Religion thread Zaku DL vs Ben Kenobi

[SlowwHand]

Let me just interject one comment. "there is no absolute way to prove or disprove it."
This is where faith makes its appearance.

[Dinner]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrCyO1EO2rs

[Blaupanzer]

Different side of Zaku. I am an agnostic in the sense that I don't believe in organized religion which is mostly corrupt, controlling, and self-righteous. I very much enjoy and support the teachings of Jesus, who was a Jew, and of Sidhartha, whose teachings form the basis of Bhudism, although he wasn't a Bhudist. I, too have seriously explored several traditions, and find Zoroasterism and modern Roman Catholicism to be the most consistent. Incidentally neither of these churches object to evolution.

Many religious people are very sincere, many others hide from their fear or just go thru the motions. Only a prophet like Jesus would be able to tell the true motivations.

As to death, selected deaths rattle almost anyone. In the end you suck it up, but you are changed.

[zakubandit]

Ben I get what you mean, and that is where the never ending/cannot end argument is. How do you prove or disprove god when he cannot be proven or not? You can't and as Slow said that is where faith is. BUT that is also where religious like to swing with at non-believers..."you just need to have faith." And I do have faith, I have faith that what I believe is right (free will), and that IF there is a god/s that when I die he/she/it won't judge me/other non believers for our choices in life, because of course he/she/it gave us free will to make our own choices...why exactly would he/she/it grant man free will if they are not granted the ability to act with free will? I usually get the whole free will is still free will when you choose to have faith, but in contrast...is it still free will for a church to say things like (example, not actual) "we do not condone purple fuzzy hats" but you have and love your purple fuzzy hat...you have free will and can decide to wear it either way, but is it a sin because the church says you cant? Will god/s curse you for making your own choice against the church's decision? Free will is ability to make choices for yourself and choose what you will do....but is it still free will when you rest your choices on someone or something else to decide what you should or should not do? (Morality aside of course; rape, murder, theft, incest, etc.)

[Ben Kenobi]

you have free will and can decide to wear it either way, but is it a sin because the church says you cant?

You have free will in the sense that you can choose to obey or disobey. The church doesn't force you to abide by their rules, you always have the choice to leave.

The way I think of sin, it's like this. Say you have a car, and the manual instructs you to fill it with unleaded gas. What happens when you put diesel instead? This is what sin does to you, it's like putting diesel in your tank and trying to run. Sure, you can go ahead and do it, but it's not a good thing for you.

[Drake Tungsten]

Sidhartha, whose teachings form the basis of Bhudism, although he wasn't a Bhudist.

Of course he was. How do you mouthbreathers come up with stuff like this?

[zakubandit]

Ben, no offense to you, but that is exactly a perfect reason to not be fore organized religion. In your speaking, because I choose not to do what the church says that I am screwed (as diesel into an unleaded car...well bad things). So I have free will to choose, but in the end because I chose to use my free will I will burn out early, die a worse death, suffer my entire life...so in turn I have 1 choice, obey or suffer. The choice is the key, choose to believe or not (if I choose not to then why do zealots want to convert me back as if their souls depend on it?)...but in your manner of speaking the choice does not truly exist because it is predetermined...all you are really doing is deciding, do I want to live and obey or disobey and suffer? That is not choice, thats extortion...but I do understand what your mean...I am just saying how I see it.

Honestly the founders of organized religion are smarter than any politician or military leader, get everyone to follow everything you say...control...you do not need to be elected because you just promote the good word, they will obey you regardless. The perfect way to organize, control, and eventually civilize (if not all together "right") religion did make it easier for many leaders to subjugate their people by just their beliefs.

Technology wise, i skipped this before, I mean that the church refuses to accept that their is probable fact that life exists outside of Sol, and that there is evidence that life was created through evolution. Though it is possible to come to an easy ground...niether side wants to say the other is right (god/s did help design life, did influence our direction, but we evolved through his/her/their guidance)...creationists and evolutionists will never agree on that ground.

[Dinner]

Organized religion is a nice civic choice early in the game.

[Ben Kenobi]

So I have free will to choose, but in the end because I chose to use my free will I will burn out early, die a worse death, suffer my entire life...so in turn I have 1 choice, obey or suffer.

Yes, you've got it right. All choices have consequences associated with them. This is different from coercion, as you are perfectly free to choose a decision with negative consequences for yourself to your heart's content.

why do zealots want to convert me back as if their souls depend on it?

Because it's your soul that depends on it, and because they also want you not to suffer.

I mean that the church refuses to accept that their is probable fact that life exists outside of Sol, and that there is evidence that life was created through evolution.

Neither theory is associated with technology. First, the church is silent on whether there is life outside of the earth. My personal belief is that there isn't any, but this is entirely my personal prejudice and skepticism. Until it's conclusively proven to be true, all it is is speculation. There is absolutely no technology solely associated with the contention that alien life exists.

As for evolution, you must recall that Mendel was a monk, who formulated the entire science of genetics. You don't need Darwinian evolution in order to do Genetics, Darwin was entirely unaware of any genetics when he formulated his theory. The assertion that one species changes into another as the sole result of random chance, has not yet been proven. It's up there with the theory that protons decay. Both are postulated to occur over large amounts of time, but neither have been observed as of yet. Therefore, there is nothing ascientific about skepticism towards macroevolution.

[rah]

Well this isn't going like we expected.


BORING.

[MrFun]

Geez, when did this become a dating forum?

Ever since Drake and KH hooked up through this site.

[JEELEN]

The church has readily accepted technology, and has been one of the largest patrons throughout history of technological development. You've been lied to by others with their own goals.

[...]

I have studied the Crusades as well, but you must get the whole story. The story doesn't begin with the destruction of the church of the holy sepulchre, it begins 350 years earlier. This will give you an entirely different perspective on the crusades.

Two comments: the churches have accepted technology for lack of a better choice. One issue that's quite anachronistic: the Catholic church still doesn't promote birth control; on a planet that's getting overcrowded that's close to criminal.

As concerns the hatred that erupted with the Crusades: indeed the story begins quite a lot earlier; Christianity had been preaching hatred for centuries (against 'heretics', Jews) before the Crusades and its aftermath has been a feeling of deep mistrust among those afflicted against Western (i.e. Christian) civilization ever since.

Sidhartha, whose teachings form the basis of Bhudism, although he wasn't a Bhudist.
Of course he was. How do you mouthbreathers come up with stuff like this?

Just like Jesus wasn't a Christian, Gautama Siddharta wasn't a Buddhist: neither Christianity nor Buddhism had been founded yet - although Siddharta was more of a teacher to humanity than Jesus during his lifetime; as a deeply religious Jew, Jesus' concern was with Jews (including the despised Samaritan inhabitants of Judaea).

[Ben Kenobi]

Two comments: the churches have accepted technology for lack of a better choice. One issue that's quite anachronistic: the Catholic church still doesn't promote birth control; on a planet that's getting overcrowded that's close to criminal.

It doesn't accept abortion either, and if you sincerely believe that killing babies is important to keep the planet from getting overpopulated, well there's this whole thing called space out there.

Who's the technophobe, the church who insists that technology can and will be developed to serve man, or the people who demand that man serve technology? Me, I'd rather have moonbases and stuff so people can live on them, rather then sticking to this hunk of rock, but I guess that makes me anachronistic. Like in the 50's when people actually dreamed about these kind of things.

As concerns the hatred that erupted with the Crusades: indeed the story begins quite a lot earlier; Christianity had been preaching hatred for centuries (against 'heretics', Jews) before the Crusades and its aftermath has been a feeling of deep mistrust among those afflicted against Western (i.e. Christian) civilization ever since.

Muslims come and take over Christian lands, and Christians are the persecutors for trying to take that land back?

Just like Jesus wasn't a Christian, Gautama Siddharta wasn't a Buddhist: neither Christianity nor Buddhism had been founded yet - although Siddharta was more of a teacher to humanity than Jesus during his lifetime; as a deeply religious Jew, Jesus' concern was with Jews (including the despised Samaritan inhabitants of Judaea).

Yep, which makes it rather silly to accuse Christians of anti-semitism. Here's a clue, it ain't the Christians who were stuffing the gas chambers.

[Lorizael]

irregardless

Why would you bold a word that doesn't exist? Didn't you claim to teach English?

[Dinner]

Yeah, but he teaches in China where the only requirement is that you be white.