| 03 Jun 2008 01:04 am |
hahahahaha Rep: 26  Joined: 10 Sep 2005 Posts: 14,936 OFFLINE | petrofsky wrote:
ChaosSpartan wrote:
petrofsky wrote:
If you do not believe what the pope says, the bible states that you are going to hell.
...No it doesn’t.
As a matter of fact it does.
Example: Galileo.
could you quote where in the bible it says that if people don’t follow the POPE they are going to hell? keep in mind, the pope isn’t in the bible. the basis for the pope is one quote, which is by jesus, talking to peter. jesus saying that he will build the church on peter, that peter will be the rock on which the church is rested. the catholic church took that to mean the church needs a man leading it.
---
 | |
 | | 03 Jun 2008 12:07 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 26 Joined: 06 May 2007 Posts: 3,026 OFFLINE | kev360 wrote:
petrofsky wrote:
ChaosSpartan wrote:
petrofsky wrote:
If you do not believe what the pope says, the bible states that you are going to hell.
...No it doesn’t.
As a matter of fact it does.
Example: Galileo.
could you quote where in the bible it says that if people don’t follow the POPE they are going to hell? keep in mind, the pope isn’t in the bible. the basis for the pope is one quote, which is by jesus, talking to peter. jesus saying that he will build the church on peter, that peter will be the rock on which the church is rested. the catholic church took that to mean the church needs a man leading it.
I have never read the bible, so I cannot really give you quotes. But my only thing then is why do they have a pope?
---
  | | | 03 Jun 2008 06:11 pm |
hahahahaha Rep: 26Joined: 10 Sep 2005 Posts: 14,936 OFFLINE | petrofsky wrote:
kev360 wrote:
petrofsky wrote:
ChaosSpartan wrote:
petrofsky wrote:
If you do not believe what the pope says, the bible states that you are going to hell.
...No it doesn’t.
As a matter of fact it does.
Example: Galileo.
could you quote where in the bible it says that if people don’t follow the POPE they are going to hell? keep in mind, the pope isn’t in the bible. the basis for the pope is one quote, which is by jesus, talking to peter. jesus saying that he will build the church on peter, that peter will be the rock on which the church is rested. the catholic church took that to mean the church needs a man leading it.
I have never read the bible, so I cannot really give you quotes. But my only thing then is why do they have a pope?
well, first off, before i start, i need to say, i don’t follow the pope. there are two devisions of christianity: protestants and catholics. protestants are defined as christians who are not catholics. catholics are the christians who have an organized government-like system. protestants more stress a personal connection with god. (just a not, among protestants, there are literally hundreds of minor devisions. thats where you get baptists, lutherans, ect.) so, i’ll not have the best knowledge of the subject. but, i know a lot about this kinda thing, so i’ll explain it how i understand it.
the whole idea of a pope is mainly supported by this verse:
Matt.16:18-19: “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against it. 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."
the catholics took this to mean that the church needed a man to lead it. now, in my opinion, this is what caused the early corruption of the catholic church. long story short, it got screwed up pretty bad, and a group of people broke off in protest. they became known as the protestants. since then, the catholic church has had reforms to get itself back on track, but it is still headed by a pope, while the protestant faith is not headed by any one figure.
as wikipedia puts it: “For Catholic Apologists the most important passage used to defend the Papacy is Matthew 16:18-19. Catholics believe that this passage shows Jesus establishing his church on the shoulders of Simon son of John, whom Jesus re-named Peter (meaning rock). Thus Peter was the rock upon which Christ’s Church was built, therefore Jesus established a head to his earthly Church, calling for a successor to that head and thus the Papacy was established."
so, in reality, my question was a bit of a set up. since no where in the bible is the pope really directly acknowledged, there is nothing in the bible about his word being god’s and all that.
so, btw, sorry if this stuff bores you. to me, this is all insanely interesting. thats why i kinda ramble when i’m talking about it. i love stuff like this.
---
| | | 04 Jun 2008 03:03 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 49 Joined: 17 Jan 2007 Posts: 4,851 OFFLINE | kev360 wrote:
well, first off, i’m prodistant, and very very anti-catholic. i think the idea of electing someone who is basically god is bullshit.
Somehow I dont think people are going to tell you to respect all beliefs...
kev360 wrote:
but, moving on...yeah, immoral thought is a sin. but, i think that just plays along in the whole key difference between a relationship with god and a relationship with any person: god knows everything.
So we can not think what we want..... slavery!!
kev360 wrote:
but, as i said, its not a rulebook. not according to what i believe the christian faith says. what i believe is that with the coming of jesus, a covenant was made with god that yeah, we fuck up, we sin, whatever, but through jesus, god is able to look beyond all that stuff. its like it doesn’t exist. “as far as the east is from the west." so, yeah, displeasing him is enough to send you to hell, but because of jesus, we have a way around that. but, then, the question comes in, if we really love jesus and god, if we really want them in our lives, are we going to do these things that displease them?
DONT MAKE ME ANGERY ELSE I SEND YOU TO HELL... sounds like something hitler would say...
We fuck things up? Dont you mean they fuck things up? If your story is true I have nothing do to with what happen thousands of years ago, does this seem fair to have to take responsibility for their actions..
kev360 wrote:
2 notes...first off, i’m doing this because i feel like even thought a lot of athiests on this sight are very smart (way smarter then me), i also feel like a lot of you guys don’t really know much beyond what the media portrays of christianity. second, notice i’m saying this is all what i believe. if you talk to annother christian and they say this is all bs, thats probably because there are literally hundreds of splits in the christian faith. it gets REALLY complicated...
Not really, basicly they all follow the same type of dogma.
---
Theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. | | | 04 Jun 2008 03:05 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 49Joined: 17 Jan 2007 Posts: 4,851 OFFLINE | kev360 wrote:
petrofsky wrote:
kev360 wrote:
petrofsky wrote:
ChaosSpartan wrote:
petrofsky wrote:
If you do not believe what the pope says, the bible states that you are going to hell.
...No it doesn’t.
As a matter of fact it does.
Example: Galileo.
could you quote where in the bible it says that if people don’t follow the POPE they are going to hell? keep in mind, the pope isn’t in the bible. the basis for the pope is one quote, which is by jesus, talking to peter. jesus saying that he will build the church on peter, that peter will be the rock on which the church is rested. the catholic church took that to mean the church needs a man leading it.
I have never read the bible, so I cannot really give you quotes. But my only thing then is why do they have a pope?
well, first off, before i start, i need to say, i don’t follow the pope. there are two devisions of christianity: protestants and catholics. protestants are defined as christians who are not catholics. catholics are the christians who have an organized government-like system. protestants more stress a personal connection with god. (just a not, among protestants, there are literally hundreds of minor devisions. thats where you get baptists, lutherans, ect.) so, i’ll not have the best knowledge of the subject. but, i know a lot about this kinda thing, so i’ll explain it how i understand it.
the whole idea of a pope is mainly supported by this verse:
Matt.16:18-19: “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against it. 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."
the catholics took this to mean that the church needed a man to lead it. now, in my opinion, this is what caused the early corruption of the catholic church. long story short, it got screwed up pretty bad, and a group of people broke off in protest. they became known as the protestants. since then, the catholic church has had reforms to get itself back on track, but it is still headed by a pope, while the protestant faith is not headed by any one figure.
as wikipedia puts it: “For Catholic Apologists the most important passage used to defend the Papacy is Matthew 16:18-19. Catholics believe that this passage shows Jesus establishing his church on the shoulders of Simon son of John, whom Jesus re-named Peter (meaning rock). Thus Peter was the rock upon which Christ’s Church was built, therefore Jesus established a head to his earthly Church, calling for a successor to that head and thus the Papacy was established."
so, in reality, my question was a bit of a set up. since no where in the bible is the pope really directly acknowledged, there is nothing in the bible about his word being god’s and all that.
so, btw, sorry if this stuff bores you. to me, this is all insanely interesting. thats why i kinda ramble when i’m talking about it. i love stuff like this.
All I can say is, if you want to believe one part of the bible why dont you believe the rest?
---
Theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. | | | 04 Jun 2008 03:18 pm | | | 04 Jun 2008 06:16 pm |
hahahahaha Rep: 26Joined: 10 Sep 2005 Posts: 14,936 OFFLINE | Gplex wrote:
kev360 wrote:
well, first off, i’m prodistant, and very very anti-catholic. i think the idea of electing someone who is basically god is bullshit.
Somehow I dont think people are going to tell you to respect all beliefs...
kev360 wrote:
but, moving on...yeah, immoral thought is a sin. but, i think that just plays along in the whole key difference between a relationship with god and a relationship with any person: god knows everything.
So we can not think what we want..... slavery!!
kev360 wrote:
but, as i said, its not a rulebook. not according to what i believe the christian faith says. what i believe is that with the coming of jesus, a covenant was made with god that yeah, we fuck up, we sin, whatever, but through jesus, god is able to look beyond all that stuff. its like it doesn’t exist. “as far as the east is from the west." so, yeah, displeasing him is enough to send you to hell, but because of jesus, we have a way around that. but, then, the question comes in, if we really love jesus and god, if we really want them in our lives, are we going to do these things that displease them?
DONT MAKE ME ANGERY ELSE I SEND YOU TO HELL... sounds like something hitler would say...
We fuck things up? Dont you mean they fuck things up? If your story is true I have nothing do to with what happen thousands of years ago, does this seem fair to have to take responsibility for their actions..
kev360 wrote:
2 notes...first off, i’m doing this because i feel like even thought a lot of athiests on this sight are very smart (way smarter then me), i also feel like a lot of you guys don’t really know much beyond what the media portrays of christianity. second, notice i’m saying this is all what i believe. if you talk to annother christian and they say this is all bs, thats probably because there are literally hundreds of splits in the christian faith. it gets REALLY complicated...
Not really, basicly they all follow the same type of dogma.
yeah, i don’t know, but i’m guessing it has a lot to do with the fact that even though i’m anti-catholic, i’m not going to make a fool of myself making 10 topics a week telling everyone that yes, i STILL don’t like catholics.
so, are you saying that either we cannot do what we want, or that god wants some people to kill others? we can think whatever we want. thats like saying because you can see what i’m typing, i am restricted in what i’m typing.
and look! amazing! the point goes straight over your head! 3 cheers for the kid with the dunce cap! hip hip hurray! fuck...lazy...
dude...wtf? i was explaining that not every christian thinks the same way. do you disagree? are you honestly going to try that?
as for the other, no. i take that verse to mean that john was going to lead/set up the church after jesus was gone. you know, like the verse says...i don’t think think that that means that we need a person to be elected every time the last one dies. in fact, that is sorta saying that a group of church officials is roughly equivalent to jesus.
now! i’m not interested in arguing with you. i never was. in fact, if you look carefully, i’m looking distinctly to not argue with you. if you look, i can be quoted with saying this: "
2 notes...first off, i’m doing this because i feel like even thought a lot of athiests on this sight are very smart (way smarter then me), i also feel like a lot of you guys don’t really know much beyond what the media portrays of christianity." i’m not saying i’m wrong, i just don’t like it when you guys use a misunderstanding and use it as an argument. can you see how i wouldn’t like that? its like a christian saying that evolution is wrong because we are not still evolving, or that according to evolution we came from chimps. i’m sure you can relate...
---
| | | 04 Jun 2008 06:41 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 19 Joined: 26 Dec 2007 Posts: 1,852 OFFLINE | Religion is slavery sometimes, and not slavery other times. For a lot of people, it isn’t. They can choose which religion they want to follow , if they don’t like it they can leave at any time, they can choose how strictly they will follow their religion, they must make up their own mind about things their religion does not speak of, et cetera. Now for some people in some places such as the Middle East and Soviet Russia a few decades ago wouldn’t have had a choice but in democratic countries like the ones most of us live in, we do.
Also, a note on Hell; some interpretations of the Bible merely speak of “the grave”, meaning if you don’t accept Jesus you will simply die because you can’t pay off your sin. Now that doesn’t seem so tyrannical does it? So why do you only use the eternal suffering interpretation? Because you’ll do whatever it takes to dump shit on the Abrahamic religions and make comparisons to their God and Hitler et cetera. Fuck, you need to grow up and not be so one sided all the time in your arguments.
---
Halt! Ich will ihre Gehirne essen!Last edited 04 Jun 2008 06:42 pm by Sean of the Living | | | 04 Jun 2008 08:18 pm |
hahahahaha Rep: 26Joined: 10 Sep 2005 Posts: 14,936 OFFLINE | Sean of the Living wrote:
Religion is slavery sometimes, and not slavery other times. For a lot of people, it isn’t. They can choose which religion they want to follow , if they don’t like it they can leave at any time, they can choose how strictly they will follow their religion, they must make up their own mind about things their religion does not speak of, et cetera. Now for some people in some places such as the Middle East and Soviet Russia a few decades ago wouldn’t have had a choice but in democratic countries like the ones most of us live in, we do.
Also, a note on Hell; some interpretations of the Bible merely speak of “the grave”, meaning if you don’t accept Jesus you will simply die because you can’t pay off your sin. Now that doesn’t seem so tyrannical does it? So why do you only use the eternal suffering interpretation? Because you’ll do whatever it takes to dump shit on the Abrahamic religions and make comparisons to their God and Hitler et cetera. Fuck, you need to grow up and not be so one sided all the time in your arguments.
now you see, this is how you present a point.
i’ll yield on this one. religion can be slavery if it is like that.
---
| | | 04 Jun 2008 08:32 pm |
Agent of Chaos Rep: 47 Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Posts: 38,689 OFFLINE | Could it? Depends if you follow it blindly. If you do, meaning you don’t question and have an open mind, then you are a slave to it. Of course this goes with any belief about anything. If you are unwilling to allow yourself to know everything you can then you are a slave to the unknown.
---
 
It’s not about money. It’s about sending a message. Everything burns. | | | 04 Jun 2008 08:40 pm |
The Dog-Mod! Rep: 49 Joined: 28 Dec 2006 Posts: 18,547 | petrofsky wrote:
98supra wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
the21gamer wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
the21gamer wrote:
It’s choice.
I disagree. When a religion has been indoctrinated into a child’s mind to be the only true religion, then by the time that kid grows up they’ve all free will to leave that religion.
Aside from indoctrination, most religion itself is a form of slavery. If you want proof then just read a bible or read a quran and count how many times they try to control people and how they act by reward or threat.
Here are the three of the definititions of “slavery” from dictionary.com:
1. the state of being under the control of another person [syn: bondage]
2. the practice of owning slaves
3. work done under harsh conditions for little or no pay
I had to choose the second section because the first didn’t give any real definition (one of those, “slavery is the act of slaves” kind of thing)
here is the definition of a slave:
1. a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.
2. a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person: a slave to a drug.
3. a drudge: a housekeeping slave.
Look closely at the first two. The first one states slavery as being in control of another person. God may not be a “person” per say, but is an almighty entity who planned out all our actions past, present, and future not controlling us? As for the definition of the second one, same basic thing. As long as god is all knowing and all omnipotent, he has complete control over what you do.
The same can be done with atheism or any belief or 'non-belief'.
You did say God does not exist so it can’t be slavery since God does not exist.
If God did exist he gives you the choice anyways. I chose not to believe.
Belief isn’t a choice.
wat?
Belief is not really a choice. You believe what you believe. You cannot convince yourself to believe something because you want to believe in it to fit in or anything.
You make no sense.
A belief is a choice. Despite whether you openly selected that belief or it was thrust upon you during childhood, it is ultimatly your brain that has the final say on what it sees as credible. You have control over your synapses, even if it is unconcious control and evenj if it seems like you have no choice..you do.
You just haven’t reached the conclusion that other choices exist for you to choose from. A highly skilled person can even control their brething and heart rate so that the can kill themselves or place themselves in a coma and these are bodily functions that are said to be automatic and basically uncontrolable by will alone.
To say that religion is not a choice is a copout and has no fact by virtue of logic or feasability.
---
 
  | | | 05 Jun 2008 08:07 am |
The Mangekyou Sharingan Rep: 44 Joined: 01 Oct 2007 Posts: 9,352 OFFLINE | thank you...
---
 
“Great new ideas usually come from very small teams... don’t give up so easily." — John Kaster — | | | 05 Jun 2008 03:31 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 26Joined: 06 May 2007 Posts: 3,026 OFFLINE | firewolf81 wrote:
petrofsky wrote:
98supra wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
the21gamer wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
the21gamer wrote:
It’s choice.
I disagree. When a religion has been indoctrinated into a child’s mind to be the only true religion, then by the time that kid grows up they’ve all free will to leave that religion.
Aside from indoctrination, most religion itself is a form of slavery. If you want proof then just read a bible or read a quran and count how many times they try to control people and how they act by reward or threat.
Here are the three of the definititions of “slavery” from dictionary.com:
1. the state of being under the control of another person [syn: bondage]
2. the practice of owning slaves
3. work done under harsh conditions for little or no pay
I had to choose the second section because the first didn’t give any real definition (one of those, “slavery is the act of slaves” kind of thing)
here is the definition of a slave:
1. a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.
2. a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person: a slave to a drug.
3. a drudge: a housekeeping slave.
Look closely at the first two. The first one states slavery as being in control of another person. God may not be a “person” per say, but is an almighty entity who planned out all our actions past, present, and future not controlling us? As for the definition of the second one, same basic thing. As long as god is all knowing and all omnipotent, he has complete control over what you do.
The same can be done with atheism or any belief or 'non-belief'.
You did say God does not exist so it can’t be slavery since God does not exist.
If God did exist he gives you the choice anyways. I chose not to believe.
Belief isn’t a choice.
wat?
Belief is not really a choice. You believe what you believe. You cannot convince yourself to believe something because you want to believe in it to fit in or anything.
You make no sense.
A belief is a choice. Despite whether you openly selected that belief or it was thrust upon you during childhood, it is ultimatly your brain that has the final say on what it sees as credible. You have control over your synapses, even if it is unconcious control and evenj if it seems like you have no choice..you do.
You just haven’t reached the conclusion that other choices exist for you to choose from. A highly skilled person can even control their brething and heart rate so that the can kill themselves or place themselves in a coma and these are bodily functions that are said to be automatic and basically uncontrolable by will alone.
To say that religion is not a choice is a copout and has no fact by virtue of logic or feasability.
It is hard to explain what I mean I will try again.
If you believe, for instance, that you liked a particular movie. You cannot really convince yourself that you did not like it. Does that make better sense?
---
| | | 07 Jun 2008 05:09 am |
The Mangekyou Sharingan Rep: 44Joined: 01 Oct 2007 Posts: 9,352 OFFLINE | Al Balad(1-20)
[90.1] Nay! I swear by this city.
[90.2] And you shall be made free from obligation in this city
[90.3] And the begetter and whom he begot.
[90.4] Certainly We have created man to be in distress.
[90.5] Does he think that no one has power over him?
[90.6] He shall say: I have wasted much wealth.
[90.7] Does he think that no one sees him?
[90.8] Have We not given him two eyes,
[90.9] And a tongue and two lips,
[90.10] And pointed out to him the two conspicuous ways?
[90.11] But he would not attempt the uphill road,
[90.12] And what will make you comprehend what the uphill road is?
[90.13] (It is) the setting free of a slave,
[90.14] Or the giving of food in a day of hunger
[90.15] To an orphan, having relationship,
[90.16] Or to the poor man lying in the dust.
[90.17] Then he is of those who believe and charge one another to show patience, and charge one another to show compassion. [90.18] These are the people of the right hand.
[90.19] And (as for) those who disbelieve in our communications, they are the people of the left hand.
[90.20] On them is fire closed over.
---
“Great new ideas usually come from very small teams... don’t give up so easily." — John Kaster — | | | 07 Jun 2008 09:21 am |
Dr. Matt Rep: 46 Joined: 07 Jul 2006 Posts: 14,449 OFFLINE | firewolf81 wrote:
petrofsky wrote:
98supra wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
the21gamer wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
the21gamer wrote:
It’s choice.
I disagree. When a religion has been indoctrinated into a child’s mind to be the only true religion, then by the time that kid grows up they’ve all free will to leave that religion.
Aside from indoctrination, most religion itself is a form of slavery. If you want proof then just read a bible or read a quran and count how many times they try to control people and how they act by reward or threat.
Here are the three of the definititions of “slavery” from dictionary.com:
1. the state of being under the control of another person [syn: bondage]
2. the practice of owning slaves
3. work done under harsh conditions for little or no pay
I had to choose the second section because the first didn’t give any real definition (one of those, “slavery is the act of slaves” kind of thing)
here is the definition of a slave:
1. a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.
2. a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person: a slave to a drug.
3. a drudge: a housekeeping slave.
Look closely at the first two. The first one states slavery as being in control of another person. God may not be a “person” per say, but is an almighty entity who planned out all our actions past, present, and future not controlling us? As for the definition of the second one, same basic thing. As long as god is all knowing and all omnipotent, he has complete control over what you do.
The same can be done with atheism or any belief or 'non-belief'.
You did say God does not exist so it can’t be slavery since God does not exist.
If God did exist he gives you the choice anyways. I chose not to believe.
Belief isn’t a choice.
wat?
Belief is not really a choice. You believe what you believe. You cannot convince yourself to believe something because you want to believe in it to fit in or anything.
You make no sense.
A belief is a choice. Despite whether you openly selected that belief or it was thrust upon you during childhood, it is ultimatly your brain that has the final say on what it sees as credible. You have control over your synapses, even if it is unconcious control and evenj if it seems like you have no choice..you do.
You just haven’t reached the conclusion that other choices exist for you to choose from. A highly skilled person can even control their brething and heart rate so that the can kill themselves or place themselves in a coma and these are bodily functions that are said to be automatic and basically uncontrolable by will alone.
To say that religion is not a choice is a copout and has no fact by virtue of logic or feasability.
I’m going to have to disagree with you firewolf. In order for it to be a choice you should be able to believe in any religion or lack of religion you want at will and be able to change that at anytime. I have yet to see someone who is a Christian or Muslim or Jew or any other religion that can stop believing in their religion at will and start believing in another one.
I didn’t choose to stop believing in god, it just happened based on my observations of the world and circumstances that affected me in which I had no control over. If we had control over what we believed life would be so much easier. You could choose to believe in Zeus or Aphrodite, you can choose to believe in Santa Clause, you can choose who you fall in or out of love with at will. Unlike controlling your breathing or heart rate, belief is not an action and thus cannot be attained by command. I can no more “choose” to just believe in the existence of a god than I can “choose” to just believe that the computer on my desk doesn’t exist.
---
the21gamer wrote:
fuck that load of bullshit. i dont care if the enemy dies. not fighting back is stupid
 Last edited 07 Jun 2008 09:25 am by ramunematt | | | 07 Jun 2008 09:57 am |
Entree Rep: 0 Joined: 07 Jun 2008 Posts: 9 OFFLINE | mmm
The way I see it, belief is much like hatred and love.
| | | 08 Jun 2008 05:41 am |
The Mangekyou Sharingan Rep: 44Joined: 01 Oct 2007 Posts: 9,352 OFFLINE | unlikely... believe is what you react to something that your mind cant reach...
---
“Great new ideas usually come from very small teams... don’t give up so easily." — John Kaster — | |
|
Previous Page - Post Reply |
|
First Last ]
»
Religion
» Could Religion Be Considered As A Form Of Slavery?
