Religion is forever, just what is the accepted god of the area. Christianity is with out a doubt, the strongest faction in numbers, No other religion has such a large and resilient following.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, concerning science and religion. The greater majority of the scientists of old, to the 19th century were hardcore, diehard Christians. Some were Catholic, but they used the Bible as their basis for morals. Man has a God-shaped hole in him. So man will try to fill it with what he can find. The Christian fills it perfectly, no other religion does this!!!!! NOT ISLAM OR JUDAEISM!!!!! Also, Science is tied to religion on virtue of the fact that there are some scientific discoveries that cannot be explained outside religion!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The main fact that the small (radiation and energy, almost complete randomness, and big things, gravity, work so well together. Scientists are trying to explain it with string theory. You know how they visualise it? with great loops that look like sound waves coming from a mouth. no joke. God spoke and the world was created. soundwaves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

yeha! Pm me if you have questions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, concerning the Roman god thing, the Greek word for gods (little g) is (spelled wrong though) Demonos, or some such spelled word its where we get the modern word for demon. So, the Greeks and Romans knew to a point that their gods did exist, and called them what translates "demons"

Religion is forever, just what is the accepted god of the area. Christianity is with out a doubt, the strongest faction in numbers, No other religion has such a large and resilient following.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, concerning science and religion. The greater majority of the scientists of old, to the 19th century were hardcore, diehard Christians. Some were Catholic, but they used the Bible as their basis for morals. Man has a God-shaped hole in him. So man will try to fill it with what he can find. The Christian fills it perfectly, no other religion does this!!!!! NOT ISLAM OR JUDAEISM!!!!! Also, Science is tied to religion on virtue of the fact that there are some scientific discoveries that cannot be explained outside religion!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The main fact that the small (radiation and energy, almost complete randomness, and big things, gravity, work so well together. Scientists are trying to explain it with string theory. You know how they visualise it? with great loops that look like sound waves coming from a mouth. no joke. God spoke and the world was created. soundwaves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

yeha! Pm me if you have questions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Somebody is in for a flaming....

Hey, Christians before me burned for their beliefs, Why should the modern times be any different?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(waits calmly, hears lions roars.)

Well, once you get into "does God exist?", we'll just end with another 73 page debate that goes no where. Science is never going to be able to disprove that God, or gods, exist- I already said that. I just said we can explain those things that religion just doesn't desire to explain and just says "God did it."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways, I was referring to Barihawk's points of things seeming "perfect", when they both really aren't and are still explainable through science.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. Religion doesn't try to explain the science behind it at all. I can easily say both of these two statements:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. The human brain is a product of evolution of species of millions of years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. God created the human brain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My point is that Barihawk is not trying to "fill in holes" with religion that can later be filled in by science. He is offering something entirely different than what science offers. If something is "explainable through science," as you suggest - that doesn't discount religion. Barihawk, I believe, would offer that scientific discovery and explanation is only further reason to believe in God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That being said, Assassin: I find beauty in nature too. The human body, for instance. Have you ever seen the inside of it? All those systems working in harmony, no space being wasted? For me, it's too perfect to have happened by chance (a la natural selection) and only affirms for me the existance of a higher power.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your fractal, as well. Can such perfection be attained by freak occurance? Math, physical science...it all just works too perfectly. And it is bound by natural laws. To me, that implies order.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why the Christian God then? Why not Allah, or Zeus, or Vishnu?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why not? Actually, the research part of my experience searching for God led me to the Jewish God (same one, mind you). From there I made a personal choice to believe in Christ.

People never needed religion to survive in the first place, otherwise we would have been extinct 500 million years earlier. Religion hasn't actually anyone, except maybe help a few people stay mentally stable. The only thing religion has done for man kind is cause a few billion deaths from wars through the thousands of years, even today (middle east). I think as humans, we will move away from religion as we become less ignorant, and its clear that today, the number of un-religious people is growing faster than ever.

People never needed religion to survive in the first place, otherwise we would have been extinct 500 years earlier.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How do you suppose that?

everyone knows that Scientology will eventually enslave us all... :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

hey, they claim that it will only take them ~22 trillion dollars to fix the world... :shock:

 

People never needed religion to survive in the first place, otherwise we would have been extinct 500 years earlier.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How do you suppose that?

 

 

 

I would say hope. If you're poor/dying/have nothing in life and suicide is a sin, religion is what keeps you going. Otherwise a lot of people would have nothing to live for.

 

 

People never needed religion to survive in the first place, otherwise we would have been extinct 500 years earlier.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How do you suppose that?

 

 

 

I would say hope. If you're poor/dying/have nothing in life and suicide is a sin, religion is what keeps you going. Otherwise a lot of people would have nothing to live for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He said we don't need religion and then he made up some fact about 500 years ago.

 

 

 

People never needed religion to survive in the first place, otherwise we would have been extinct 500 years earlier.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How do you suppose that?

 

 

 

I would say hope. If you're poor/dying/have nothing in life and suicide is a sin, religion is what keeps you going. Otherwise a lot of people would have nothing to live for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He said we don't need religion and then he made up some fact about 500 years ago.

i meant 500 million :lol:

i meant 500 million :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So your point is that if we actually needed religion, we would have gone extinct millions of years before we even first came into existence?

 

i meant 500 million :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So your point is that if we actually needed religion, we would have gone extinct millions of years before we even first came into existence?

thats what I said.

 

 

i meant 500 million :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So your point is that if we actually needed religion, we would have gone extinct millions of years before we even first came into existence?

thats what I said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How would mankind's need (or lack thereof) for religion have any effect on mankind millions of years before mankind existed? That doesn't make any sense. Are you just making up facts when you say "500 million?" If you're going to make up facts, why should we consider anything you say to be accurate?

 

 

 

i meant 500 million :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So your point is that if we actually needed religion, we would have gone extinct millions of years before we even first came into existence?

thats what I said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How would mankind's need (or lack thereof) for religion have any effect on mankind millions of years before mankind existed? That doesn't make any sense. Are you just making up facts when you say "500 million?" If you're going to make up facts, why should we consider anything you say to be accurate?

makes perfect sence, if man kind really needed religion to survive they would have been extinct long time ago since religion is only a few thousand years old, and if you weren't an idiot you would have realized I wasn't providing a fact when I said "500 million", it's something called a hyperbole.

 

Well i've already explained that the Bible is written by the Disciples so is a book of context. Obviously when I mean extent I expect a sensible, rational person to discount the views that reflect context. But you're right it is ultimately up to you the reader to decide, probably why there are so many different strands to Christianity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm just trying to get an understanding on your belief. It is your belief that you get to pick and choose what you want to believe from the Bible, and that by doing so you are still a Christian.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What if you were to pick and choose what you thought was accurate in and inaccurate in the Bible and I did the same thing. However, we find out that our beliefs on what is true in the Bible and what is false are exactly opposite. We don't share a single common belief.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are we both still Christians?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well I'm going to say technically we are but I realise you were asking that question to emphasise your point. Because of the ambiguity of some of the passages in the Bible there is, well to put it simply much confusion. I mean George Bush told the world about how he reads the Bible which inspired him to invade Iraq. I disagree with the whole war in Iraq yet would still consider him another Christian.

 

 

Well i've already explained that the Bible is written by the Disciples so is a book of context. Obviously when I mean extent I expect a sensible, rational person to discount the views that reflect context. But you're right it is ultimately up to you the reader to decide, probably why there are so many different strands to Christianity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm just trying to get an understanding on your belief. It is your belief that you get to pick and choose what you want to believe from the Bible, and that by doing so you are still a Christian.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What if you were to pick and choose what you thought was accurate in and inaccurate in the Bible and I did the same thing. However, we find out that our beliefs on what is true in the Bible and what is false are exactly opposite. We don't share a single common belief.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are we both still Christians?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well I'm going to say technically we are but I realise you were asking that question to emphasise your point. Because of the ambiguity of some of the passages in the Bible there is, well to put it simply much confusion. I mean George Bush told the world about how he reads the Bible which inspired him to invade Iraq. I disagree with the whole war in Iraq yet would still consider him another Christian.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes and so do I!!! But I agree with the war! He done good! (lol)

Hitler used the Bible to justify the Holocaust and his persecution of Jews, also. Pope Innocent the Something-th, I think fourth, used the Bible to justify the Inquisition, and Pope Urban II used it to justify the Crusades. The Ku Klux Klan used it to support their ideals of killing people who weren't straight white Protestants. The Bible can be used to try to justify a lot of immoral or evil actions. George Bush invading Iraq because of the Bible doesn't surprise me - a lot of people in history who were smarter than him or more educated about religion than him have done it as well.

Hitler used teh Bible to justify teh Holocaust and his persecution of Jews, also. Pope Innocent teh Something-th, I think fourth, used teh Bible to justify teh Inquisition, and Pope Urban II used it to justify teh Crusades. teh Ku Klux Klan used it to support they're ideals of killing people who weren't straight white Protestants. teh Bible can be used to try to justify a lot of immoral or evil actions. George Bush invading Iraq because of teh Bible doesn't surprise me - a lot of people in history who were smarter then him or more educated about religion then him have done it as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Out of curiosity, when did George Bush use the Bible to justify his actions? I don't remember this...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, you have to remember, Muslims believe basically that the Christian is a dog and worthy of death. And they would massacre all Christians given a chance. Also, it is not a sin to lie to a non-Muslim, and it is not a sin to murder a non-muslim. These are the beliefs of the muslims that are causing the trouble in the middle east. I'm pretty sure the crusades were justified, and it wasn't just muslims who were the victims, the crusaders did suffer cruelties as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Inquisition was the answer to the Protestant movement, it was not inspired by the Bible, they just said that something was there that wasn't, those who are not saved do that a lot you know... just for their own evil desires. The Bible is an inanimate object, anyone can use it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have no answer for the Klu Klux Klan and Hitler, the two different organizations/people are just bad people, maybe even demon possessed. Hitler was almost definitely. The klu Klux Klan can't even spell "clan" right, I truly doubt any of them ever read the Bible through.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have a question to those who are not religious, where do you think you will go and how do you know?

 

Hitler used teh Bible to justify teh Holocaust and his persecution of Jews, also. Pope Innocent teh Something-th, I think fourth, used teh Bible to justify teh Inquisition, and Pope Urban II used it to justify teh Crusades. teh Ku Klux Klan used it to support there ideals of killing people who weren't straight white Protestants. teh Bible can be used to try to justify a lot of immoral or evil actions. George Bush invading Iraq because of teh Bible doesn't surprise me - a lot of people in history who were smarter then him or more educated about religion then him have done it as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Out of curiosity, when did George Bush use teh Bible to justify his actions? I don't remember this...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, you have to remember, Muslims believe basically that teh Christian is a dog and worthy of death. And they would massacre all Christians given a chance. Also, it is not a sin to lie to a non-Muslim, and it is not a sin to murder a non-muslim. These are teh beliefs of teh muslims that are causing teh trouble in teh middle east. I'm pretty sure teh crusades were justified, and it wasn't just muslims who were teh victims, teh crusaders did suffer cruelties as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

teh Inquisition was teh answer to teh Protestant movement, it was not inspired by teh Bible, they just said that something was there that wasn't, those who are not saved do that a lot you know... just 4 they're own evil desires. teh Bible is an inanimate object, anyone can use it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have no answer 4 teh Klu Klux Klan and Hitler, teh two different organizations/people are just bad people, maybe even demon possessed. Hitler was almost definitely. teh klu Klux Klan can't even spell "clan" right, I truly doubt any of them ever read teh Bible through.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have a question to those who are not religious, where do you think you will go and how do you know?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think there will be nothing when I die. Teh reason I say this is that I am teh non-theist. What happens after death won't concern me until teh time that I die.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(I'm not sure if you were joking with all the 'teh's, by the way. I'll assume you were.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: haha, I get it, April Fools. :lol: :oops:

 

Hitler used teh Bible to justify teh Holocaust and his persecution of Jews, also. Pope Innocent teh Something-th, I think fourth, used teh Bible to justify teh Inquisition, and Pope Urban II used it to justify teh Crusades. teh Ku Klux Klan used it to support there ideals of killing people who weren't straight white Protestants. teh Bible can be used to try to justify a lot of immoral or evil actions. George Bush invading Iraq because of teh Bible doesn't surprise me - a lot of people in history who were smarter then him or more educated about religion then him have done it as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Out of curiosity, when did George Bush use teh Bible to justify his actions? I don't remember this...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, you have to remember, Muslims believe basically that teh Christian is a dog and worthy of death. And they would massacre all Christians given a chance. Also, it is not a sin to lie to a non-Muslim, and it is not a sin to murder a non-muslim. These are teh beliefs of teh muslims that are causing teh trouble in teh middle east. I'm pretty sure teh crusades were justified, and it wasn't just muslims who were teh victims, teh crusaders did suffer cruelties as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

teh Inquisition was teh answer to teh Protestant movement, it was not inspired by teh Bible, they just said that something was there that wasn't, those who are not saved do that a lot you know... just 4 they're own evil desires. teh Bible is an inanimate object, anyone can use it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have no answer 4 teh Klu Klux Klan and Hitler, teh two different organizations/people are just bad people, maybe even demon possessed. Hitler was almost definitely. teh klu Klux Klan can't even spell "clan" right, I truly doubt any of them ever read teh Bible through.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have a question to those who are not religious, where do you think you will go and how do you know?

 

 

 

I believe that when I die, I'll become unified with a universal "spiritual" energy, "God" if you must. I believe that when we are born we become slightly detached from this energy, thus gaining a form of self-conciousness (sp?), but we become a part of that energy again when we die. "One with God."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know that light we see when we die? Ya, that's the spiritual energy that we can finally see once we've been detached from our bodies :-w .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways, I "know" this no more than any religious organization "knows" what's going to happen. Just because a religion said it doesn't mean it's any more valid an opinion :-w .

In answer to both of your answers, how did you figure this out?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once you have answered that, read on...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Starting with Warrior's answer, it is not a non-theist, its atheist, just so you know, don' want your fellows to look at you weird. Anyway, all people follow something, what do you follow? do you follow the Anarchistic morals of the atheist or do you follow someone else's set of rules?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now for Rebdragon. If there is a universal spirit energy, wouldn't we sense it all the time were conscious? I mean, if its everywhere and in everything (Just so you know, the universal spirit thingy is in everything, God is not, that is the difference, among others) shouldn't I be able to at least sense it? Also, the Christians (including moi) have a very personal, loving God who made us after his image during Creation. The universal spirit thing is very impersonal, it does not seem to feel or love or care. Also, the light at the end of the tunnel thing is nonsense, I don't see how people could see the supposed light of God (/heaven/hell) when they are going back anyways.

 

 

 

Also... one last thing... the valid opinions, no one has ever died in western society to my knowledge for using that belief. Yet people in religions (Christianity the most) have died for it in horrible ways... even the cross (shudders... worst punishment ever) so, something must be going on there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A question, your end result, what ever it is, where did you first hear of it?

But you're assuming you're correct as your basis to prove me wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which is completely illogical. Just because you personally think a Christian God exists doesn't mean it does. Your martyr point also serves no purpose in this debate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for this opinion, it is a personal hypothesis, not some "world religion".

Belief in something is a personal hypothesis, now your angry and peeved, I felt the same when I see others disagree too, but that doesn't mean that I take it out on the person debating with me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe, my personal Hypothesis, that the Bible is truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, all Christians must come to this belief by themselves, so a personal hypothesis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, might I point out that you are assuming the same? everyone is biased, its just a matter of holding it in. I fno one assumes that something is right, even in their own eyes, they have no basis, no leg to stand on. You judged me using your bias, it is illogical to accuse another like you did, after all, this is just a friendly debate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, true, perfect, ultimate Christianity, is not a religion, it is a belief system in its purest form, away from the Roman Catholic church.

Belief in something is a personal hypothesis, now your angry and peeved, I felt teh same when I see others disagree too, but that doesn't mean that I take it out on teh person debating with me.

 

 

 

:lol: Angry and peeved? This came from where?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm merely saying that you're basically stating "my belief trumps yours", and using martyrs to support your opinion, which is completely illogical.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe, my personal Hypothesis, that teh Bible is truth, teh whole truth and nothing but teh truth, all Christians must come to this belief by themselves, so a personal hypothesis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, might I point out that you are assuming teh same?

 

 

 

Huh? I think most of Christianity is crap, and I see the Bible as nothing more than your average moral guidebook.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question things, don't just accept something as "complete truth", especially when it's man-made.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

everyone is biased, its just a matter of holding it in. I fno one assumes that something is right, even in they're own eyes, they have no basis, no leg to stand on. You judged me using your bias, it is illogical to accuse another liek you did, after all, this is just a friendly debate.

 

 

 

I didn't accuse you of anything! I just stated that you can't use your belief to say mine is wrong, that gets us nowhere.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And c'mon, don't start out by insulting me, and then accuse me of making this a non-friendly debate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, true, perfect, ultimate Christianity, is not a religion, it is a belief system in its purest form, away from teh Roman Catholic church.

 

 

 

Okay, but might I remind you, in the words of Mark Twain:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Christinity was a great idea. Too bad no one's ever tried it."