Everything's coming up Treehouse


You are not connected. Please login or register

Religion Thread

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 5 of 7]

101 Re: Religion Thread on Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:33 am

someguy3657 wrote:Well, people who kill and hate in the name of religion are mostly extremists and bigots.

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

-John 13:34-35


Hasn't God also killed like, a shit-ton of people?


My point about the Crusades is that all those people believed they were fighting for God. They thought it was their duty to go over there and kill all those people, and they were totally fine with it.

View user profile

102 Re: Religion Thread on Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:44 am

Top Hat Zebra wrote:
someguy3657 wrote:Well, people who kill and hate in the name of religion are mostly extremists and bigots.

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

-John 13:34-35


Hasn't God also killed like, a shit-ton of people?


My point about the Crusades is that all those people believed they were fighting for God. They thought it was their duty to go over there and kill all those people, and they were totally fine with it.

Now you're mixing up Jesus with God.

Also, there's a fine line between believing you fight for God, and fighting for God. Anyone can justify their killings by saying God commanded it, and those people are wrong.

View user profile

103 Re: Religion Thread on Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:51 am

No, there is NO line between believing you fight for God, and fighting for God.

They are one and the same. I mean, you can't exactly get a memo, or anything.

The Pope was God's voice, on earth. The Pope commanded those people to go kill the Muslims.

Thus, all those people believed they were fighting for God. If God had ordered this, they would have done it.


The ONLY thing preventing them from going on giant, murderous rampages all the time is God holding their chain.

View user profile

104 Re: Religion Thread on Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:01 am

Gorgro

avatar
Glorious Leader
You'd think God and Jesus would be on the same page on issues like this.

There's no line between 'believing' you're fighting for God and fighting for God, they're exactly the same thing. Especially for the ones doing the fighting. These people know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that they've been commanded to kill. No matter what anyone might say. You can say they're wrong, because you're not the one who's "heard the calling".

The ethics of murdering in the name of faith lie completely with the believer, but it's frightening that so many people are ready to happily go on another crusade should the voices ever tell them to.

View user profile http://treehouse.justforum.net

105 Re: Religion Thread on Thu Apr 19, 2012 10:41 pm

SQUIGGLES

avatar
The 7th Wonder of the World
Saw a topic on a philosophy board today that intrigued me. Religion usually will toe philosophy, so I thought I'd plonk it in here rather than starting a new topic.

You have the power to rig a raffle in favor of your nephew. Is it immoral for you do to so?

Details pretty much copy/paste in spoiler.

Spoiler:
"An elementary school is going to give away $100 to one lucky student. They will choose the winner based on a program picking a student at random from the computer database.

Your nephew attends this school, and you have access to the computer and know how to rig the program to make sure he is picked as the winner.

Is it wrong for you to rig the raffle? If so, why? The outcome of the raffle is the same as it would be normally--one student gets $100. For that reason, a consequentialist would say that there's nothing wrong with it.

For this example, assume that the raffle is a one-time event, so it won't set a precedent of rigging. Also assume that no one knows you're the uncle, so no one is upset at the thought of a possibility of rigging.

What are your thoughts? Can you give an argument of why this is wrong? Or can you give further reasoning that it's okay?"

What if you knew without a doubt that your nephew would have the most need or would derive the most happiness from/of the money? Would that change your stance?

View user profile

106 Re: Religion Thread on Thu Apr 19, 2012 11:49 pm

Gorgro

avatar
Glorious Leader
Unless it's somehow provable that the nephew would have the most need for it, I'd call that immoral. It would be wrong because, even though the outcome would be the same, the way of getting there doesn't give all students an equal chance of winning. It also doesn't specify how much I like the kid. This is important.

I'd have to say it would be more of a dilemma if I could rig it in favor of myself.

View user profile http://treehouse.justforum.net

107 Re: Religion Thread on Thu Apr 19, 2012 11:59 pm

SQUIGGLES

avatar
The 7th Wonder of the World
Hypothetically, if it were provable that your nephew needed it most, would you feel that it was moral, then? That's very utilitarian. You'd still be taking the money from the other children.

Gorgro wrote:I'd have to say it would be more of a dilemma if I could rig it in favor of myself.
Could you elaborate? What if you could rig it in favour of yourself?

View user profile

108 Re: Religion Thread on Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:25 am

Gorgro

avatar
Glorious Leader
If he needed it most, it would register more as "helping" to me, as opposed to cheating. (But only if he needs it for something serious, not the "I need a new xbox" kind of need)

Now for myself, I think it would depend on a lot of other factors, down to the mood I'm in at the time. Do I like most of the other people or do I think they're all jerks? If this hypothetical school is anything like real school, I'd hate almost everyone and would probably rig it. I'd know it was wrong, but I'd still do it.
I would however, be inclined to then share it with my friends rather than keep it all for myself. Mostly because I didn't really do anything to earn the money, so it's pure profit for me, so I wouldn't come out any worse after spending it and I will have done something nice for my friends. Everybody wins, except for the jerks at school who I don't care about anyway.

View user profile http://treehouse.justforum.net

109 Re: Religion Thread on Fri Apr 20, 2012 6:07 am

I belive that it would be wrong to rig that raffle, because, even though the outcome would still be the same (one winner), it's still unfair to every other contestant.

And, besides, what kind of lesson would that teach to my nephew? ''The end justifies the means''? I wouldn't be a really great uncle if I taught him that taking money by cheating just because you can is OK.

View user profile

110 Re: Religion Thread on Fri Apr 20, 2012 10:44 am

I wouldn't do it.

Even if there were no bad outcomes at all, and everyone was happy, in the end, I still would have cheated.


ON the other hand, Im gonna have to go with Gorgro here. It depends on some other stuff.

View user profile

111 Re: Religion Thread on Fri Apr 20, 2012 5:15 pm

I don't agree with what Gorgro said, though. Unless that 100 dollars was litteraly going to save his life, there is no reason to hax a raffle, because, no matter how you look at it, and no matter how you rationalize it, it's still stealing.

View user profile

112 Re: Religion Thread on Fri Apr 20, 2012 5:35 pm

someguy3657 wrote:I don't agree with what Gorgro said, though. Unless that 100 dollars was litteraly going to save his life, there is no reason to hax a raffle, because, no matter how you look at it, and no matter how you rationalize it, it's still stealing.

Of course. But stealing from a bunch of terrible people...

It's still stealing, but I won't feel bad about it.

View user profile

113 Re: Religion Thread on Sun May 20, 2012 12:47 am

Tuomey

avatar
King Under The Bridge
Seems I missed out on most of this thread.

So, my mother made a right cock-up of raising me as a Catholic, only trotting out the rules when she felt like it and trying to insist I go to mass but not her and all this sort of shite.
Disillusionment with that came fairly quickly (around ten years old).

So, for a while I thought there was no such thing as god or the supernatural or anything like that.
Then, when I was twelve, I had a dream of a banshee the night my uncle died.
Perceptions shattered, blah blah, you get it.

So now I believe in the supernatural, that something happens after we die but not really in god. I guess I'm kinda open to the possibility.

(sorry to drag the thread back to the start, but I came late to the party.)


EDIT: So there seems to have been a discussion of whether the Christian God is a dick or not going on.
My opinion? If he exists, he totally is.
That said, people are responsible for the bad things they do.
I have studied religion and the Bible (I don't believe in forming opinions on something you don't know about) and, well, people seem to enjoy going back to the old testament and finding small passages that condemn things they don't like instead of paying attention to things like this:

Matthew 22:36-40
King James Version (KJV)
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

I've been taught that Christianity is about Christ. This is what He said.
He came after the old testament and I think that the literal son of God should overrule what has come before.
That said, one can still learn from the Old Testament.

View user profile

114 Re: Religion Thread on Mon May 28, 2012 11:50 am

I hate the idea of reviving this thread, since all the arguments we could post on here would take up hundreds of pages while doing nothing but making us hate each other a bit more at the end of the day. However, I've been thinking about the beginning of the world a whole lot, and I came up with a theory that, if I can say so myself, is a bit brilliant, and includes both sides.

So, check this out: God created the world and the universe...with science.

Wait, don't leave yet.

So, it says clearly in the Bible that God created the world in 7 days, and that's usually a big argument for the atheist. But it was man who decided that one day would be the length of 24 hours. In the Bible, God was the one deciding how long a day is, and, to him, one day could equal millions of years. Sure, sure, some will tell me that the Bible says "and the evening and the morning were the first day". But, then again, who says that it was one evening and one morning? Or that they lasted 12 hours each? We say that, because that's how it like on earth. Is it the same for God?

With that in mind, let's see things through. God creating light and darkness could be when He made the Big Bang. The earth had a shape, but it wasn't great. So, over the span of millions of years (a few days for God), things began to grow and take place, like the scientists of today claim. With the Big Bang, which happened on the first "day", the sun found a place over the Earth, giving it warmth and helping it grow. In fact, any part in the first chapter of Genesis where it says God created this and that was because he created the Big Bang, which in turn created these.

Suddenly, the living creatures. They didn't magically pop up like some atheists and christians believe. God created their molecules and cells, and they evolved into the many animals, therefore supporting Mr Darwin's theory while keeping a God in the picture. Plus, it took God one "day" before he moved on to the next step. What big land animals lived before humans did? Here's a hint: Gorgro is one of them.

Then, humans came along. "Let's make man in my image", says God, as he takes a certain branch of the animal that looks the most like us (monkeys) and used evolution to slowly shape them into the modern man. Along the way, when humans were beginning to show signs of intelligence, they began drawing on cave walls and hunting in groups and living in caves. 

When these "cave men" evolved some more, out came Adam, the "first man", AKA the person that would most resemble us today. Since God truly wanted Adam to be  and feel bonded with the "first woman", He took a part of Adam (a rib) and copy/pasted a woman with that piece of Adam.

So, that's my theory, which uses both sides.

What do you guys think? Too farfetched?

View user profile

115 Re: Religion Thread on Mon May 28, 2012 12:03 pm

Not farfetched at all. I used to believe in something similar a long time ago, tough I never went so far in the details.

one exception tough, the Adam and Eve story, whilst it might be possible to crate a woman from an man, (using appropriate genetic techniques,cloning the X chromosome and losing the Y, etc.) a population of two is not healthy... but one shouldn't always take religious text literal, I guess

View user profile

116 Re: Religion Thread on Mon May 28, 2012 1:48 pm

Gorgro

avatar
Glorious Leader
Your premise is flawed. The Bible was written by people, they used our kind of days.
If the people writing it were told what to write by God, which would already be a monumental change of character for him, what's the point of being all metaphorical with the timespans? He knows how we count time, he set the damn thing up himself, he would have been perfectly capable of giving an accurate number. "Oh it took me a day, but that's secretly billions of years for you guys trolololo"

How can God even have a concept of days or morning/evening without having a sun?

About the time distribution, the universe is somewhere between 13 and 14 billion years old, the earth is around 4.5 billion years. I assume this means one God-day is about 2 billion human years. This means he would have had just over 2 days to work his magic on earth, unless you're also giving God time stretching powers to fit your theory

Plus, it took God one "day" before he moved on to the next step.
I don't know what you mean by this. Does this mean it took one God-day to go from dinosaurs to humans? Because in that case God does indeed have crazy timestretching powers that totally defeat the point of this theory because in that case he may very well have done everything in a week anyway.

Then there's this jimmy rustler
the sun found a place over the Earth
I really do hope you're quoting here. Stars form first and planets form around them, not the other way around. We are not the center of the universe, galaxy or even our own solarsystem.

You don't need an additional theory for the possibility of God, since it's impossible to prove something's non-existance and God will continue to be shoe-horned in to any gaps still left by science anyway. In the end the scientific theory has verifiable evidence to back it up, the theological side has a bunch of differing interpretations of stone age metaphors. I'm still going with science, which doesn't require you to add an almighty superbeing (one linked specifically to Judaism and it's various offshoots while ignoring all the other various creation myths) into the theory to make it work.

View user profile http://treehouse.justforum.net

117 Re: Religion Thread on Mon May 28, 2012 2:17 pm

Well, it was a theory anyways.

View user profile

118 Re: Religion Thread on Wed Jun 27, 2012 2:58 am

Alright (Yeah, yeah, sorry. I was gone.)

The thing is, it's a redundant theory. As Gorgro said, it's shoe-horning a God into something that doesn't need one. Science can already explain how the universe was created, without the need for an almighty, omnipotent God in the mix. You (And, I mean no offence by this, Im just talking about your theory.) are just shoving God into the mix to justify your belief in him.

View user profile

119 Re: Religion Thread on Wed Jun 27, 2012 5:51 am

someguy3657 wrote:Well, it was a theory anyways.

View user profile

120 Re: Religion Thread on Thu Jun 28, 2012 9:27 pm

SQUIGGLES

avatar
The 7th Wonder of the World
Hey guys here's an old picture of me
Spoiler:

Buddhism jokes yay

EVERYONE IS SERIOUS IN THIS THREAD GOSH

View user profile

121 Re: Religion Thread on Mon Jul 29, 2013 8:19 am

Jonny

avatar
Prince of the Squirtle Squad
D-Munny wrote:IMMD: First he said he was cool with atheists, now he's chill with gays. Pope Francis just a totally chill bro man. They should call him the Brope.

I don't know: the Catholic attitude to homosexuality as it's expressed here still seems pretty...half-assed. Yes, homosexuality isn't sinful but homosexual acts are. It comes across as pretty patronising and as a homosexual makes me feel like an elephant in the room...I feel like I'm never quite going to be seen truly as an equal, and that's bullshit.

View user profile

122 Re: Religion Thread on Mon Jul 29, 2013 8:46 am

Gorgro

avatar
Glorious Leader
Actually, he said that atheists aren't inherently terrible people. While a very unconventional opinion, not the acceptance that some people made it out to be. The church later elaborated by saying they can be redeemed by finding Jesus or whatnot, still going straight to hell if they don't, but just not beyond 'saving' while alive.

This comment on gays is similar. Homosexuals are not barred from becoming priests and such, and they never have been, but it's not an open rebellion against doctrine and a far cry from actual acceptance.

Basically he's being less black and white than people expect from him, which is a good thing, but he'll never go against the established principles.

(I didn't think this comment warranted a new post in the religion or the debate thread, unless more follow, in which case I will transfer them all over.)

View user profile http://treehouse.justforum.net

123 Re: Religion Thread on Mon Jul 29, 2013 8:49 am

Jonny

avatar
Prince of the Squirtle Squad
And yet it gets a free pass just because it's religion. It sickens me, to be frank.

View user profile

124 POSTS ON THE MOVE, NOTHING TO SEE HERE on Mon Jul 29, 2013 9:45 am

Progress in the Church is measured in terms of centuries. That's actually explicitly how the Church was designed, hoping to prevent heresies. So think of this as the first smog free day in Beijing after environmental protection programs take effect. Yeah, it's a small thing, and yeah, maybe the smog will come back tomorrow, but in any case, the changes are starting to happen.

View user profile http://justhellapornoallthetime.com

125 Re: Religion Thread on Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:25 pm

SQUIGGLES

avatar
The 7th Wonder of the World
Not meaning to attack the Bible or anything, I mean I contradict myself like a dozen times a day so I'm so not in the position to judge and not that I would anyway, but I thought this was interesting.

View user profile

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 5 of 7]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum