If you actually look at some of the things the church preaches you'll find that it's generally stupid. No pre-marital sex, and then no birth control when you do get some so your gonna have lots of kids, or not much fun...

actually the rules used to make perfect sence.

No pre-marital sex ensured happy families, and no birth control provided a rapid growing supply of population to send out on crusades.

The downfall of organized religion is that they forgot to keep up with the changing times and are still trying to make 2000 year old rules applicable. It's like schools trying to teach COBOL.

that happiness that most people lack in the world today (but not everwhere in the world) is God sent and long lasting.

Sorry, I really can't agree with anything that teaches hate towards homosexuals or blatant sexism, or that our entire population came from an incestuous relationship between Adam, Eve, and their three sons.

That happiness actually comes from simply believing in something, anything. It doesn't matter how stupid that thing is. All that matters is that you believe it's right.
And, in the case of religion, it's wrong.

they dont teach hate towards homosexuals. oncea gain you have missunderstood the church. and there no sexist teachings either.

Go ahead and believe all you want in anything.. i doubt you fell all that happy.

So what do they teach about homosexuals? Just intollerance?

Suppose a female wanted to become the pope, what would she have to do? Or what about the whole thing with Lilith?

Timothy 2:12: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Not sexist?

ha? then again misunderstood. homosexualtiy was present even at the time of the Roman era.. the church did not interefere with them (infact recent events was the homosexual interfering with the church and NOT visa versa), it only enforced that within the chuch such activites never happen, since they are "evil" in nature and condemend them.

What has brought about the recent disturbance with the church is the "re-definition of the word marriage". Marriage is a holy sacrament, and thus "holy" in nature. But if you are to associate it with an act of evil how is that acceptable? Why not simply call it a "union" or something... its just that all that these fools wish to do is contridict the church and bash it at all times as far as possible. Its only after they decided to interfere with the church, that the church decided to defend it self.

These factors would not necessarily prevent a woman from giving an occasional message to the assembly, since the oversight and accountability aspects would be handled by the other leaders and teachers of the church. But this would not really constitute teaching in the Pauline sense. Nor would the Pauline concept of teaching necessarily prohibit women from teaching in seminaries or other academic institutions, for the oversight and authority exercised there is academic in nature, not spiritual and ethical. This is not to say that seminaries and academic institutions should not exercise spiritual and ethical oversight and authority, only that these types of oversight functions can be separated from the academic teaching process in a way that should not be done in the church. Finally, Paul's perspective on women seems to be that they would find greater significance in God's eyes in fulfilling the role of motherhood, the role for which they were uniquely designed. That role may be augmented by teaching other women and children, but they should not consider teaching men a "greater glory."

Punishments for Sin
1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Say to the Israelites: 'Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who gives [a] any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the community are to stone him. 3 I will set my face against that man and I will cut him off from his people; for by giving his children to Molech, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. 4 If the people of the community close their eyes when that man gives one of his children to Molech and they fail to put him to death, 5 I will set my face against that man and his family and will cut off from their people both him and all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molech.

6 " 'I will set my face against the person who turns to mediums and spiritists to prostitute himself by following them, and I will cut him off from his people.

7 " 'Consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am the LORD your God. 8 Keep my decrees and follow them. I am the LORD , who makes you holy.

9 " 'If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.

10 " 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife-with the wife of his neighbor-both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

11 " 'If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

12 " 'If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.

13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

14 " 'If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.

15 " 'If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal.

16 " 'If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

17 " 'If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They must be cut off before the eyes of their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible.

18 " 'If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people.

19 " 'Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your mother or your father, for that would dishonor a close relative; both of you would be held responsible.

20 " 'If a man sleeps with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They will be held responsible; they will die childless.

21 " 'If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.

22 " 'Keep all my decrees and laws and follow them, so that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out. 23 You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them. 24 But I said to you, "You will possess their land; I will give it to you as an inheritance, a land flowing with milk and honey." I am the LORD your God, who has set you apart from the nations.

25 " 'You must therefore make a distinction between clean and unclean animals and between unclean and clean birds. Do not defile yourselves by any animal or bird or anything that moves along the ground-those which I have set apart as unclean for you. 26 You are to be holy to me [c] because I, the LORD , am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.

27 " 'A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.' "

There is no reason for the entire paper to be devoted to a man whom a very small portion of the world care about, i'd much rather hear about something relavent to the world.

because in all honesty, I've yet to meet any religious person (except a few buddists) who can truthfully tell me that they either a) have personally experienced god in a way that can not be explained away by other means and are religios because of it, or b) have spent any time actually contemplating the universe, and how a god could fit into it.

Another thing that I cannot stand about the Bible is the solidity of its teachings. Is a mother wrong to steal food to feed her starving children? Now, you could say that it's the lesser of two evils (ie. it's better to steal than to let your children die), but I really don't think it's wrong at all, and I can't see how anyone would be able to tell her what she did was wrong.

Yes, it is wrong. She only has to ask for forgivness however and the trespass is forgotten.

If your going to argue for the church you must also argue against science, because most if not all of the leading theories about the universe are say that god does not have the power to interfere in the world, or at least not with any measureable effect.

Another thing that I cannot stand about the Bible is the solidity of its teachings. Is a mother wrong to steal food to feed her starving children? Now, you could say that it's the lesser of two evils (ie. it's better to steal than to let your children die), but I really don't think it's wrong at all, and I can't see how anyone would be able to tell her what she did was wrong.

I've yet to meet any religious person (except a few buddists) who can truthfully tell me that they either a) have personally experienced god in a way that can not be explained away by other means and are religios because of it

Well have you read those theories? The further they try to discard God from the picture the more irrational, wierd, and obsecure the become: Mulitple universes! ooh like the proved that one!

You know hey, mordern physics is more interesting than greek mythology! i mean you cannot believe what these so called mordern physicist can do,, they are fantastic story writers,, that can derive amazing therories of virtual non-provable (and very likely non-existing) models. I mean they sure as well have clearly proved the non-exisistance of God! woop di doo! But of course they had to create new-er models than the exisiting ones,, cuz the exisiting ones cannot disprove anything! But then again these new-er models are not provable,, but hey what at least they explain something! Ha! but why assume the improbablisitc (and note it has been "proven" to be very much improbable) when you can simply believe in God.

I'm not suggesting (neither does the church) to stop the research in the origin of the universe.. But its absoloutly not necessary to take away God from the picture.. after all once you do find the origin (if ever), the close you come to the reality: that it is the work of God.

I'm shocked to see how your ideas have been so influenced by Hindu or Buddhist ideology.

The catholic chuch believes in the two value system: right or wrong, true or false. There are no grey areas. If you sin, you have done wrong!. If not, its all in good deeds.

In the past this was basis of decission making. And guess what? Science in this two value system has progressed and brought about fantastic results (everthing you see today is based off this),, but in the multivalue system has brought about nothing!


A catholic in the situation you described above would simple pray and have faith that God will provied the assistance they need. And such situations have happened before.. i mean look at Mother Teresa, at times they didn't have the food to feed the poor under their care.. she prayed,, the next morning a truck full of food would arrive as a blessing from God. Her prayers we alwasy anwered. She is a saint!

Well have you read those theories? The further they try to discard God from the picture the more irrational, wierd, and obsecure the become: Mulitple universes! ooh like the proved that one!

You know hey, mordern physics is more interesting than greek mythology! i mean you cannot believe what these so called mordern physicist can do,, they are fantastic story writers,, that can derive amazing therories of virtual non-provable (and very likely non-existing) models. I mean they sure as well have clearly proved the non-exisistance of God! woop di doo! But of course they had to create new-er models than the exisiting ones,, cuz the exisiting ones cannot disprove anything! But then again these new-er models are not provable,, but hey what at least they explain something! Ha! but why assume the improbablisitc (and note it has been "proven" to be very much improbable) when you can simply believe in God.

I'm not suggesting (neither does the church) to stop the research in the origin of the universe.. But its absoloutly not necessary to take away God from the picture.. after all once you do find the origin (if ever), the close you come to the reality: that it is the work of God.

But then again these new-er models are not provable,, but hey what at least they explain something! Ha! but why assume the improbablisitc (and note it has been "proven" to be very much improbable) when you can simply believe in God.

To rephrase: "Since we don't completely understand what's going on, instead of trying to prove it and make sense of it all, we should just take it for granted."

This has been another religious thread pwn3d by martin.

I must point out right off the bat that most, if not all of the current theories do not preclude the existance of God, they do however limit his ability to interact with the universe.

But then, if God created the universe would he not have made it such that he didn't need to fix it?

After all, he's all powerful and all knowing, surly he would create a universe in which humans could live without his intervention!

Anyways, lets start with your first wierd theory; the multiverse, or multiple universe if you prefer. Basically it is based upon quantum mechanics, and there's no way you can deny that quantum mechanics isn't a fact of life, and it basically states that because od the nature of space-time, what we infact expereince as reality, is just one of many possible realities. The one which we experience is the one with the highest probability, just as the position of an electron arround a nucleus is a probabilistic function because of the uncertainty principal. It's a fairly strait forward theory, based upon the already established theory of quantum mechanics, not very far out there at all.

...Thus there is infact room for God in quantum mechanics, as he could control the position and velocity of every particle in the universe with ease!

However in practice this isn't quite true, as different types of particles exist, and they all behave in different manners. It is logical to assume from this then that if there is a god then he created the laws, and if he knows everything, why would he create laws unless he knew that he woulnd't have to break them?

There is another principal in modern science which can explain everything with just as much truth as the church, if not more; the anthropomorphic principal. It comes in two flavours, the weak and the strong, but basically it says this: The universe exists as it does because it if it didn't then we wouldn't be here to ponder it's existence. Does it explain anything? No. Does it help us understand anything? No. Is it of value? Yes, because it tells us that there is a reason for everything, because if there wasn't then we wouldn't be here to question it.

In truth there is no need for a God, the universe can be explained without his intervention, or existance.

The church is a machine, a machine to make people feel better about themselves. You rob someone? Confess it to God, and all is forgiven. You do something else bad? Jesus forgives you. Religion is all about scape goating; you pass your sins on to God, and he deals with it so you don't have to. Why feel guilty for doing something if you can ask for forgivness and get be done with it? I'm not saying that everyone who is religious is like this, but a large percentage are, and they're the ones who i most dislike.

My problem is that if God did exist, and he was all powerful, why would he choose to live in a form as shitty as our own. I mean it's not like the human body is the pinacle of perfection!

..But even ignoring that we're still in the deep end, because if god created all life, why are there fossils of animals which no longer exist, and appear to be older than the world is supposed to be according to the bible?

Which is more likly? That God made the creatures, or that they evolved? That God made man in his image, or that man is vain, but really just evolved like everything else?

That God would create a universe in which there appear to be physical laws which cannot be broken, or one in which those same laws hold true, because if they didn't we wouldn't be here?

That God has a personal interest in every individual, or that people just want to be the center of attention? That God actually forgives you, or that people just don't want to deal with guilt? Is it more likly that there is a God, or that we just want there to be a God? I think you'll find the last part of each of those questions is most likly. There is no God.

God is the creation of man, in man's image. God is man's way of saying "look it's not my fault, he's the one who's got all the control!" God is a scapegoat for the masses, nothing more.

Again, which is more likly? That we simply don't know why some things happen, but that there is a logical explination based upon physical laws? Or that God makes it happen because he can?

Your quantum theory is correct as long as it hasn't been disproven. So why not God theory?

To rephrase: "Since we don't completely understand what's going on, instead of trying to prove it and make sense of it all, we should just take it for granted."

I'm not suggesting (neither does the church) to stop the research in the origin of the universe.. But its absoloutly not necessary to take away God from the picture.. after all once you do find the origin (if ever), the close you come to the reality: that it is the work of God.

As far as possible the universe is quite autonomous. But that does not mean God does not intervene, around the world paryers are answered.

huh? the bible is not a history book.

Why doesn't god ever get bored with the universe and periodically decide to change things. By which I don't mean creating a new planet, or something stupid like that, but rather changing the laws of physics. Why doesn't he do something stupid like that.

why would he? do u know the implication that the rules and laws of physics were to change day by day? or even centuary by centuary!?

refering to ur other quote.. how is that hardly an answer... pfft.

God theory doesn't sound absurd to those who believe in God.
Quantum theory doesn't sound absurd to those who believe in science.

You miss the point.

I became a sun-worshipper. Several reasons. First of all, I can see the sun, okay? Unlike some other gods I could mention, I can actually see the sun. I'm big on that. If I can see something, I don't know, it kind of helps the credibility along, you know? So everyday I can see the sun, as it gives me everything I need; heat, light, food, flowers in the park, reflections on the lake, an occasional skin cancer, but hey. At least there are no crucifixions, and we're not setting people on fire simply because they don't agree with us.

So I've been praying to Joe (Pesci) for about a year now. And I noticed something. I noticed that all the prayers I used to offer to God, and all the prayers I now offer to Joe Pesci, are being answered at about the same 50% rate. Half the time I get what I want, half the time I don't. Same as God, 50-50.

Have any of you spent any time in a church?

Have you ever experianced the presence of god?

Have you seen prayers answered?

Have you observed life changes in yourself and others through the intervention of god?

Until you have, you cannot argue religion, or more specificly christianity.

Unless of course you disagree with our views. Then we ban you and use your email to sign up for various spam inducing services.

George Carlin is a ****ing idiot.

Have any of you spent any time in a church? Have you ever experianced the presence of god? Have you seen prayers answered? Have you observed life changes in yourself and others through the intervention of god? Until you have, you cannot argue religion, or more specificly christianity. It would be like me argueing science with someone without ever setting foot in a science classroom or ever doing any experiments to see real life results. To me, a science textbook would mean nothing, I would not understand it. It would just be a book. Just as someone who is not a christian and does not have a personal relationship with god gets nothing from the bible.

George Carlin is a ****ing idiot.

Have any of you spent any time in a church? Have you ever experianced the presence of god? Have you seen prayers answered? Have you observed life changes in yourself and others through the intervention of god? Until you have, you cannot argue religion, or more specificly christianity. It would be like me argueing science with someone without ever setting foot in a science classroom or ever doing any experiments to see real life results. To me, a science textbook would mean nothing, I would not understand it. It would just be a book. Just as someone who is not a christian and does not have a personal relationship with god gets nothing from the bible.

No.

No.

No.

No.

Funny thing about that...a large number of Christians I know haven't read the Bible...

does that make me an idiot?

In my opinion, and my opinion only, unless you have invested the time into finding out if he exists in a real way, you cannot say he does not. Just as if there is a scientific theory and I argue that the laws of the theory do not exist, but I have not tested them, I would have no grounds to argue against their existence.

How can you argue about something you know nothing about? It would be like me argueing with you about say... some programming language you have been coding in for a long time that Ive never bothered to learn or experiance.

No, I don't know the implication of that. Do you?
But who cares about implications. What's to stop god from rearanging the universe every nanosecond. Religion has created a character that is all-powerful, all-knowing, so why can't this all-powerful, all-knowing character do anything?

If we are created in his image, don't you think we would think a little bit similar to him, and behave a little bit similar to him.

We humans like things to be lively, interesting. The same old universe for billions of years would get a bit boring, no? Why doesn't god mix things up, just for some excitement.

Well, cornflake says that the world must be older then what the bible says, which means the bible is wrong (in that regard). Then you say the bible is not a history book. So you agree that it's wrong? w00t w00t.

So, just to finish.. it's cool to say arguing on the Internet is like winning the Special Olympics...AFTER you yourself have argued. I get it.

So let's all vow never to speak in this thread again.