The Energon Pub

Gents;

it's three in the damn morning here. I'm going to bed. Will resume tomorrow.

Operation Ravage wrote:

Jar Axel wrote:

Operation Ravage wrote:Go back and read again.

These churches that rely nearly solely upon Old Testament teachings irritate me to no end.

Sodom and Gammorah? How about Jesus' Golden Rule instead?

*Snort* How about inquisition?

So now you're dredging up 15th century mistakes to justify your current condemnation of a religion? That was half a millennium ago.

And the legacy of Constantine's consolidation of Christanity under a single governing body.

So you write of the inquisition ehh? What about all the other "mistakes" Christanity has made since Constantine decided to use it as a way to controll the populace? Or do you get to ignore these because Christanity is "divinely inspired"?

You want justification then look no further than all the negative things that can be contributed to Christanity's rise to power. The Dark Ages, the Crusades, the Inquisition are just the tip of the iceberg. Now to be fair lets look at the good things Christanity has accomplished...... um I can't seem to find any the Renasaunce, the Industrial Revolution, exctra all happened during luls in Christanity.

Operation Ravage wrote:

Tammuz wrote:

Operation Ravage wrote:Have you actually read the New Testament? Because Jesus specifically threw out a lot of Old Testament teachings. Dietary laws, for one.

Matthew 15:11: it is not what goes in that defiles a man, but what comes out.

and mohammed did the same to the new testament about 6 centuries later....

your point?

No, he didn't. He restored much of the Old Testament teachings instead of evolving them.

I.E--why can't Muslims eat pork? Why must women remain covered? etc.

jesus took the holy scripture prior to his and changed it, mohammed did the same

what makes jesus's opinion more valid than mohammed's?


contrast the following quotes;

Hey, sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I'd never know 'cause I wouldn't eat the filthy ****. Pigs sleep and root in ****. That's a filthy animal. I ain't eat nothin' that ain't got enough sense enough to disregard its own faeces.

15:20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man

eating poo makes you ill. I'll take Jules over Jesus

Jar Axel wrote:

Operation Ravage wrote:

Jar Axel wrote:

Operation Ravage wrote:Go back and read again.

These churches that rely nearly solely upon Old Testament teachings irritate me to no end.

Sodom and Gammorah? How about Jesus' Golden Rule instead?

*Snort* How about inquisition?

So now you're dredging up 15th century mistakes to justify your current condemnation of a religion? That was half a millennium ago.

And the legacy of Constantine's consolidation of Christanity under a single governing body.

So you write of the inquisition ehh? What about all the other "mistakes" Christanity has made since Constantine decided to use it as a way to controll the populace? Or do you get to ignore these because Christanity is "divinely inspired"?

You want justification then look no further than all the negative things that can be contributed to Christanity's rise to power. The Dark Ages, the Crusades, the Inquisition are just the tip of the iceberg. Now to be fair lets look at the good things Christanity has accomplished...... um I can't seem to find any the Renasaunce, the Industrial Revolution, exctra all happened during luls in Christanity.

Oh yes. Let's blame Christianity for everything bad that happened to Europe, ignoring, of course, Islamic expansion in the Arabian peninsula, the Moors taking over Spain, the socio/economic effects of the Black Plague, and the end of a mini-ice age.

And I fail to see the Industrial Revolution and the Renaissance as "lulls" in Christianity. Religious doctrine was still live and kicking then.

Operation Ravage wrote:You have yet to prove that Atheism is a superior belief system. You have offered definitions, but no proof.

I'm not going to touch the "but it's a faith-based system, and you can't prove it!" cop-out.

Prove to me that atheism is superior using historical precedent and logic instead of general hand-waves and buzzwords.

What are the criteria for superiority?

Lets take the original question: What if Christianity is wrong? Then I would have lost nothing being no different from anyone else. I would have no regrets becoming a baptized disciple of Christ because my end would be no different from someone who totally disbelieves in God. My life would be lived free of guilt from all the bad decisions I made (because I can actually apologize and strive to not make them again), all the bad things I've done (because I don't put myself in those situations), and I would have at least lived knowing (or believing) in a higher power than myself and that God has the best things in mind (although I'm hardheaded).

Ok, well, what about the other question: What if Christianity is right? Then I have gained everything. I started out not existing, was born into this world so now I am alive, I exist. My body will die and decay back to the dirt of the earth but my soul will be alive forever w/ God in his New Heaven and Earth (that sounds so Jehovah Witness).

But then, there is also the question of who is right and who is wrong? Somebody HAS to be right. Bottom line. Somebody has to be right. In a world where so many lines of philosophy pervade our thinking, confusing us and tossing us around like the waves of the ocean, how can anyone be sure?
The great thing about God is he doesn't leave the answer to the generic/cliche response of 'Faith'. He doesn't leave faith out of the picture either- it's actually the starting point. So, if you can't accept faith in God then you won't see the reality of God in what is around you.

Now as for some of the responses I've been reading:
I'm afraid that agreeing to disagree but lets not argue doesn't cut it. God used wholesale slaughter to establish a nation for his people- not force his 'religion' on those who don't want it. But he does command his followers to instruct others.
To accept that in reality nothing is out there- that doesn't cut it either. There's too much in existence to believe in nothing.
What is right for me may not be right for you- I'm sorry but books like the Bible and Quran are suppose to apply to everyone whether they believe in that particular book or not. And the Quran is not from God so I'll just go ahead and toss that out. There are 2 absolutes in existence: 1)There is a heaven for the eternal existence of the soul & 2)There is a hell for the destruction of the soul. You will either exist forever, or will be completely wiped out of existence as if you were never born. God leaves the choice up to the individual.

If someone has to be right it is not at all a given that this someone is alive and well today. Maybe those who were right are long gone. Maybe they are yet to come.

Assuming, of course, that someone does have to be right.

Blackstreak wrote:And the Quran is not from God so I'll just go ahead and toss that out.

Allah has the same amount of supporting evidence as Yaweh/Jehova/YHWH does. According to Islam, Christianity and Judaism are centered on Allah as well.

Blackstreak wrote:There are 2 absolutes in existence: 1)There is a heaven for the eternal existence of the soul & 2)There is a hell for the destruction of the soul. You will either exist forever, or will be completely wiped out of existence as if you were never born. God leaves the choice up to the individual.

I would like you to offer proof of the existance of 1) Heaven and 2) Hell.

Dark Zarak wrote:

Shadowman wrote:Christianity. The world's biggest Religion. And only One God. But, certainly, there must've been something before Christianity?

Yes, there was. Hindu, Islam, Judaism (Which are still around), Norse, Greek, and it's remake Roman, Shinto, Buddhism, Confucianism, Rastafari, and MANY more exist and/or still exist.

Dude.

Islam came 600 years after Christ, and Rastafarianism only started to show up in the 30's. Haile Selassie wasn't even born until 1892.


And Christianity is wrong. Its tenants are right, but its claims are wrong.

Who the hell are you to say if something is right or wrong? Suck my dick, you closeminded asshole.

It would be more preferable to ask why he made that statement rather than breaking the code of conduct by insulting him.



Besides, implied insults are better.

":grin:", etc.

Salazaar wrote:Who the hell are you to say if something is right or wrong? Suck my dick, you closeminded asshole.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Real christians don't respond like this because Jesus would never respond like this. No wonder people prefer to not have a faith in God.

Kjell wrote:If someone has to be right it is not at all a given that this someone is alive and well today. Maybe those who were right are long gone. Maybe they are yet to come.

Assuming, of course, that someone does have to be right.

Whoever said I was referring to a human being right? The very reason I go back to what God says is because humans most often get it all wrong.

Blackstreak wrote:And the Quran is not from God so I'll just go ahead and toss that out.

Allah has the same amount of supporting evidence as Yaweh/Jehova/YHWH does. According to Islam, Christianity and Judaism are centered on Allah as well[/quote]

Supporting evidence? I should be so bold as to ask for proof of this as atheists ask for proof on God's existence. Asking for evidence is a two-way street. Atheists ask God for proof of his existence, I ask for proof on the legitimate existence of these other gods. Islamics only think Christianity and Judaism is centered of Allah.

Kjell wrote:I would like you to offer proof of the existance of 1) Heaven and 2) Hell.

No one can prove the existence of Heaven or Hell through physical/scientific methods. That's what's so great about how God chose to do things. Since faith is reduced to being a cop-out answer you wouldn't believe me if I told you faith is the answer. But as I said before faith is where you start.
Since this thread is about what if christianity is wrong then my response is still the same. If it is wrong I've lost nothing more than anyone else. If it is right I've gained more than anyone else. It is not about proof for anything.

Blackstreak wrote:

Salazaar wrote:Who the hell are you to say if something is right or wrong? Suck my dick, you closeminded asshole.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Real christians don't respond like this because Jesus would never respond like this. No wonder people prefer to not have a faith in God.

There you go assuming again..

I'm not a "real Christian." I am a Theistic evolutionist agnostic Catholic. Get it right.

And you know what? We're only human. Nobody was perfect, not even Jesus. He killed one of his little buddies when he was a kid, you know.

Oh, and I just read through the entire thread. You all need a very thorough deucing.

Salazaar wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:

Shadowman wrote:Christianity. The world's biggest Religion. And only One God. But, certainly, there must've been something before Christianity?

Yes, there was. Hindu, Islam, Judaism (Which are still around), Norse, Greek, and it's remake Roman, Shinto, Buddhism, Confucianism, Rastafari, and MANY more exist and/or still exist.

Dude.

Islam came 600 years after Christ, and Rastafarianism only started to show up in the 30's. Haile Selassie wasn't even born until 1892.


And Christianity is wrong. Its tenants are right, but its claims are wrong.

Who the hell are you to say if something is right or wrong? Suck my dick, you closeminded asshole.

Flaming is not tolerated here. This is an official warning Salazaar. If you wish to continue, you'll find yourself on vacation

Blackstreak wrote:Supporting evidence? I should be so bold as to ask for proof of this as atheists ask for proof on God's existence. Asking for evidence is a two-way street. Atheists ask God for proof of his existence, I ask for proof on the legitimate existence of these other gods. Islamics only think Christianity and Judaism is centered of Allah.

As I said, there is as much evidence that supports the existence of Allah as there is evidence that supports the existence of the Christian God. That this amount of evidence is "none" does not stop it from being an amount.

Blackstreak wrote:No one can prove the existence of Heaven or Hell through physical/scientific methods. That's what's so great about how God chose to do things. Since faith is reduced to being a cop-out answer you wouldn't believe me if I told you faith is the answer. But as I said before faith is where you start.

So there isn't actually any evidence for these so-called fundamentals of existence? Basically, I have to think that they exist in spite of a lack of real reasons and embrace irrationality?

Blackstreak wrote:Since this thread is about what if christianity is wrong then my response is still the same. If it is wrong I've lost nothing more than anyone else. If it is right I've gained more than anyone else. It is not about proof for anything.

If this is your justification for believing in Christianity then the odds are againt you. There is a greater chance that any of the other religions equally lacking in factual support (pretty much every single one) is correct than that Christianity is correct. Of course, that percentage is still on the small side, but still.

What everyone needs to do here...is shut up,and be at peace.
christians can be who,or do what they want to do,whatever,let them wait for there rapture,let them worship a man.

What society needs to do,instead of looking for sometype
of sungod in the sky that will ban you to hell if you dont bow down,is look for god within themselves!

I used to be a christian,but you must understand that the bible is a book of poetry written by primitive man.

now if you want to live your life on that,thats good for you.
But me im gonna look for the god within myself.

Peace

Operation Ravage wrote:

Jar Axel wrote:

Operation Ravage wrote:

Jar Axel wrote:

Operation Ravage wrote:Go back and read again.

These churches that rely nearly solely upon Old Testament teachings irritate me to no end.

Sodom and Gammorah? How about Jesus' Golden Rule instead?

*Snort* How about inquisition?

So now you're dredging up 15th century mistakes to justify your current condemnation of a religion? That was half a millennium ago.

And the legacy of Constantine's consolidation of Christanity under a single governing body.

So you write of the inquisition ehh? What about all the other "mistakes" Christanity has made since Constantine decided to use it as a way to controll the populace? Or do you get to ignore these because Christanity is "divinely inspired"?

You want justification then look no further than all the negative things that can be contributed to Christanity's rise to power. The Dark Ages, the Crusades, the Inquisition are just the tip of the iceberg. Now to be fair lets look at the good things Christanity has accomplished...... um I can't seem to find any the Renasaunce, the Industrial Revolution, exctra all happened during luls in Christanity.

Oh yes. Let's blame Christianity for everything bad that happened to Europe, ignoring, of course, Islamic expansion in the Arabian peninsula, the Moors taking over Spain, the socio/economic effects of the Black Plague, and the end of a mini-ice age.

And I fail to see the Industrial Revolution and the Renaissance as "lulls" in Christianity. Religious doctrine was still live and kicking then.

One must give credit where credit is due OR. It is historical fact that the Dark Ages were a direct result of the virtual ban on learning perpetrated by the early Roman Catholic Church by clamping down and banning a huge amount of the GreekoRoman and Persion practices; this includes a medicinal capability that rivaled our own. So yea the effects of the Black Plague could in all honesty be blamed on Christanity.

Islamic expansion yea this was happening; ignoring the fact that Islam probably would not have existed had Christanity not been pushed to such a prominent possition; the whole purpose behind the Crusades was to give the Christian nations in Europe a common enemy so they would stop fighting themselves.

As for the Renaisaunce and the Industrial revalution; Yea they were lulls in Christanity. These were the times when Christanity was loosing some of it's influence as evidenced by the decadence of the periods when compared to other eras such as the Great Revival.

If by mini-ice age you are refering to the "Little Ice Age" then you are wrong. The Little Ice Age occured well after the inception of the Dark Ages and actualy helped to bring about the tranference between the Dark Age and the Greater Medieval Era.

For someone who tries so hard to use History to back up his possition you sure threw your credability out the window with that one.

Kjell wrote:
If this is your justification for believing in Christianity then the odds are againt you. There is a greater chance that any of the other religions equally lacking in factual support (pretty much every single one) is correct than that Christianity is correct. Of course, that percentage is still on the small side, but still.

Whether odds are stacked against me or not we are all going to die. The proof you ask for will be made obvious there. Again, regardless of the odds, if christianity is wrong I've lost nothing. I don't regret or apologize for the way I live my life, or for the decisions I make. I've made a decision long ago that I don't have to provide proof to anyone who doesn't want God to exist. And in a way I can sympathize with that. Who wants to stand before an omnipotent God to be held accountable for the way they live their life? Who wants to pay the price for all the wrong they've done (and no one is exempt from this)? I'm quite sure there are few people who have ever existed, and exist now, and ever will who wants that.

As for you Salazar it doesn't matter what technical title you call your beliefs, you announced yourself as a follower of Christ and your words are an embarrassment and I am embarrassed for you.

If one will only encounter evidence for the existence of Heaven and Hell when one dies, why are you so sure that these places exist in the first place? To the best of my knowledge you aren't dead. Or a necromancer.

Blackstreak wrote:I've made a decision long ago that I don't have to provide proof to anyone who doesn't want God to exist. And in a way I can sympathize with that. Who wants to stand before an omnipotent God to be held accountable for the way they live their life? Who wants to pay the price for all the wrong they've done (and no one is exempt from this)? I'm quite sure there are few people who have ever existed, and exist now, and ever will who wants that.

Wanting doesn't really factor into it for me, personally. All I would like to know is what reasons people use to justify their ideas. It's quite a puzzle to me when they don't have a reason at all or when they claim things that are contrary to rational thought. Or, indeed, contrary to thought in general! That actually happens, sadly.

Not that I am entirely convinced that an all-capable god who sentences people he could have saved without effort to infinite punishment (in severity as well as duration) for finite crime would be all that stellar, mind you.

Hm, if Christianity is wrong.

No biggie, the Christians wouldn't accept the fact that they're wrong(assuming that one had proof that their religion is wrong or something), and life would go on as per-usual.

Although we'd still get to laugh at The Creationist Museum. I respect people and their beliefs, but that is just ridiculous.

Honestly, if Jesus had a dinosaur for a horse, it wouldn't be a Triceratops, it'd be a T-rex, with spinners.

Kjell wrote:If one will only encounter evidence for the existence of Heaven and Hell when one dies, why are you so sure that these places exist in the first place? To the best of my knowledge you aren't dead. Or a necromancer.

Blackstreak wrote:I've made a decision long ago that I don't have to provide proof to anyone who doesn't want God to exist. And in a way I can sympathize with that. Who wants to stand before an omnipotent God to be held accountable for the way they live their life? Who wants to pay the price for all the wrong they've done (and no one is exempt from this)? I'm quite sure there are few people who have ever existed, and exist now, and ever will who wants that.

Wanting doesn't really factor into it for me, personally. All I would like to know is what reasons people use to justify their ideas. It's quite a puzzle to me when they don't have a reason at all or when they claim things that are contrary to rational thought. Or, indeed, contrary to thought in general! That actually happens, sadly.

Not that I am entirely convinced that an all-capable god who sentences people he could have saved without effort to infinite punishment (in severity as well as duration) for finite crime would be all that stellar, mind you.

Very well put kjell.
It does not matter what you say to a christian,they will always believe what they want to believe,
and if evidenca is found to prove them otherwise
ill tell you exactly what they will respond with...satan did it.

its their favorite fraise.
well thats ok, im cool with christians as long as they dont start telling me im being influence by satan,if that happens
,ill have to set them straight.

Operation Ravage wrote:I make no apologies for erasing holidays.

I hate to tell you this but Christianity stole Christmas from
the Pagan Romans due to Constantine wanting to convert Pagan Romans to Christianity.

Cyberstrike wrote:I hate to tell you this but Christianity stole Christmas from
the Pagan Romans due to Constantine wanting to convert Pagan Romans to Christianity.

Just like they stole Easter. Neither holiday has anything to do with the birth or death of Christ; @least not originally. But I'm sill gonna enjoy giving and receiving gifts on Christmas.

Cyberstrike wrote:

Operation Ravage wrote:I make no apologies for erasing holidays.

I hate to tell you this but Christianity stole Christmas from
the Pagan Romans due to Constantine wanting to convert Pagan Romans to Christianity.

And Easter is actually the Germanic holiday to worship Ostara.

But anyway, it seems Blackout and others are going for Pascal's Wager, with usually attribute a 50/50 shot that Christianity's deity exists, and that it's better to believe in that given deity than risk that hell. But I must say, there is a risk, for if you are wrong, wouldn't Odin be really pissed once you hit the afterlife?

Minor joke, but it goes to show that there are near infinitessimal possibilities, infinite attributed heavens and hells, including deities who might reward the use of rational thought over blind belief. With the factoring in of time, money, ect. many churches want from their followers for threat of hellfire, of with each damn each of us here at least a thousand times over, to remain on the fence and not to give in to unsubstantiated threats is well worth it. To live as is to be seen.

That is essentially weak atheism, or 'atheistic agnosticism' (as uposed to 'theistic agnosticism')-- the lack of any belief in a deity. Not 'belief in the lack of a god' but lack of belief in either way. The English language really needs revision in such demographic labels, because atheism goes all the way from strictly secular Carl Marks to spiritually enclined Buddhism. It's more a tag line than anything... anyway...

Making foregone conclusions also insults us who search for and respect what we call 'truth' at all costs. I don't speack for everyone, but I'd rather be miserable and face reality as it is than wallow in an ignorant bliss. What is truth is not necessarily what we want or think it to be (and the fact that something is not what we want can very well gives credence to it's reality).

On an aside, for the falsity of 'proof by numbers,' I again refer to the great philosopher Nietzsche:

68

Morality and success.— It is not only the witnesses of a deed who often measure its moral or immoral nature by its success. No, the author of a deed does so, too. For motives and intentions are seldom sufficiently clear and simple, and sometimes even memory seems to be dimmed by the success of a deed, so that one attributes false motives to his deed, or treats inessential motives as essential. Often it is success that gives to a deed the full, honest lustre of a good conscience; failure lays the shadow of an uneasy conscience upon the most estimable action. This leads to the politician's well-known practice of thinking: "Just grant me success; with it I will bring all honest souls to my side—and make myself honest in my own sight."

In a similar way, success can take the place of more substantial arguments. Even now, many educated people think that the victory of Christianity over Greek philosophy is a proof of the greater truth of the former—although in this case it is only that something more crude and violent has triumphed over something more spiritual and delicate. We can determine which of them has the greater truth by noting that the awakening sciences have carried on point for point with the philosophy of Epicurus, but have rejected Christianity point for point.

Shadowman wrote:Christianity. The world's biggest Religion. And only One God. But, certainly, there must've been something before Christianity?

Yes, there was. Hindu, Islam, Judaism (Which are still around), Norse, Greek, and it's remake Roman, Shinto, Buddhism, Confucianism, Rastafari, and MANY more exist and/or still exist.

What I'm saying is, what if Christianity is Wrong? What if the Norse was right, or the Hindu, or even the Greeks? What if Jesus was just a Man? What there were many Gods, instead of One? What would you do if suddenly, Odin, or Horus, or Vishnu pops out of the sky, and tell you what REALLY exists?

Keep in mind, I'm not saying anyone is wrong, I'm saying WHAT IF you're wrong?

I think i would freak-out and convert. I mean, seeing a god is the ultimate proof. There is no better way to see the thruth.

Operation Ravage wrote:Yeah, keep telling yourself that. A few thousand as opposed to 1.3 billion Christians and 1 billion Muslims.

Yeah, those Nords. Quite the religious movement, there.

I'm new to the arguement, but I don't see what numbers of adherents has to do with the validity of a religion. By that token, wouldn't Christianity be an invalid system since it was originated by one man and his 12 followers, and a few other people that started to follow them around? If that's not true becuase now there are 1.3 billion Christians or however many, at a time there were millions of Norse people that followed thier belifs.
Plus, the Pagan groups aren't movements so to say, are they? Did the Romans quell the Pagan 'movements' in larger Europe? I'm not blaming Christianity for all Europes' historical problems, I'm just looking for clarity.
I'm by no means a Christian, and realistically I don't know where I stand. I side with the Nordic system really, becuase I find in it things that I can respect and that I feel are good things to live by. Not that the Golden Rule isn't a good thing to live by, it is. But the Golden Rule isn't an exclusively Judeo-Christian idea.
Plus, I think Hells are subjective. If the Christian Hell is a state of being furthest away from God, the Christian God, then what does that matter to a Buddist? That may sound kind of lowbrow, but I'm not trying to be. If for example a Viking man died and was sent to the Christian Hell. IF the man doesn't accept that God as his God, then how is hepunished by distance from an entity he doesn't acknowledge?