• 0
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Question

Posted · Report post

Any person can comment on this post, but it's geared towards Christians (Catholics, Presbyterians, Baptists, Lutherans, etc.) Anyone can post the first subject of conversation. Just discuss issues about the religion (Heaven, evangelism,etc.) :rolleyes:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

600 answers to this question

  • 0

Posted · Report post

Awwww come on, get real dude. your nothing but a blind mouse about to get its head chopped off

And by the looks of this site you think your doing gods work.... lol get real dude. you keep posting to keep this current but this is for intelegent people not blind mice; we all heard it before and we dont buy it!

You are free to express your views in a forceful manner provided you remain civil. Insulting BrainDen members will not be tolerated.

Sigh... This topic was for church edification, not the topic of argument! If you are here to dispute, please don't. New topic: forgiveness. Build on that. -_-

seriously, I really wish people don't post on this thread to attack Christianity. This is about Christianity, not atheism.

Attacking Christianity is just as much about Christianity as praising it is. Generally speaking, if you start a thread in which you make controversial claims, you're going to get opinions from all sides. Stop asking for our members that have opinions that differ from yours to not express them here, as they are free to do so.

[/moderating]

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

Whenever you post a link to RichardDawkins.net I just get a page asking me to log in (don't know why since you can browse the forum without logging in).

There's one forum on that message board that is not visible unless you're logged in.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted (edited) · Report post

I have wondered this myself. I was baptized prezbyterian and I made the mistake of being confirmed catholic before I got married, now I ant to take them back. I do not believe anything about the spiritual side of those actions, but the point is that other people do. Just as when I go to church with my wife (which happens occasionally, for her grandparents' benefit) I do not take communion. As far as I am concerned, going up to the front and eating a cracker and drinking some wine is just that. I refuse to do so out of respect for those who do believe in trans-substantiation who would be upset or insulted to know an atheist is taking communion in their church. Likewise, I know that communion, baptism and confirmation are considered to be sacraments, the holiest of holy events in a life. Marriage is also a sacrament and there is a solution to that in the eyes of the church, they grant an annulment and basically say that the wedding was non-sacramental for one reason or another and they pretend it never happened. This allows one or both people to be remarried in the church and to continue taking communion... etc.

I would like the same thing done for my baptism and my confirmation. I would like them annulled. I no longer wish to be considered Catholic nor Christian by anybody who might think I am just a sheep gone astray. I consider myself out, now I want a confirmation so to speak that they consider me out as well.

Well this is kinda what I was talking about! :D Besides it doesn't matter if I say that I don't believe in that stuff. If I was baptized I was baptized and you all know what that means, a priest at my funeral. Being dead is upsetting enough let alone with someone preaching there. So it's not enough just to say I don't believe in all that stuff so I'm not baptized, but I would have to reverse it in order to avoid having someone talk against my beliefs when I'm dead. That's why an un-baptism is necessary octopuppy ;) Not for me, but for others ;)

Edited by andromeda
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

If you'd like to start another thread, feel free. This isn't a free for all, ask anything you want, thread.

Anyone that wants to answer the above question can wait for that thread to start. Let's stay on topic.

[/moderating]

whoops sorry

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

Why do we not just get what we want, ADparker? Well, you're obviously thinking in a shallow way. If you don't get what you want, it's either a test or a lesson. You won't always get what you want, and God's not gonna spoi You. Think about the book of Job. And of course we should apologize to those whom we wrong. I never said not to.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

Why do we not just get what we want, ADparker? Well, you're obviously thinking in a shallow way. If you don't get what you want, it's either a test or a lesson. You won't always get what you want, and God's not gonna spoi You. Think about the book of Job. And of course we should apologize to those whom we wrong. I never said not to.

I don't know if you have looked at the video that ADP linked us to. In that video it's said that research on a huge sample of people shown that "answers" to the prayer are coincidental. I can remember all the things that were said in that video but basically it's been proved that prayer has no effect.

I can understand that you do believe that from your subjective point of view it does, cause it probably makes you feel better but it doesn't have an actual effect on your health for example. I think you should look at the video if you haven't already.

:)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

I thought I should add this as a justification of God. It's from a post of mine in "Religion: Debate Style".

Well, the fact is, Christianity or not, their has to be a higher power, until scientists get smarter. Think of the Big Bang as a dominoe effect. Big bang happens, because of that planets form, when earth forms volcanoes form, stromatolites appear, carbon dioxide warms climate, new life forms appear, and we come into the scene. Someone had to have started the Big Bang, since their was no space and time before, as scientists have said. That starter was God, the higher power. He was the one who "toppled the first dominoe", so to speak. Another thing, a chemical reaction could not have started even the simplest life. A single-celled organism is far more complex than, say, a speck of dirt, so life did not evolve from inanimate objects. God was the one who intervened, set conditions right, and started life on Earth.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

Also, IF and i do stress the word if, evolution is true in the way that most people think about it, then what is the basis for all morals? What is the basis for all thought? How could that have come into being? if it was all due to chance then wouldn't that make life pretty meaningless? :huh: i highly, thoroughly, and extremely doubt that such complex lifeforms could have been due to chance.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

Lol, maybe 'cos we've had like billions of years to evolve?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

I thought I should add this as a justification of God. It's from a post of mine in "Religion: Debate Style".

This is a great argument for science needing to keep working to solve the unanswered problems of the origin of life and the big bang. This is also a great argument for teaching every schoolchild about rhetorical fallacies. This particular fallacy would be what is known as a "non sequitur"

Non-sequitur is latin for "does not follow" which is truly what any logical fallacy is, but in this case yours follows the path of affirming he consequent. Let me break that down for you. Your basic argument.

A. God is the only thing that could have created the Earth

B. The Earth exists

C. Therefore it was created by God

It my seem totally logical to you in that context because you see statement A to be absolutely true, or axiomatic. In reality, it proves nothing because each statement is a statement of presumed or quantifiable fact but neither actually is Dependant upon the other. To give an alternate example:

A. Chipmunks are the only thing that can build houses

B. I live in a house

C. My house was built by chipmunks

You can see how this statement is entirely false, but it seems to flow logically if you assume the first statement to be true. What can be done to make the statement logical, if still not entirely true, is to insert "I believe" at the beginning of clauses A and C:

A. I believe God is he only thing that could have created the Earth

B. The Earth Exists

C. I believe it was therefore created by God

do you see the difference?

The fact of the matter is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because we don't know how life sprang into existence of its own accord does not mean it didn't or could't happen, it just means we haven't figured it out yet. We may never figure it out. Then again, you might hear next week that a grad student just created life in a test tube. There was a time that Science had no idea how the Earth was suspended in the Ether of space, thought illness was truly caused by demons, thought the Earth revolved around the sun and had no idea that we could develop vaccines against diseases. Those times are long gone. There were also more recent times when science knew that there was enormous power trapped inside a single atom of Plutonium, but it had no idea how to unlock it, some thought it to be impossible. Ask Japan how believing it cannot happen turned out. There was a time when science thought breaking the sound barrier would tear a plane to shreds, now concords make supersonic passenger flights daily. My point is, just because we don't know what or how doesn't mean we can't or that it is acceptable to claim any theory that cannot be tested is the answer.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted (edited) · Report post

sorry i meant to say keep the train of thought on the earlier stuff i said in that reply. i tend to say what i don't completely want to say sometimes

Edited by No1slight
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

Also, IF and i do stress the word if, evolution is true in the way that most people think about it, then what is the basis for all morals? What is the basis for all thought? How could that have come into being? if it was all due to chance then wouldn't that make life pretty meaningless? i highly, thoroughly, and extremely doubt that such complex lifeforms could have been due to chance.

I actually agree. Since evolution is about "suvival of the fittest," it would be more profitable to be a terrible and evil person. However, because we have morals from religion, we are better people. What's life without God? Pretty sad; you live, you die, the end. I notice that Christians have a better outlook on life and morality.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

Also, IF and i do stress the word if, evolution is true in the way that most people think about it, then what is the basis for all morals? What is the basis for all thought? How could that have come into being? if it was all due to chance then wouldn't that make life pretty meaningless? :huh: i highly, thoroughly, and extremely doubt that such complex lifeforms could have been due to chance.

Chance is the operative word in that post. That is like saying the grand canyon was caused by random drops of water hitting in those spots and etching it away. Although the statement is technically true( which drops of water in the river actually hit the rocks was always random) the drops were there by a selective force, namely a river. Natural selection is not random chance, it is a directive force that deletes the randomness that does not work and enhances that that does.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

I actually agree. Since evolution is about "suvival of the fittest," it would be more profitable to be a terrible and evil person. However, because we have morals from religion, we are better people. What's life without God? Pretty sad; you live, you die, the end. I notice that Christians have a better outlook on life and morality.

Survival of the fittest does not mean that terrible and evil people are the most successful. Have you ever read anything about ethics? I love how you accredit all morality to religion when it can easily be traced back to social contracts and bartering. It may be the best in any given situation to be extremely aggressive or "evil" but what really happens to 99% of people who act in this way? they are retaliated against, imprisoned or killed. The select few do get away with it, which has been shown to make them very successful thus once again negating your point, we often call these people royalty. Do you know how people became kings? By being great leaders. Do you know how they kept their kingdoms? By killing all those who opposed them. The same is true for the spread of Christianity by the way. Do you know why Christianity became as big as it did? because it eliminated all kinds of stupid mosaic laws for people who were fed up with them. Do you know how it spread across the world and remained strong? By either assimilating the beliefs of other religions (Check out his link if you don't think that happened) or by killing the infidels and heretics.

The reality of the situation is that it is better to be fair in most situations than it is to be cruel. Opportunism is a virtue in evolution, but sadism and thievery are very strongly selected against as character traits.

I also have to debate your claim that life without God is sad or empty or that Christians have a better outlook on life or morality. I do not believe in an afterlife which means that my outlook on life is one focused on making as big of a positive impact on those around me as possible while enjoying the time that I do have alive to its fullest. I believe that I am more moral than most Christians I know because I do not choose to ostracize anybody because they are different. I do not vote to remove the rights of loving couples who would like to marry. I do not vote for politicians who are somehow able to support pro-life and anti gun-control laws at the same time while allowing big business to make massive profits by exploiting their underpaid employees. I don't want to make this political, but I do think single issue voting is entirely immoral and every decision you make on that scale should always be for the good of the masses. Truly I think you should be voting independent if you are a "good Christian" but I believe the lesser of two evils (so to speak) is definitely Democrat.

Better outlook than fear of hell, better morality than outward persecution, better understanding of the real reasons I make the decisions I do. I am an atheist and I am a good person. If I turn out to be wrong and their is a God, I hope to... well him I guess... that he is not so petty as to send me into a pit of eternal fire for something so small as choosing to trust in rationality instead of superstition.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

Also, IF and i do stress the word if, evolution is true in the way that most people think about it, then what is the basis for all morals? What is the basis for all thought? How could that have come into being? if it was all due to chance then wouldn't that make life pretty meaningless? :huh: i highly, thoroughly, and extremely doubt that such complex lifeforms could have been due to chance.

see my signature. Specifically the "LIFE. HAS. MEANING." part :P

and as kawsentrait put it, chance really doesn't play a role.

I actually agree. Since evolution is about "suvival of the fittest," it would be more profitable to be a terrible and evil person. However, because we have morals from religion, we are better people. What's life without God? Pretty sad; you live, you die, the end. I notice that Christians have a better outlook on life and morality.

that's not true. The majority of atheists I know in my personal life are much more well-rounded, intelligent, self-confident, self-accepting and respectful than their Christian counterparts. Maybe that's a non-statistical sample set, I don't know. But I do know that you're stepping over a line by insulting the integrity of atheists... who have made some of the world's greatest discoveries (and many of the greatest advances in morals too, btw - Hammurabi is often depicted as being given his Codes by the babylonian god "Shamash", but many scholars believe that Hammurabi was in fact an atheist... it's been a long time since I remembered hearing that, so don't quote me on that though).

What's life without God, you say? A lot more than it is WITH god, actually. Life with God is just a tiny meaningless speck between two eternities. From my point of view, though, life is all there is, so it's time to live it. Carpe diem and all. I'm sick of people like you who think that the massive amount of time we have isn't long enough, you want more, you want eternity. Did you know that a chipmunk only lives for a couple of years? Some flies live for a day. Think back and realize how LONG a year truly is. We live for MANY years, and that number is extending with science and technology. Life is long, not short. Life is the eternal, not god. I don't expect you to understand that, it's hard for someone with a Christian mindset to truly appreciate life and not want more, like infinite orgasm in heaven (boring!). But like I said in the other thread, I sense an undercurrent of intelligence running in you that's straining to break free of your religious indoctrination. Let it soar a little bit, and appreciate life :)

Since evolution is about "suvival of the fittest," it would be more profitable to be a terrible and evil person.

if only this were true ;):ph34r: No indeed - it is not true at all. Altruism is very important, and an awesome evolutionary advance, that allowed animals to "team up", as it were. A society offers protection, exchange of genes, trading of resources, etc. Why do you think it's so common across the Animal Kingdom? Schools of fish. Herds of zebra. Flocks of geese. Tribes of apes. Colonies of yeast. Societies of humans. Hell even the robots in I Robot sought out altrusim ;D

It's laughable to think that morals belong only with humans. Many other apes have moral systems, as well as dolphins, elephants, and some species of birds.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

I still don't understand what you're trying to convey. Now, moving on. Let's discuss the book of Revelations. Some symbols I think I might get are:

dragon=Satan; beast from sea=one world leader; beast from earth=religious leader who worships sea beast Bablylon=maybe sin; two witnesses=maybe second coming of Elijah and Moses, they have the same miracles

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

I meant your post before.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

There seems to be something more to being with others than just survival. Anyways, I didn't intend for this thread to be the subject of controversy, it was for interpretation of the Bible and living life religiously. :(

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

Whenever you post a link to RichardDawkins.net I just get a page asking me to log in (don't know why since you can browse the forum without logging in). I'm probably not the only one - maybe if you're referencing your posts on there it would be better to cut and paste.

Thanks; yeah some sub forums are only open to members, I can never remember which though. ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

Why do we not just get what we want, ADparker? Well, you're obviously thinking in a shallow way.

What are you talking about? What on Earth is this comment in relation to exactly?

If you don't get what you want, it's either a test or a lesson.

Yes that is precisely what the worshippers of that object in "The best optical illusion in the world!" video I linked you too would tell us. And by all attempts to test it; with approximately the same results as with you god.

You won't always get what you want, and God's not gonna spoi You. Think about the book of Job.

I would rather not; it is so very very silly (to put it mildly.)

And of course we should apologize to those whom we wrong. I never said not to.

Irrelevant.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

Anyways, I didn't intend for this thread to be the subject of controversy, it was for interpretation of the Bible and living life religiously.
see this
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

So the book of Revelations warns us about one world leader and a false prophet who can do miracles. A miracle worker isn't necessarily good, since the devil can perform false works. The people on earth have a thousand years to convert, during which satan is imprisoned. (After the rapture.) Hopefully we can convert people before them. The 'woman with the baby' is probably the church. Now we can talk about communion. Disclaimer: What i say might be misinterpreted, in no way represents the entire church. i'm not 100% right all the time.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

I still don't understand what you're trying to convey. Now, moving on. Let's discuss the book of Revelations. Some symbols I think I might get are:

dragon=Satan; beast from sea=one world leader; beast from earth=religious leader who worships sea beast Bablylon=maybe sin; two witnesses=maybe second coming of Elijah and Moses, they have the same miracles

You might as well just post a link to Amazon.com for the "Left Behind" series. Rabbi Ben Judah here is now interpreting revelations. Eli and Moishe right?

Don't get me wrong, I didn't come up with every concept I put on here on my own, but when I borrow from other sources I give them credit.

On a slightly related note, have you tried reading any literature about religion that wasn't written by Christians? Particularly fundamentalist Christians like the left behind authors? Have you read any atheist literature? You really should give it an open minded look, you might be surprised by what you really believe.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

no duh, gimme a break

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

besides, this is a conversation about thae bible and how normal people interpret it. Rule one for communion (a.k.a. eucharist) no communion if you are not baptized. Rule two, you must cleanse yourself of sin and confess yourself before the Lord before you partake. If you eat the bread and drink the of the cup in a sinful manner, then you are guilty of the body and blood of Christ. Do it as often as you do in remembrance of Him. Communion cleanses you and is a reminder of your covenant with God.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.