"Jesus would've voted for Nader." On 6/29/2011 at 7:00:31 PM, Colin started the thread: Maybe..
I dunno.
But we gotta get SOMETHING going on the Politics/Religion thread.
At least until the Illuminati finally reveal themselves as the people responsible for 9/11 and Bush and Obama join up with them to begin their New World Order. THEN we'll have something to talk about. I just hope the website will still be here and then we can lament. "WHY, OH WHY DIDN'T WE LISTEN TO GLENN BECK?"
Furthermore, it will turn out that all the majo religions were just tools of the Illumaniti and will bind them all together so that the followers are either forced to reconcile their differences with each other or abandon their beliefs to atheism.
At this point, with the one world government and one world religion, the Illuminati will release the only television show permitted to air -- A reality television show about a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jew and Scienteologist all living under one roof as they attempt to assimilate to the new all-encompassing religion while also competing against each other in water sports. THEN we'll be able to discuss who we think is going to win the show on this board.
Also, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are the dumbest of the major religions.
Msg #2: On 6/29/2011 at 8:04:39 PM, Colin replied, saying: While he isn't a birther or truther, he's definitely a paranoid fearmonger. I think he actually makes some decent points from time to time, but I was watching his second-to-last show today and the conclusions he draws from the "connections" he makes throughout history are asinine.
He also accused the majority of media of striving for nothing more than fulfilling an agenda and that most of the networks are owned by a single man who wants his agenda carried out. He didn't mention whether or not he felt Fox fit into that category by which I'm sure he would claim the renegade part (which he actually fits when compared to Fox News' other pundits) that sticks it to the man of his own network, but while the guy is smart enough to be aware of that conundrum, he still shovels the bullshit and makes money for that very same "man."
Regardless, Glenn Beck is just the biggest media figure that comes the closest to a conspiracy theorist, so I used him above-- And I thought it'd be funny.
As far as the dumbest of major religions, I might agree with you depending on whether or not you mean what the members of each religion do or what the original teachings dictate. Personally, I believe the teachings found in the New Testament are ingenious and highly relevant-- Which I'm sure you didn't see coming from me. Replies: 4
Msg #3: On 6/29/2011 at 8:06:09 PM, Colin replied, saying: ^^Don't listen to any of what I said above. That was a post by the Illumaniti trying to stifle my voice with pseudo-intellectual drivel. It won't happen! Strive on, brother! STRIVE ON!
Msg #4: On 6/29/2011 at 9:07:46 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #2, saying: I might agree with you depending on whether or not you mean what the members of each religion do or what the original teachings dictate.
The simplest answer from me on that is, "yes." Whether you're speaking of basic "histories" (Creation, Noah's Flood, etc.) or of teachings, I think almost everything found in all of the books is either abominable or, at best, completely unnecessary today. Even many of the ideas (or the extremes to which followers often take them) in the New Testament are suicidal or often unjust.
For example, Jesus generally teaches living in peace; but I don't interpret that as pacifism. In fact, he never (to my knowledge) spoke in favor of such a notion on a national level. Either way, pacifism only ensures that those who wish to destroy you and your peace-loving society will succeed.
Furthermore, I think charity can be taken much too far, and often is today. The more a man is given for nothing, the worse a person he will become. He becomes indebted to another, he will come to expect things rather than work for them, and society ultimately degrades or even collapses if taken too far.
Personally, I believe the teachings found in the New Testament are ingenious and highly relevant-- Which I'm sure you didn't see coming from me.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic here or not; but that's exactly what I expect from you. Not that it's a bad thing; I'm just saying, I know you're a Christian, so it follows that you would believe so.
^^Don't listen to any of what I said above. That was a post by the Illumaniti trying to stifle my voice with pseudo-intellectual drivel. It won't happen! Strive on, brother! STRIVE ON!
Tinfoil Hat +13 Conspiracy Resistance: DONNED.
Msg #5: On 6/29/2011 at 9:10:31 PM, Trainwreck replied, saying: I should also add that I don't hate all followers of any religion...I just find it perplexing that so many people continue to hold on to such antiquated and so obviously false ideas today. Replies: 10
Msg #6: On 6/30/2011 at 5:55:05 PM, Colin replied, saying: "I can't tell if you're being sarcastic here or not; but that's exactly what I expect from you. Not that it's a bad thing; I'm just saying, I know you're a Christian, so it follows that you would believe so."
Yeah. The "which I'm sure you didn't see coming from me" was sarcastic. You hit the nail on the head. I'm a Christian, so of course I see the validity of the teachings.
Jesus says that one will know by his teachings whether or not he was a man or the son of God. I've put that challenge to the test and every time I follow Jesus' teachings intentionally, I am surprised and dumbfounded by the results that occur.
I disagree that a person, when helped, becomes a worse person. Many operate under the idea that if a man has things handed to him, he'll just become entitled and won't do anything about it. And while that certainly can happen, most people don't want to be sponges. Regardless, I believe in "feeding a man a fish" while "teaching him how to fish." People like to divide the two into extremes, but I think they coexist perfectly.
A lot of people like to judge those less fortunate than them and say "they need to pick themselves up by their bootstraps," but the majority of people that say that have never been in the conditions that many impoverished families are today.
Anyway, I agree that certain forms of charity can be ineffective if they are simply feeding and not teaching, but there are a lot of great charity organizations that excel at feeding while teaching.
In theory, some of Jesus' teachings seem absurd and, as you put it, suicidal. And I think if Jesus weren't the man he claimed to be, they would be. If you are ever feeling curious, pick up a book by Shane Claiborne called Irresistible Revolution. The guy definitely comes off as crazy initial, but makes a very remarkable case for living in a radical way following Jesus' teachings. (For instance, while the book was a bestseller among Christians, he donated 100% of the funds to charities)
Msg #7: On 6/30/2011 at 8:34:03 PM, Narrator replied, saying: lolz
Msg #8: On 6/30/2011 at 10:30:45 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: Jesus' teachings weren't about survival. I mean, he killed himself the moment he started his sermons because he was causing quite a stir.
I think He was more concerned about the soul of a man, the qualities of being humble, and the good will you could spread.
Msg #9: On 7/1/2011 at 6:03:28 AM, Colin replied, saying: Well put and concise. Jesus taught that the soul has much more worth than the body. I'd rather die a good man than live as a monster-- To paraphrase Shutter Island.
Msg #10: On 7/1/2011 at 9:38:45 AM, QuickComment replied to Msg #5, saying: I don't find belief in a deity antiquated. Can you argue that despite their interwoven roots and similarities, the major religions are rooted on teachings and stories that probably have no literal value? Sure. Replies: 11, 12, 13
Msg #11: On 7/1/2011 at 12:31:59 PM, Carnotaur3 replied to Msg #10, saying: QC: We're not so different in that kind of belief.
Msg #12: On 7/1/2011 at 1:12:29 PM, Colin replied to Msg #10, saying: The idea that a belief in a deity is antiquated is bullshit. Two thousand years later and science will always give us "how," not "why." I also find it incredibly small-minded, among the religious and the scientific, to believe that theism and science cannot coexist.
Msg #13: On 7/1/2011 at 2:57:32 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #10, saying: I think the religions kind of fall apart if you do that. I think it's fairly clear that the stories in the Bible (obviously not Jesus' parables or other such stories) are meant to be taken quite literally. In fact, I recall Jesus taking the Old Testament as literal fact. Given that, the whole of Christianity collapses like a deck of cards.
Maybe not every religion is incompatible with science; but Christianity certainly is. This is why we have dipshits creating Creation Museums. Replies: 16
Msg #14: On 7/1/2011 at 4:51:17 PM, Colin replied, saying: I'd say aside from 7-Day-Creation (which I don't take for literal simply because it's so short and the Bible isn't a scientific textbook, it's a book about people), there isn't much in the OT that combats with science. All the supernatural things that occur are with God's hand directly involved. Back then when they wrote things, they didn't go into explicit detail, they just kind of state that it happened.
Msg #15: On 7/2/2011 at 7:49:02 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: By the way, Jesus wouldn't have voted for anyone, because he would have realized how completely corrupt and fucked up politics are.
Msg #16: On 7/3/2011 at 1:57:45 AM, QuickComment replied to Msg #13, saying: You're falling into a fallacy there trying to relate it to religion in general. To speak to it: no one knows what Jesus did or didn't say. We just know what has been refined and sorted through for at the very least a few hundred years. Replies: 18
Msg #17: On 7/3/2011 at 8:09:01 AM, Compy01 replied, saying: There are loads of psychological reasons why religion is most likely not true. Phenomena such as selective memory, change blindness, the rebound effect, Houran's theory, the power of suggestion and the remarkable ability we all have to explain away evidence rather than change our cherished beliefs.
Msg #18: On 7/3/2011 at 10:56:07 AM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #16, saying: Wait, so why follow Christianity if you're not even sure he said what it claims he did? Replies: 19
Msg #19: On 7/3/2011 at 1:35:59 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #18, saying: I wasn't arguing in favor of Christianity specifically. Personally I believe in Christianity because it feels right. I've had a lot of good things happen in my life and I've always felt richer for the hardship I've had -- not that it's been much. I've felt that there was something else there. Anyone who attempts to justify their spiritual supernatural beliefs beyond their innate gut feeling loses sight of what religion is founded on. That's how we get intelligent design bullshit and idiots driving cross country on an End of the World bus tour. You can't prove something that requires faith. All I can say is that if I'm worshiping a false God and there is another, hopefully it looks past labels. If not, ain't much I can do about it, is there?
Msg #20: On 7/4/2011 at 1:45:10 AM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: Good answer, QC.
Msg #21: On 7/4/2011 at 11:56:24 AM, Varan101 replied, saying: Colin, science doesn't need to answer "Why". We are here out of random chance. That may seem unlikely to you, but it probably isn't given the scope of everything that exists beyond our own world. Religion gives man a sense of significance and purpose in a universe where man is insignificant. Quite frankly, it doesn't matter to me WHY we are here, but what we do when we are here. Replies: 23
Msg #22: On 7/4/2011 at 4:56:56 PM, Colin replied, saying: I agree that it matters what we do while we are here, Varan, but just because we are a "pale blue dot," doesn't mean we are insignificant.
That's the thing, though-- There isn't any proof that we are here out of random chance. People can speculate on that and make that assumption, but for me it's not a question of likelihood, it's simply just another line of belief.
I'm not so much concerned with proving my faith (though I am tempted to justify it at times), but call it selective memory or confirmation bias, but while I am attracted to comfort, I chase truth-- And I don't want to believe anything that's bull-shit. That's why I read Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris and other authors questioning Christianity (as well as doing my own light research) because if my belief in Christ can be disproven, I'd like to know about it.
It's a challenge for me to believe at times because I am so skeptically and logically minded, but that same skepticism is what makes God's continuous presence in my life so affirming.
Again, Jesus had so much confidence in his teachings that he told all his followers that they would know if his teachings were put in practice, the individual would know whether or not he was the son of God. Plenty of people claimed that they would rise from the grave, but Jesus is the only one whose teachings lived on throughout time. Yes, other religions have endured through the years, but none of the figures of the other prominent religions ever made the claim that they would physically rise from the dead after being killed. You'd think that if Christ made that claim and then died... and then DIDN'T come back, everybody would just dismiss him as yet another fraud and go about their business, yet Christianity flourished after Christ was crucified.
There I go, trying to "justify" my faith. It just perturbs me slightly when people say my beliefs are completely unfounded.
Msg #23: On 7/5/2011 at 12:33:35 PM, raptor2000 replied to Msg #21, saying: I can't help but lol when someone tries to tell me we are here due to "random chance". The words just ring hollow to me. I don't think the entire universe just popped up over the course of seven days, but I also can't make myself believe that there wasn't a higher power guiding our evolution.
I have a very unique faith. I no longer attend church because I disagree with the way many are run, and I find every religion I've ever studied is flawed to varying degrees, but when I look at the world and the universe around us, I simply cannot believe it all exists essentially on accident. Whether or not the Bible is accurate (I personally think of the Bible is being more of a guidebook filled with metaphors more than a 100% accurate historical account, though I do believe in God, Jesus, the Disciples, etc.) I don't see how anyone can not believe there was some intelligent design at work when our universe was created.
But whatever....nobody is ever going to convince me my beliefs are incorrect, and likewise I really don't care if people share my beiliefs or disagree with me. Just sharing my thoughts. Nobody on earth has the knowledge or authority to prove anybody right or wrong anyway. As Colin said, it is all about faith.
Msg #24: On 7/6/2011 at 11:26:10 AM, Compy01 replied, saying: The problem with human beings is that we always have to categorise everything or understand everything. It hits a brick wall when we apply it to the universe. Who says the universe had to have a beginning? We do. We feel everything has to have a beginning or has to exist for a reason but I don’t feel that is the case. Maybe the universe just existed and always has done and we simply cannot comprehend that fact. We simply do not have the brain power to unravel (if it ever can be unravelled) yet.
The reason I don’t have faith in any religion is because there are so many of them, and this shows how easily susceptible we are as a race. Personally I don’t see why everyone gets so scared when they consider a godless universe. We live in a beautiful world and when we die we go back to the peace we enjoyed pre-life. Get over it.
Replies: 25
Msg #25: On 7/7/2011 at 8:26:46 PM, Compy01 replied to Msg #24, saying: Well, I've just read that back and depressed myself!
Msg #26: On 7/7/2011 at 10:27:16 PM, Narrator replied, saying: "That's the thing, though-- There isn't any proof that we are here out of random chance. People can speculate on that and make that assumption, but for me it's not a question of likelihood, it's simply just another line of belief."
"I can't help but lol when someone tries to tell me we are here due to "random chance". The words just ring hollow to me. I don't think the entire universe just popped up over the course of seven days, but I also can't make myself believe that there wasn't a higher power guiding our evolution."
The burden of proof isn't on the ones that reject claims that we are here for a cosmic purpose created by some magical all powerful being. It's on those that claim that we were created for a purpose.
I don't need any proof that leprechauns don't exist in order to not believe in them.
"It's a challenge for me to believe at times because I am so skeptically and logically minded, but that same skepticism is what makes God's continuous presence in my life so affirming. "
How does that work?
"Again, Jesus had so much confidence in his teachings that he told all his followers that they would know if his teachings were put in practice, the individual would know whether or not he was the son of God. Plenty of people claimed that they would rise from the grave, but Jesus is the only one whose teachings lived on throughout time. Yes, other religions have endured through the years, but none of the figures of the other prominent religions ever made the claim that they would physically rise from the dead after being killed. You'd think that if Christ made that claim and then died... and then DIDN'T come back, everybody would just dismiss him as yet another fraud and go about their business, yet Christianity flourished after Christ was crucified."
You realize that the only written record of this event is the bible itself, right? Not just the rise from the dead, but the crucifixion itself. No other documents exist accounting for what happened. No Roman documents, no contemporary historian documents, nothing. The evidence that the story of jesus actually happened has the same evidence that the story of Harry Potter actually happened. Replies: 27
Msg #27: On 7/7/2011 at 10:39:29 PM, raptor2000 replied to Msg #26, saying: The mere fact that you responded to my post shows you don't understand my point, and I'm not going to bother reading your comment. As I said, I don't care if anyone agrees with me or not. I was just explaining my viewpoint. Replies: 28
Msg #28: On 7/7/2011 at 11:27:54 PM, Narrator replied to Msg #27, saying: Yeah, this was less for you, more for Collin, since he's capable of actually having a conversation rather than saying "I lol at people who don't agree with me. I'll just cover my ears and shout not listening blah blah instead of having a conversation"
Msg #29: On 7/8/2011 at 5:54:36 AM, Colin replied, saying: "You realize that the only written record of this event is the bible itself, right? Not just the rise from the dead, but the crucifixion itself. No other documents exist accounting for what happened. No Roman documents, no contemporary historian documents, nothing. The evidence that the story of jesus actually happened has the same evidence that the story of Harry Potter actually happened."
This sounds like something you said without any real research. No offense. It's just not a very informed statement.
"No other documents exist accounting for what happened"
What do you think the Bible is? It's a bunch of documents that were collected over many different years and assembled. There were many books left out, so yes, there are other documents. The four gospels are historical documents, regardless if they were erroneous.
"No Roman documents, no contemporary historian documents, nothing."
Contemporary? What would consist of contemporary for you? Documents that say Jesus was just some lunatic who got killed? I don't understand what you mean by this.
The twelve apostles were all real guys. Peter wrote a book in the Bible (the validity of 2 Peter is disputed, but 1 Peter was definiteky written by him).
Most of the New Testament is collections of letters written between churches by Paul and other apostles. These are all men who were around the same time that Jesus was. So either they saw Jesus die and come back or he died and that was the end of it or he never existed and they were master manipulators.
These men were all persecuted and killed. Paul was beheaded eventually and Peter was crucified upside down. Also-- In none of the letters do any of these guys try to make personal gain. There isn't any "I saw Jesus, now give me your money." They always advised people to help each other with their money or simply to give it to the poor.
Could ALL those guys be delusional? This isn't like a Joseph Smith thing where ONE guy claimed to see it and had to convince everyone (and he, by the way, he did use these claims for personal gain, though he was eventually killed as well), it was MANY, MANY people.
I highly doubt Paul or Peter or John knew their letters (also known as historical contemporary documents) were going to be a part of the most popular and controversial book ever. They were just letters to churches that popped up from the events that occurred in Acts (also a book that claims many supernatural occurrences).
Most of these men were eventually killed for their beliefs based on a promise of hatred by the world from Jesus himself.
I dunno, man. It just seems unlikely that a group of men would get together, conspire a plan to manipulate thousands of men without ANY benefit to themselves, monetary or otherwise, also, with the dates and locations of Jesus' ministry, OTHER people in that area would know right off the bat if Jesus either existed or did what he claimed... So it'd be kind of hard to convince people to drop everything in their lives, start giving all their shit to the poor and face persecution since Christianity was ILLEGAL, and then hold onto their beliefs to the end, with one man willingly suffering crucifixion UPSIDE-DOWN (that'd be Peter).
So yeah, these are my beliefs, non-believing people can think I'm an ignorant fool who just likes the idea of a nice, invisible magic man, and while I do believe it's meant to come down to faith, these things I believe are not unsubstantiated.
Msg #30: On 7/8/2011 at 7:12:56 AM, Compy01 replied, saying:
Replies: 33
Msg #31: On 7/8/2011 at 1:29:32 PM, Varan101 replied, saying: Colin, people die and sacrifice much for their religious beliefs even today. That doesn't mean what they sacrifice for is actually something worth believing in. Even fanatical cults die for their belief without a sliver of evidence to their beliefs.
Raptor, I agree it can be hard to believe we are here by random chance. Personally I think humans believe we were created by some intelligent being because of our own arrogance. We want to feel self important like some powerful being selected us to be the chosen people. Ultimately it would destroy the purpose of life for many people to think they are here simply because of chance and no higher purpose. I believe its up to us to achieve our own purpose in life - no one gave it to us and no one is going to give it to us. We have to find out for ourselves.
Msg #32: On 7/8/2011 at 1:59:53 PM, Colin replied, saying: "Colin, people die and sacrifice much for their religious beliefs even today. That doesn't mean what they sacrifice for is actually something worth believing in. Even fanatical cults die for their belief without a sliver of evidence to their beliefs."
Thank you. I know this. The original Christians are different than Islamic terrorists or Buddhist monks or Joseph Smith, though. Please look at my ENTIRE thread. I know it's long, but in NO way did I say "they died for their beliefs, so it must be true."
I'm saying not only do they know without a doubt whether or not Christ did he what he claimed, they followed his teachings, told all of the other churches that he did what he did, pursued no personal gains, if Christ were a fraud, they would have had to convince other people in the same region as when Christ existed that he WASN'T a fraud AND died for these beliefs. You can say Joseph Smith was delusional, Islamic terrorists were manipulated by their leaders and Buddhist monks had an unyielding endurance in what they believed, but there isn't an easy way to explain away what happened in the first few years after Christ died.
Msg #33: On 7/8/2011 at 2:04:25 PM, Colin replied to Msg #30, saying: Uh... That was kind of a dumb video... Of course I saw the gorilla. It caused to me to count 16 instead of 15... But I don't think that was really selective. I just spotted the gorilla and then assumed I missed one pass. Replies: 34
Msg #34: On 7/8/2011 at 11:47:26 PM, Compy01 replied to Msg #33, saying: Well you are in the minority then Colin. Believe it or not, but most people fail to see the gorilla, and this test shows how hopelessly unreliable eye-witness accounts can be. Replies: 35
Msg #35: On 7/9/2011 at 11:17:24 AM, Colin replied to Msg #34, saying: *smacks forehead* Replies: 36
Msg #36: On 7/9/2011 at 10:50:42 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #35, saying: He's actually correct. Most people do not see it.
Msg #37: On 7/10/2011 at 4:07:56 PM, Colin replied, saying: Right. I understand that. I just can't possibly fathom that he's making an argument against the eyewitnesses of the crucifixion (or Christ's ministry) based on that video. Replies: 38
Msg #38: On 7/10/2011 at 9:39:48 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #37, saying: I think his point is legitimate. The Gospels never mentioned anything about a dancing gorilla, but that's likely because everyone was so fixated upon the crucifixion.
Or did I misunderstand...? Replies: 39
Msg #39: On 7/11/2011 at 4:24:09 AM, Colin replied to Msg #38, saying: I really love you sometimes. That's exactly the image I had in my mind when he mentioned unreliable eyewitnesses.
