Remove this ad
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
Christianity
2319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / where the grass i...
Offline
Posted 12/30/11

DomFortress wrote:


Titus2woman wrote:

Do you believe in natural consequences, Tarakelly? We really do reap what we sow! Some people call it karma, but the Bible is filled with examples of natural consequences as well. :)

Titus2woman wrote:

*THANK YOU!*, longfenglim~you are correct! I did NOT have a grasp of the understanding of karma. You set me straight! :D
What you did grossly ignored is the fundamental differences within the two belief systems: the Christian faith is eternal damnation after death, whereas the Hindu faith is rebirth as a lower caste after reincarnation.

However, none of those are "natural consequences". As in cause and effect that's observable within the natural world, thus is justifiable through natural means.

If anything, a real case study of how karma works is the natural science of fetal origin. With mounting evidences strongly indicate how human learning and socializing processes begins before birth, through their immediate hosts' physical, social, and cultural environments.

Annie Murphy Paul: What we learn before we're born
Pop quiz: When does learning begin? Answer: Before we are born. Science writer Annie Murphy Paul talks through new research that shows how much we learn in the womb -- from the lilt of our native language to our soon-to-be-favorite foods.


umm... dom, your karma is determined before you are conceived not before you are born. That is the karma system
2319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / where the grass i...
Offline
Posted 12/30/11

_SupaDupa_ wrote:

I consider myself a religious person( go to church 2 times a week and on holidays), but I am not a "Jesus Freak".

Its always nice to see someone that finds a religion and something they can believe in, but I cannot cosign individuals that try to push religion on people. I don't think you can force faith. Extremist in most things, not just religion, give off bad perceptions.

I also don't believe in a "superior" religion.




anyway, the non religious people usually thinks that we are forcing our faith to them when we talk about our religion. It seems it is not okay to share anymore.

about the superior religion, try to study about the religion of others. you will start to realize that this one is better than the other.

example, in islam, you can marry four women and when you die you get 72 virgins who are still virgin after sex. I hope Christianity offers the same thing ^_^
Posted 12/30/11

alupihan45 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Titus2woman wrote:

Do you believe in natural consequences, Tarakelly? We really do reap what we sow! Some people call it karma, but the Bible is filled with examples of natural consequences as well. :)

Titus2woman wrote:

*THANK YOU!*, longfenglim~you are correct! I did NOT have a grasp of the understanding of karma. You set me straight! :D
What you did grossly ignored is the fundamental differences within the two belief systems: the Christian faith is eternal damnation after death, whereas the Hindu faith is rebirth as a lower caste after reincarnation.

However, none of those are "natural consequences". As in cause and effect that's observable within the natural world, thus is justifiable through natural means.

If anything, a real case study of how karma works is the natural science of fetal origin. With mounting evidences strongly indicate how human learning and socializing processes begins before birth, through their immediate hosts' physical, social, and cultural environments.

Annie Murphy Paul: What we learn before we're born
Pop quiz: When does learning begin? Answer: Before we are born. Science writer Annie Murphy Paul talks through new research that shows how much we learn in the womb -- from the lilt of our native language to our soon-to-be-favorite foods.


umm... dom, your karma is determined before you are conceived not before you are born. That is the karma system
Then the error is on you, when the Hindu faith believes in reincarnation, not death. You're still holding onto the bias of your Christian faith, thus you didn't grasp the concept of how death being a necessary biological process to sustain all life. Not to end it.
2372 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
51 / M / Vancouver, WA. (T...
Offline
Posted 12/30/11
This can be a sticky can of worms, most people are terribly unaware of the tenets of their own faith. A Pew survey found that most people didn't know much about their own faith.

Being I was raised as a Lutheran and my brother and his wife are both ministers I kind of have a ready source of information just a phone call away, not that I often need it.

Another thing is the various factions or sects or in Lutheranism synods of the church. ELCA, Missouri Synod, Wisconsin Synod and old affiliations like ALC, LCA that merged. I think some of the other churches went through the same types of things.
Plus the recent controversy in the Anglican/Episcopalian churches about admitting "Gay" clergy.

You run into the same types "politics" as you see in the general population regardless of faith or lack thereof. You see conservative and liberal views of how the church should function in society. Even to the point of libertarianistic or socialistic ideals.

Something to consider http://www.pewforum.org/

And just because I'm biased . . http://www.elca.org/

I hope this doesn't offend anyone or get me into . . . too much trouble.

It still boils down to personal choices, God isn't gonna jump out and save you from making stupid choices. I've always thought that was blatantly clear.
You can view the Bible as the AAA Triptik to life, if you get off the path you'll be lost forever.
OR
You can view the Bible as the Moon Travel Guide to life, it tells you about all these places you can go but you bring your own map and you make the real choices.

That's the short version.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 12/30/11 , edited 12/30/11

alupihan45wrote:

Yes there is a parameter. Check their Apostolic succession of leaders. Like the Catholics. You will see that the present pope has a continuous line of succession that can trace back up to St. Peter. That is the real measurement how real a christian church is. What Jesus taught, he taught to the first disciples and this disciples taught it to their successors. Whatever goes more or less or against the teachings that was passed on are "excess". I can say that Jesus and God are one person because others say there are some text that somehow supports it (by their own interpretation of the bible) but this is rejected by the Catholics, who are the one who composed and compiled the Bible. So who will you believe? Me, who interpreted the Bible or the Church that was authorized by God to preach?


So you are a Papist, I take it. I have made this argument before, but, I shall repeat it anyways. Have you ever, as a child, been subject a little game, whereby the teacher tells something to a child at the front of the row, and have them relay it down the row to the next child, and the child after that, until, when alas it reaches the end of the row, the unlucky child at the end of the row must come up to the teacher and repeat the whole message? The results, for each row, have been almost exactly the same, either by malicious and dishonest children, and by the incomplete memory of the messangers, the message have, at the very end, been perverted beyond recognition, and the teacher then reveals to the class the original message, so that they, themselves, may see how inaccurate the message they, themselves, have recieved. The same may be said of the Romish Church, that, after centuries of centuries, it has become perverted beyond what the Apostles would have recognised, and, thus, the original faith, as expounded by Jesus, have been lost through his disciples, further diluted by the followers of those disciples, and, with each generation, become as the message pass through the children, perverted. Further, we must examine the claims of the Papists, that, by virtue of God, who will not allow the delusion of so many followers, he has, by his powers, check the corruption that may arise from heterodox interpretation, and, thus, preserves the Church from lies that may occur from human misinterpretation. Forgive me if I misrepresent the Papist's claim, as I am not very learned on the subject, but, given that, wouldn't this be a sort of a circular sort of logic, which basically says that the Church is true because it is God's church and follow all God's law with perfect exactness, and it must be so because the Church says so, and the Church cannot, on the whole, lie because God preserves it from error to spread the true faith among mankind, ergo, God's church is true. The error here is obvious. It is like saying Strawberry Ice-cream is the best, therefore other Ice-Cream flavours are not as good, and, having established that other ice-cream flavours are not as good as Strawberry Ice-Cream, it follows that Strawberry Ice-Cream flavour is the best or, to use a popular Atheist example, the bible is true and God is real because the Bible says it's true, and it says God is real.



alupihan45 wrote:
well, what we believe as truth, we usually claim it to be "better than the other" that is why we believe in it. example, you embrace democracy because you think/know that this is better than the other while the others embraced communism because they think it is better. This, you cannot attribute only to Christianity. It applies to all belief system, ideologies, philosophy and religion. I, myself, will not stick into a belief which I think inferior.

bottomline, don't accuse us, Christians, only- accuse every people who have a belief.


There, that is my point, the idea of being superior is embodied in the idea of being a Christian, because being part of the Christian faith, you must believe that you have a superior and more true religion than, say, the Mahometan or the Jews, because, if that were otherwise, it would mean that they are closer to truth than your own religion, meaning that you can't be a Christian, as to believe in a faith, you must accept its validity, and its superiority to other religion. Thus, being part of a superior religion, or one you believe so, you must, by extention, be superior to those that do not believe in your faith, thus, they are inferior in that respect. As you said, it applies to all religious beliefs, but, you original point was that not all Christian feel superior to people of other faith, which is demonstrably false, in that, to be a Christian, or a worshipper of any faith, you must, at some level, believe it to be superior, and find other religionist to be part of an inferior system of worship and further from the truth, and, by extension, you must accept that, at some level, you are superior to them.



alupihan45wrote:
Religion without god (or a god) is not a religion at all. Religion is not a mere moral code or philosophy. It comes with theology also. I wasn't a Christian because of it's moral code ONLY. I am a Christian because I love God and Jesus. If you love moral code, might as well be another religion-cult, pagan or mainstream.

Same with Islam, if you don't believe in Mohammed and Allah, might as well not be a muslim. In Buddhism, if you don't believe in Buddha, might as well not be a buddhist. If you don't believe in the deities of Hindu, don't be a hindu.

I just practice the moral codes of Christianity because I believe in God and Jesus.

And this is the important part, what is best for me is indeed doesn't apply to others also. If by killing, you find a sense of peace, Christianity isn't for you. If you find happiness in fornication, adultery and other sexually immoral act, Christianity isn't for you. Even in our scriptures, it is said that not all will listen. Not all will obey. Not all will bow down to God.


I agree that to strip the Christian faith, or any faith, of God, or any supernatural agency, it may well just be a guideline on virtuous living, and that religion requires something more than Moral dictums- but why not? Why not strip religion of its supernatural element and leave behind its moral code, instead of carrying the enormous baggage and suspension of incredulity and reason that all faith require? But this is all unnecessary speculations, which does not pertain very much to this argument.You say you are a Christian, and you love God and Jesus, which is why you are a Christian, rather than a Jew, a Mahometan, or a Buddhist. Yet, why do you love God and Jesus? On what foundation do you base your faith in them? Certainly you would agree that simple 'Jesus died for me and my sin, and thus, I am obliged to love him back and be faithful to him' would not suffice, as the same statement can be applied to many Gods- did not Woden suffer to be hung and pierced upon the tree for nine days to bring man the Runes? Is not our existence owing entirely to the mercy of Thundering Jupiter? You could also claim personal revelation, yet, that is an equally weak foundation, as you may have had bad gravy from your supper or many other natural causes, and hallucinated or imagined revelation. You may say that you found faith from the relief of the trouble you have endured, but, had you been raised in a culture of Baalzebub or of Zoroaster, with very little knowledge of Jesus but that he is a foriegn God of some sort, would you not have attributed to them, rather than to Christ and God? All equally applicable to all faith, I am sure, but, you are promoting the Christian faith, and the Christian faith is the subject of our discussion. Then, you follow by setting up a false dichotomy between the Christian faith, as expounded by the Romish Church, and a life of sin and evil. You readily admit that such life is not suited to everyone, and that one may not recieve the same sense of peace and joy as you have from the true faith. With that admission, why spread it then? Certainly you may say that you want to spread the truth, but, outside faith, how do you know it to be true? But you didn't say that, you said you want to spread good-living, tranquility, peace, and joy, which you have found in your faith, and you admit those cannot be obtained by all who follow your path, but, if it doesn't apply to all, why try to apply it to all? Why apply it to those who will be very unhappy in it? Can those not be found themselves in other faiths- many converts to Buddhism and Mahometism have said the same of their new found faiths, and, if it can be found in other faiths, why Christianity?
Posted 12/30/11 , edited 12/30/11

alupihan45 wrote:





anyway, the non religious people usually thinks that we are forcing our faith to them when we talk about our religion. It seems it is not okay to share anymore.

about the superior religion, try to study about the religion of others. you will start to realize that this one is better than the other.

example, in islam, you can marry four women and when you die you get 72 virgins who are still virgin after sex. I hope Christianity offers the same thing
^_^


So you're telling me that the reason why the particular faith you belong to is superior, is because you get rewarded with a superior 401K afterlife? And not because you wanna share the true meaning of life itself?

It's time like this I'm glad to be a Kantian deontologist, for the categorical moral imperative.

The categorical imperative

Unlike hypothetical imperatives, a categorical imperative is something we must always do. In fact, it is our duty to always do it! This means that the categorical imperative is the fundamental, universal and indisputable moral truth of the universe, and as such it is the touchstone for judging whether our actions are good, or not.

One might venture to say that even if there were there no humans left in the universe, the categorical imperative would still be true.

Kant set out and explored his understanding of the categorical imperative in Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals (1785), in response to two moral questions:

What ought I to do?
What is the highest good (or summum bonum) of humans actions (i.e. their 'end')?

Kant believed that the highest good for humanity, was to live according to the categorical imperative and that this was to do only those things which everyone else could (and should logically) do:

'Act as if the maxim of your action was to become through your will a universal law of nature.'

To see how Kant arrived at this understanding of the categorical imperative, let's consider what would happen if people decided that it was okay to tell lies when they saw fit to.

Now although we might say there is nothing wrong if someone tells a lie - say when a person is looking for someone they want to kill and we know where they are hiding - Kant would argue that any telling of lies creates problems. For example, in order for a liar to be believed they operate on the basis that people are telling the truth most of the time. However, if everyone were always telling lies when they saw fit to, then (logically) we would end up with a situation where people would never know if someone was lying to them or not. This would also mean that no one could actually tell lies, as other people would have no reason to believe them -ever! All this means that any act of lying (as far as Kant is concerned), is a logically irrational thing to do! If we want to tell lies, then other people should be allowed to tell lies, but then if everyone else is telling lies... well, you get the picture!

So the categorical imperative is to act in only in ways we would be happy for others to, and underpinning this are two other 'laws':

'Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but at the same time as an end.'

'Act as if you were through your maxims a law-making member of a kingdom of ends'

Hypothetical imperatives treat people as a means to an end, the categorical imperative does not (and never will). For instance, to say that when it suits me I will tell lies, is putting my needs before others. It is also forgetting that we are all part of a wider community of people, and that we cannot live as we please without due regard and respect for others. Although Kant is adamant that we each have the right to live in any way we see fit to, we should always keep in mind that others have that same right too, and that as a result no-one should ever become a pawn in someone else's 'game of life'.(citation)
709 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Wishing for Jeju...
Offline
Posted 12/31/11
OH WOW! Here I was worried about taking too many turns with this conversation, and it's taken several twists since I last posted! LOL! (Those guidelines really are too restricting~the twists and turns of thought are what make the conversation interesting, IMO...)

DomFortress~I did view that link on learning before birth. I already believed some of that, and then there are other ideas I've read about from Christian sources that do NOT sit well with me. A pastor once had me read a book on the suject that made such development seem so final that it negated the lineage of Christ that proves otherwise! Please forgive me for not understanding how it relates to karma~which I will be learning more about, thanks to you! If you'd like to suggest more resources, I am open to reading them. :)

You also said: "However, none of those are "natural consequences". As in cause and effect that's observable within the natural world, thus is justifiable through natural means." You could be talking above my intellect, but if I am understanding you correctly then the Proverbs deal extensively with this very thing, directly! As do very many O/T stories.

Longfenglim, I personally think that coupling morals with faith is a slippery slope, because I know plenty of people who are not believers that do amazing things. It would confuse my children to teach them that only religious people are moral and then have them meet all kinds of people who don't love God that work very hard to make a positive difference in the world with their very lives. That's not what faith is about, IMO, but rather relationship with our Creator. Of course I believe that honoring His will is important~please do not read into this that I don't believe that!
Posted 12/31/11

Titus2woman wrote:

OH WOW! Here I was worried about taking too many turns with this conversation, and it's taken several twists since I last posted! LOL! (Those guidelines really are too restricting~the twists and turns of thought are what make the conversation interesting, IMO...)

DomFortress~I did view that link on learning before birth. I already believed some of that, and then there are other ideas I've read about from Christian sources that do NOT sit well with me. A pastor once had me read a book on the suject that made such development seem so final that it negated the lineage of Christ that proves otherwise! Please forgive me for not understanding how it relates to karma~which I will be learning more about, thanks to you! If you'd like to suggest more resources, I am open to reading them. :)

You also said: "However, none of those are "natural consequences". As in cause and effect that's observable within the natural world, thus is justifiable through natural means." You could be talking above my intellect, but if I am understanding you correctly then the Proverbs deal extensively with this very thing, directly! As do very many O/T stories.

Longfenglim, I personally think that coupling morals with faith is a slippery slope, because I know plenty of people who are not believers that do amazing things. It would confuse my children to teach them that only religious people are moral and then have them meet all kinds of people who don't love God that work very hard to make a positive difference in the world with their very lives. That's not what faith is about, IMO, but rather relationship with our Creator. Of course I believe that honoring His will is important~please do not read into this that I don't believe that!
Nope, I'm specifically pointing out how science can't prove nor disprove the religious dogma known as the afterlife. However social psychology had proven how our irrational fear of death(aka death anxiety), and subsequently our desire for immortality, can manipulate us into committing organized aggression and violence.
2319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / where the grass i...
Offline
Posted 1/3/12

DomFortress wrote:
Then the error is on you, when the Hindu faith believes in reincarnation, not death. You're still holding onto the bias of your Christian faith, thus you didn't grasp the concept of how death being a necessary biological process to sustain all life. Not to end it.


you missed my point. You were talking about the "determination of once karma". You said it was before birth. Actucally it was before conception. The soul existed before creation. that is hindu.
2319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / where the grass i...
Offline
Posted 1/3/12

longfenglim wrote:


longfenglim
So you are a Papist, I take it. I have made this argument before, but, I shall repeat it anyways. Have you ever, as a child, been subject a little game, whereby the teacher tells something to a child at the front of the row, and have them relay it down the row to the next child, and the child after that, until, when alas it reaches the end of the row, the unlucky child at the end of the row must come up to the teacher and repeat the whole message? The results, for each row, have been almost exactly the same, either by malicious and dishonest children, and by the incomplete memory of the messangers, the message have, at the very end, been perverted beyond recognition, and the teacher then reveals to the class the original message, so that they, themselves, may see how inaccurate the message they, themselves, have recieved. The same may be said of the Romish Church, that, after centuries of centuries, it has become perverted beyond what the Apostles would have recognised, and, thus, the original faith, as expounded by Jesus, have been lost through his disciples, further diluted by the followers of those disciples, and, with each generation, become as the message pass through the children, perverted. Further, we must examine the claims of the Papists, that, by virtue of God, who will not allow the delusion of so many followers, he has, by his powers, check the corruption that may arise from heterodox interpretation, and, thus, preserves the Church from lies that may occur from human misinterpretation. Forgive me if I misrepresent the Papist's claim, as I am not very learned on the subject, but, given that, wouldn't this be a sort of a circular sort of logic, which basically says that the Church is true because it is God's church and follow all God's law with perfect exactness, and it must be so because the Church says so, and the Church cannot, on the whole, lie because God preserves it from error to spread the true faith among mankind, ergo, God's church is true. The error here is obvious. It is like saying Strawberry Ice-cream is the best, therefore other Ice-Cream flavours are not as good, and, having established that other ice-cream flavours are not as good as Strawberry Ice-Cream, it follows that Strawberry Ice-Cream flavour is the best or, to use a popular Atheist example, the bible is true and God is real because the Bible says it's true, and it says God is real.



nope. i'm a protestant.

It wasn't the pope who has a direct line to Jesus. There are also patriachs/popes from other apostolic churches like the Assyrian Catholic Church, the Coptics, the orthodox etc.

About the game in the class, I heard it many times. That is what the islam always accuse us- the church modified the teachings to fit their own needs. In short, the teachings are adulterated. However, in lieu to that, they have the right to change things. Not the teachings of Christ's salvation but matters about Christian living and moral ways as long as it is according to the teachings of Jesus.

Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

that is the words of Jesus to Peter. He gave the authority to Peter. It shows how heaven is willing to ratify what the church decrees given it is moral and according to Christian beliefs.



longfenglim

There, that is my point, the idea of being superior is embodied in the idea of being a Christian, because being part of the Christian faith, you must believe that you have a superior and more true religion than, say, the Mahometan or the Jews, because, if that were otherwise, it would mean that they are closer to truth than your own religion, meaning that you can't be a Christian, as to believe in a faith, you must accept its validity, and its superiority to other religion. Thus, being part of a superior religion, or one you believe so, you must, by extention, be superior to those that do not believe in your faith, thus, they are inferior in that respect. As you said, it applies to all religious beliefs, but, you original point was that not all Christian feel superior to people of other faith, which is demonstrably false, in that, to be a Christian, or a worshipper of any faith, you must, at some level, believe it to be superior, and find other religionist to be part of an inferior system of worship and further from the truth, and, by extension, you must accept that, at some level, you are superior to them.


what? you don't feel your idea is superior than mine? it doesn't apply only to religion. Even in secular groups. You think communism thinks they are inferior than democracy? Do you think that the philosophers think that they are inferior than the mathematicians?

what i mentioned is the nature of man about belief. What i said about us not feeling superior about our faith is about me and those i know who just humbly live their own life as a Christian.


longfenglim
I agree that to strip the Christian faith, or any faith, of God, or any supernatural agency, it may well just be a guideline on virtuous living, and that religion requires something more than Moral dictums- but why not? Why not strip religion of its supernatural element and leave behind its moral code, instead of carrying the enormous baggage and suspension of incredulity and reason that all faith require? But this is all unnecessary speculations, which does not pertain very much to this argument.You say you are a Christian, and you love God and Jesus, which is why you are a Christian, rather than a Jew, a Mahometan, or a Buddhist. Yet, why do you love God and Jesus? On what foundation do you base your faith in them? Certainly you would agree that simple 'Jesus died for me and my sin, and thus, I am obliged to love him back and be faithful to him' would not suffice, as the same statement can be applied to many Gods- did not Woden suffer to be hung and pierced upon the tree for nine days to bring man the Runes? Is not our existence owing entirely to the mercy of Thundering Jupiter? You could also claim personal revelation, yet, that is an equally weak foundation, as you may have had bad gravy from your supper or many other natural causes, and hallucinated or imagined revelation. You may say that you found faith from the relief of the trouble you have endured, but, had you been raised in a culture of Baalzebub or of Zoroaster, with very little knowledge of Jesus but that he is a foriegn God of some sort, would you not have attributed to them, rather than to Christ and God? All equally applicable to all faith, I am sure, but, you are promoting the Christian faith, and the Christian faith is the subject of our discussion. Then, you follow by setting up a false dichotomy between the Christian faith, as expounded by the Romish Church, and a life of sin and evil. You readily admit that such life is not suited to everyone, and that one may not recieve the same sense of peace and joy as you have from the true faith. With that admission, why spread it then? Certainly you may say that you want to spread the truth, but, outside faith, how do you know it to be true? But you didn't say that, you said you want to spread good-living, tranquility, peace, and joy, which you have found in your faith, and you admit those cannot be obtained by all who follow your path, but, if it doesn't apply to all, why try to apply it to all? Why apply it to those who will be very unhappy in it? Can those not be found themselves in other faiths- many converts to Buddhism and Mahometism have said the same of their new found faiths, and, if it can be found in other faiths, why Christianity?


you just can't seperate God from religion. It's like saying I want ice tea without ice or a rubber shoes without rubber. Again, as i have told you, might as well go to other secular groups.

We carry the baggage because we believe and we want to be Christians. If we don't believe or want to be a Christian, we will not carry it and just go the other way. If we just want to become a Christian but doesn't want to believe, that doesn't make sense so we will just live a life asking am I a real Christian or just Christian by name. (Christian is not a fraternity or something).

what unnecessary? you are not in a religion that is why you said it is unnecessary. you cannot just say to an American how to be an american if you are a chinese, right?

I love God and Jesus because they do good to me. God doesn't need humans. He might as well purge this world and send us to eternal punishment for being sinners but He refused to do that because He is a loving god and He loves us that is why He send something pure as a sacrifice for the atonement of all sins.

My foundation is this: I see the sequence, equations and codes of the world (ex. the human body). I find it so brilliant and magnificent and asked who is the author of all this. Luckily, the author has a biography. The book we call Bible. I read it and learned about God but upon learning about the author, I learned about Jesus. And through reading the Bible, I learned about the prophesy which all happened except the prophesy of John which is yet to happen.

About Woden, I found out he wasn't real. So was Jupiter. People were mocking their statues- throwing stones at them but they didn't do anything. It's either they are not real or they just feel lazy to punish those blasphemous men. As a matter of fact, their so called kingdom was destroyed though their people still lives. Unlike the Abrahamic religion, see how they spread out through the world challenging the pagan gods. Whose side the real god is must be the victor. If the norse or greek gods are real or even stronger they should had crushed the christians before.

and yeah. I said i christianity are not for those who love evil. They will live hell if they are christians but that doesn't mean I cannot share the happiness for being a man living as a christian. That doesn't mean i cannot transmit to others that if they do what i did- drop everything and follow Jesus- they will be happy. If people are unhappy about it, i'm sorry. I cannot control those who hear what I say.

May put a sign on their chest saying -" i don't want to hear it". (just kidding)

but that cannot be avoided. some will accept and believe. The others will accept but when things are not working out for them, they throw it away. Some will accept but when tempted to do something against the faith, the discard the faith to commit sin and the others they just refuse to listen. That is the statistics from Jesus.
2319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / where the grass i...
Offline
Posted 1/3/12

DomFortress wrote:


Titus2woman wrote:

OH WOW! Here I was worried about taking too many turns with this conversation, and it's taken several twists since I last posted! LOL! (Those guidelines really are too restricting~the twists and turns of thought are what make the conversation interesting, IMO...)

DomFortress~I did view that link on learning before birth. I already believed some of that, and then there are other ideas I've read about from Christian sources that do NOT sit well with me. A pastor once had me read a book on the suject that made such development seem so final that it negated the lineage of Christ that proves otherwise! Please forgive me for not understanding how it relates to karma~which I will be learning more about, thanks to you! If you'd like to suggest more resources, I am open to reading them. :)

You also said: "However, none of those are "natural consequences". As in cause and effect that's observable within the natural world, thus is justifiable through natural means." You could be talking above my intellect, but if I am understanding you correctly then the Proverbs deal extensively with this very thing, directly! As do very many O/T stories.

Longfenglim, I personally think that coupling morals with faith is a slippery slope, because I know plenty of people who are not believers that do amazing things. It would confuse my children to teach them that only religious people are moral and then have them meet all kinds of people who don't love God that work very hard to make a positive difference in the world with their very lives. That's not what faith is about, IMO, but rather relationship with our Creator. Of course I believe that honoring His will is important~please do not read into this that I don't believe that!
Nope, I'm specifically pointing out how science can't prove nor disprove the religious dogma known as the afterlife. However social psychology had proven how our irrational fear of death(aka death anxiety), and subsequently our desire for immortality, can manipulate us into committing organized aggression and violence.


lol. i guess i'm a special case. I was afraid that immortality or eternity could be real. Especially the eternal punishment part.
2319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / where the grass i...
Offline
Posted 1/3/12

DomFortress wrote:


alupihan45 wrote:





anyway, the non religious people usually thinks that we are forcing our faith to them when we talk about our religion. It seems it is not okay to share anymore.

about the superior religion, try to study about the religion of others. you will start to realize that this one is better than the other.

example, in islam, you can marry four women and when you die you get 72 virgins who are still virgin after sex. I hope Christianity offers the same thing
^_^


So you're telling me that the reason why the particular faith you belong to is superior, is because you get rewarded with a superior 401K afterlife? And not because you wanna share the true meaning of life itself?

It's time like this I'm glad to be a Kantian deontologist, for the categorical moral imperative.

The categorical imperative

Unlike hypothetical imperatives, a categorical imperative is something we must always do. In fact, it is our duty to always do it! This means that the categorical imperative is the fundamental, universal and indisputable moral truth of the universe, and as such it is the touchstone for judging whether our actions are good, or not.

One might venture to say that even if there were there no humans left in the universe, the categorical imperative would still be true.

Kant set out and explored his understanding of the categorical imperative in Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals (1785), in response to two moral questions:

What ought I to do?
What is the highest good (or summum bonum) of humans actions (i.e. their 'end')?

Kant believed that the highest good for humanity, was to live according to the categorical imperative and that this was to do only those things which everyone else could (and should logically) do:

'Act as if the maxim of your action was to become through your will a universal law of nature.'

To see how Kant arrived at this understanding of the categorical imperative, let's consider what would happen if people decided that it was okay to tell lies when they saw fit to.

Now although we might say there is nothing wrong if someone tells a lie - say when a person is looking for someone they want to kill and we know where they are hiding - Kant would argue that any telling of lies creates problems. For example, in order for a liar to be believed they operate on the basis that people are telling the truth most of the time. However, if everyone were always telling lies when they saw fit to, then (logically) we would end up with a situation where people would never know if someone was lying to them or not. This would also mean that no one could actually tell lies, as other people would have no reason to believe them -ever! All this means that any act of lying (as far as Kant is concerned), is a logically irrational thing to do! If we want to tell lies, then other people should be allowed to tell lies, but then if everyone else is telling lies... well, you get the picture!

So the categorical imperative is to act in only in ways we would be happy for others to, and underpinning this are two other 'laws':

'Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but at the same time as an end.'

'Act as if you were through your maxims a law-making member of a kingdom of ends'

Hypothetical imperatives treat people as a means to an end, the categorical imperative does not (and never will). For instance, to say that when it suits me I will tell lies, is putting my needs before others. It is also forgetting that we are all part of a wider community of people, and that we cannot live as we please without due regard and respect for others. Although Kant is adamant that we each have the right to live in any way we see fit to, we should always keep in mind that others have that same right too, and that as a result no-one should ever become a pawn in someone else's 'game of life'.(citation)


dom, in religion, if you want to get this super 401k inn afterlife, you must live the true meaning of life
Posted 1/3/12

alupihan45 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:
Then the error is on you, when the Hindu faith believes in reincarnation, not death. You're still holding onto the bias of your Christian faith, thus you didn't grasp the concept of how death being a necessary biological process to sustain all life. Not to end it.


you missed my point. You were talking about the "determination of once karma". You said it was before birth. Actucally it was before conception. The soul existed before creation. that is hindu.

1)I never said anything like "determination of once karma". Please retract you false claim.

2)There's no Christian concept of "creation" in Hinduism, when reincarnation is an endless cycle of both creation and destruction. Therefore there's no beginning nor end, when the end of a cycle signals the beginning of another; the Pralaya begins where Manvantara ends, and vice-versa.

I told you before that you can't fully perceive nor understand Hinduism through your Christian bias, but you just wouldn't listen due to your arrogance as how you demonstrated below:


alupihan45 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Nope, I'm specifically pointing out how science can't prove nor disprove the religious dogma known as the afterlife. However social psychology had proven how our irrational fear of death(aka death anxiety), and subsequently our desire for immortality, can manipulate us into committing organized aggression and violence.


lol. i guess i'm a special case. I was afraid that immortality or eternity could be real. Especially the eternal punishment part.
You're not so "special", when your fear of the consequential and "eternal punishment" had made yourself a slave of your desire and passion for life. AKA a pleasure hog; your reason is a slave for your passion.


alupihan45 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:



dom, in religion, if you want to get this super 401k inn afterlife, you must live the true meaning of life
This is how to live the biblical way literally for a year, and not becoming insane by not believing God. The analysis: it's just wacky, silly, and bat-shit crazy.

A.J. Jacobs: The Year of Living Biblically
The Year of Living Biblically answers the question: What if a modern-day American followed every single rule in the Bible as literally as possible. Not just the famous rules - the Ten Commandments and Love Thy Neighbor (though certainly those). But the hundreds of oft-ignored ones: don't wear clothes of mixed fibers. Grow your beard. Stone adulterers. A.J. Jacobs' experiment is surprising, informative, timely and funny. It is both irreverent and reverent. It seeks to discover what's good in the Bible and what is maybe not so relevant to 21st century life. And it will make you see the Good Book with new eyes. Thou shalt not put it down.
2319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / where the grass i...
Offline
Posted 1/3/12

DomFortress wrote:



1)I never said anything like "determination of once karma". Please retract you false claim.

2)There's no Christian concept of "creation" in Hinduism, when reincarnation is an endless cycle of both creation and destruction. Therefore there's no beginning nor end, when the end of a cycle signals the beginning of another; the Pralaya begins where Manvantara ends, and vice-versa.

I told you before that you can't fully perceive nor understand Hinduism through your Christian bias, but you just wouldn't listen due to your arrogance as how you demonstrated below:


well, you said this: "If anything, a real case study of how karma works is the natural science of fetal origin. With mounting evidences strongly indicate how human learning and socializing processes begins before birth, through their immediate hosts' physical, social, and cultural environments" anyway, if that is not what you meant then i retract what i have said.

I know Hinduism. One of my friend is also a Hindi. I do not know the whole story of Asura and their other gods but I researched their "afterlife concept". I am not interpreting anything here. What would I gain from it?



DomFortress
You're not so "special", when your fear of the consequential and "eternal punishment" had made yourself a slave of your desire and passion for life. AKA a pleasure hog; your reason is a slave for your passion.


dude, how did i sound arrogant by saying my case is special, unique or rare? so what if i fear the eternal punishment (it may not be real but i'm playing on the safe side because to not believe is more harmful in the end) and try to live with my desire and passion for life? What is wrong if i try to be a citizen on the world as a Christian?


DomFortress
This is how to live the biblical way literally for a year, and not becoming insane by not believing God. The analysis: it's just wacky, silly, and bat-shit crazy.

A.J. Jacobs: The Year of Living Biblically
The Year of Living Biblically answers the question: What if a modern-day American followed every single rule in the Bible as literally as possible. Not just the famous rules - the Ten Commandments and Love Thy Neighbor (though certainly those). But the hundreds of oft-ignored ones: don't wear clothes of mixed fibers. Grow your beard. Stone adulterers. A.J. Jacobs' experiment is surprising, informative, timely and funny. It is both irreverent and reverent. It seeks to discover what's good in the Bible and what is maybe not so relevant to 21st century life. And it will make you see the Good Book with new eyes. Thou shalt not put it down.


dom, because of what you posted it really shows how ignorant of you about Christianity. Because of your bias ideas, you fail to understand what it really means to be a Christian...FYI, that is one of the task that Jesus Christ did here on earth. He ratified the old commandment and renew the covenant. If we follow everything what was written in the Bible, Christians would not eat pork as it is forbidden in the old commandment. (Jesus Christ lifted all the restriction about food) or we would be like the Muslims who still wear Jalabiyas and sandals, abayas and maharma with kyamar.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/3/12 , edited 1/3/12

alupihan45 wrote:

nope. i'm a protestant.

It wasn't the pope who has a direct line to Jesus. There are also patriachs/popes from other apostolic churches like the Assyrian Catholic Church, the Coptics, the orthodox etc.

About the game in the class, I heard it many times. That is what the islam always accuse us- the church modified the teachings to fit their own needs. In short, the teachings are adulterated. However, in lieu to that, they have the right to change things. Not the teachings of Christ's salvation but matters about Christian living and moral ways as long as it is according to the teachings of Jesus.

Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

that is the words of Jesus to Peter. He gave the authority to Peter. It shows how heaven is willing to ratify what the church decrees given it is moral and according to Christian beliefs.


How can you say that you are a Protestant, that is, a child of the Reformation, and still say that the Patriarchs and Popes of the other Apostolic Churches are true? And, even then, which of these 'Apostolic Churches' is true? All this by and by- you claim that the Church could be perverted, so long as the central message of Christ's Salvation is protected, yet, everything else can be changed for the time, so long as Jesus approves. How can you say that this is protected? The Bible has been compiled long after Christ's death, you must acknowledge that historic tibit of information, under the auspices of the Roman Emperor, meaning, what you have now of 'Christ's Teaching' may well be the work of a Roman Propagandist within the Christian Community, or that the books expulged contains Christ's true teaching. But, say that it is correct, say that the Bible isn't some artifical creation, you say that moral teachings and Christian living may be changed, so long as it is Christian, and it is moral, this is ridiculous and fallacious, how can you change moral teachings and Christian living without actually changing the definition of 'moral' and 'Christian'? Both are dependant upon the other to give it its definition, and, to change the definition of one, you must, invaribly, change the other.


alupihan45 wrote:

what? you don't feel your idea is superior than mine? it doesn't apply only to religion. Even in secular groups. You think communism thinks they are inferior than democracy? Do you think that the philosophers think that they are inferior than the mathematicians?

what i mentioned is the nature of man about belief. What i said about us not feeling superior about our faith is about me and those i know who just humbly live their own life as a Christian.


First off, you make so many errors, that this statement is laughable- Communism, at least, in the Marxian sense, is compatible with democracy, and, indeed, Democracy is necessary in a Communist Society. There is no contridiction between these two ideas. Then, you ask if I think that Philosophers are inferior to mathematicians- hardly compatible in that they are studying different fields, and, thus, there is no inferiority or superiority. You can't compare a scientists and his achievements to a musician or an artist, they are part of different fields. But, yes, I do think that my idea is superior in that they are better defended than yours. Then you ceased making sense, so, I should probably repeat what I said as lucidly as possible- being Christian entials superiority, as the idea of being superior is embodied within the idea of being a Christian to a Christian.


alupihan45
you just can't seperate God from religion. It's like saying I want ice tea without ice or a rubber shoes without rubber. Again, as i have told you, might as well go to other secular groups.

We carry the baggage because we believe and we want to be Christians. If we don't believe or want to be a Christian, we will not carry it and just go the other way. If we just want to become a Christian but doesn't want to believe, that doesn't make sense so we will just live a life asking am I a real Christian or just Christian by name. (Christian is not a fraternity or something).

what unnecessary? you are not in a religion that is why you said it is unnecessary. you cannot just say to an American how to be an american if you are a chinese, right?



I agree, but I was talking about morals- why shouldn't we have morals without the baggage of religion? Look up the Euthyphro Problem- is something moral because it is loved by God, or is it loved by God because it is moral? It can't be the former, because God's love is abitrary, and based upon God present feelings- you may try to argue that 'God doesn't change', but this passage says otherwise:’And when the LORD smelled the pleasing aroma, the LORD said in his heart,“I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done..."'(Gen. 8:21), but, if it is moral laws, then it must come from outside of God, and thus, it is good, in and of itself, and not because it has been choosen by God to love at one moment. Having shown that it is not necessary to have a God to have morals, and thus, it is not necessary to have God, an unproven, to be a morally upright person, it is not necessary that religion, founded upon a belief in the unproven, to exist, becuase Altruism can exist outside of Religion. But, if you think there is a greater purpose to religion than its morals and the altruism it provides, what is that purpose it? To get closer to your creator? Why, can not our creator be more readily percieved with the lens of science? Its processes more readily and more accurately understood than by blind faith in a book made of human hands? You compare religion to nationality, which is false in two ways, Nationality is a contruct based upon Geographic location and citizenship to a Country, and nothing else- there is no unified way to be an 'American' or a 'Chinese' because 'American' and 'Chinese' are not real, there is no such thing as an 'American' and a 'Chinese', they are just the same species of people, who have chanced to be born under a different government. A Chinese may come to America to be a citizen, and he is no longer a 'Chinese', but an 'American', and an 'American' may move to China to be a 'Chinese', it is simply putting yourself under the protection of a different government.






alupihan45wrote:

I love God and Jesus because they do good to me. God doesn't need humans. He might as well purge this world and send us to eternal punishment for being sinners but He refused to do that because He is a loving god and He loves us that is why He send something pure as a sacrifice for the atonement of all sins.

My foundation is this: I see the sequence, equations and codes of the world (ex. the human body). I find it so brilliant and magnificent and asked who is the author of all this. Luckily, the author has a biography. The book we call Bible. I read it and learned about God but upon learning about the author, I learned about Jesus. And through reading the Bible, I learned about the prophesy which all happened except the prophesy of John which is yet to happen.


How do you know it is God and Jesus who have been good to you? By faith, blind faith, that attributes any good and any delusion to the nearest God avaliable. A Pagan may say the same, that Woden and Thunor has been good to them, and have sent them the goodness of life, Woden has sacrificed his eyes and hung himself on the tree for nine days on humanity's behalf, though he needn't. Jupiter may strike us all dead, but his love and mercy is what prevents him. Vishnu have came upon the earth in mortal garbs many times to save the world, in his many avatars. These Gods do not need us, in fact, most of them can live very happily without us, but they love us all the same.

You then rehash some of William Paley's argument in Natural Theology, being this:


It was born of imperfect science, that sees things as one machine in perfect order, when, in truth, the body is not perfect, it is filled with unneccessary things, dangerous things, prone to infirmy and disease, to aging and to death, it isn't perfect, it is throughly imperfect. Science has shown us that it only seems perfect to a such unlearned in science, because the evolutionary process creates, by the necessity, the conditions that seems most adapted to the enviorons. This is a whole different debate, which you are already tied up with, and which I have no further contribution.



alupihan45wrote:

About Woden, I found out he wasn't real. So was Jupiter. People were mocking their statues- throwing stones at them but they didn't do anything. It's either they are not real or they just feel lazy to punish those blasphemous men. As a matter of fact, their so called kingdom was destroyed though their people still lives. Unlike the Abrahamic religion, see how they spread out through the world challenging the pagan gods. Whose side the real god is must be the victor. If the norse or greek gods are real or even stronger they should had crushed the christians before.


Woden is Anglo-Saxon, not Norse. But that is no proof to their falseness or their trueness. God did not protect his Churches from the burnings by the Barbarians, Atilla plundered many a churches, before dying the hero's death, completely drunk in the arms of a beautiful woman, the Norwegians and the Danes destroyed many Churches and dedicated many altars to heathenry, and lived comfortably without God's wrath. Why, there are amongst us many Atheists who have mocked God and Christ, who have blasphemed the Lord, and still there is no wrath upon them. The argument is bullshit. But, you say that it has spread the world over, and that is proof enough, because it has been able to convert many people- and that it is the largest organisation. The Mahometan Religion is the largest and fastest growing, with the most converts, yet, does that make it more true than Christianity? And Christianity would be much Smaller without the fastest growing and largest sect, the Romish Church, which you disclaimed, does that make it any more true than the rest? This is not a very good standard, as God and Jesus not only doesn't protect their place of worship, as the Pagan idols, but they also don't grow as fast nor are as large as 'false religions'.


alupihan45wrote:

and yeah. I said i christianity are not for those who love evil. They will live hell if they are christians but that doesn't mean I cannot share the happiness for being a man living as a christian. That doesn't mean i cannot transmit to others that if they do what i did- drop everything and follow Jesus- they will be happy. If people are unhappy about it, i'm sorry. I cannot control those who hear what I say.

May put a sign on their chest saying -" i don't want to hear it". (just kidding)

but that cannot be avoided. some will accept and believe. The others will accept but when things are not working out for them, they throw it away. Some will accept but when tempted to do something against the faith, the discard the faith to commit sin and the others they just refuse to listen. That is the statistics from Jesus.


So Christianity is not for those who love evil, yet, historically, why do some of the most evil people belong to Christianity? Did not the Crusade involve the murder and cannibalization of Mahometans, did not the church sponsor Pogroms? Is not the Ugandan Lord Resistance Army Christian? Evil, apperantly, isn't incompatible with Christianity, nor is the lack of Christianity incompatible with a life of Goodness- Spinoza, even by his harsest Critic, acknowledged that he was a moral man, despite his apperant atheism or pantheism. The Lord Buddha and Gandhi were both not very Christian, but were very moral people. So, there is no relationship between being good and being Christian. Now, you say some will accept and believe, and other will not- why not so? If God was truly all powerful, he would save everyone, he would give proof beyond doubt to his existence, but he hasn't. But, pray, what is this 'path to salvation' you speak of? Do tell.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.