No. It is merciful by giving the oppotunity to know what the
consequence of negative actions are.
Would you prefer not to know?
jan.
What does religion DO?
- Thread starter Bishadi
- Start date
No. It is merciful by giving the oppotunity to know what the
consequence of negative actions are.
Would you prefer not to know?
jan.
Similar to the way that Stalin and Lenin let people know the negative consequences of their actions was execution and/ or the Siberian salt mines?
The overall effect is the same:
This is the law. Break it and suffer.
Control is control...
The ultimate in materialism and attempting to control anything and everything is “I am the law, I own it all”.
Or I carry the mantle representing such thinking by power seekers.
Last edited:
The vast majority of human beings on our planet simply practice the religion in which they were brought up to believe.
I would just assume that using a fear tactic to sell a product to someone means your product is probabily not very good. :shrug:
Dywyddyr,
That's kind of the point isn't it?
There is no way of knowing for yourself.
It's not nonsense, unbelievable (or believable), but it makes perfect sense.
More sense than anything you have to offer.
Irrelevant, it is a religion matter, not science.
And where exactly would you get evidence from?
But it is not a matter for science, it is a religious matter, so your argument is ultimately against religion. And as such, your arguments against religion has no merit. And I didn't say that the soul causes life.
There was no point, to be precise.
Well, as I stated before, religion is a natural fixture in all adult human society.
The religion of these guys was atheistic, in that God was not their goal. So at least we agree on something.
Do you know the difference between 'social control' and 'instruction' from a perfect source with your spiritual welfare at heart?
Er...yeah!
Sorry, I must have missed the bit in the NT where Jesus excommunicated and ostracised the bogus priests, and the folks who brutally murdered him.
I suppose 'Father forgive them..." is a euphemism for "kill the bastards", or maybe not.
That's your opinion, and your entitled to it
Since when did the word "teach" become "force"?
Since when did the word "preach" become "force"?
Is this one of those "kill the bastards" euphemisms again?
Well, he was their Father, after all.
jan.
That's kind of the point isn't it?
There is no way of knowing for yourself.
It's not nonsense, unbelievable (or believable), but it makes perfect sense.
More sense than anything you have to offer.
Irrelevant, it is a religion matter, not science.
And where exactly would you get evidence from?
But it is not a matter for science, it is a religious matter, so your argument is ultimately against religion. And as such, your arguments against religion has no merit. And I didn't say that the soul causes life.
There was no point, to be precise.
Well, as I stated before, religion is a natural fixture in all adult human society.
The religion of these guys was atheistic, in that God was not their goal. So at least we agree on something.
Do you know the difference between 'social control' and 'instruction' from a perfect source with your spiritual welfare at heart?
Er...yeah!
Sorry, I must have missed the bit in the NT where Jesus excommunicated and ostracised the bogus priests, and the folks who brutally murdered him.
I suppose 'Father forgive them..." is a euphemism for "kill the bastards", or maybe not.
That's your opinion, and your entitled to it
Since when did the word "teach" become "force"?
Since when did the word "preach" become "force"?
Is this one of those "kill the bastards" euphemisms again?
Well, he was their Father, after all.
jan.
What if the fear tactic, was not a fear tactic, but actual truth, and the point of this truth was not to sell any product, but to protect from damnation, and to
experience peace for all time. How would sum that up?
jan.
So there's no way of knowing.
Making sense doesn't make it real.
Wrong again. You said that it was my opinion. I simply pointed out that it isn't just mine.
I see,
No evidence = doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned.
Oh okay.
Tell me about leprechauns then.
Now you're playing word games. You said it's the animator...
So you're too dense to see the point?
Which is an assumption (and incorrect).
Wrong again. I said effectively made. Belief wasn't required, just conformity.
Assumed "perfect source". How many times is it stated that god's word is the LAW in the bible?
Why?
Ah changing the focus. We were talking about religion not Jesus.
John 3:18 (NIV) "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."
Condemnation isn't a form of coercion?
John 15:6 (KJV) "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."
Burning people isn't a form coercion?
Parents don't coerce?
Parents don't lay down the law and punish transgressions?
Parents don't control?
For those of us with a Christian background, the above is often very hard to believe. Because we were taught that this "perfect source" has our "spiritual welfare" at heart, but this "perfect source" will also torture the majority of souls in hell for all eternity.
Being religious or spiritual then basically means reconciling "perfect source", "loving" with "eternal torture".
When I see happy monotheists of whatever denomination, praising God, I think "These people were able to reconcile "perfect source", "loving" with "eternal torture". They must be really spiritually advanced."
I never was able to reconcile this. The notion of eternal damnation, to me, entails some other notions that I cannot accept (I wrote about it here).
S
science man
Guest
In answer to the heading of this thread we need religion to have an answer to how we came to be.
Except that religion does not (and cannot) provide that.
It give a story on how we came to be, but it's an unverifiable one.
LColburn86
Registered Member
Except that science does not (and cannot) provide that.
It gives a story on how we came to be, but it's an unverifiable one.
I love science because it will undoubtedly prove only what we are made of and, eventually that the only logical explanation based on the research is that something greater than ourselves made us.
But we already knew that...from the Bible.
*LuCresia C.
It gives a story on how we came to be, but it's an unverifiable one.
I love science because it will undoubtedly prove only what we are made of and, eventually that the only logical explanation based on the research is that something greater than ourselves made us.
But we already knew that...from the Bible.
*LuCresia C.
Ah, wrong.
Science does provide verifiable "stories".
Really?
So, logically, what made god?
Only if you believe in fairy stories.
LColburn86
Registered Member
Science is ever so slowly proving what? Theories.
God was not made. He just is. That is why we are lesser, and He is the God.
As for your last comment I plead the 5th.
The Bible is true, but only you can decide whether or not to believe it for yourself.
That is the Beauty of God. Nothing is more powerful than faith.
To follow something with all your heart and not know with "varifiable" evidence.
*LuCresia C.
God was not made. He just is. That is why we are lesser, and He is the God.
As for your last comment I plead the 5th.
The Bible is true, but only you can decide whether or not to believe it for yourself.
That is the Beauty of God. Nothing is more powerful than faith.
To follow something with all your heart and not know with "varifiable" evidence.
*LuCresia C.
Ah I see.
For someone that claims to "love science" you apparently have no idea what the word "theory" means.
Failure of logic. Why?
Assumed (by some) to be true.
Not provably (or even demonstrably) so
When was the last time you saw a faith-powered car?
Oh! You mean "gullible".
LColburn86
Registered Member
your pretty mean Dy lol
Cut down after cut down. I'm sorry but it works both ways.
I can't prove it but you can't disprove it.
A theory is an idea that isnt proven right?
A car is not a nessessity. To try to prove faith is would be impossible, I'm 22, but people die for faith with an unshaken resolve in them. No one would die for a car lol thats a lie.
People die for a lot of reason. But none more so than religion.
I know God is real and I have proff for myself, but I can not share it with you, because you wont understand me.
*LuCresia C.
Cut down after cut down. I'm sorry but it works both ways.
I can't prove it but you can't disprove it.
A theory is an idea that isnt proven right?
A car is not a nessessity. To try to prove faith is would be impossible, I'm 22, but people die for faith with an unshaken resolve in them. No one would die for a car lol thats a lie.
People die for a lot of reason. But none more so than religion.
I know God is real and I have proff for myself, but I can not share it with you, because you wont understand me.
*LuCresia C.
Go ahead.
I don't need to disprove it.
If there's no supporting evidence then it's not worth my time.
Weight of probabilities.
Wrong.
http://www.answers.com/topic/theory
Note the words "repeatedly tested": you'd probably say "proved".
(In science nothing is actually proven).
You missed the point.
If faith is the most powerful thing there is why don't we get rid of polluting petrol engines?
Yes, that needs curing, certainly.
No, you don't have proof, simply personal conviction.
Most likely based on subjective experience.
Dywyddyr,
Not by empirical methods, no.
But its not nonsense, which was my point.
You appealed to what you thought was an authority.
I am already aware of your atheism.
Where do you think evidence would come from?
Why?
So Daffy Duck is alive then?
I said "life" is the word used to describe the phenomena.
Why default to "dense"?
I just don't see a point.
That is what you can expect with a godless regime.
In fact I would go as far as to say that is the symptom of an atheistic regime. "We are right, so this will become state food, period.
I don't know. How many?
God is not an "assumed" perfect source, God is the perfect source.
You just don't believe it. Which is your perogative.
Pigs are considered unclean because of what they consume, which
is more or less anything (including pooh). What we eat affects not only
our bodies, but our minds also. "You are what you eat" is a relevant quote.
Jesus was the embodiment of an aspect of religion.
Without great souls like Jesus, religion descends into atheism.
It's not coercion if its true.
It is a merciful act.
I've already explained that there are things
we don't know, and will never know by our
own endeavours.
He is saying, when we die, if we are not God-concious, our fate will be nothing but a cremation.
I guess cremation was the way they disposed of dead bodies.
jan.
Not by empirical methods, no.
But its not nonsense, which was my point.
You appealed to what you thought was an authority.
I am already aware of your atheism.
Where do you think evidence would come from?
Why?
So Daffy Duck is alive then?
I said "life" is the word used to describe the phenomena.
Why default to "dense"?
I just don't see a point.
That is what you can expect with a godless regime.
In fact I would go as far as to say that is the symptom of an atheistic regime. "We are right, so this will become state food, period.
I don't know. How many?
God is not an "assumed" perfect source, God is the perfect source.
You just don't believe it. Which is your perogative.
Pigs are considered unclean because of what they consume, which
is more or less anything (including pooh). What we eat affects not only
our bodies, but our minds also. "You are what you eat" is a relevant quote.
Jesus was the embodiment of an aspect of religion.
Without great souls like Jesus, religion descends into atheism.
It's not coercion if its true.
It is a merciful act.
I've already explained that there are things
we don't know, and will never know by our
own endeavours.
He is saying, when we die, if we are not God-concious, our fate will be nothing but a cremation.
I guess cremation was the way they disposed of dead bodies.
jan.
LColburn86
Registered Member
i have visions. People say DeJa Vu's, but i dont have that. I've seen my son and he isn't born yet so i know God is real because i love science. and i know, because i've looked that you can not see things that have not happened yet. its a phenomina that goes against the laws of nature. A lot of tests have been done to prove that some foresight into the future is possible, and that even dreams can be interpretted into real-life events, but that does not describe my experiences. This is a one sided empty argument that holds no water at all. But it is my ONLY reason for believing in God and not relying on the advancements of science no matter how mounting the evidence may be. You could give me real proff but i would not believe you because i have that word that doesnt make sence. Faith.
everything else you said was meaningless, and didnt disprove anything i said, but bring to light my spelling errors and misinterpritation of words. I know what i want to say im just not good at explaining it.
*LuCresia C.
everything else you said was meaningless, and didnt disprove anything i said, but bring to light my spelling errors and misinterpritation of words. I know what i want to say im just not good at explaining it.
*LuCresia C.