over 24,000. No other book can make the claim the Bible does. Period.



Bambi said:


> So the Jews and Muslims are SOL? But you also think  the Jews are the chosen people, correct? Even though they're not going  to be saved according to you on the technicality that they don't believe  that Christ was the son of God?


 
Romans 9:8
In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are Godâ€™s  children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as  Abrahamâ€™s offspring. 

Romans 9:6-7
It is not as though Godâ€™s word had failed. *For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.* *Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abrahamâ€™s children.*

Not all Jews are God's chosen people. Plain and simple. Because not all those who are decedents of Israel are Israel.
That answer your question?

Whoever believes in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, holds to the essentials of the faith. They are the children of God. That is what the Bible says.


----------



## Bambi (Mar 29, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> As if any of that would factor in to the argument that he was what they say he is, which is a human prophet and teacher who God performed miracles through. Sometimes it seems like religions just go with whatever they throw at the wall that sticks.


Generally speaking, but all of them are notorious for that.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Why would Jesus, according to Islam, who  is just a mere man, come back again?


Because according to them,  all of the Religions great kings and leaders will stand in judgment with  God over humanity.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 29, 2011)

Bambi said:


> Because according to them,  all of the Religions great kings and leaders will stand in judgment with  God over humanity.


 
No, all men, all of mankind will stand before God in judgment. And only those who follow Christ are not under the Law anymore. They are set free 
Those that don't, they are under the Law and under the consequences of not following the Law and will be punished for it. And that is the truth, unminced unsugercoated.


----------



## Bambi (Mar 29, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Not all Jews are God's chosen people.


I'm dumbstruck.





rukh_whitefang said:


> Whoever believes in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, holds to the  essentials of the faith. They are the children of God. That is what the  Bible says.


Ah, what the Bible says.


----------



## Bambi (Mar 29, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> No, all men, all of mankind will stand before God in judgment.


You missed the point and decided to walk your own ala this Red Herring.

Muslims believe that Jesus and Muhammad, Solomon, David, Abraham, etc., will all stand together with God in his judgment of man at the end of days. That was the answer to your previous question, which was as to why they believe Jesus, though a man, would be able to stand WITH God and pass judgment over others.

Merge dance Merge dance Merge dance


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 29, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Hello!! Yet again, the Only time Paul met face to face with Christ was on the road to Damacus when Saul was persecuting the Church. Then and their he ceased being Saul and became Paul. But Paul never met Jesus before Christ ascended to heaven. *And the only thing Jesus Christ said to Paul face to face was "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me." Thats it. Jesus did not give Paul a sparknotes copy of His teachings* on the road to Damascus. And yet again, *to say that an entire chunk of the Bible is not the Word of God, well let me put it bluntly, thats blasphemous.*



So let's get this straight. You freely admit that Paul _never_ received even one iota of Jesus's word and teachings from Jesus himself, in essence conceding that Pauls' writings are basically his opinions and his alone. But in the next breath you go apeshit about so-called "blasphemy", _now_ claiming that Pauls' writings are the Word of God - _the same "Word" you admitted in the previous fucking sentence Paul never got!_

Frankly, all the people continually quoting Paul's letters would be far better calling themselves "Paulines" rather than "Christians"...



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Who are you to decide what is, and isn't not Scripture in the Bible? Who are you so say when God is right and when He is wrong? Who are you indeed. Were you there in the beginning before time itself began?



Pot, kettle.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 29, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> Pot, kettle.


 
I'm more surprised that he thinks he'll make us care that we're being blasphemous against his book, when he repeatedly and happily does it against every other religion.


----------



## Deo (Mar 29, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
> 
> Here is a list of 457 contradictions in the bible.
> 
> ...


 *I*
*FUCKING*
*LOVE*
*YOU*
​


----------



## Telnac (Mar 29, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> What I see happening is that the trappings of religious faith will probably blend more and more into overall secular culture (like Christmas and Easter now in the West) where people will go through the motions of certain activities with only a passing knowledge of the reason for such rites and practically no religious conviction. Which isn't necessarily a _bad _thing.
> 
> Not necessarily - simple neglect and apathy towards a faith is pretty effective at eliminating it. For example, how many adherents are there these days of the old Greek and Roman gods?
> The irony is that the state-backed churches like the Church of England, where their position is guaranteed in society by law, are the ones that are losing the most adherents from the look of things - simply because such churches don't _have_ to work at maintaining their position.



Ironically, I read a very good article a few years back that came to that exact conclusion.  Essentially, the reason Christianity is so much more prevalent in the USA than in other Western countries is that churches have to compete with each other for believers.  I'll see if I can dig up that article.

Even so, the reason the Greek & Roman gods fell out of favor was because once Christianity became the official religion in the Roman Empire, the only way to advance in society was to convert, even if that conversion was only skin-deep.  I'm sure there were people who clung on to the old gods for centuries, but eventually all that fell by the wayside.  It is possible for a place to become religion-free?  I think so.  But I think it's very, very unlikely.  What's more likely is that a new faith will simply move in & take advantage of the vacuum.


----------



## BRN (Mar 29, 2011)

I'll just leave this here.
Simply put, texts have been found that are believed to fill in the gap between Jesus's execution and the writings of Paul decades later. However, they've been stolen.


----------



## Discord Nova (Mar 29, 2011)

All im gonna say is... Im achristian but Rukh takes the bible more literally than my fucking bigot pastor.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 29, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> So let's get this straight. You freely admit that Paul _never_ received even one iota of Jesus's word and teachings from Jesus himself, in essence conceding that Pauls' writings are basically his opinions and his alone. But in the next breath you go apeshit about so-called "blasphemy", _now_ claiming that Pauls' writings are the Word of God - _the same "Word" you admitted in the previous fucking sentence Paul never got!_
> 
> Frankly, all the people continually quoting Paul's letters would be far better calling themselves "Paulines" rather than "Christians"...



Hmm, lets see, Its called the Holy Spirit Mayfurr. When one comes to Christ the Holy Spirit dwells within you. Yes, thats right. The Holy Spirit, once yoy accept Christ will reside with in you. So Paul's words were not His own. Yes, it was His writing style, but the Holy Spirit spoke through him. I thought even you would have figuired that part out about the Holy Spirit. You know the whole Pentecost thing?


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 29, 2011)

So this thread is another megareligion thread....again?
Headche. :/


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 29, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> So this thread is another megareligion thread....again?
> Headche. :/


 
Y'know, the first one wasn't really that bad save for Rukh's text walls of Jericho. I'm noticing a pattern here.


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 29, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Y'know, the first one wasn't really that bad save for Rukh's text walls of Jericho. I'm noticing a pattern here.


 
An obvious one.


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 29, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Hmm, lets see, Its called the Holy Spirit Mayfurr. When one comes to Christ the Holy Spirit dwells within you. Yes, thats right. The Holy Spirit, once yoy accept Christ will reside with in you. So *Paul's words were not His own.* Yes, it was His writing style, but the Holy Spirit spoke through him.


 
How... convenient. Enables you to get around the fact that Paul never actually met Jesus, or even received more than one single sentence from him or anything el- kzzzzttttzzZZZKZZZTKRRRK RUKH, THIS IS THE HOLY SPIRIT, TRY NOT TO BE SO MUCH OF A DICK ABOUT MY WORDS, M'KAY? KZZrrrrttttt ... of harem girls and a banana.


Oh, and on the subject of Biblical contradictions, try explaining why the supposedly infallible Bible can't make up it's mind about who Jesus's nominal grandfather is:
Matthew 1:16 "And _Jacob _begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus." 
Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of _Heli_."

(Claims that one line is Mary's side and one is Joseph's side will be greeted with howls of derisive laughter, as both texts specify Joseph. Comments about how Jesus didn't have a grandfather because he was the son of god will also be ignored, as we're talking about simple genealogy as written in the Bible.)

Too hard? How about the age when one OT king took power?
II Kings 8:26 "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign." (22)
II Chronicles 22:2 "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign." (42)

Or what accommodation Solomon had for horses?
I Kings 4:26 "And Solomon had _forty thousand_ stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen."
II Chronicles 9:25 "And Solomon had _four thousand_ stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen."

I'd like to see how you're going to try and claim "out of context" etc for simple numerical contradictions and differences in a family tree - pure, simple, unadorned facts not reliant on theological interpretation that nevertheless _don't friggin' match in a so-called "perfect" book._


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 29, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Y'know, the first one wasn't really that bad save for Rukh's text walls of Jericho. I'm noticing a pattern here.


 
Well at least we learn something new with each thread, albeit the worth of that knowledge is ... not. 

- The very thing Rukh appears to base his life upon now, defends endlessly for hours, and all that - Is based upon the tiniest pedestal that he believes his bible is true. (Because the bible itself says it is true, which of course, is the most logical position to take on determining what is true)

- Rukh states that the Bible is unedited, nothing was omitted, and that it is the inerrant in every way. And then proceeds to admit all of that is factually untrue, even by the bible's he uses themselves are in fact, do not uphold this standard. 


Rukh_Whitefang said:


> As for what type of Bible I use, my  personal Bible is the *New Living Translation*(2), But I also use the *NIV*(1) and  ESV.


 "The Apostle Paul writes, â€œ...â€ â€“ this  passage from ... makes a statement about gender roles by using the specific  masculine and feminine pronouns. However, if replaced with a  gender-neutral pronoun, as in the case of *NIV*(1), the intended meaning may  simply get lost in the translation." (source http://hotword.dictionary.com/bible/?rh=www.google.com )

& Down on the second paragraph "One caution regarding the *NLT*(2) is that because it's a thought-for-thought translation, it is not as accurate as a word-for-word translation, and hence may not be suitable for detailed Bible study. "

- Just this alone is amusing enough for me :v

- I also do believe the Odyssey and Iliad are older than the bible, by a couple thousand years or so. Dunno why I mention it.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 29, 2011)

What pisses me off is that people like Rukh can't just say they believe what they do because they do, and say they're entitled to their beliefs, and let others disagree because that's not what it's really about with them. What it's about is a feeling of power and gratification. A "ministry" he appoints himself the leader of, in the form of just another usergroup to surround himself with "disciples" or whatever. Give me a break! And it'd be one thing to do that and admit we're all hypocrites on some level, but then he has to make a statement by distancing himself from, say, homosexually themed art, but not the other forms of fetishism like the cigars, metal, cars -- hell, even having a fursona or appreciating anthropomorphic art in the first place is most likely some form of idolatry. But let's face it, it's a hell of a lot easier to distance one's self from _a minority_ than something close to one's self and their passions. And that's Rukh in a nutshell, taking the easy route. It's why he does what he does here, and not somewhere he'd have to deal with not only competing "churches", or even any scrutiny that can't be so easily dismissed because it'd be coming from people other than furries, gays, non-Christians, atheists, geeks, basically people he's already decided are beneath him.


----------



## yiffytimesnews (Mar 29, 2011)

Having a friend who is a Minister, I don't feel the death of religion is anything we are ever going to see. There are some people who are drawn to it and others that don't care about it. But I do feel if it is going to stick around it's going to have to change with the times we live in.


----------



## Discord Nova (Mar 29, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> What pisses me off is that people like Rukh can't just say they believe what they do because they do, and say they're entitled to their beliefs, and let others disagree because that's not what it's really about with them. What it's about is a feeling of power and gratification. A "ministry" he appoints himself the leader of, in the form of just another usergroup to surround himself with "disciples" or whatever. Give me a break! And it'd be one thing to do that and admit we're all hypocrites on some level, but then he has to make a statement by distancing himself from, say, homosexually themed art, but not the other forms of fetishism like the cigars, metal, cars -- hell, even having a fursona or appreciating anthropomorphic art in the first place is most likely some form of idolatry. But let's face it, it's a hell of a lot easier to distance one's self from _a minority_ than something close to one's self and their passions. And that's Rukh in a nutshell, taking the easy route. It's why he does what he does here, and not somewhere he'd have to deal with not only competing "churches", or even any scrutiny that can't be so easily dismissed because it'd be coming from people other than furries, gays, non-Christians, atheists, geeks, basically people he's already decided are beneath him.


 
Im a christian and i have to say, I agree with you Wolf-Bone


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 29, 2011)

QuinnWOLF said:


> All im gonna say is... Im achristian but Rukh takes the bible more literally than my fucking bigot pastor.



Rukh isn't exactly....ah hell, Rukh is a terrible example of what a Christan should be, and I never say that lightly.  But his legalistic, literal way of 'interpreting' the bible is dying off and the sooner that happens, the better.   I just wish 'God had led him' to a different forum as he says Here: 





> Do you think I am here because I need you people to reinforce my faith?  No, not at all. I am here, because God said "go here" So I did. Being  here has nothing to do with what I want, its about doing what God wants  me to do. My faith is rock solid. And I know nothing can separate me  from Christ Jesus. If I was here to be a people pleaser, then I wouldn't  be a servant of Christ Jesus.



It's people like Rukh and his thinking that has driven me and many others I know from the church.   As for His Holiness, here, I'm going to say 'let his words fall on deaf ears' and have us ignore him.

Or petition for a ban since he has outright said that his only reason that he is here is to preach the gospel as he sees it.  Everyone can have their own beliefs, but when the sole purpose of being a member is to force others to come to your religion, then you shouldn't be here.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Mar 29, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> God gave us that choice so we would freely love Him. If He didn't give us that choice then it would be forced love. And forced love is not real love.



Telling people their only alternative to love is fiery death is pretty much forcing people to love Him.



> Belief in Christ Jesus is the crux of the Bible. But just because you believe, that doesn't mean one is saved. For even the demons believe in Jesus. And the Human Race apart from God can accomplish nothing good.



Completely untrue.  People accomplish many great things without needing God to tell them to do so.  The Bible is not the crux of the religion.  The crux is the belief in the ideas and teachings of Christ and being able to apply them in your life.  Humility, charity, compassion.  These are the ideas that hold up the religious faith.




> But my question is, if you don't read the Word of God, where do you  learn about Christ and His teachings? Where do you learn why Christ had  to come and save us. And what we are being saved from? The thing is, you aleady know of God's Word, you can't claim ignorance from it. You have seen it, read it, and said its not true.



My priests have done a pretty good job relaying the message of Christ.  I had two as I was growing up, Father Ted and Father Fred.  Both did a fairly good job, in my opinion, through their sermons explaining the role of Christ in our lives and the ability to take his teachings to help our fellow man, not through preaching, but through our actions.  They were the biggest influences in my religious development.  When they were gone, we got in a fire and brimstone guy much like yourself, and he was generally disliked (plus he rocked a killer Hitler haircut).  People don't respond well to threats, and that's essentially what you're attempting to preach.



> No, I am upset that you and many others turn Christianity into this free flowing lovey dovey faith and God just pats you on the back and says "Oh, its okay, try harder next time." You see God is not just a God of love. Just limiting Him to that is woefully inadequate. He is also a God of perfect justice and wrath. I am upset that you try and conform what little Scripture you do agree with into, to modern society. You don't get to change what God says, you don't get to choose what is, and is not relevant. The Christianity you paint is not the Christianity that in the Gospel.



Here's the thing, the Bible is written with some of the same morals and ethics of an age where sacrifices and stoning were appropriate responses to anyone who ever so much as sneezed at the idea of someone not being right about God.  You and I change the meanings of things written in the Bible and pick and choose what we want to follow all the time, because not everything in the Bible is appropriate for modern society.  That's reality.  My Christianity, to me, is the Christianity that the Bible intends to get across, but loses itself in self-insertion and the agendas of those who put it together over hundreds of years.



> Think about that. Christ said many times that not all those who think they are saved really are, The road is narrow, and Christ Himself said it is the path of the few. My greatest fear, is that many of the so called "Christians" Are not ready to face judgment. Because they will be in for one rude awakening.



We have no way of knowing if our team is even the best one, to be honest.  The Jews, Muslims, and others have just as much legitimacy to claim they're right as we do.  Who's to say that you're not the one who's in for a rude awakening when you get up to St. Peter and he says "Woah, what in the world did you do with your life?"  The best way to cover all bases, in my mind, is just attempt to be the best human being possible and living a life of fulfillment through the actions of helping others and living up to our potential as human beings.



> basing the faith solely on conjecture and personal feelings doesn't work either dude. Saying that the Bible preaches some form of universalism is flat out wrong. The reason the Father sent His Son to Die, was to save us not from sin per say, but from the wrath of God. Because we are under the judgment of sin.



Well you do that all the time as well dude.  Sorry to tell you, but you're just as much in the wrong here as I am, according to you.



> We are not saved from our sins because Jesus was falsely tried by Jewish  and Roman officials and sentenced by Pilate to die. Neither are we  saved because the Roman persecutors thrust nails into the hands and feet  of Christ and hung Him on a cross.  Do we really think that the false judgment of men heaped upon Christ  would pay for a debt for all of humankind's sin? Do we really think that  a crown of thorns and whips and nails and a wooden cross and all the  other facets of the crucifixion that we glamorize are powerful enough to  save us?



What do we need to save us?  I'd say it's the destruction of apathy for the human condition.  To eliminate the general malaise we've developed towards the problems both at home and internationally and isolating ourselves from the very real issues surrounding the world and replace that with humanitarian aide in any shape or form as well as giving us a better sense of self worth and identity.  Self improvement by giving ourselves better job prospects, relationships, and admiration for the natural beauty and wonder of the world instead of self-loathing and a constant obsession over our inability to please whatever lives up in the ether. 



> Picture Christ in the garden of Gethsemane. As He kneels before His  Father, drops of sweat and blood fall together from His head. Why is He  is such pain and agony? The answer is not because He is afraid of  crucifixion. He is not trembling because of what the Roman soldiers are  about to do to him.
> Listen to His words, "My Father, if it is all possible, may this cup be  taken from me." This "cup" is not a reference to a wooden cross; it is a  reference of divine judgment. It is the cup of God's wrath.



Again, that's really your interpretation.  You weren't there when the guys wrote that, nor can I say that you're in the same frame of mind as the person who wrote that down, who by the way wasn't there either when this was happening.  So really you have no objective way of telling what the reference of the "cup" means, and neither do I.  The only thing we can do is speculate, which you refuse to believe is what you're doing.



> Every time God instructed His people to kill, or anytime God has struck someone down, God was completely justified in doing so.



Which completely goes against the whole "Thou Shall Not Kill" thing that God also commanded of his people.  This is one of those contradictions that Mojo was bringing up earlier, and sounds more like someone trying to justify ignoring God's Commandments to meet their own agendas.



> Actually, we have authority to pass judgment.



Which still ignores the whole "He who is without sin" comment Jesus made.  So yeah, contradictions.



> What is being talked about in the verse you put up, is condemning someone. Which, is entirely different that judging someone.
> Scripture tells us what is right and what is wrong. And when we hold to  that, then yes, we as Christians will be judging others. How else does  one point out sin, or be able to say [insert here] is wrong. How can we  hold to Scripture if we cannot discern right from wrong?



See this?  What you did right here?  That's called "spin".  You're trying to justify judging someone by spinning God's word to meet your own personal agenda of being able to go up to someone and say "YOU'RE GOING TO HELL" at best, strong arm them into the faith at worst.  And last time I checked, you can point out someone doing something wrong without acting like you're condemning them.  If someone messes up around me I don't consider them lazy, malicious, or incompetent people.  They fail and they learn from their mistakes.  That's part of being a human being.  We can easily learn right and wrong from our experiences as we do from the Bible.  The Bible in this sense acts more like a supplement to the things we should naturally be picking up.



> And lastly, if we cannot judge people, then we cannot forgive people.  Because the first step in forgiveness is judging someone. Because you  have to judge what someone did to you was wrong. And if you cannot judge  someones behavior, how can you forgive them?



I judge people based on the content of their character, not on how they stack up to my religious beliefs.  I know what I expect out of people in society as do other responsible members of that society.  When someone acts outside of those expectations with malicious intent, then they are judged by their actions and the content of their character through an elected authoritative body as well as a jury of their rational peers.  And hey, that's just what one great Christian man, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. expected out of people.  So I got that on my side.



> Dude, are you suggesting that humanity doesn't need saving? Hello!!!The moment we were born, we were born into the bondage of slavery. And that slavery would be sin. For all have sinned all fallen short of the glory of God. Not one man does good. What part of these verses do you not understand? Scripture tells us flat out we are evil from the get-go. Not one person seeks after God alone. We are inherently evil. Again, I could put up passage after passage that says this. But yet again, you personally don't like that so you just rip those pages out and throw them away. You are trying to make Christianity conform to what you want it to say, and not what it really says.



HELLO!!!  I've already told you that quoting Scripture is not a compelling argument in a debate.  I also submit to you that you're making Christianity conform to what you want to believe, that God is vengeful and that you have such a low opinion of yourself that God must think the same of you.  The idea that human beings are inherently evil is absurd to me.  We are not born evil creations, we are molded by our surroundings, as much as our possible chemical make-up may influence us.  Neither of those is affected by God's hand.  But of course the Bible wants to paint us as inherently bad people, how else is it supposed to garner such blind following and fear of a fiery pit if we aren't?  Agendas bro.



> Hello!! Yet again, the Only time Paul met face to face with Christ was on the road to Damacus when Saul was persecuting the Church. Then and their he ceased being Saul and became Paul. But Paul never met Jesus before Christ ascended to heaven. And the only thing Jesus Christ said to Paul face to face was "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me." Thats it. Jesus did not give Paul a sparknotes copy of His teachings on the road to Damascus. And yet again, to say that an entire chunk of the Bible is not the Word of God, well let me put it bluntly, thats blasphemous.



You yourself admit that Paul barely met Jesus so he never really got a good sense of what Jesus' message was aside from possible second hand accounts, enough to deviate from the original message, not taking into account the years since he met him and the several he spent in prison writing to his buddies on his opinions on the Christian faith.  The Holy Ghost told him what to write?  How convenient, even though he never claimed as such as far as I've seen.  Even then, do we believe everyone who claims to have talked to God?

And me committing blasphemy?  Well then I challenge you as a good Christian soldier to put up or shut up.  Do as God commands of you when dealing with people who commit blasphemy, as found in Leviticus 24.  Kill me.  Or don't, since Thou Shall not kill.  Or maybe you should.  Then again, maybe not.  Who knows?  Contradictions.



> Who are you to decide what is, and isn't not Scripture in the Bible? Who are you so say when God is right and when He is wrong? Who are you indeed. ]B]Were you there in the beginning before time itself began?[/B]



Were you?

I like to believe I have a pretty good understand on how the Bible has developed over hundreds of years, that many people had their hand in it at one point or another and have a decent chance of changing things up to meet their own personal agendas.  That fact alone is enough for me to question the validity of the accounts in the Bible, since I'm a rational person.



> No, I understand that God is more than just a loving Father. I don't try and put Him in a box and define Him. I don't shy away from hard passages just because they say things that hurt or are hard to read. I understand that yes, God is a God of love, mercy and Grace, but He is also a God of righteous wrath. I am telling you that we are absoluetely nothing without God. I am telling you that every single person on this planet is under judgment. You cannot preach Salvation without telling people what they need to be saved from.
> The most basic concept of all of this, is this: God is not merely saving us from sin, He is saving us from HIS OWN JUDGMENT AND WRATH. One could even say, that God is saving us from Himself.



I preach that people need to be saved from apathy of the human condition.  That they need to become more aware of the world around them instead of being isolated and spending their time crying about how they aren't good enough for God.  I don't preach that God is an alcoholic father, coming home to beat his wife for not having dinner ready and then smacking around his kids for being in his way.  Humanity isn't God's red-headed step child.  



> We have no abilities apart from God. What the Lord gave to us, He can take away. We own NOTHING.



I like to think that my abilities were cultured by myself and the help of my mentors.  God didn't plop the manual for Final Cut Pro on my lap and say "Taketh this manual for thine editing software.  For blessed be thy Apple computing products."  



> God helps us because we CANNOT help ourselves, Trying to say we can help ourselves turns salvation into a works based system.



Except that he helps those who helps themselves.  Weird.



> The former is an Americanized Gospel that lets us continue what we like to do. The former does not show us or tell us to completely surrender everything we are to Christ, pick up our own cross and follow Him. The Former preaches this life is good and we deserve all these things. The former teaches that its up to us to save ourselves and salvation is a works based system.



The former paints a clear picture of what Christianity is and ought to be.  Teaching that we need to make the most of our time here helping each other, appreciating this wonderful blue marble in the cosmos we call Earth and loving every second about being alive.  We make our own purpose, and it is best to make that purpose to improve not just ourselves, but the lives of those around us.  Nothing gives man more joy than to see the smile on the face of his brother whom they've never met by extending a simple gesture of compassion.



> And the latter Gospel is why men and women risk their lives around the world to know more about Him. This is why we must avoid cheap caricatures of Christianity that fail to exalt the revelation of God in His Word. This is why you and I cannot settle for anything less than a God centered, Christ exhausting, self denying Gospel.



I don't settle for anything.  I don't settle for a self-loathing existence where I ignore real issues facing humanity and cry about how God doesn't appreciate me enough.  I get up off my ass every morning and attempt to be the best person I can be.  There is plenty of good in this world, where people go above and beyond the call of duty that the Bible or even common courtesy expects of them.  Men and women like those in Doctors Without Boarders and Habitat for Humanity (Surprise surprise!  A Christian organization more in tune with helping people in a practical way instead of telling them how much God resents them!) are the good in this world that we should strive to be like.  These people are the ones living the example set by Christ.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 29, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> Rukh isn't exactly....ah hell, Rukh is a terrible example of what a Christan should be, and I never say that lightly.  But his legalistic, literal way of 'interpreting' the bible is dying off and the sooner that happens, the better.   I just wish 'God had led him' to a different forum as he says Here:
> 
> It's people like Rukh and his thinking that has driven me and many others I know from the church.   As for His Holiness, here, I'm going to say 'let his words fall on deaf ears' and have us ignore him.
> 
> Or petition for a ban since he has outright said that his only reason that he is here is to preach the gospel as he sees it.  Everyone can have their own beliefs, but when the sole purpose of being a member is to force others to come to your religion, then you shouldn't be here.


 
I agree, and again, with his type of Christian (or Muslim, Jew, or member of pretty much any religion), when they say "God/the gods told me to do this", it's code for "my ego told me to do this". Just like it most likely wasn't God Jesus was sacrificed to, but the devil, or at least humankind's insatiable bloodlust and infinite capacity for hate. In other words, yes, he died for our sins, at least in the sense that he died directly _because of them_. I wish Rukh would wake up and see he's not worshiping Jesus as much as symbolically crucifying him all over again.


----------



## Discord Nova (Mar 29, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> I agree, and again, with his type of Christian (or Muslim, Jew, or member of pretty much any religion), when they say "God/the gods told me to do this", it's code for "my ego told me to do this". Just like it most likely wasn't God Jesus was sacrificed to, but the devil, or at least humankind's insatiable bloodlust and infinite capacity for hate. In other words, yes, he died for our sins, at least in the sense that he died directly _because of them_. I wish Rukh would wake up and see he's not worshiping Jesus as much as symbolically crucifying him all over again.


 
I couldnt agree with you more.


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 29, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> I agree, and again, with his type of Christian (or Muslim, Jew, or member of pretty much any religion), when they say "God/the gods told me to do this", it's code for "my ego told me to do this". Just like it most likely wasn't God Jesus was sacrificed to, but the devil, or at least humankind's insatiable bloodlust and infinite capacity for hate. In other words, yes, he died for our sins, at least in the sense that he died directly _because of them_. I wish Rukh would wake up and see he's not worshiping Jesus as much as symbolically crucifying him all over again.


 I also wish people with that kind of faith would do something nice without a divine reward in return. 
Or "Because god said so". 



QuinnWOLF said:


> I couldnt agree with you more.



Use the "This" button please.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 29, 2011)

Rukh, you're precisely the kind of Christian that drives people away from religion and gives us atheists all the ammo we need to talk about the problems religions cause. Go play with your imaginary friend elsewhere, like with Ray Comfort and those guys, so respectable christians like Term can get in a word edgewise, plzkthx

Oh wait, you're a gay furry. By the view of other fundies you are going to hell anyway. :V


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 29, 2011)

QuinnWOLF said:


> Im a christian and i have to say, I agree with you Wolf-Bone


 


QuinnWOLF said:


> I couldnt agree with you more.


 
I'm glad what I said resonates with you and all, but 1) my ass is for sitting on, not for kissing, and 2) what Zeke said. There's a button for that


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 29, 2011)

*Part one. I have apparently exceeded the limit of characters. I typed out 28401 characters and it seems the forum only allows 25,000 characters. I warned you, I really did. You asked for a response, and mine is so big the site can't handle it all in one chunk. *



Mayfurr said:


> Oh, and on the subject of Biblical contradictions, try explaining why the supposedly infallible Bible can't make up it's mind about who Jesus's nominal grandfather is:
> Matthew 1:16 "And _Jacob _begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus."
> Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of _Heli_."
> 
> ...



You asked, I answer, I hope your ready. As for the first text you bring up, the different genealogys. Go here for a full detailed explanation http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/...ferent-genealogies-jesus-matthew-1-and-luke-3
The Bible should be interpreted in the context of its literary style,  culture, and history. Breaking up genealogies into male and female  representations was acceptable in the ancient Near East culture since it  was often impolite to speak of women without proper conditions being  met: male presence, etc. Therefore, one genealogy might be of Mary and  the other of Joseph--even though both mention Joseph. In other words,  the Mary geneaology was counted "in" Joseph and under his headship.
Notice that Luke starts with Mary and goes backwards to Adam. Matthew  starts with Abraham and goes forward to Joseph. The intents of the  genealogies were obviously different which is clearly seen in their  styles. Luke was not written to the Jews, Matthew was. Therefore,  Matthew would carry the legal line (from Abraham through David) and Luke  the biological one (from Adam through David). Also, notice that Luke's  first three chapters mention Mary eleven times; hence, the genealogy  from her. Fourth, notice Luke 3:23  "And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years  of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli," This  designation "supposedly" seems to signify the Marian genealogy since it  seems to indicate that Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph.

Moving on, To the 2nd and third passage you put up about King Ahaziah. Also found here:http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/...was-ahaziah-when-he-began-rule-over-jerusalem
The discrepency in ages is due to a copyist error. We can see that  the difference  in ages is 20 years. The system of number notation used  by the Jews at the time  of Ezra consisted of horizontal hooks that  represented decades. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 would  equal the number 14 where 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  would  be 24. If one or both of the hooks were smudged or flaked off of  a papyri, then  the dates would be off by ten years or a factor of ten.
 The  fact that this is a copyist error does not invalidate the inspiration  or authority  of Scripture. Remember, God inspired the originals. They  were without error. The  copies have problems, though very very few. The  copies are copies of inspired documents  and, unfortunately, some  copyist errors did creep into the manuscripts. However,  they do not  affect any doctrinal areas and are very rare. Also, remember the Bible is 99.5% texturly pure.


And now onto the verse about King Solomon. Which is found here: http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/...-stalls-horses-did-solomon-have-4000-or-40000
There are two possible explanations for this discrepancy. 1) A  copyist error.  2) The difference is due to time; that is, one account  is at the beginning of Solomon's  reign (1 Kings 4:26), and the other at the end (2 Chron. 9:25).  I believe the most  probable is a copyist error since we can see that  Chronicles does have copyist errors  in other areas. Therefore, it is  probable that the same thing occurred here.
 "In general it can be  said that the books of Chronicles furnish approximate numerical   estimates in the form of round numbers, frequently designed, as has been  remarked,  to express the magnitude of the occasion....Some estimates  in Chronicles which appear  to be particularly inflated can be corrected  or scaled down by reference to the  books of Samuel and  Kings...However, it is not always the case that the figures  in  Chronicles exceed their counterparts in Samuel and Kings."1  The correct answer  is probably 4,000 since 40,000 seems  extraordinarily large. Furthermore, it seems  likely that a single  "10's" place was copied incorrectly accounting for the discrepancy.




Wolf-Bone said:


> What pisses me off is that people like Rukh can't just say they believe what they do because they do, and say they're entitled to their beliefs, and let others disagree because that's not what it's really about with them. What it's about is a feeling of power and gratification. A "ministry" he appoints himself the leader of, in the form of just another usergroup to surround himself with "disciples" or whatever. Give me a break! And it'd be one thing to do that and admit we're all hypocrites on some level, but then he has to make a statement by distancing himself from, say, homosexually themed art, but not the other forms of fetishism like the cigars, metal, cars -- hell, even having a fursona or appreciating anthropomorphic art in the first place is most likely some form of idolatry. But let's face it, it's a hell of a lot easier to distance one's self from _a minority_ than something close to one's self and their passions. And that's Rukh in a nutshell, taking the easy route. It's why he does what he does here, and not somewhere he'd have to deal with not only competing "churches", or even any scrutiny that can't be so easily dismissed because it'd be coming from people other than furries, gays, non-Christians, atheists, geeks, basically people he's already decided are beneath him.


 Okay first off dude. I didn't start the Ministry I now lead on FA, I was asked to help out and became a Deacon for the ministry, then last week I was asked by the Ministry founder to take over. I didn't ask to join, I didn't ask for a position in the leadership. It was given to me. So next time, ask before you assume something you know nothing about.Add to that, I only starting leading and teaching 6 months ago (they way you see me now)


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 29, 2011)

*Part 2.*


Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Telling  people their only alternative to love is fiery death is pretty much  forcing people to love Him.


Telling people they don't need to  be saved, that they are not sinful, that they are okay isn't love  either dude. In doing that you condemn them because you are not acting  out your faith. And I am not here to scare people, But I won't sugarcoat  what the Bible says "For the wages of sin is death."
Dance around that...




Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Completely  untrue.  People accomplish many great things without needing God to  tell them to do so.  The Bible is not the crux of the religion.  The  crux is the belief in the ideas and teachings of Christ and being able  to apply them in your life.  Humility, charity, compassion.  These are  the ideas that hold up the religious faith.


John 15:1-8
â€œI am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you.  Remain in me, as I also remain in you. *No branch can bear fruit by  itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless  you remain in me.*      â€œI am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you,  you will bear much fruit;* apart from me you can do nothing.**   If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away  and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and  burned.* If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. This is to my Fatherâ€™s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.


 Again, dance around that. Scripture says the exact opposite of you dude. And these are the Words of Christ.


And do you know what the fruit Jesus is speaking of? The fruit of the  spirit. Without Jesus, you cannot bear the fruit of the spirit. The  fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness,  goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

And apart from God, you cannot produce these things.






Term_the_Schmuck said:


> My priests have done a  pretty good job relaying the message of Christ.  I had two as I was  growing up, Father Ted and Father Fred.  Both did a fairly good job, in  my opinion, through their sermons explaining the role of Christ in our  lives and the ability to take his teachings to help our fellow man, not  through preaching, but through our actions.  They were the biggest  influences in my religious development.  When they were gone, we got in a  fire and brimstone guy much like yourself, and he was generally  disliked (plus he rocked a killer Hitler haircut).  People don't respond  well to threats, and that's essentially what you're attempting to  preach.
> 
> *The role of Christ is to pay our debt which we owe to God for sinning.  *The  message of Christ is this, you are a sinner, you cannot earn your way  to heaven, because you are a sinner and under the Law you deserve death.  But, if you follow me, I can save you and atone for your sin. So, let  go and follow me. Drop everything, let everything go and follow me.  Jesus said, to leave behind security, money, convenience, even family  for Him. He said to abandon everything for the Gospel, to take up their  crosses daily and follow.
> Thats what it means to follow Christ.
> ...


----------



## Lobar (Mar 29, 2011)

tl;dr


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 29, 2011)

Lobar said:


> tl;dr


 
Figures, You fling question after question after question, Yet when I give full detailed answers and explanations you and everyone else goes "BAAAAWWWW you wrote to much, but I am still going to question you"

Don't ask questions if you don't want me to answer.


----------



## Aleu (Mar 29, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Figures, You fling question after question after question, Yet when I give full detailed answers and explanations you and everyone else goes "BAAAAWWWW you wrote to much, but I am still going to question you"
> 
> Don't ask questions if you don't want me to answer.


 I believe that was Mojo that was asking, not Lobar.

I like how you completely ignored me though :V
But as what Cathulu said, I pretty much agree. People like you, who cannot think for themselves, drive people away from religion. Especially with this retarded circle jerk you continue to puke out. "The bible is right because the bible said so and is right." I can't really take you seriously at all when you pull that shit.
Really, Rukh. Ever heard of the game "Telephone"? Do you not realize that the Bible is a shining example of this game? It's word of mouth then put into text and then translated and then the translation was translated. You take everything at face value in that god damned book. Why? Why is it when someone claims to be holy nowadays they're either crazy or leading people on? Even if they do preach kindness. Crazy people can be nice too.
Also, for the miracles, how do we even know that happened? Word of mouth? Like I said. I killed myself, went to Hell, and fought Satan. Why not take my word for it?
Maybe instead of having everyone think for you, why not think for yourself. God gave you a brain (I assume). Use it. Logic is just, so wonderful.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 29, 2011)

AleutheWolf said:


> I believe that was Mojo that was asking, not Lobar.
> 
> I like how you completely ignored me though :V
> But as what Cathulu said, I pretty much agree. People like you, who cannot think for themselves, drive people away from religion. Especially with this retarded circle jerk you continue to puke out. "The bible is right because the bible said so and is right." I can't really take you seriously at all when you pull that shit.
> ...


 
Lobar, just like everyone else, has done that to me, and that means you too. And you know what, I only reiterate Scripture, not my problem if you don't like it or agree with it. The Bible doesn't "prove" itself. It just makes the claim that it is true. It says it is. Scripture does this, so you either believe in it, or not. No middle ground. And the thing I preach, is there is no middle ground. I lived as a halfway Christian for 10 years. For 10 years I wasn't authentic in my faith. But 6 months ago I was backed into a corner by God and I was forced to make a decision. Was I willing to give up everything to follow Christ Jesus? I came to the realization that Jesus is worth more than anything in this world, and that includes myself. My full trust is in Christ Jesus and His Word. Christians are called to give up everything. Jesus told 3 men this:
He told one man, that if you follow Me you are not even guaranteed to have a roof over your head.
Another man who wanted to go bury his father and then follow Jesus, Jesus replied "Let the dead bury the dead."
And lastly a man told Jesus he wanted to say goodbye to his family and then he would follow. Jesus replied "don't even say goodbye to your family.

This is called radical abandonment for Christ. Jesus said: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes even his own life he cannot be my disciple." And Jesus continued, "Anyone who does not carry his own cross and follow me cannot be my disciple." Now this is taking it to a whole new level._ Pick up an instrument of torture and follow me._ 
Put this in modern terms, imagine a leader today inviting all those who would come after him to pick up an electric chair and follow him. Any takers? And Jesus wasn't even finished yet, He said "Any one of you who does not give up everything he has (and is) cannot be my disciple."
Give up everything you have, carry a cross, and hate your family (which means love Jesus more than your family. which means sacrificing your family to follow Jesus) This sounds completely different than the "Admit, believe, confess, and pray a prayer after me."

Ultimately, Jesus is calling us to abandon ourselves. Leave certainty for uncertainty, safety for danger, self preservation for self denuciation. In a world that prizes promoting themselves, we are called to follow a teacher who tells us to crucify ourselves. And history tells us the results of this. Over 70 million Christians have died for their faith. And almost all of them went willingly singing praise and glory  to God.

This is the Christianity I preach. Radical abandonment. I am willing to sacrifice everything I own, my tools, my cars, my money, my entertainment. I am willing to forsake my own family, I am willing to die.

That is what authentic faith looks like. And yeah, its that radical.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 29, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> I have apparently exceeded the limit of characters. I typed out 28401 characters and it seems the forum only allows 25,000 characters.



That's the forum's way of telling you to pare it the fuck down some! You don't _need_ that many characters, most likely. You damn sure don't need to quoterape the way you're doing, and I'm uncertain if the forum software counts quotes in the character limit but I'd assume it probably does.



			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> talking a bunch of shit about instruments of torture and death, crucifying one's self and being an authentic Christian



Since you're somewhat disturbingly obsessed with that, as well as being "authentic", penitents in the Philippines _literally_ crucify themselves. Keep in mind, I'm actually in the minority in that I respect and admire that about them, rather than mock and bash them for it, even though I don't think it's entirely necessary. I think they're more authentic Christians than you, if not for that part of their way of life, for damn near everything else about it, such as tending to be more humble both in mindset and lifestyle. You say you're willing to give up all your possessions and vices. They have few possessions and vices to even abandon in the first place.



			
				AleutheWolf said:
			
		

> I killed myself, went to Hell, and fought Satan. Why not take my word for it?



I'm willing to take your word for it, but that's only the easy-to-moderate difficulty setting. If you play on Authentic mode, not only do you get to fight Rukh, but I'm also an unlockable playable character.


----------



## Aleu (Mar 29, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Lobar, just like everyone else, has done that to me, and that means you too. And you know what, I only reiterate Scripture, not my problem if you don't like it or agree with it. The Bible doesn't "prove" itself. It just makes the claim that it is true. It says it is. Scripture does this, so you either believe in it, or not. No middle ground. And the thing I preach, is there is no middle ground. I lived as a halfway Christian for 10 years. for 10 years I wasn't authentic in my faith. But 6 months ago I was backed into a corner by God and I was forced to make a decision. Was I willing to give up everything to follow Christ Jesus. I came to the realization that Jesus is worth more than anything in this world, and that includes myself. My full trust is in Christ Jesus and His Word. Christians are called to give up everything. Jesus told 3 men this:
> He told one man, that if you follow Me you are not even guranteed to have a roof over your head.
> Another man who wanted to go bury his father and then follow Jesus, Jesus replied "Let the dead bury the dead."
> And lastly a man told Jesus he wanted to say goodbye to his family and then he would follow. Jesus replied "don't even say goodbye to your family.
> ...


 Sure, it makes the claim, but really, how are we sure that it's not just another book? Other books claim the same thing. This is true, follow me! Follow me!
And I'm not disagree with what Scripture says, I can read. What actually happened, I'm skeptical of. Especially since most people back then didn't have an understanding of much other than "voodoo magicks".
But really, saying that the Scripture is true just because it says it's true is...very, very dumb to sugar-coat that a bit.

The reason why I would more likely believe a skeptic than a blind christian is because blind christians don't question and therein lies problems. If they are being misled then they wouldn't know it.
A skeptic might follow one thing or nothing, but at least they question validity.
Why is that so wrong?


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Mar 29, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Hmm, lets see, Its called the Holy Spirit Mayfurr. When one comes to Christ the Holy Spirit dwells within you. Yes, thats right. The Holy Spirit, once yoy accept Christ will reside with in you. So Paul's words were not His own. Yes, it was His writing style, but the Holy Spirit spoke through him. I thought even you would have figuired that part out about the Holy Spirit. You know the whole Pentecost thing?


 
Why can't the Holy Spirit, the Son, and the Father be one and the same?
If God's work lies within all things, then all things would be a product of God, and indistinguishable from anything but God, you know?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 29, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Since you're somewhat disturbingly obsessed



Your right, I am obsessed. I am a Jesus Freak, I hunger for His word. I can't get enough of it. The more I learn and grow, the more I want to learn and grow, the more insatiable my hunger for God becomes. Call me what you will, lunatic, crazy, "fundi", it doesn't matter. The moment God tells me to go, I want to, I will. I spend my time in the Word, studying, learning, growing. I hold nothing back.



JesusFish said:


> Why can't the Holy Spirit, the Son, and the Father be one and the same?
> If  God's work lies within all things, then all things would be a product  of God, and indistinguishable from anything but God, you know?


 
God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. But, the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father.
Separate yet the same. Its complicated.



AleutheWolf said:


> Sure, it makes the claim, but really, how are  we sure that it's not just another book? Other books claim the same  thing. This is true, follow me! Follow me!
> And I'm not disagree with  what Scripture says, I can read. What actually happened, I'm skeptical  of. Especially since most people back then didn't have an understanding  of much other than "voodoo magicks".
> But really, saying that the Scripture is true just because it says it's true is...very, very dumb to sugar-coat that a bit.
> 
> ...


 
Its not blind faith, as I said. For 10 years I was anything but a Christian. I walked down the other road. And I can tell you I am a much better man now than I was when I was running away from God. I walked away from God, I challenged God, I was skeptical. And God showed me who He is. And He hit me Hard, real Hard. I fought against Him. And He fought back, hard. And something I learned, our arms are to short to box with God. 
Add to that, I don't question the validly anymore, my Faith is now absolute. And I can't doubt His Word. Its not that I don't want to, its I physically and mentally can't. I am consumed by God. I must obey, every fiber in my bones screams at me to obey my Creator.

But, as I said. The Bible never "proves" itself the way you want it to. It merely tell what is. The Bible does not defend itself.
 It simply states what is and is not true. The Bible is either a joke or  it is true. You either believe what it says or you reject it. It calls  you to be hot or cold, and calls you to examine yourself before its holy  pages and before the holy Lord Jesus that it points to and proclaims.


----------



## Aleu (Mar 29, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Your right, I am obsessed. I am a Jesus Freak, I hunger for His word. I can't get enough of it. The more I learn and grow, the more I want to learn and grow, the more insatiable my hunger for God becomes. Call me what you will, lunatic, crazy, "fundi", it doesn't matter. The moment God tells me to go, I want to, I will. I spend my time in the Word, studying, learning, growing. I hold nothing back.


 Are you serious? Because it really doesn't seem like you're learning anything. Just continuously validating anything you've read without new ideas. That's not learning.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 29, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Stuff


 
The trinity is such a wierd concept. It's basically "I'm not going to define it so I can adjust the meaning as I need later so it best suits my needs!".

But if you'd read the whole scripture you'd know that the real truth is that the Demiurge just has a multiple personality disorder and keeps forgetting who he is.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 29, 2011)

AleutheWolf said:


> Are you serious? Because it really doesn't seem like you're learning anything. Just continuously validating anything you've read without new ideas. That's not learning.


 
I am very serious. I always am. And my faith is serious. And as I said in my edited post above, I did walk away from my faith. I know that road all to well, and I know I was once one way, and now I am a changed man. I have learned quit a bit, and the main thing is, is the more one learns about God and His Word, the more one realizes the depth of God and how much more one do not know.
Just because you don't hold to what I do, or believe what I believe, doesn't mean I haven't learned anything. My spiritual walk has grown by leaps and bounds, but I have a long, long ways to go. And it ends when I see Christ Jesus in heaven.

As for new Ideas, everything I have been posting is something I too had to come to grips with. And some of it I personally didn't like. But just because I personally didn't like it, did not make it untrue. Everything I talk about, is what I have learned since turning my life around.


----------



## Aleu (Mar 29, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Its not blind faith, as I said. For 10 years I was anything but a Christian. I walked down the other road. And I can tell you I am a much better man now than I was when I was running away from God. I walked away from God, I challenged God, I was skeptical. And God showed me who He is. And He hit me Hard, real Hard. I fought against Him. And He fought back, hard. And something I learned, our arms are to short to box with God.
> Add to that,* I don't question the validly anymore,* my Faith is now absolute. And I can't doubt His Word. Its not that I don't want to, its I physically and mentally can't. I am consumed by God. I must obey, every fiber in my bones screams at me to obey my Creator.
> 
> But, as I said. The Bible never "proves" itself the way you want it to. It merely tell what is. The Bible does not defend itself.
> It simply states what is and is not true. The Bible is either a joke or  it is true. You either believe what it says or you reject it. It calls  you to be hot or cold, and calls you to examine yourself before its holy  pages and before the holy Lord Jesus that it points to and proclaims.


 Therein lies your problem.
Sure, the bible claims stuff, but why should I take it at face value when there are probably hundreds of other religions out there?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 29, 2011)

AleutheWolf said:


> Therein lies your problem.
> Sure, the bible claims stuff, but why should I take it at face value when there are probably hundreds of other religions out there?


 
Because I have faith. Come on, seriously. Christians know and trust God's word because they hear and know the voice of Jesus. 
As I have said before as stated from Jesus "I know my sheep and my sheep know me, and they know my voice"

You want in depth answers, then go here and read: http://carm.org/answers-for-seekers 
Seriously, if you are really interested, go and read and see.
Why do you want Jesus to just appear in front of you and say here I am, believe? Where is the faith in that?
Then Jesus told him, â€œBecause you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Its faith Aleu. Its trust. I have complete trust and faith in God.

What are we to say about all those other religions compared to  Christianity?  To get to the point, all other religions besides  Christianity are false. If Jesus is who He said He was, God in  flesh, then whatever He says is authoritative and true.  He said that He  was the way the truth and the life and that nobody comes to the Father  except through Him. Right there we see that any other way, according to Jesus, is not true.

Christianity bases its truth and its doctrine on the word of God, the  Bible.  In the Word of God, Jesus claims to be the only way.  Since He  performed many miracles, raised people from the dead, commanded a storm  to be still and it obeyed, healed diseases, and rose from the dead, then  we are forced to face the reality of His words.  Is what He said true  or not?  Either Jesus is a liar, a lunatic, or He is Lord.  No one else  in history, except Jesus, has fulfilled detailed prophecies, performed  many miracles before eyewitnesses, and risen from the dead.  Jesus is  unique.


Those of us who are Christians, have trusted what Christ  has said.  We believe in what He said and did.  Like it or not, Jesus is  the one who said He was the only way.  It is not the Christians who are  being "narrow-minded."  It is Jesus.  Therefore, to say that other  religions can be true means that Jesus is false.  To say that there are  other ways to God, also means that Jesus is false.  *This is what it  comes down to.  Either Jesus is who He said He was and what He said is  true, or He is false.  This is the choice you must make:  To trust what  He said, or reject His words.*


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 29, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> Your right, I am obsessed. I am a Jesus Freak, I hunger for His word. I can't get enough of it. The more I learn and grow, the more I want to learn and grow, the more insatiable my hunger for God becomes. Call me what you will, lunatic, crazy, "fundi", it doesn't matter.



You're obsessed not just with Jesus, but the instruments of his sacrifice/demise, and you think that makes you more "authentic". Being obsessed with authenticity is lame in itself, but even by that metric there are Christians who could be said to be "more" "authentic" than you. Yet you have nothing to say about them, or the example I gave. It's somewhat fitting that you use the word "obsessed", which many a dangerous person are, and talk about an "insatiable hunger", as many a zombie, vampire, cannibal and murderer have. You want to _devour_ Jesus, you think thereby attributing his qualities to yourself, when in reality you only take on the qualities of his executioners.



			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> The Bible is either a joke or it is true. You either believe what it says or you reject it.



While a person's goal in life should be to establish what they believe and don't believe, that's actually a very hard thing for anyone to accomplish. The problem with your thinking is that it makes the hard part of that harder in exchange for what appears to be easy on the surface, and downright negates the easy part, which is that something like the bible might be at least partly true. I don't reject everything about the bible. I just believe it to be incomplete, inaccurate, biased and self-contradicting. But in many other ways it has loads of merit. It's hard to separate the latter from the former, and I actually see that as one of God's tasks for us. You don't want that. You want to appear to be trodding the path where you're actually taking the fast lane, as evidenced by your boasting about how far you've come along in such a short time. As if the difference between the time it takes you and anyone else is even relevant to the being who created time and is unfettered by it. What a foolish proposition!



			
				Mojotech said:
			
		

> The trinity is such a wierd concept. It's basically "I'm not going to define it so I can adjust the meaning as I need later so it best suits my needs!".
> 
> But if you'd read the whole scripture you'd know that the real truth is that the Demiurge just has a multiple personality disorder and keeps forgetting who he is.



That's one way of looking at it, but I think it's more likely that an infinite being basically has infinite manifestations and doesn't "forget" any of them, or that even its demiurge would be quite _that_ incompetent.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Mar 29, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. But, the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father.
> Separate yet the same. Its complicated.


 
But, according to the Old Testament (aka, the Original Testament), God is one being, and all religion must be Unitarian, not Trinitarian. 
If God is the most perfect of all beings, and 3 things are considered to be God, then you are getting lied to. Only one thing can be the most perfect of all things. That would mean that the other two would be of lesser importance than the original concept.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 30, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> That's one way of looking at it, but I think it's more likely that an infinite being basically has infinite manifestations and doesn't "forget" any of them, or that even its demiurge would be quite _that_ incompetent.


 
If we're going to talk christian theology, I actually think the Mormons have the most sensible interpretation of the bible myths inasmuch that God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost really are three distinct beings, Jesus is literally God's son, and they're just in cahoots instead of being some wierd fluidly-defined amalgamation. Mostly because the bible actually refers to them that way, and not some strange three-headed monster.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 30, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> You're obsessed not just with Jesus, but the instruments of his sacrifice/demise, and you think that makes you more "authentic". Being obsessed with authenticity is lame in itself, but even by that metric there are Christians who could be said to be "more" "authentic" than you. Yet you have nothing to say about them, or the example I gave. It's somewhat fitting that you use the word "obsessed", which many a dangerous person are, and talk about an "insatiable hunger", as many a zombie, vampire, cannibal and murderer have. You want to _devour_ Jesus, you think thereby attributing his qualities to yourself, when in reality you only take on the qualities of his executioners.


I have spoken at greats lengths about the Crucifixion because I have been studying the doctrine of Salvation. I have been going very deep into it and have learned a whole new perspective. And that perspective has humbles me greatly.  I am not obsessed with authenticity per say, I am obsessed with Christ Jesus, who makes me have an authentic faith. Following Christ Jesus results in having authentic faith.





Wolf-Bone said:


> While a person's goal in life should be to establish what they believe and don't believe, that's actually a very hard thing for anyone to accomplish. The problem with your thinking is that it makes the hard part of that harder in exchange for what appears to be easy on the surface, and downright negates the easy part, which is that something like the bible might be at least partly true. I don't reject everything about the bible. I just believe it to be incomplete, inaccurate, biased and self-contradicting. But in many other ways it has loads of merit. It's hard to separate the latter from the former, and I actually see that as one of God's tasks for us. You don't want that. You want to appear to be trodding the path where you're actually taking the fast lane, as evidenced by your boasting about how far you've come along in such a short time. As if the difference between the time it takes you and anyone else is even relevant to the being who created time and is unfettered by it. What a foolish proposition!


 Now as for my walk with God. I believe I said, the more I have learned  the more I realize just how big God is. Think of it s a ruler. And I  moved maybe a fraction of a millimeter on my walk with God. Thats it. I  have a long, long way to go. Its not boasting, I am telling other of what I have learned so they to may grow. The only thing I can boast in, is knowledge of Christ Jesus being Lord and Savior. Nothing else.





JesusFish said:


> But, according to the Old Testament (aka, the Original Testament), God is one being, and all religion must be Unitarian, not Trinitarian.
> If God is the most perfect of all beings, and 3 things are considered to be God, then you are getting lied to. Only one thing can be the most perfect of all things. That would mean that the other two would be of lesser importance than the original concept.


 
Actually the Old Testament also speaks of the Trinity. when the Bible says an Angel of the Lord apeared, the angel with a capital A, that was actually Jesus before he came down to earth as a man. Plus, the OT also speaks of the Spirit of the Lord (Holy Spirit.)

The Father is not the same person as the Son; the Son is not the same  person as the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not the same person as  Father.  They are not three gods and not three beings.  They are three  distinct persons; yet, they are all the one God.  Each has a will, can  speak, can love, etc., and these are demonstrations of personhood.  They  are in absolute perfect harmony consisting of one substance.  They are  coeternal, coequal, and copowerful.  If any one of the three were  removed, there would be no God.


Some critiques of the Trinitarian doctrine say that the Trinity is  really teaching  three gods, not one.  They will say that God the  Father, and God the Son, and  God the Holy Spirit would make three gods,  since the Father plus the Son plus the  Holy Spirit would make three.   But this is not a logical necessity.  Instead  of adding, why not  multiply?  One times one times one equals one.  Why  must addition be  the criteria by which the doctrine is judged?  It need not  be.

For further reading, go here: http://carm.org/trinity, and here: http://carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/another-look-trinity



Mojotech said:


> If we're going to talk christian theology, I  actually think the Mormons have the most sensible interpretation of the  myths that God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost really are three distinct  beings, Jesus is literally God's son, and they're just in cahoots  instead of being some wierd fluidly-defined amalgamation. Mostly because  the bible actually refers to them that way, and not some strange  three-headed monster.


 
Oh yeah cause it totally makes sense that:

God used to be a man on another planet, (_Mormon Doctrine_, p. 321; Joseph Smith, _Times and __easons_, vol. 5, p. 613-614; Orson Pratt, _Journal of Discourses_, vol. 2, p. 345; Brigham Young, _Journal of Discourses_, vol. 7, p. 333).

God is in the form of a man, (Joseph Smith, _Journal of Discourses_, vol. 6, p. 3).

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits  enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God  from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so  that you may see," (_Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith_, p. 345).

God the Father had a Father, (Joseph Smith, _History of the Church_, vol. 6, p. 476; Heber C. Kimball, _Journal of Discourses_, vol. 5, p. 19; Milton Hunter, _First Council of the Seventy_, Gospel through the Ages, p. 104-105).

God resides near a star called Kolob, (_Pearl of Great Price_, p. 34-35; _Mormon Doctrine_, p. 42.)

Study Mormonism, maybe then you will actually know what it says. And see how much of a cult it is.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 30, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Stuff


 
Rukh, nobody wants to hear about the wierd cult you belong to. We're trying to have a conversation about serious theology here. Go and play outside until the adults are done talking.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 30, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Rukh, nobody wants to hear about the wierd cult you belong to. We're trying to have a conversation about serious theology here. Go and play outside until the adults are done talking.


And you know what? I have studied Christian Theology. Have you? Without going to Google explain the difference between  Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianisn, Arminianism, and Augustinian Theology. explain the theology of Mormonism, how Joseph Smith came to his supposed "enlightenment". Do all this without looking any of the info up. Can you? No? Didn't think so.http://www.furaffinity.net/journals/rukhwhitefang/#jid:2188787


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 30, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Stuff



Seriously Rukh, Nobody cares about the little things like that when you don't even know about things like the Council of Trent and the Council of Nicaea, or the proper origins of Islam and instead just repeat what your pastor and your uncited apologist websites told you. There's more out there than just christianity, and you don't even understand christian mythology very well.

And yes I can explain those, but there's no point until you stop raging.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 30, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Seriously Rukh, Nobody cares about the little things like that when you don't even know about things like the Council of Trent and the Council of Nicaea, or the proper origins of Islam and instead just repeat what your pastor and your uncited apologist websites told you. There's more out there than just christianity, and you don't even understand christian mythology very well.
> 
> And yes I can explain those, but there's no point until you stop raging.


 
Then explain them. Stop dancing around the question. I am asking you a question.

And just so you know, I do understand what Christianity teaches, it is very apparent through I don't know how many discussions I have had with you, that you don't.

I have asked you a direct question about several Christian theologies. So answer it or shut up basically. I answer what you fling at me, and I give full detailed answers. You just continue to put up snide one sentence remarks instead of continuing the conversation.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 30, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> I have spoken at greats lengths about the Crucifixion because I have been studying the doctrine of Salvation. I have been going very deep into it and have learned a whole new perspective. And that perspective has humbles me greatly. I am not obsessed with authenticity per say, I am obsessed with Christ Jesus, who makes me have an authentic faith. Following Christ Jesus results in having authentic faith.



Well, you mention Jesus says people should be willing to literally take up their cross and be crucified, and one sect of Christians does just that. They're just a little more obsessed than you, I think it's safe to say. They're certainly more Christian in other ways, even if that's one of the ways they get it wrong, but from the sounds of it, you shouldn't think they are.



			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> Now as for my walk with God. I believe I said, the more I have learned the more I realize just how big God is. Think of it s a ruler. And I moved maybe a fraction of a millimeter on my walk with God. Thats it. I have a long, long way to go. Its not boasting, I am telling other of what I have learned so they to may grow. The only thing I can boast in, is knowledge of Christ Jesus being Lord and Savior. Nothing else.



Maybe it'd help if you didn't use so many statements referring directly to yourself, your supposed growth and the example you supposedly set?



			
				JesusFish said:
			
		

> But, according to the Old Testament (aka, the Original Testament), God is one being, and all religion must be Unitarian, not Trinitarian.
> If God is the most perfect of all beings, and 3 things are considered to be God, then you are getting lied to. Only one thing can be the most perfect of all things. That would mean that the other two would be of lesser importance than the original concept.



Not necessarily. While most pagan religions seem to place emphasis on one or more gods in particular and place subsequent gods in a lower tier, and it might make sense to see something like the trinity in a similar light, most who believe in it don't seem to do that. Perfection/omnipotence kinda implies being beyond above and beyond those rules. Pagans believed gods had flaws and limited powers, monotheists generally don't. Now, why they don't extend that belief in "one god in several manifestations" to the many established pagan deities or even other concepts of the God of Abraham is purely ideological, but we needn't adhere to their beliefs and their ideology to have our own.



			
				Mojotech said:
			
		

> If we're going to talk christian theology, I actually think the Mormons have the most sensible interpretation of the bible myths inasmuch that God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost really are three distinct beings, Jesus is literally God's son, and they're just in cahoots instead of being some wierd fluidly-defined amalgamation. Mostly because the bible actually refers to them that way, and not some strange three-headed monster.



Yeah, but the bible could just as easily be wrong about that as it is wrong about other things. There's just no easy answer to this shit, and unfortunately, people like Rukh just can't accept that. Yet their faith is so strong, even though it won't allow them to accept the possibility in something their fragile minds can't wrap their head around and, at least as far as their ego is concerned, be in control of and _own_.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 30, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Christianity!



Nah, because if I do and I'm right, you'll just say I googled it, and if I don't fit your warped view on the issues, you won't accept it/will use it as another chance to preach, and if I refuse you'll just claim I'm "afraid" or something. :V It's a really obvious ploy that's not going to work.

Instead what we should do is talk about why you are so angry and prone to denial all the time. You're always on the defensive, perhaps because you don't have true faith in these beliefs?



Wolf-Bone said:


> Yeah, but the bible could just as easily be wrong about that as it is wrong about other things. There's just no easy answer to this shit, and unfortunately, people like Rukh just can't accept that. Yet their faith is so strong, even though it won't allow them to accept the possibility in something their fragile minds can't wrap their head around and, at least as far as their ego is concerned, be in control of and _own_.



Well Rukh's main problem is he literally cannot concieve of himself being wrong. There's no interpretation, just closed-minded stubbornness. And anger. A lot of anger. You can't even mention a fellow christian's view on a subject like the trinity (or lack thereof) without him trying to attack everything he can on them.


----------



## Heimdal (Mar 30, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> So don't come in here and tell people that we don't need saving and we are good people.


 
I almost want to quote that! Rukh is really doing a great job making Christianity look... good?

I skimmed through those tl;dr posts like everyone else did, because it was all just a very long-winded way of him stating that he does not approve of others having their own thoughts. He's aiming for total thought control, and if he could actually do it he would be the evil he thinks he's against.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Mar 30, 2011)

Didn't you guys agree in another thread to ignore Ruk? Or was that another bunch of people?


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Mar 30, 2011)

So what? They might no belive in i aGod but htey will beileve is


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 30, 2011)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> Didn't you guys agree in another thread to ignore Ruk? Or was that another bunch of people?


 
I think that was Roose we'd agreed to ignore? But yeah that seems the most sensible route at this point, as at this point we have clearly demonstrated Rukh is not going to listen to anyone but himself speak, and will post multi-page replies to people even when he's not directly addressed.

I think the best solution would be to just ban the fundies and be done with it. They can go post on their bible forums. :V


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 30, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Nah, because if I do and I'm right, you'll just say I googled it, and if I don't fit your warped view on the issues, you won't accept it/will use it as another chance to preach, and if I refuse you'll just claim I'm "afraid" or something. :V It's a really obvious ploy that's not going to work.
> 
> Instead what we should do is talk about why you are so angry and prone to denial all the time. You need to stop accepting the theological lies of the Demiurge and worship the true goddess.


 
He can't yet. I'm not done painting her. And besides, she's a unicorn and he probably couldn't accept that. C'mon, you just know a guy like Rukh is the kind of Christian that needs the visual aid, preferably the one where Jesus looks like an average white guy who grew up in the 60's or 70's, then got a job as a substitute teacher and kept just enough of his hair, beard and rebellious streak to throw the modern day Pilate for a loop without getting crucified by him all over again.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 30, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> He can't yet. I'm not done painting her. And besides, she's a unicorn and he probably couldn't accept that. C'mon, you just know a guy like Rukh is the kind of Christian that needs the visual aid, preferably the one where Jesus looks like an average white guy who grew up in the 60's or 70's, then got a job as a substitute teacher and kept just enough of his hair, beard and rebellious streak to throw the modern day Pilate for a loop without getting crucified by him all over again.


 
I laughed. I shouldn't have, but I did. However the modern image of Jesus  is actually strangely fitting, given the totally egocentric views of Rukh and others like him, given it started with some middle age nobility who basically comissioned a self-insert-fic image of himself as Jesus.

Also the unicorn thing sounds cool. Show it to me when you're done?


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Mar 30, 2011)

So what. The belief of God might be gone but people will latch onto an equally destructive believe, say like communism. It's not like we're all going to be sitting around a hover table talking about transdimensional entanglement while sipping Valcon tea.

Plus, lets take a look at the furry fandom. It has a huge secular vibe to it, but yet there is a large spiritual presence in it, i.e. therianthropy, otherkin, ect. Whether it be personal, made up, or whatever, it doesn't matter, it's there. So I guess you could say that religion won't be gone, but nihilism will be dominate.

Of course this is all speculation.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 30, 2011)

So what we're all trying to say here, is that we should make a "Rukh Megathread".


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 30, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> I laughed. I shouldn't have, but I did. However the modern image of Jesus  is actually strangely fitting, given the totally egocentric views of Rukh and others like him, given it started with some middle age nobility who basically comissioned a self-insert-fic image of himself as Jesus.
> 
> Also the unicorn thing sounds cool. Show it to me when you're done?


 
I don't mind European portrayals of Jesus by themselves, but I do kinda dislike what I've always read into them. Jesus always looks like what a pretty average European would look like with a little more in the way of haircare, personal hygiene and diet/exercise. The masses look somewhere between the Jewish and Roman mobs and the unwashed masses of the European peasantry, and the Roman elite look like the same pampered and overfed European aristocrats and bureaucrats they were and gave rise to. So I've come to think it was to, at least subconsciously, tell the average European peasant "this is what you should aspire to, but bear in mind the consequences of succeeding", the lesser European noble "this is who you are, and you should like it", and the aristocracy "this is what you're doing to the people beneath you, but they want you to and they'll forgive you anyway".

Oh, and yeah, I'll post the unicorn goddess on my userpage when she's done. She's the chief deity of time itself, which I'm not sure if any pagan religions actually had or if any portrayed as a female, so I'm hoping I might've created something hedging on "new" here.



Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> So what. The belief of God might be gone but people will latch onto an equally destructive believe, say like communism. It's not like we're all going to be sitting around a hover table talking about transdimensional entanglement while sipping Valcon tea.
> 
> Plus, lets take a look at the furry fandom. It has a huge secular vibe to it, but yet there is a large spiritual presence in it, i.e. therianthropy, otherkin, ect. Whether it be personal, made up, or whatever, it doesn't matter, it's there. So I guess you could say that religion won't be gone, but nihilism will be dominate.
> 
> Of course this is all speculation.



Yes, where it counts, political ideology is pretty much religion, or religion is basically politically ideology. Whichever you prefer. It's chicken and egg shit, really, and I'd rather be rid of ideology and keep some of the trappings of religion, if only as a vessel for a more genuine spirituality. That said, therians find themselves in the furry fandom because we're drawn to anthropomorphic art, naturally, and because therianthropy is first and foremost and individual's belief which needn't rely on others for reinforcement or validation. That and, believe it or not, the "community" can be much more growth-stunted and toxic than the furry fandom.



Lastdirewolf said:


> So what we're all trying to say here, is that we should make a "Rukh Megathread".


 
Yes, that's a good idea. But it'd have to be on a separate board, on a separate site, on a separate server, in a separate country on a separate planet in a separate galaxy, preferably one a long, long time ago and far, far away. I'd also hope he'd be the only occupant of this galaxy. Let him talk to the wall/himself all he likes but don't subject those poor aliens to it.


----------



## Darkfoxx (Mar 30, 2011)

Fucking hell people.

You ask Rukh why he's on the defensive? How about, from the first page of this thread people have been attacking anyone's religion. Duh? 

And banning the fundies? if you're going there, then not just Rukh but the anti relgious fundies as well. Equal treatment.

I've grown tired of this thread's BS a while ago, and simply stopped trying to talk to the brick wall. Suggestion: lock this thread, and any other religious threads as well. Because it's been proven already that a serious, neutral and unbalanced discussion about religion is impossible with the kind of people on this forum.


----------



## Aden (Mar 30, 2011)

Darkfoxx said:


> Suggestion: lock this thread, and any other religious threads as well. Because it's been proven already that a serious, neutral and unbalanced discussion about religion is impossible with the kind of people on this forum.


 
I will not be following your suggestion so long as there is discussion to be had and people willing to take part in it.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 30, 2011)

Shit, there is a slowly increasing admittal of Atheism at least. I'm more than happy to hear of people becoming true to themselves, and to stop lying to the people around them. That David Silverman from around Christmas time was a little too much, but his underlying message was great, and I wish it could get out more.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 30, 2011)

Darkfoxx said:


> Fucking hell people.
> 
> You ask Rukh why he's on the defensive? How about, from the first page of this thread people have been attacking anyone's religion. Duh?
> 
> ...


 
I clicked on the "THIS" button, got a "You Are Not Allowed" message, and lost the use of the "THIS" button... so, to make a long story short:  THIS!


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 30, 2011)

Darkfoxx said:


> Fucking hell people. It's been proven already that a serious, neutral and unbalanced discussion about religion is impossible with the kind of people on this forum.


 
We tried to converse with you but you kinda clung to that false analogy you drew between atheists and hardcore religious fanatics, and still are trying to do so. We can't exactly have a neutral discussion about it when you're trying to drag it off center.



Wolf-Bone said:


> I don't mind European portrayals of Jesus by themselves, but I do kinda dislike what I've always read into them.



Yeah. I mean you're always going to have these mythological figures portrayed in a way that makes them appear more friendly to the locals over time, but in this case the whole european religious system was a pretty clear example of supernatural dogma (act the way we want and you'll get rewarded, and no we don't have to follow these rules ourselves since we're better) rather than an earnest attempt at trying to improve the masses. (And then the Crusades happened.)



Wolf-Bone said:


> Oh, and yeah, I'll post the unicorn goddess on my userpage when she's done. She's the chief deity of time itself, which I'm not sure if any pagan religions actually had or if any portrayed as a female, so I'm hoping I might've created something hedging on "new" here.



Probably not- they had deities for everything including "Boners that wouldn't go down even after they became painful or lethal.".


----------



## Azure (Mar 30, 2011)

There are people ITT that take Rukh seriously? I weep for the universe.


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 30, 2011)

Azure said:


> There are people ITT that take Rukh seriously? I weep for the universe.



Are you including Rukh in that statement?


----------



## ~secret~ (Mar 30, 2011)

Azure said:


> There are people ITT that take Rukh seriously? I weep for the universe.


 
Guy sticks by his beliefs though, gotta give him that. He's either completely serious or the greatest troll ever.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 30, 2011)

Azure said:


> There are people ITT that take Rukh seriously? I weep for the universe.


 
I wonder how plausible it would be to have Rukh kicked just for generally being a disruptive force in the forum. How many forum goers we'd have to have sign a petition for that purpose to get it done.


----------



## Azure (Mar 30, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> I wonder how plausible it would be to have Rukh kicked just for generally being a disruptive force in the forum. How many forum goers we'd have to have sign a petition for that purpose to get it done.


Come on, you gotta admit, you laugh at most of it, eh? I do :3c


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 30, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You asked, I answer, I hope your ready. As for the first text you bring up, the different genealogys. [...]
> 
> The Bible should be interpreted in the context of its literary style,  culture, and history. Breaking up genealogies into male and female  representations was acceptable in the ancient Near East culture since it  was often impolite to speak of women without proper conditions being  met: male presence, etc. Therefore, *one genealogy might be of Mary and  the other of Joseph--even though both mention Joseph*. In other words,  the Mary geneaology was counted "in" Joseph and under his headship.



In other words: _"We know there's a cock-up, but we'll pretend that the text says something other than what it really said and hopefully no-one will know the difference."_ 
Using that logic, I can claim that Jesus's statement of "I am the way, the truth and the life" actually means he'll cook a feast of roast lamb for everyone because roasting lamb was a Jewish cultural tradition....

<howls of derisive laughter>

Even allowing for such handwaving away of inconvenient facts, your explanation _still_ doesn't work because, as this article points out: 
"_The fatal flaw to any bloodline connection between Jesus and David is that shortly after the exile, all of David's descendants were wiped out. There were 538 years to account for from the last descendant to Jesus' birth. The Old Testament writers didn't keep records of lineage long after the exile because there were no more kings and no more Davidic descendants._" 
Also, "_The stumbling block is that Mary was from the tribe of Levi, while David was from the tribe of Judah. Mary was related to Elizabeth who was a daughter of Aaron. Aaron was a Levitical priest and brother of Moses. Tribes did not intermarry._"



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Moving on, To the 2nd and third passage you put up about King Ahaziah.
> The discrepency in ages is due to *a copyist error. *[...] If one or both of the hooks were smudged or flaked off of  a papyri, then  the dates would be off by ten years or a factor of ten.
> The  fact that this is a copyist error does not invalidate the inspiration or authority  of Scripture. Remember, God inspired the originals. They were without error. *The copies have problems*, though very very few. The  copies are copies of inspired documents  and, unfortunately, *some  copyist errors did creep into the manuscripts.*



Of course this is pure speculation because - surprise surprise - the originals don't exist any more for comparison. But the most important thing is that you've actually fatally invalidated the claim of the "perfect and without error" Bible by admitting _the book possibly has copyist errors in it!_ 

And if copyist errors exist in such mundane passages, where else might they be found? Perhaps the "Adulterer's Bible" got it _right_ and the "true" Bible was wrong - perhaps the Seventh Commandment really _is_ "Thou shalt commit adultery"! 



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And now onto the verse about King Solomon.
> There are two possible explanations for this discrepancy. 1) A  copyist error.  2) The difference is due to time; that is, one account  is at the beginning of Solomon's  reign [...] *I believe the most  probable is a copyist error since we can see that  Chronicles does have copyist errors  in other areas. *Therefore, it is  probable that the same thing occurred here.[...] Furthermore, it seems  likely that a *single  "10's" place was copied incorrectly* accounting for the discrepancy.



Shoot foot, reload, shoot again... how many toes have you got left? *You can't have a "perfect, without error" Bible that contains errors.* <howls of derisive laughter again>

The writer of  the rebuttal of Jesus's genealogy puts your position best: _"...*the best apologists can come up with is that as long as there are other possibilities, the Bible remains the infallible word of God.* This is the secret to how religionists manage to hold on to their faith in inerrancy. It is not the fault of the evidence, because there is an abundance of it. *It is their determination to ignore the evidence.*" (emphasis added)_

So in summary, you've only managed to admit the Bible contains errors, yet that doesn't stop you from somehow claiming with a straight face that despite these errors the Bible is the infallible word of God because there's a _possibility_ that despite the lack of actual evidence there's something out there that validates your position. In other words, "It reads how I want it to read, not how it actually reads."


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 30, 2011)

Azure said:


> Come on, you gotta admit, you laugh at most of it, eh? I do :3c



From knowing Christians who are really decent people, he pisses me off that he's the exact stereotype they have to fight against on a daily basis.  However, I do find it funny that he scares other Christians in this forum.  That's pretty bad.

As for getting him kicked off, I don't see it happening unless he makes a major infraction based on existing rules.  You can't really get banned for being Pat Robertson.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 30, 2011)

Azure said:


> Come on, you gotta admit, you laugh at most of it, eh? I do :3c


 
All the fundies on this forum are as amusing as they are annoying, but I think he's more or less jumped the shark with this thread. After such gems like "I believe Demons exist and people can perform exorcisms!" I honestly can't think of anything he could say that'd top it. Best to stop him now before sequel stagnation sets in.


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 30, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> I think he's more or less jumped the shark with this thread. After such gems like "I believe Demons exist and can perform exorcisms!" I honestly can't think of anything he could say that'd top it. Best to stop him now before sequel stagnation sets in.


 
Wait...I missed that one.  Did he say that?!   *LMAO*   Oh lord...he better not try to do that.  They'll eat him alive.


----------



## Azure (Mar 30, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> All the fundies on this forum are as amusing as they are annoying, but I think he's more or less jumped the shark with this thread. After such gems like "I believe Demons exist and can perform exorcisms!" I honestly can't think of anything he could say that'd top it. Best to stop him now before sequel stagnation sets in.


Time to cancel this years season of FA: Fundies on the internet.


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 30, 2011)

Wasn't last years's season of Fa "People who love their dogs too much"?   Or was it "Let's draw cubs and wear diapers!"   It's all starting to bleed together.


----------



## Azure (Mar 30, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> Wasn't last years's season of Fa "People who love their dogs too much"? Or was it "Let's draw cubs and wear diapers!" It's all starting to bleed together.


What'll be in for this wonderful summer season of newfag inflooding. I'm sure it'll be a more outrageous repeat of what has come before.


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 30, 2011)

Azure said:


> What'll be in for this wonderful summer season of newfag inflooding. I'm sure it'll be a more outrageous repeat of what has come before.


   FA: "How did you come out to your parents as a Furry?!"
*facepalm*  Summer reruns. Woot.


----------



## Bambi (Mar 30, 2011)

Darkfoxx said:


> Fucking hell people.
> 
> You ask Rukh why he's on the defensive?


You brought up something that I wanted to touch on. Rukh, suggestion:

1. Look at everyone's responses to you.
2. Group the ones up that are similar.
3. And respond to one, with a list of names that asked that same question already. 

Give them all one answer, and you're not step-laddering your answers and taking up viable page space. It's helped me save time and mental health on the occasions that people were asking me a lot of questions without consideration as to what I could actually get to.


----------



## Lobar (Mar 30, 2011)

Rukh _is_ a genuinely worthless poster.  He not only claims absolute certainty about God, but a few pages back he claimed to know our minds as well.  You may _say_ you just don't have any evidence to believe in God, but he _knows_ you just like gay sex or other sins (are there any other enjoyable sins besides sex?) too much to accept the oh-so-obvious truth.  He _knows_ this because it's in the Bible that it's the only reason anyone could ever find this whole salvation through a sacrificed, resurrected divine son of a virgin business at all silly.  So not only is he here to shit up threads with one-sided preaching as opposed to actual discussion, the target of all his preaching is this idiotic strawman that he imagines us all to be.  How is that not essentially spamming?  High-effort spamming, but spamming nonetheless.  There's zero point in talking to a person like that.


----------



## Discord Nova (Mar 30, 2011)

I think Rukh is just trying to force you guys to convert or something. Even im a christian but im still open to the fact that the bible could be wrong. Dont listen to Rukh, you have your own beliefs, stick to them.


----------



## BRN (Mar 30, 2011)

QuinnWOLF said:


> I think Rukh is just trying to force you guys to convert or something. Even im a christian but im still open to the fact that the bible could be wrong. Dont listen to Rukh, you have your own beliefs, stick to them.


 
Nice life philosophy, that. But I've always thought that it was best to always listen and always consider other opinions, because you can only develop your opinions by considering the applicability of other opinions in relation to yours. It's why, being an athiest, I always have lots of time to chat with theists.

Unfortunately, Rukh's opinions are logical fallacies [He's shown that he holds both sides of a contradictory statement to be true] wrapped in circular arguments [He holds that the Bible is objective because the Bible says so], defended by more of the same. It would be poor form to ignore him, but it would appear that he is ignoring us.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Mar 30, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Yes, where it counts, political ideology is pretty much religion, or religion is basically politically ideology. Whichever you prefer. It's chicken and egg shit, really, and I'd rather be rid of ideology and keep some of the trappings of religion, if only as a vessel for a more genuine spirituality. That said, therians find themselves in the furry fandom because we're drawn to anthropomorphic art, naturally, and because therianthropy is first and foremost and individual's belief which needn't rely on others for reinforcement or validation. That and, believe it or not, the "community" can be much more growth-stunted and toxic than the furry fandom.



And that's why it's silly to say religion will be gone. Cause in the end all people are individuals and they all make their own reality.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 30, 2011)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> And that's why it's silly to say religion will be gone. Cause in the end all people are individuals and they all make their own reality.


 
Well, to an extent, sure they do. But to a far greater extent, it's reality that makes _them_. And what I'm not entirely optimistic about is humans' capacity to realize and accept that. For starters, it'd be nice if they'd simply hear something closer to what another person actually says than _what they want to hear_. So many want to be gods, like Rukh, as poor a job as he does at concealing it, which is why he'll never succeed. Some of us just want to be people and would be content to just reclaim what little power we're naturally supposed to have, without the self-appointed gods shooting thunderbolts out of their mouths and asses at us for our efforts.


----------



## Discord Nova (Mar 30, 2011)

Im a christian and most christians i know just twist the bible to fit their standards. Some kids i go to school with think that me believing God and evolution coexist is a sin. And i know some atheists that are better examples of what a christian should be than christians themselves. As Gandhi always said "I like your Jesus, he is good. But i do not like your christians, they are nothing like your Jesus"


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 30, 2011)

QuinnWOLF said:


> Im a christian


 
Dude we know. Seriously. You've said it, if not started every post, saying you're a Christian. We know.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 30, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> All the fundies on this forum are as amusing as they are annoying, but I think he's more or less jumped the shark with this thread. After such gems like "I believe Demons exist and can perform exorcisms!" I honestly can't think of anything he could say that'd top it. Best to stop him now before sequel stagnation sets in.


 
And now you just flat out lied. I have never said such a thing.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 30, 2011)

I'm really disappointed that you won't even acknowledge what I said. Seriously, I'm genuinely curious as to your take on those things, and I'm not likely to get a serious discussion about them from most people here. I think they merit serious thought and discussion.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 30, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And now you just flat out lied. I have never said such a thing.


 


			
				Rukh_Whitefang; said:
			
		

> Demons used to be angels.
> 
> And here is the cool thing, we as Christians are given the authority to rebuke demons.



Seriously Rukh, just stop posting already.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 30, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Seriously Rukh, just stop posting alraedy.


 

Lets see, Lucifer (Satan) Used to be one of the highest ranking Angels in Heaven. Lucifer rebelled and 1/3 of the angels followed him. He and his followers were thrown out of heaven into hell.

So, Demons used to be angels. As per Scripture.
So shut up and deal with it.

I did not say demons can perform exorcisms. Not even close. So I don't know how you got that from what I said.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 30, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> I'm really disappointed that you won't even acknowledge what I said. Seriously, I'm genuinely curious as to your take on those things, and I'm not likely to get a serious discussion about them from most people here. I think they merit serious thought and discussion.


 
And what were those questions, most of what you have posted on me is just you ranting on how much you hate what I say and that you think I am a waste of space.

So,tell me. How is there any form of question in that? If I did miss a legitimate question, its because all around it, it has been laced with insults and rude comments.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 30, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I did not say demons can perform exorcisms. Not even close. So I don't know how you got that from what I said.


 

That'd be great except demon's don't exist. :V And I never said you said they could. I said you said you think you said I said you think I said what you said was what you said you could to them, not that they could to you.

Also stop raging long enough to stop doubleposting, plzkthx


----------



## Discord Nova (Mar 30, 2011)

Rukh please stop with the text walls of fundiness... PLEASE IM BEGGING YOU


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Mar 30, 2011)

QuinnWOLF said:


> Rukh please stop with the text walls of fundiness... PLEASE IM BEGGING YOU


 
All I post, is what Scripture says.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 30, 2011)

QuinnWOLF said:


> Rukh please stop with the text walls of fundiness... PLEASE IM BEGGING YOU


 
Yaknow, as someone decidedly not religious it's always heartening to see real christians like you putting false christians like Rukh in their place.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 30, 2011)

So who outright murdered moar - Satan, or God. :v Interesting dilemma when trying to decide whom is evil.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 30, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> So who outright murdered moar - Satan, or God. :v Interesting dilemma when trying to decide whom is evil.


 
God actually. Satan only killed, I think it was 4 people in Job, but only after getting Yahweh's permission so it's Yahweh's fault anyway.


----------



## Discord Nova (Mar 30, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Yaknow, as someone decidedly not religious it's always heartening to see real christians like you putting false christians like Rukh in their place.


 
Thank You


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 30, 2011)

QuinnWOLF said:


> Thank You


 
You're welcome. I hope he can follow your example and truly accept Christ into his life some day, but until he can learn to let go of his pride I don't think he'll ever be able to let Jesus into his life.


----------



## Discord Nova (Mar 30, 2011)

One thing Rukh, im a christian but i believe in evolution and im gay

U MAD BRO?


----------



## ADF (Mar 30, 2011)

Not long ago when the UK government pointed a gun at everyone, in the form of the threat of a Â£1000 fine if they refuse, and we were all required to fill in census forms >.=.>

I wonder what those figures are going to say in regard to religion.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 30, 2011)

QuinnWOLF said:


> One thing Rukh, im a christian but i believe in evolution and im gay
> 
> U MAD BRO?





Mojotech said:


> God actually. Satan only killed, I think it was 4  people in Job, but only after getting Yahweh's permission so it's  Yahweh's fault anyway.


 
That's what I heard, he killed a family, and God has killed...millions? xD

He ain't mad, he just doesn't believe you're Christian, and that you're going to hell probably for believing you are...or something wicked.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 30, 2011)

QuinnWOLF said:


> One thing Rukh, im a christian but i believe in evolution and im gay


 
Rukh's a self-hating gay, and is best buds with a pedophile. I think he wants to go catholic. It'd certainly be a step up from his current calvinist tendencies.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 30, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And what were those questions, most of what you have posted on me is just you ranting on how much you hate what I say and that you think I am a waste of space.
> 
> So,tell me. How is there any form of question in that? If I did miss a legitimate question, its because all around it, it has been laced with insults and rude comments.


 
Give it up, Rukh. You're avoiding talking about the Filipino penitents because _you don't know_ if they're being better Christians than you or not, or if their Lenten rituals are an extreme display/experience of their faith or just plain crazy. And you won't just say that or so much as take a stab at some musings on the subject because it frightens you. Am I wrong in my gut instinct right there? Then prove me wrong. I'd genuinely like to know how another person of faith, and an "obsessed" Christian at that views this, because I'm trying to decide for myself. Have been for some years now.


----------



## Discord Nova (Mar 30, 2011)

Rukh is just a terrible example of a christian and hes either serious, or a troll.


----------



## Aleu (Mar 30, 2011)

QuinnWOLF said:


> Rukh is just a terrible example of a christian and hes either serious, or a troll.


 Unfortunately, he's serious.


----------



## Discord Nova (Mar 30, 2011)

If hes truly serious,  he must be the most idiotic fundie ive ever seen.


----------



## Aleu (Mar 30, 2011)

QuinnWOLF said:


> If hes truly serious,  he must be the most idiotic fundie ive ever seen.


 You haven't seen many then. :/


----------



## Discord Nova (Mar 30, 2011)

Ok, my school is a christian private school. If you want to see idiotic fundies, come to Spring Hill, Florida and visit Spring Hill Christian Academy, i hate this school.


----------



## Aleu (Mar 30, 2011)

QuinnWOLF said:


> Ok, my school is a christian private school. If you want to see idiotic fundies, come to Spring Hill, Florida and visit Spring Hill Christian Academy, i hate this school.


 I feel sorry for you.

But, I just have to point you in the direction of the Catholic Church to see some of the more idiotic ones.
I've also seen some that say that birth control is pre-abortion (wat?)
Halloween is Satan's birthday...
etc


----------



## Discord Nova (Mar 30, 2011)

My teacher called me a satanist for wearing one of those black and orange bracelets the day before halloween XD


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Mar 30, 2011)

I feel like I should post a reply to Ruhk, but I never get to these threads until like two pages after.

Should I reply with moar moderate Christian responses to Ruhk's Jesus Camp rhetoric?  Or is it all tl:dr and no one will actually read what I write?  Let me know.


----------



## Aleu (Mar 30, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I feel like I should post a reply to Ruhk, but I never get to these threads until like two pages after.
> 
> Should I reply with moar moderate Christian responses to Ruhk's Jesus Camp rhetoric?  Or is it all tl:dr and no one will actually read what I write?  Let me know.


 I'd read it.
I would've responded but after reading his last paragraph response to me, I wanted to stab myself in the hand because it's like listening to a broken record.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 30, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I feel like I should post a reply to Ruhk, but I never get to these threads until like two pages after.
> 
> Should I reply with moar moderate Christian responses to Ruhk's Jesus Camp rhetoric?  Or is it all tl:dr and no one will actually read what I write?  Let me know.


 
Isn't Rukh's whole thing to stir up a bunch of shit and then just stop replying, or am I confusing him with someone else? Anyway, I get the sense he's probably done with this thread. As a more moderate Christian, I wouldn't mind hearing your take on questions like mine about the more extreme lengths some go for their faith, but it's a shame Rukh probably won't entertain those thoughts because he certainly has the "extreme" part down, albeit manifesting differently due to being from a different culture. His insight _could_ be useful if he wanted it to be, but he doesn't. He just wants to preach and get some fucking furfags to join his "ministry".


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Mar 30, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I feel like I should post a reply to Ruhk, but I never get to these threads until like two pages after.
> 
> Should I reply with moar moderate Christian responses to Ruhk's Jesus Camp rhetoric?  Or is it all tl:dr and no one will actually read what I write?  Let me know.


 
You gotta remember, TL;DR isn't just about length, it's about being long AND devoid of content. You're actually a pretty good interesting most of the time, but in this case really we shouldn't be giving Rukh even more chances to preach. He's never going to learn, so we should settle for him leaving.


----------



## Aleu (Mar 30, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Isn't Rukh's whole thing to stir up a bunch of shit and then just stop replying, or am I confusing him with someone else? Anyway, I get the sense he's probably done with this thread. As a more moderate Christian, I wouldn't mind hearing your take on questions like mine about the more extreme lengths some go for their faith, but it's a shame Rukh probably won't entertain those thoughts because he certainly has the "extreme" part down, albeit manifesting differently due to being from a different culture. His insight _could_ be useful if he wanted it to be, but he doesn't. He just wants to preach and get some fucking furfags to join his "ministry".



You're probably thinking of Adenosis Silo. Rukh sticks around the majority of the time.


----------



## ~secret~ (Mar 30, 2011)

ADF said:


> Not long ago when the UK government pointed a gun at everyone, in the form of the threat of a Â£1000 fine if they refuse, and we were all required to fill in census forms >.=.>
> 
> I wonder what those figures are going to say in regard to religion.


 
I'm still pissed off at that. And a Â£5000 fine for refusing to register to vote is ridiculous. I caved though :/

If previous censuses are anything to go on, the fastest growing religion is Jedi. Atheism, Non-affiliated and Other and increasingly popular too.


----------



## Discord Nova (Mar 30, 2011)

I find it fucking hilarious how Rukh preaches with words when he should preach with his actions. I leave people to their own beliefs, if they leave me to mine, Rukh is either retarded, or ignorant... oh wait...


----------



## ~secret~ (Mar 30, 2011)

QuinnWOLF said:


> I find it fucking hilarious how Rukh preaches with words when he should preach with his actions. I leave people to their own beliefs, if they leave me to mine, Rukh is either retarded, or ignorant... oh wait...



Shit, I think I'm in love :/


----------



## Aleu (Mar 30, 2011)

Anyone else find it ironic that the first war was in heaven? A place of peace or whatever? A supposed utopia.


----------



## ~secret~ (Mar 30, 2011)

AleutheWolf said:


> Anyone else find it ironic that the first war was in heaven? A place of peace or whatever? A supposed utopia.


 
Heaven - a place on earth?


----------



## Aleu (Mar 30, 2011)

~secret~ said:


> Heaven - a place on earth?


 No,
wait, is there an actual place called Heaven on Earth? I know there's a bunch of Hells but I've never heard of Heaven.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 30, 2011)

AleutheWolf said:


> Anyone else find it ironic that the first war was in heaven? A place of peace or whatever? A supposed utopia.


 
Personally, my theory is that was _supposed_ to be one of the hidden messages telling you "this book is just mostly metaphors for moral and spiritual conflicts as well as symbolism about how we think all this shit came about", but of course people back then were about as stupid as they are now and no one got it.


----------



## Aleu (Mar 30, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Personally, my theory is that was _supposed_ to be one of the hidden messages telling you "this book is just mostly metaphors for moral and spiritual conflicts as well as symbolism about how we think all this shit came about", but of course people back then were about as stupid as they are now and no one got it.


 Maybe.
What I think is that all of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam, Christianity) represent a bigger piece together, if you look at it like this.
Judaism: (The Father)
Christianity: (The Son)
Islam: (The Holy Spirit/Ghost)

Yay for trinity.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 30, 2011)

AleutheWolf said:


> Maybe.
> What I think is that all of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam, Christianity) represent a bigger piece together, if you look at it like this.
> Judaism: (The Father)
> Christianity: (The Son)
> ...


 
Well, where does that place Zoroastrianism? It's the first known monotheistic religion, with a lot of parallels to the religions it most likely influenced, mainly Judaism and, thereby Christianity. But its what's known of its origins and how it developed reminds me more of those of Islam than anything.


----------



## Aleu (Mar 30, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Well, where does that place Zoroastrianism? It's the first known monotheistic religion, with a lot of parallels to the religions it most likely influenced, mainly Judaism and, thereby Christianity. But its what's known of its origins and how it developed reminds me more of those of Islam than anything.


 I have never heard of it.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Mar 31, 2011)

AleutheWolf said:


> I'd read it.
> I would've responded but after reading his last paragraph response to me, I wanted to stab myself in the hand because it's like listening to a broken record.


 


Wolf-Bone said:


> Isn't Rukh's whole thing to stir up a bunch of shit and then just stop replying, or am I confusing him with someone else? Anyway, I get the sense he's probably done with this thread. As a more moderate Christian, I wouldn't mind hearing your take on questions like mine about the more extreme lengths some go for their faith, but it's a shame Rukh probably won't entertain those thoughts because he certainly has the "extreme" part down, albeit manifesting differently due to being from a different culture. His insight _could_ be useful if he wanted it to be, but he doesn't. He just wants to preach and get some fucking furfags to join his "ministry".


 


Mojotech said:


> You gotta remember, TL;DR isn't just about length, it's about being long AND devoid of content. You're actually a pretty good interesting most of the time, but in this case really we shouldn't be giving Rukh even more chances to preach. He's never going to learn, so we should settle for him leaving.


 
I guess I'll post a reply to anyone asking specific things about people like me in a different thread, our opinions on extremists and so on unless there's something specific that comes up on here.

Frankly I just don't have the time or patience when I think about it to constantly spend time writing out long responses to Ruhk.  Between school and working on two films, it takes up a lot of vital time to type out these kinds of posts that have multiple points in them.


----------



## Lobar (Mar 31, 2011)

AleutheWolf said:


> You're probably thinking of Adenosis Silo. Rukh sticks around the majority of the time.


 
Though he does have a curious tendency, when backed into a rhetorical corner, to suddenly become preoccupied with responding to people with easier questions.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 31, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Though he does have a curious tendency, when backed into a rhetorical corner, to suddenly become preoccupied with responding to people with easier questions.


 
Great. I'll take it as a good sign then that he dodges a good half of mine and flatly refuses to address others. Means I might be asking the right questions. Doesn't help much with answers unfortunately.


----------



## Dr. Durr (Mar 31, 2011)

Memebase is making me wonder:
"Why am I a Mormon?"
That and, they bann all things that I like, LEMON ICE TEA FTW


----------



## Aleu (Mar 31, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Though he does have a curious tendency, when backed into a rhetorical corner, to suddenly become preoccupied with responding to people with easier questions.


 Good point.
But if he does "answer" tough questions it'll be the same ol' "That's what the bible says, it's not my fault if you don't like it".


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Apr 1, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Give it up, Rukh. You're avoiding talking about the Filipino penitents because _you don't know_ if they're being better Christians than you or not, or if their Lenten rituals are an extreme display/experience of their faith or just plain crazy. And you won't just say that or so much as take a stab at some musings on the subject because it frightens you. Am I wrong in my gut instinct right there? Then prove me wrong. I'd genuinely like to know how another person of faith, and an "obsessed" Christian at that views this, because I'm trying to decide for myself. Have been for some years now.


 
Christ didn't call us to actually crusify ourselves in the literal sense. A really good explanation is written here : http://www.gotquestions.org/take-up-your-cross.html
And basically what Jesus said is this:
Are you willing to follow Jesus if it means losing some of your closest friends?
â€¢ Are you willing to follow Jesus if it means alienation from your family?
â€¢ Are you willing to follow Jesus if it means the loss of your reputation?
â€¢ Are you willing to follow Jesus if it means losing your job?
â€¢ Are you willing to follow Jesus if it means losing your life?

Commitment to Christ means taking up your cross daily, giving up your  hopes, dreams, possessions, even your very life if need be for the cause  of Christ. Only if you willingly take up your cross may you be called  His disciple.

That is what taking up your cross means and following after Christ.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Apr 1, 2011)

So if you become a prick, lose all your friends, lose your job, become detached from your family, and have absolutely no ambitions in life, with absolutely no money nor material items to your name...Then you can be cool with Christ :v

Sounds like a pretty worthless existence. And you can't even kill yourself, or else. Tens of thousands of homeless people on the streets right now, are cool with Christ.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Apr 1, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> So if you become a prick, lose all your friends, lose your job, become detached from your family, and have absolutely no ambitions in life, with absolutely no money nor material items to your name...Then you can be cool with Christ :v
> 
> Sounds like a pretty worthless existence. And you can't even kill yourself, or else. Tens of thousands of homeless people on the streets right now, are cool with Christ.


 
It means putting Christ above everything else, including your own life. It means wholeheartedly following Jesus Christ, not just talking the walk, but walking the walk.
It means sacrificing everything to follow Christ.


----------



## Lobar (Apr 1, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> So if you become a prick, lose all your friends, lose your job, become detached from your family, and have absolutely no ambitions in life, with absolutely no money nor material items to your name...Then you can be cool with Christ :v
> 
> Sounds like a pretty worthless existence. And you can't even kill yourself, or else. Tens of thousands of homeless people on the streets right now, are cool with Christ.


 
What a tragic con it is for people to give up everything like that and end up with nothing to show for it in the end.  At least Scientology only wants your money.


----------



## theinkfox (Apr 1, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Christ didn't call us to actually crusify ourselves in the literal sense. A really good explanation is written here : http://www.gotquestions.org/take-up-your-cross.html
> And basically what Jesus said is this:
> Are you willing to follow Jesus if it means losing some of your closest friends?
> â€¢ Are you willing to follow Jesus if it means alienation from your family?
> ...


 
some times i had made myself the same question, questioning my religiousness (i come from a very religious family)
at last, this and the fact of the catholic religion is ruining itself with all those pedophile priests, not to mention the concealment of information to the people
the question was easy to answer


----------



## Darkfoxx (Apr 1, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> We tried to converse with you but you kinda clung to that false analogy you drew between atheists and hardcore religious fanatics, and still are trying to do so. We can't exactly have a neutral discussion about it when you're trying to drag it off center.



If you still dont get it, and still think that I'm comparing atheists in general to the kind of people that did 9/11 and picket funerals...

I dont know what to say. Other then... wow. 

You've not read a single word of my later posts after that image I linked have you? I could try to spell it out for you _again_ but I'm not going to bother. 
Speak about talking to a brick wall, geez.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 1, 2011)

Darkfoxx said:


> If you still dont get it, and still think that I'm comparing atheists in general to the kind of people that did 9/11 and picket funerals...
> 
> I dont know what to say. Other then... wow.
> 
> ...


 
Hey, that's Mojo in a nutshell.


----------



## LizardKing (Apr 1, 2011)

Pretty sure the mods leave this open just to piss off Cannon Fodder at this point. 

I bet the census hasn't been mentioned for the past 300 replies or so.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Apr 1, 2011)

Darkfoxx said:


> If you still dont get it, and still think that I'm comparing atheists in general to the kind of people that did 9/11 and picket funerals...


 
I thought you'd left this thread. Guess not. Darn revolving door got you I take it. :V I'd read your post and at that point you were still doing it. Just because you don't know when to stop using the same argument over and over doesn't mean you get to project it on others, either.


----------



## Mayfurr (Apr 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Christ didn't call us to actually crusify ourselves in the literal sense.


 
Just as well really, I hear it's a real bitch getting the last nail in...


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Apr 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Christ didn't call us to actually crusify ourselves in the literal sense. A really good explanation is written here : http://www.gotquestions.org/take-up-your-cross.html
> And basically what Jesus said is this:
> Are you willing to follow Jesus if it means losing some of your closest friends?
> â€¢ Are you willing to follow Jesus if it means alienation from your family?
> ...


 
Well, again, I don't know my own personal stance on that vs the more literal interpretation that other minority of Christians seems to take, but I'd imagine experiencing something close to what Jesus (and millions of others) experienced gives one an entirely new outlook not just on him, but life in general. One of them said he prays for God to take some of the burden off Jesus when he's being crucified, which I find admirable, though many of the others who do it thinking God will heal a sick relative or give them a better harvest I think have the wrong idea. Can you at least understand that the issue some of us have with Christianity is as much what we're lead to believe God did to his son as much as anything? Anyone who's ever been abandoned by their father especially, I think sees no "salvation" in taking their anger at the world out on their offspring. It smacks of the kind of rationalizing people have done since the dawn of civilization. That's what _people_ do, not _God_, who is _above and beyond_ that kind of hate, cruelty and injustice.


----------



## Riley (Apr 2, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Christ didn't call us to actually crusify ourselves in the literal sense. A really good explanation is written here : http://www.gotquestions.org/take-up-your-cross.html
> And basically what Jesus said is this:


So the bible is meant to be taken literally, except those times where it's convenient not to.  As usual.  _You are so bad at this._



> Are you willing to follow Jesus if it means losing some of your closest friends?


No, me 'n my friends are bros.


> â€¢ Are you willing to follow Jesus if it means alienation from your family?


Nope, I like my dad.  He's cool.


> â€¢ Are you willing to follow Jesus if it means the loss of your reputation?


No, not that I really have one to begin with.


> â€¢ Are you willing to follow Jesus if it means losing your job?


If I was able to finally get a job, I would not throw it away to lick Jesus' boots.  Er, sandals.


> â€¢ Are you willing to follow Jesus if it means losing your life?


No, I very much enjoy living, thank you.  I know that's a sin and whatnot, but hey, I'm a dirty, dirty boy.



> Commitment to Christ means taking up your cross daily, giving up your  hopes, dreams, possessions, even your very life if need be for the cause  of Christ. Only if you willingly take up your cross may you be called  His disciple.
> 
> That is what taking up your cross means and following after Christ.


 Nah, I already play 1 MMO.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 2, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> I thought you'd left this thread. Guess not. Darn revolving door got you I take it. :V I'd read your post and at that point you were still doing it. Just because you don't know when to stop using the same argument over and over *doesn't mean you get to project it on others, either*.


 
Nice double standard there, Mojo.




Wolf-Bone said:


> Well, again, I don't know my own personal stance on that vs the more literal interpretation that other minority of Christians seems to take, but I'd imagine experiencing something close to what Jesus (and millions of others) experienced gives one an entirely new outlook not just on him, but life in general. One of them said he prays for God to take some of the burden off Jesus when he's being crucified, which I find admirable, though many of the others who do it thinking God will heal a sick relative or give them a better harvest I think have the wrong idea. Can you at least understand that the issue some of us have with Christianity is as much what we're lead to believe God did to his son as much as anything? Anyone who's ever been abandoned by their father especially, I think sees no "salvation" in taking their anger at the world out on their offspring. It smacks of the kind of rationalizing people have done since the dawn of civilization. *That's what people do, not God, who is above and beyond that kind of hate, cruelty and injustice.*


 
*"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." *~ Spock

The only way to save humanity was for Him to sacrifice his Son.  And Jesus was a willing sacrifice.  In other words, He volunteered.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Apr 2, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> The only way to save humanity was for Him to sacrifice his Son.


 
Some omnipotent creator of all reality. :V


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Apr 2, 2011)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> Some omnipotent creator of all reality. :V


 
Exactly. I mean, for all any of us knows, that could be the whole story, that's all she wrote, but I *seriously* fucking doubt it. Keep in mind, *I believe in God*, and I especially believe in Jesus _the historical figure_, but there's something seriously screwed up with this logic. And I think, if nothing else, an omnipotent being would be extremely fucking logical. Speaking of logic...



			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." ~ Spock



While Leonard Nimoy and Jesus may both be Jews, that does not make Jesus a Vulcan. The needs of the many didn't seem to matter when the innumerable masses besides Jesus were and continue to be crucified, tortured, oppressed and burdened by countless projected sins and injustices. None of this stopped because Jesus was "sacrificed", not even under the people who were supposed to be living according to his teachings. If we should repent for anything, it's the fact that Jesus was murdered (not "executed", not "sacrificed", *murdered*) and we did nothing to stop it.



			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> The only way to save humanity was for Him to sacrifice his Son. And Jesus was a willing sacrifice. In other words, He volunteered.



Plenty of people on death row, once they've had all their will to live beaten out of them over the course of a decade or more die willingly. That doesn't make it any less wrong. I'm all but convinced that the only purpose your view of Jesus serves, or has ever served is to rationalize humanity's near-sexual fetish for blood, torture and death by saying it's okay if the person it's projected onto both wants and deserves it. I don't think it's any coincidence that no shortage of homage to religion and things like the Spanish Inquisition can be found in fantasies and scenes played out in BDSM. This is the logical end of your peoples' ideology, Roose. People owning other people, feeding off their suffering, and both parties being convinced that that _like_ it, that it's _natural_.

You haven't found a cure for sin, you've just compounded an illness while managing it, _barely_.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Apr 2, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> And I think, if nothing else, an omnipotent being would be extremely fucking logical. Speaking of logic...


 
Most atheists are of the belief that if there was a deity worth worshiping, it would not need blood sacrifice to forgive anything, and would be gracious enough to be able to say "Yeah, you made a mistake, but that's cool, I can't exactly expect imperfect people be perfect. Let's chill together anyway.". The God of the bible, as described by most christians, is not that sort of deity.


----------



## Darkfoxx (Apr 2, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Most atheists are of the belief that if there was a deity worth worshiping, it would not need blood sacrifice to forgive anything, and would be gracious enough to be able to say "Yeah, you made a mistake, but that's cool, I can't exactly expect imperfect people be perfect. Let's chill together anyway.". The God of the bible, as described by most christians, is not that sort of deity.


 
Christianity is founded on the basis that trough the death of Jesus Christ (clue here: that's where the religion got it's name) God gave _exactly_ the message as you put it "It's cool, you dont have to be perfect, let's chill".

Now, of course there _are_ some who missed that point, and call for blood anyway, but those really are the retarded dipshits and rather much a minority. Maybe it doesnt seem like much of a minority, but you dont exactly see or hear much about the millions of _other_ Christians because it's not by far as spectacular as youtube videos of WBC doing their thing.

And if you actually believe what you said there, that the Christian God as described by most Christians is demanding absolute perfection and requires blood sacrifice, if you actually bought into that bullshit... as you said in your post above... that just proves that you are also a retarded dipshit and dont know what the fuck you're talking about.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Apr 2, 2011)

Darkfoxx said:


> Christianity is founded on the basis that trough the death of Jesus Christ (clue here: that's where the religion got it's name) God gave _exactly_ the message as you put it "It's cool, you dont have to be perfect, let's chill".
> 
> Now, of course there _are_ some who missed that point, and call for blood anyway, but those really are the retarded dipshits and rather much a minority. Maybe it doesnt seem like much of a minority, but you dont exactly see or hear much about the millions of _other_ Christians because it's not by far as spectacular as youtube videos of WBC doing their thing.
> 
> And if you actually believe what you said there, that the Christian God as described by most Christians is demanding absolute perfection and requires blood sacrifice, if you actually bought into that bullshit... as you said in your post above... that just proves that you are also a retarded dipshit and dont know what the fuck you're talking about.


 
Uuuuummmm.... *No*. It's not just the minority of Christians. It's actually very mainstream Christians, some of whom will even admit that in at least some capacity, the things that ultimately lead to Jesus' *murder*, we're all guilty of. The need to own and control other people, as if they were pets or property. The tendency to take one's anger out on other people, especially when the source of that anger is more powerful or valuable to us and our target has something that differentiates them from us in a way that makes it easier to rationalize. The fact that, at least in males, the parts of the brain that process sexuality and violence are damn near intertwined (hence blood lust). When a lot of Christians say none of us are free of sin, they mean this as much as the whole Adam and Eve thing. _But_, I think, they made the whole "Jesus died for our sins" story a rationalization and, really, a point of rhetoric from a mindset that neither believes it is capable of change, or that even really wishes to. Though some do recognize that every time they slip, they're basically doing to someone else what was done to Jesus, and as Jesus is supposed to be one of a kind, they try to correct themselves. Too bad _those_ are the minority...


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Apr 2, 2011)

Darkfoxx said:


> the Christian God as described by most Christians is demanding absolute perfection and requires blood sacrifice.


 
Hon, most christians- (especially the fundies such as Rukh and Roose over there) - Will happily explain that- according to their myths- there are no works one can do to get into heaven, and that everyone is hellbound from birth thanks to Original Sin, and that only a proper sacrifice could do it and so on. So naturally they took the one person who by all rights shouldn't be the target of this kinda thing and supposedly killed him.

Because torturing and killing an innocent third party, because your bloodgod required it to even be able to _conditionally_ forgive people,  is _totally_ just and not at all shirking personal responsibility. Nope.

TL;DR version- Your argument is essentially "Because Yahweh required human sacrifice, and got human sacrifice, the religion totally isn't built on human sacrifice."


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Apr 2, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Hon, most christians- (especially the fundies such as Rukh and Roose over there) - Will happily explain that- according to their myths- there are no works one can do to get into heaven, and that everyone is hellbound from birth thanks to Original Sin, and that only a proper sacrifice could do it and so on. So naturally they took the one person who by all rights shouldn't be the target of this kinda thing and supposedly killed him.
> 
> Because torturing and killing an innocent third party, because your bloodgod required it to even be able to _conditionally_ forgive people,  is _totally_ just and not at all shirking personal responsibility. Nope.
> 
> TL;DR version- Your argument is essentially "Because Yahweh required human sacrifice, and got human sacrifice, the religion totally isn't built on human sacrifice."


 
Exactly. If Jesus was nothing else, he was the victim of one of if not the most evil things you can do to a person. He was tortured and murdered all at once. He was lynched. He was hardly special for having gone through that, but that's the problem. The kind of evil that drives people to do that to each other ran wild back then and it's barely being kept at a simmer as it is. And this is a religion that rationalizes it, says it was a good thing, a necessary thing, that God wanted it. I know it's really just a theory, and one I hold out of principle/symbolism as much as anything, but my belief is if you base your religion on an act of pure evil and worship that, you can only create more evil.

I know I've said this elsewhere (probably in the original Religion Megathread) but I think it's very telling where not long after Constantine abolished crucifixion, that's when Europe under Rome (in the form of Catholicism) got even _more_ creative with its methods of torture and execution, possibly even exceeding that of crucifixion in some cases.

Like I also said before, I don't believe God tells us what we're doing right and wrong. He shows us, and we have to have the innate conscience necessary to discern right from wrong, or experience. We have millennia worth of experience in the form of history. Now we just need to develop a conscience that doesn't dissipate and nullify itself the moment we erect any sort of institution greater than a dozen or so people. _Then_ I'll be willing to believe Jesus died to save us from our sins, that perhaps he saw into the future and saw that his death would show people the ugly truth about their own nature, and make them want to change.

I don't believe God starts something he can't finish.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Apr 2, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Jesus was lynched. He was hardly special for having gone through that, but that's the problem. If you base your religion on an act of pure evil and worship that, you can only create more evil.



If Jesus came a when torture technology was more advanced, Christians would be bowing down to guillotines or iron maidens instead of a cross.



Wolf-Bone said:


> Now we just need to develop a conscience that doesn't dissipate and nullify itself the moment we erect any sort of institution greater than a dozen or so people. _Then_ I'll be willing to believe Jesus died to save us from our sins. I don't believe God starts something he can't finish.


 
This is something I can agree with, I want to work towards a world where people get along with each other better, even if I don't agree Jesus is a necessary step to a better society. And it's cool that your deity, or conception of the same one really, is more moral than the other christians in this thread.


----------



## Traven V (Apr 2, 2011)

religion will never die, it will only move to different forms such as "beliefs" or some other label/labels. As long as their is Arrogance their will be the battle of that. Everyone thinks they're right.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Apr 3, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Hon, most christians- (especially the fundies such as Rukh and Roose over there) - Will happily explain that- according to their myths- there are no works one can do to get into heaven...


 
I've heard quite a few fundies claiming that Christianity is the one true religion because it is the only one that is based on faith instead of works. And I really wonder where the logic is in that.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Apr 3, 2011)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> I've heard quite a few fundies claiming that Christianity is the one true religion because it is the only one that is based on faith instead of works. And I really wonder where the logic is in that.


 
Are these the same fundies that claim Christianity is not a religion, because they have Proof?


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Apr 3, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Are these the same fundies that claim Christianity is not a religion, because they have Proof?


 
Yes, the same fundies that claim you need to have faith to believe in Jesus and Co, while they *KNOW* he is real.


----------



## Discord Nova (Apr 3, 2011)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> Yes, the same fundies that claim you need to have faith to believe in Jesus and Co, while they *KNOW* he is real.


Every single christian i know is POSITIVE he is real and i just hope he existed.


----------

