A religious debate thread?!

[Garek Maxwell]

Jungle Boots

@ garek:

thats the issue tho man... "its nice to be nice" requires a universal concept of nice, or it requires a system of humanity that really can manage life by only being nice to eachother... i dont think thats possible without all of humanity becoming enlightened. its possible... certainly... but its not apparent to happen any time soon, and untill then we require some sort of model that 'progresses' us towards that state but does not manipulate 'truth', or manipulate 'humanity'.

If niceness is a human behavior that is taught, then it's quite possible to create a universal system. No where was it written we need childhood, but in the end it was a good idea that benefited everyone. I like to think niceness is the same. It's a good idea that we can use to help everyone.

We already have tons of unwritten social rules anyway, which many children like to ask "why" about them. It wouldn't be a stretch to add that. I mean, "why be nice to strangers?" "Well, that's just what you do."

I guess I'm just too much of an optimist. xp  

[RevvRaptor]

Deaths kitsune

i wonder. can anyone tell me this.

im Lutheran, but i call myself a fence sitter. meaning i believe that the big bang and all the stuff, but i dont think stuff can be made from no stuff. there needs to be some being to place it there to be made with.

I've always thought the same thing. I've seen plenty of explosions, and there's always been debris, but I've never seen any perfectly (or close enough) spherical pieces of debris in which one or two can support organic life while the rest are incapable of such.. And how exactly did a puddle of sludge with a bit of an electrical current in or or whatever become capable of creating organisms that eventually gained the ability to Evolve into what we see and know today? Someone had to be pulling enough strings for an all-puppet Riverdance production there..

I've always thought Evolution and Creationism went hand-in-hand, personally.. Pretty simple concept really, God makes creatures, climate conditions and more make it hard/nigh-impossible for creatures to survive, creatures are given the ability to change in order to adapt to new settings. I believe I Evolved from a Bible-thumper into an independent being who believes in God/Jehova/Yahweh without buying into the words that other Human Beings have hyped for ages. A few minutes of rational thought outside the norm can do wonders for one's own personal views and beliefs, I'm not one to force it on anyone, but try it and see if it works for you too. If not, oh well, no harm no foul right?  

[xXPeasantxSanXx]

Oh wow, I just sort of learned something that people don't take time to pay attention to these days, the tail of Satan is actually a mis-translation of a tail of an' Avenging angel, and makes no word nor mention of Satan.

Thus the story of an' evil being named Satan is even if the bible were "True" false.

Also it seem's the Tale of the Greek gods happens to be True, in-fact apparently I was even spoken to by one,(Despite my miss-interpretation that it was a God of hell) and a few other people were actually SAVED by Aphrodite, and even Althena from Demons, when Jesus would NOT so much as show himself in fact the Demon had FED off their prayers to Jesus and kept getting stronger!  

[Artemis Vulpes]

Oh god do not even get me started on the mistranslations in the bible. Satanel has such a bad rap because of them. Really wish people would stop referring to this angel as Lucifer, the Devil or Beelzebub. All four the aforementioned are different beings in mythology.

Satan is also not symbolized as the goat, that is Azazel. One the leader of the first fallen angels during the time of the great flood. It is quite literally where we get term scapegoat from.  

[Xx_Hanyuu-San_xX]

Artemis Vulpes

Oh god do not even get me started on the mistranslations in the bible. Satanel has such a bad rap because of them. Really wish people would stop referring to this angel as Lucifer, the Devil or Beelzebub. All four the aforementioned are different beings in mythology.

Satan is also not symbolized as the goat, that is Azazel. One the leader of the first fallen angels during the time of the great flood. It is quite literally where we get term scapegoat from.

True, lol

Though I am not going to claim what I believe about the Greek gods to be the "Almighty one and only truth above yours", I will say however that I do very much believe in them as the Truth.

Edit: Apparently there are also mistranslations claiming Azazel as Satan, how many times can they ******** up a translation? I swear is translating it is purposely mistranslating it to ******** things up, which is more than likely with the whole homophobia part surrounding the book as well, for all we know it could've said "Thou shalt lay with man ast thou would a woman." not "Thou shalt not lay with a man ast thou would a woman.",

So on so forth.  

[RevvRaptor]

Artemis Vulpes

Oh god do not even get me started on the mistranslations in the bible. Satanel has such a bad rap because of them. Really wish people would stop referring to this angel as Lucifer, the Devil or Beelzebub. All four the aforementioned are different beings in mythology.

Satan is also not symbolized as the goat, that is Azazel. One the leader of the first fallen angels during the time of the great flood. It is quite literally where we get term scapegoat from.

Another reason I stopped reading the Bible, too many mis-translations and WAY too many examples of hypocrisy and more.. I'm also not one to jump right out and say the whole Da Vinci Code thing was an absolute truth, but several of the points made were, with a bit of research, on-point and accurate. It's why I believe in God only, no Angels, no Demons, no *insert whatever evil entity here*, makes things easier to sort through, no craziness trying to figure out what's right and what's completely and utterly false as written/edited/omitted by people trying to keep control of the masses..  

[Sunegami]

I'm not really knowledgeable enough for a huge debate (even though I do love reading them X3), but I'll post my beliefs here, and if anyone wants to ask me anything, feel free. X3

My dad always gave off the air of being agnostic or fully atheist (in the "doesn't really care/ever think about it" kind of way), but my mom raised my younger brother and myself as non-denominational Christians. I supposedly (as I have no memory of it) "asked Jesus into my heart" when I was a toddler. Many of you know how this part of the story goes. X3

Fast forward 10+ years: Mom (and step-dad) and brother moved just outside Dallas, TX, where they're now Southern Baptists (Mom not as hardcore, step-dad a little more into it, brother crazy hardcore-- he's a Marine now, too), and I'm living with my husband (who is a Reform Jew) in Pittsburgh, PA, and am now an "out and proud" agnostic polytheist (leaning toward Kemetic Recon).

Religiously, spiritually, socially, whatever, I'm the person my mom raised me to be. Which is funny, 'cause even though she knows my religious/spiritual beliefs, she still makes passive-aggressive remarks insinuating I should become a Christian again (like "I know you don't believe like I do, but one day you'll know." Yes, that's an actual quote-- from yesterday, in fact. I know she means well, so I just laugh it off, but seriously. . .). She likes to bring up the aforementioned toddler "asking Jesus into my heart" thing occasionally, too-- which I don't really count because I was a toddler and couldn't truly understand what I was saying. Hm.

Okay, debate question: anyone think a covenant like that (with a deity, I mean) is binding if the "seeker" doesn't fully understand what they're asking? Would a deity demand that "seeker" to fulfill a covenant that the "seeker" doesn't understand, and thus may not be capable of fulfilling it, even if they did want to? I'd seriously love to hear people's thoughts on that one (especially yours, Garek; I love hearing what you have to say on topics like this ♥).

Also, my aunt on my mom's side is a Unitarian Buddhist, and she's a very awesome, loving person, so I think that's definitely influenced me, as well.  

[Garek Maxwell]

Sorry for replying late. Real life, busy, tired, but not now. razz

Sunegami

Okay, debate question: anyone think a covenant like that (with a deity, I mean) is binding if the "seeker" doesn't fully understand what they're asking? Would a deity demand that "seeker" to fulfill a covenant that the "seeker" doesn't understand, and thus may not be capable of fulfilling it, even if they did want to? I'd seriously love to hear people's thoughts on that one (especially yours, Garek; I love hearing what you have to say on topics like this ♥).

Awww, thank you!


Well, there's three ways to go about it.
1. "Ignorance of the law doesn't mean it doesn't apply to you."
This is the US understanding of law, if judge shows are correct. This would mean they'd have to fulfill the "social contract" to the best of their abilities. But there's problems...

2. The contract is not applicable because having a contract saying you will defy gravity and float into the air 5 times a day just doesn't work. Even if it's worded vaguely so that it can mean helicopter pilots, it's still too vague to enforce it. The social contract wouldn't hold up against any lawyer or judge with a working knowledge of logic and law. If they were the epitome of perfection, then they would have constructed the contract to be clear and concise and devoid of misinterpretation throughout all time. They claim perfection, after all. Otherwise, they've been replaced by their creations creation (justice, law, etc).

3.
From an outside perspective, it's their option to choose what it means to them. If they don't feel it's binding, then it's not. If they feels the rules are different or should be different, then they are. The entire thing and every single aspect of it is an option. Even the deity is an option. This is mostly because I move away from the deity centered view to the self centered view. Not to say their selfish.

Imagine you have two people and one claims Person A verbally agreed to devotion towards them self (Person B) and should abide by the contract. Well, who do they think they are? Who made them God? The other one can have an entirely different opinion about it. It's their individual right. (Which, by the way, I think is at the root of the outrage over the perceived problem of entitlement everyone has. After nearly finishing a book (Mediated, Zengotita), I'm pretty sure it's just a symptom or side effect of creating individual inherent rights.)

Besides, if Person A suddenly decides Person B's contract no longer exists, then there's not a whole lot that can be done about it then. You're flipping a switch and suddenly it invalidates the entire thing.