Capitalism is un-Christian.

[Nightshape]

Where's the Islamic golden age? Apparently, during the dark ages, we were just as poorly advanced as Egyptians. Also, loving the SCIENTIFIC ADVANCE sidebar, truly an objective measurement.

 

No humour? Oh well...

 

Ahhh the Islamic golden age, before they became crazy brainwashed explosive freaks of nature. Quite reasonable, at the time, for a religious lot.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Not all Muslims are like that, Nightshape. Only the really stupid ones do that sort of crap. Besides, the largest population of Muslims aren't in the Middle East or Africa, where the majority of terrorists are from. The bulk of the Islamic population resides in Indonesia and that region of the world.

[Hurlshort]

GD was stating he knows for a fact that God exists. Truth is he doesn't, he has faith and belief like every other god bothering self rightious ****.

 

I wouldn't be offended if he had said, I believe that God exists.

 

So GD is the one being offensive here?

[Killian Kalthorne]

What Nightshaope fails to understand is that a person can have a singular experience with no one else present to witness it. If GD was the sole witness of a murder, would you deny it as fact that he saw a murder, even if their is no body, Nightshape? Would you say he believed that a murder took place instead of him saying it is fact due to his own personal experience? A fact for one person does not change what another says. You have the choice to believe him or not, but that does not change the fact that he, in his experience, had a divine event.

[Pidesco]

The point is that a divine experience isn't verifiable or definable in the same way that a murder is. What is a divine experience?

[Killian Kalthorne]

The point is that a divine experience isn't verifiable or definable in the same way that a murder is. What is a divine experience?

 

A divine experience is an experience with the divine. The point I am making is that a person who has a singular event without any witnesses still have that experience and that experience would be fact for them, even though it wouldn't be verifiable to another. If there was no physical evidence and no other witnesses of the murder, yet GD said he saw it happen, it would be a fact for him that the murder took place, while a exercise of belief for others.

Edited December 30, 2009 by Killian Kalthorne

[Hurlshort]

It's more like saying

 

Fact: I love my wife and daughter

 

Sure, you could argue that love is really just a bunch of electrodes or whatever, but it is just going to sound silly to me.

[Guard Dog]

The point is that a divine experience isn't verifiable or definable in the same way that a murder is. What is a divine experience?

 

A divine experience is an experience with the divine. The point I am making is that a person who has a singular event without any witnesses still have that experience and that experience would be fact for them, even though it wouldn't be verifiable to another. If there was no physical evidence and no other witnesses of the murder, yet GD said he saw it happen, it would be a fact for him that the murder took place, while a exercise of belief for others.

That really depends on my credibilty as a witness. If I were a drunk or drug addict, or just nuts and witnessed something it would have less weight than if I appeared to be just a normal person. That is where Nightshape disqualifies anything I might say about religion because he thinks I'm nuts (you know, my imaginary friend, God). I commented before about arrogance and hubris and how athiests were closer to communists than christians were. The theists (including killian, being hostile to God but still believing qualifies) on this board are not insulting or ridiculing the atheists, but it seems the reverse is not true. You gotta love his knee jerk response; anyone who has a different belief is deluded or crazy or ignorant. Like I said, arrogance and hubris enough to make LoF envious.

Edited December 30, 2009 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

Also you gotta love how Christianity is now blamed for the Dark Ages. I thought it was the result on the collpase of the Western Roman Empire and the crumbling of the provincial govenments followed by the withdraw of the remaining legions to Constantinople. Their depature created a vaccum that was filled by barbarian tribes, local warlords, and a few remaining Romans with adequate military strengh to control a few miles of land. Most of these were NOT christians by the way. In Roma and all through the east Christianity had a firm hold but the western provinces still followed a plothestic version of the more traditional Roman beliefs. The barbarians largely followed the faith of ther people.

 

I also noted there was no mention of the men who brought the Dark Ages to an end and brought on the renaissance, Charlamegne, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, I could go one. Every one of them were christians.

[Killian Kalthorne]

I categorize Christians in two camps. Jackhole Christians and Tolerable Christians. The ones you mention are part of the Tolerable Christians group. Examples of Jackhole Christians are Rev. Phelps, John Calvin, pat Robertson, and those who participated in the Spanish Inquisition.

 

 

As I said before, I do not go by belief. I go by what I know, and like you GD I had a personal experience with the Divine and the not-so Divine, though I doubt our experiences were anywhere near similar.

[Pidesco]

Christianity and its popularity are, in many ways a product of of the Middle Ages, not the other way around.

[I want teh kotor 3]

I categorize Christians in two camps. Jackhole Christians and Tolerable Christians. The ones you mention are part of the Tolerable Christians group. Examples of Jackhole Christians are Rev. Phelps, John Calvin, pat Robertson, and those who participated in the Spanish Inquisition.

 

You forgot Jack Thompson. Man needs to be institutionalized.

[Dark_Raven]

Asking for proof positive that god exists is a pit unfair no ?. Like beating up a cripple.

 

Anyway that's why they call it belief.

 

Those who state belief as fact offend me.

 

One can percieve belief in many ways, maybe a person believes in god, and I believe in one less god than he does, or perhaps christians should accept the existence of all gods, otherwise their own is infact unjustified.

 

GD was stating facts about his personal beliefs. I thought that was pretty clear. You really don't need to be so hung up on it.

 

I share his opinion, and I have a lot of evidence to back up my belief in God.

 

GD was stating he knows for a fact that God exists. Truth is he doesn't, he has faith and belief like every other god bothering self rightious ****.

 

I wouldn't be offended if he had said, I believe that God exists.

 

I've always loved the arguement, "The universe exists, so God must exist", it is the arguement of intellectual dullards who fear the truth, and what the truth may indeed be, nobody really knows, but those who place a belief in God, well huh, may aswell believe that rivers flow because of water sprites and fire burn because of fire sprites.

 

*sigh*

 

What a neat little chart. Accurate to. Human thinking went down the gutter when the church had power. Can't have free thinking sheep now can we?

 

Islam golden age? They're still in the dark ages right now. Have to keep their women fully clothed and in their place and the rest of their sheep ignorant and intolerant to anything that is not according to Sharia Law. Right now they are doing what the christians did during the Dark Ages.

Edited December 31, 2009 by Dark_Raven

[taks]

Human thinking went down the gutter when the church had power.

that's actually what happens when any one group has absolute power, be it religious or otherwise.

 

that's where the whole concept of individual rights is derived, as a means to protect people from such groups (particularly the state).

 

taks

[Pidesco]

Classical Greece would disagree with that affirmation.

[blue]

fyi, and merry christmas:

 

Passions over 'prosperity gospel': Was Jesus wealthy?

By John Blake, CNN

December 25, 2009

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/1...esus/index.html

[taks]

Classical Greece would disagree with that affirmation.

um, democracy was invented in 510 BC by cleisthenes, the beginning of the period referred to as "classical greece."

 

taks

[Pidesco]

Democracy: rule by the people where the only ones defined as real people are really, really rich men with absolute power who otherwise have nothing to do because their economy is slave based. Sounds about right. It's also how they had time to go around philosophizing: because they were a very small elite who controlled everything and were served by everyone. Plato argued in The Republic that it was the only way to do human thought.

[Humodour]

Classical Greece would disagree with that affirmation.

um, democracy was invented in 510 BC by cleisthenes, the beginning of the period referred to as "classical greece."

 

taks

 

You might want to read up on the history of Greece and Rome before you make up your little hypotheses. Democracy then was often very different to democracy now (and largely not about individual rights). Not to mention that democracy didn't last that long - much of the time the Greek and Roman empires were run by dictators and emperors.

[taks]

Plato argued in The Republic that it was the only way to do human thought.

i don't care what plato argued, classical greece was not a period representative of what i originally proposed. do some better research, find a different period to prove your point, this one ain't it.

 

You might want to read up on the history of Greece and Rome before you make up your little hypotheses.

i did, and i have. i suggest the same to you.

 

Democracy then was often very different to democracy now (and largely not about individual rights).

it lasted through the classical greece period which pidesco claims refutes my theory about absolute power, the period in which greece is known for its intellectual advancements.

 

Not to mention that democracy didn't last that long - much of the time the Greek and Roman empires were run by dictators and emperors.

not the period referred to as "classical greece." this is easy to find out, had you bothered to look. this is not unlike that comment in the windows7 thread where you failed to actually read the article, right?

 

knowledge is the enemy of tyranny. you, and many others that post in these silly threads, however, are not.

 

taks

Edited December 31, 2009 by taks

[kingofsquid]

The Bible teaches Christians many things; the ethic of reciprocity, the principles of charity, the importance of being earnest. But it seems as though the religion has been twisted in the interest of the rich, the powerful, and the conquerors, and in general the most unkind and unjust sort of people.

 

Jesus teaches that to be rich is to be wrong.

 

In Luke, a version of Jesus's famous "Blessed are the poor" speech appears in Chapter 6. However, this version (presumably inspired by God himself) includes an additional note. In Luke 6:20, Jesus says "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God." But in a sharp contrast, he goes on to say in 6:24, "But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort."

 

This is, of course, not the only time that Jesus speaks ill of the rich! Another story comes when Jesus is asked by a man to arbitrate a dispute over inheritance in Luke, chapter 12. He begins by saying "Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions." He tells a story of a man who stores up much for himself on this earth, believing he is now set for life. But God appears and says "You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?"

 

The very next story Jesus tells is to consider the animals and plants of the earth. They do not store up for themselves, but the Lord still feeds them. So, he says: "Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

 

 

 

"

 

Umm.... Sorry for getting to a response so late....

 

But, I have a Bible in my lap, and That's not the impression that I get. I get the impression that Jesus means that the rich are not instantly damned, but they (generalization) focus so much on their money that they do not accept salvation.

 

Yes, I am a Baptist.

[Cycloneman]

Umm.... Sorry for getting to a response so late....

 

But, I have a Bible in my lap, and That's not the impression that I get. I get the impression that Jesus means that the rich are not instantly damned, but they (generalization) focus so much on their money that they do not accept salvation.

 

Yes, I am a Baptist.

How else can you explain "But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort," but as a direct curse on the rich? How else can you explain the story of the rich man and Lazarus, when the sole difference between them is their prosperity? Just curious. Edited December 31, 2009 by Cycloneman

[Hurlshort]

Umm.... Sorry for getting to a response so late....

 

But, I have a Bible in my lap, and That's not the impression that I get. I get the impression that Jesus means that the rich are not instantly damned, but they (generalization) focus so much on their money that they do not accept salvation.

 

Yes, I am a Baptist.

How else can you explain "But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort," but as a direct curse on the rich? How else can you explain the story of the rich man and Lazarus, when the sole difference between them is their prosperity? Just curious.

 

I don't see it as a direct curse, I see it more as a warning.

 

But it's not exactly news that the bible can be interpreted in many different ways.

[Cycloneman]

I don't see it as a direct curse, I see it more as a warning.

A warning that they will be punished for their wealth?

[Hurlshort]

I don't see it as a direct curse, I see it more as a warning.

A warning that they will be punished for their wealth?

 

Where does it mention punishment?