Proof Jesus was black

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Not all acts of goodness are attributed to religion but religion can inspire acts of goodness.

 

Giving up your life for another is not suicide. Christ did it himself. I would say Gandhi did it too. It's an act of devotion. Such devotion does not come from logic but strong faith. If you don't want to call it religious then let's use another phase: a state of love.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes but it can equally inspire acts of hatred and intollerance.

 

I point you to the definition of the word suicide.

 

1 : the act or an instance of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally

 

Throwing yourself on a grenade is in the same general catagory as throwing yourself into the path of a train or bus.

 

Thats not to say that one should not admire the bravery of the act. Especially by a person who dosnt believe in an afterlife. Suicide is viewed differently by different cultures too.

 

All I would say in regard to aethiests is they are not likely to be any more good and evil than religious people. There just would not be any ulterior motive for their actions.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

In sense of the crucifiction , thats more of a sacrifice. It's very similiar to a concept the aztecs has whereby one of there gods would slice his own scrotum from which would flow the stuff of life.

 

This same ritual was then performed by the king (who says it's good to be king) in much the same way as you get the symbolic offering of the body and the blood performed by priests.

 

The crucifiction also has parrelels with Odin who impaled himslef on a tree with his own spear in order to become divine and all knowing. Although he had to pluck out his own eye too.

Edited November 17, 2005 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[julianw]

Not all acts of goodness are attributed to religion but religion can inspire acts of goodness.

 

Giving up your life for another is not suicide. Christ did it himself. I would say Gandhi did it too. It's an act of devotion. Such devotion does not come from logic but strong faith. If you don't want to call it religious then let's use another phase: a state of love.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes but it can equally inspire acts of hatred and intollerance.

Okay. Now we have faith could guide our actions beyond logic established. We do, right? So why are there prophets and religious scriptures then? I believe they could help us direct our devotions to the right causes. I am against forcing any belief on any one but even you can't deny that the influence of all the religions combined have reached pretty much every corner of this earth. Studying the major ones, they all seem pretty sensible to me, preaching peace and love. Now when devotion leads to hatred or intolerence, how could they be the fruits of the religions themselves when the religions are against hatred or intolerence?

 

p.s. The Crucifixion has little significance for me. What's important for me is that Christ devoted his life till death to teach the people. How could an act of blood sacrifice be more important than a sacrifice of a whole life?

Edited November 17, 2005 by julianw

[Walsingham]

I think it's a bit much to blame religion for all the bad things religious people do, and at the same refuse religion any credit for the good things religious people do.

 

Religion can make you do stuff for no 'rational' objective reason. But I would say that that includes helping people when you've no good reason to, as well as light them on fire.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Okay. Now we have faith could guide our actions beyond logic established. We do, right? So why are there prophets and religious scriptures then? I believe they could help us direct our devotions to the right causes. I am against forcing any belief on any one but even you can't deny that the influence of all the religions combined have reached pretty much every corner of this earth. Studying the major ones, they all seem pretty sensible to me, preaching peace and love. Now when devotion leads to hatred or intolerence, how could they be the fruits of the religions themselves when the religions are against hatred or intolerence?

 

p.s. The Crucifixion has little significance for me. What's important for me is that Christ devoted his life till death to teach the people. How could an act of blood sacrifice be more important than a sacrifice of a whole life?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You could equally ask why there are works of fiction. Because without faith that is exactly what they are.

 

The way I see it you have two choices.

 

1. You can admit that every religion is valid. After all the Egyptian Religion , Norse , Greek/Roman etc. all have a mythos that is as rich and creative as the christian one.

 

2. You can admit that they are all made up by people for the purpose of security. Christianity just happens to be the latest popular one and has no more credibility than any that has gone before.

 

Well one of the biggest dangers of religion is that it is open to interpretation. And that interpretation does not need to be based on rationality.

 

Sounds to me like you have made up your own religion. Not that there is anything wrong with that. It's not uncommon at all even for devout "whatevers" to ignore the bits in the respective teachings that they dont like.

[Walsingham]

I don't think that ALL religions are equally valid. Aum Shinrikyo strikes me as one which is less valid. The thuggees of India strike me as being less valid.

 

Principally because of their focus on personal advancement without concern for others.

[julianw]

There is one problem with the two choices you offered though. Christ, Buddha and Muhammad did make those claims that they are at one with God. So either they are the biggest liars that probably deserved death or their claims are true.

 

And the basis for interpretation is rationality; and it's more dangerous when people decide that the religion is based on blind faith but not open interpretation.

[Cantousent]

This might come as a shock,old boy, but,to my better knowledge, I have yet to test it in a public area. I do expect the females of the human species to be engulfed in the bitter sweet masculine pheromones I am sure to be secreting.

 

Now,my dear Julian,I am open to debating this matter,if that is what you desire,but I must say that I would prefer to bury this whole discussion as it is sure to lead to simple minded insults.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

My insults are complex minded. It's my argument that are simple minded. Keep it all straight, young man.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I don't think that ALL religions are equally valid. Aum Shinrikyo strikes me as one which is less valid. The thuggees of India strike me as being less valid.

 

Principally because of their focus on personal advancement without concern for others.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That dosnt have anything to do with their validity though.

[kumquatq3]

Did anyone here see the new South Park about Scientology

 

the "This is what they actually believe" bit is HIGH-LARIOUS

[Walsingham]

A religion which calls for charity, humility,and fairness (for example) needs less justification than one which claims special rights to murder anyone it likes. Because the former is closer to what one might call principles naturally conducive to general happiness.

 

I realise I'm lining up for a kicking here.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

There is one problem with the two choices you offered though. Christ, Buddha and Muhammad did make those claims that they are at one with God. So either they are the biggest liars that probably deserved death or their claims are true.

 

And the basis for interpretation is rationality; and it's more dangerous when people decide that the religion is based on blind faith but not open interpretation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well it would be unfair to judge them from a contempory perspective I think.

 

If you fast and expose yourself to the elements then you will have visions. Same could be said of the Oracle of Delphi. We may know that the "herb" infusion makes you "crazy". But at that time it was seen as a way to get closer to the gods.

 

Rationality and religion, thats a novel concept.

[Cantousent]

no NO NO You took Mojo good natured joke thread and turned it into another religious debate. Why?! ahahahaha Why in the name of all that is good, why?!? :Eldar's sobbing inconsolably while gibbering and otherwise acting distraught icon:

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

A religion which calls for charity, humility,and fairness (for example) needs less justification than one which claims special rights to murder anyone it likes. Because the former is closer to what one might call principles naturally conducive to general happiness.

 

I realise I'm lining up for a kicking here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

From a functionalist perspective theres a case for that.

 

Survival of the fittest dosnt really apply in technological societies.

 

 

Not from me.

[Surreptishus]

no NO NO  You took Mojo good natured joke thread and turned it into another religious debate.  Why?!  ahahahaha  Why in the name of all that is good, why?!?  :Eldar's sobbing inconsolably while gibbering and otherwise acting distraught icon:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I blame julian and then possibly baley.

[julianw]

Well it would be unfair to judge them from a contempory perspective I think.

 

If you fast and expose yourself to the elements then you will have visions. Same could be said of the Oracle of Delphi. We may know that the "herb" infusion makes you "crazy". But at that time it was seen as a way to get closer to the gods.

Okay. Let's be logical here. I could study for my whole life with this vast amount of knowledge that's easily available today and remain the chump I am but Christ died at 33 and was poor to boot. Muhammad was chased like a rat across the desert and battled his whole life. Buddha was a pampered rich boy who knew little of the suffering of the poor. Let's not credit the Bible, the Qu'ran and the number of Buddhist texts which are all beautifully written and contain many truth to life to hallucinations now.

Edited November 17, 2005 by julianw

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Let's not credit the Bible, the Qu'ran and the number of Buddhist texts which are all beautifully written and contain many truth to life to hallucinations now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Why not ?

 

If anything has changed society to that which we live in today it's that people have focused less on religion and more on science.

 

People got along (or didnt) prior to any of those people even existing. Their existence really didnt change anything fundamental. People still kill each other, people still starve. Religions existed before them, new religions sprang up after them (see scientology).

[Judge Hades]

You can't change human nature. You can only give new names and develop new technologies but ultimately nothing ever changes in human nature..

[julianw]

Let's not credit the Bible, the Qu'ran and the number of Buddhist texts which are all beautifully written and contain many truth to life to hallucinations now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Why not ?

 

If anything has changed society to that which we live in today it's that people have focused less on religion and more on science.

 

People got along (or didnt) prior to any of those people even existing. Their existence really didnt change anything fundamental. People still kill each other, people still starve. Religions existed before them, new religions sprang up after them (see scientology).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why not? Well. First, it is illogical. The Bible is not Christ's direct words but Muhammad did write the Qu'ran and it reads like poetry. Now Muhammad himself never had any education and was a warrior for his whole life. I doubt he can dream up poetry out of the blue.

 

I am not familiar with the early struggles of Christianity but I am sure Mothman could give you tons of examples of how the early Christians suffered and labored to spread the faith and taught people to love. As for Islam, Muhammad civilized an entire region. Previously barbaric people in a few decades turned into an advanced nation. Even today, their influence lives on. Islamic law requires a percentage of the income be donated to charity. I have seen my Muslim friend who's but a poor student with little income, yet giving out charities on many occasions. If you think relgions should have done more good, I can't say I disagree with you. But let me ask you this then: how much is enough? Good and evil are relative. You cannot extinguish all evil in a free world, so how shall you judge the progess of mankind then? Religions have helped us understand the purpose of life, strengthened the bond of familes and nations. Those seem a great deal to me already.

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

"Why not? Well. First, it is illogical. The Bible is not Christ's direct words but Muhammad did write the Qu'ran and it reads like poetry. Now Muhammad himself never had any education and was a warrior for his whole life. I doubt he can dream up poetry out of the blue."

 

If Qu'ran didn't 'read like poetry', maybe no one would've given two ****s about it. I'm fairly sure there are lots of religious books that don't read like poetry, and as such, are not given two ****s about.

 

That is, in order for a religion to be succesful, it has to sound good.

 

I hope you understand what I'm going for here.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Why not? Well. First, it is illogical. The Bible is not Christ's direct words but Muhammad did write the Qu'ran and it reads like poetry. Now Muhammad himself never had any education and was a warrior for his whole life. I doubt he can dream up poetry out of the blue.

 

I am not familiar with the early struggles of Christianity but I am sure Mothman could give you tons of examples of how the early Christians suffered and labored to spread the faith and taught people to love. As for Islam, Muhammad civilized an entire region. Previously barbaric people in a few decades turned into an advanced nation. Even today, their influence lives on. Islamic law requires a percentage of the income be donated to charity. I have seen my Muslim friend who's but a poor student with little income, yet giving out charities on many occasions. If you think relgions should have done more good, I can't say I disagree with you. But let me ask you this then: how much is enough? Good and evil are relative. You cannot extinguish all evil in a free world, so how shall you judge the progess of mankind then? Religions have helped us understand the purpose of life, strengthened the bond of familes and nations. Those seem a great deal to me already.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Samurai were pretty well versed in poetry despite being consumate warriors.

 

Being thrown to the lions stuff like that. It really took off when the Romans found a use for it.

 

If the only reason your giving is to get in good with the man upstairs then does it really qualify as charity ? It's more like paying your way into the afterlife.

 

Yep religions have a functional use but for every positive there is a negative. You could say they balance out. Or not depending on your point of view.

[Lyric Suite]

Read Hades's sig. You might understand why I talked with him in that way.

 

Nope, i still don't understand.

 

I didn't kill Jesus, why am i sharing part of the blame for something i didn't do?

[metadigital]

So tell me why would he/she do that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What why would an aethiest dive on a grenade to save a friend ? Since it's not something I'd be inclined to do, not something I can answer. But it does happen so self sacrfice is not confined only to people who believe in god.

 

I know many aethiests who are still humanitarians. Although I wouldnt say I was one since I tend to stick all life on the same shelf.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Indeed, latest scientific investigations have proven that bacteria are capable of self-sacrifice ... are they religious?

[Krookie]

Proof Jesus was Canadian. "

 

 

[metadigital]

What's that, a bong?