Does any religion matter at all today?

by Stox 16 Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:35 am

First topic message reminder :

I will be interested to read peoples thoughts on this question. Does any Religion matter at all today?

I cannot see that any religious church's or anything religious even matters today at all. The only true religion I have ever come across is, Money, Political Power, Land, and greed. all the things we are told they are against, this goes for all religions too in my view.

in fact all the faiths I have come across use all of the tools of money, political power, Land and greed to re-force there religious views on there followers. i have never come across any religion that does not use at least one of this tools to enforce there religious views on the people they are said to be looking after.

I have read over the years all the religious books i can find, and have yet too be moved by any of them. some have very good stories that have something in them for every reader. but their it ends for me. maybe someone can explain why any of this is so important today? as i cannot find anything within the books that states this is very important today or in the past. I myself have come to believe that religion has more to do with the thought of death or dying and the human need to believe that life goes on after death.

However, when we was all born we did not feel pain or come into being with some religious thought in our heads or a book in our hands did we? in fact we had know idea about religion at all? so only find out what religion we are when someone tells us that this is our religion? yet you would think we would all know this already if there was a god? So we only find out what our religion is after birth? or do you believe you know what you religion was before birth? (i did not) if someone told me i was a follower of Islam, I would of said OK at five years old. in fact they could of given me any religion and i would of said fine.

So religion seems to me, religion only matters a get deal more the older you get? so I am told, well if so its failing on me badly. so anyway, it matter more as you get closer to death then? so is this more to do with our human need for life to go on somehow? as we find it hard to believe that life comes to an end and we go into darkness of no mans land? just like before we was born?

I was told at about 6 years old by my mother that this was my faith. but in total truth my mother could of said any faith was my religion and i would of gone along with what she said. To me that was it, Its that simple then. i did not then think about anything religious till i was in the Army in standing in a street in the middle of green line in a war zone in the Lebanon. with both Christains killing, Muslims Killing, Catholic Maronite's Killing, Druze faith Killing, Jewish killing. at first wondering why they was all doing this? not for religion or faith but power and using religion to justify there actions. I remember thinking. just suppose these people had been given a different religion by there mothers. they would instead of killing as a Maronite gunman they would of been killing Maronite's as a Druze gunman?

So your religion is picked for you in my view and some even change it too. yet you would think if you know your god at your death. you should know who you god is before birth? but we do not. So does any of this really matter any more?

well i well be interrested to read your thought on this. its not about any one religion but all of them.

by polyglide Sat Jun 02, 2012 12:00 pm

The quesion was, do you think the present world is a desireable place to live?

by Guest Sat Jun 02, 2012 3:03 pm

by polyglide Thu Jun 07, 2012 12:36 pm

The whole trouble with that which was before the coming of Jesus is the same as asking the British, the Americans, the Russians, the Japanese along with the French and Italians to give an account of the second world war.

You would not in many cases think they were talking about the same event
.

by oftenwrong Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:24 pm

Get any four witnesses to tell you about a traffic accident, and there will be discrepancies in their accounts.

As in many other situations, people take what they want and disregard everything else.

by trevorw2539 Thu Jun 07, 2012 4:09 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Get any four witnesses to tell you about a traffic accident, and there will be discrepancies in their accounts.

As in many other situations, people take what they want and disregard everything else.

The traffic accident happened only once and in one way. As it did. The witnesses interpreted it in different ways.

The OT was written in one way. People interpret it's contents in their own way.

Read it through from the start until the return of Judah from exile in Babylon and it is more or less a continuous history of the Hebrews. You may, or may not, accept Adam and Eve in Eden, but the OT flows from them, through Abraham (known as the Father of Israel, for a different reason), through Jacob and his 12 sons, some of whom gave their names to the tribes of Israel. On then through Moses to the Promised land and the kings. Through David and Solomon to the exile of Israel by Assyria and Judah by Babylon. Finally to the return of Judah to the Promised land.

A potted HISTORY, whether completely true or partly mythical it certainly is well written. I've not included the hymns, prophecies, proverbs and pornography (well according to some Victorians anyway - Song of Solomon). Smile

by blueturando Thu Jun 07, 2012 4:11 pm

You would not in many cases think they were talking about the same event

You mean like the many condradictions in the Bible?

by Guest Thu Jun 07, 2012 5:06 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:
The traffic accident happened only once and in one way. As it did. The witnesses interpreted it in different ways.

The OT was written in one way. People interpret it's contents in their own way.

Excellent point. A professor highly esteemed by me repeatedly emphasizes the importance of (1) expositing test prior to interpreting text, and (2) maintaining differentiation between exposition and interpretation subsequent to interpreting text.

I was trained to observe as a potential witness to violations of my state’s family code. In order for a witness to achieve and maintain credibility, it’s essential to refrain from interpreting evidence unless asked to do so by an examining attorney or judge. As Sergeant Joe Friday used to say, “Just the facts, sir, just the facts.”

trevorw2539 wrote:
… from the start until the return of Judah from exile in Babylon… it is more or less a continuous history of the Hebrews.

The German archaeologist who found the “mythical” Hittites did so by assuming that the history was as it is written.

by polyglide Fri Jun 08, 2012 11:31 am

Yet again blueturando, nothing to offer.

by blueturando Fri Jun 08, 2012 1:12 pm

What's the point????

I and many others have posed many valid questions to you, but you usually ignore them and switch off that part of your brain that contains common sense and reasoned thought

by polyglide Sat Jun 09, 2012 11:21 am

AT least you admit I have common sense which I feel you sadly lack.

Just what quesions have I side lined?.

by Blamhappy Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:46 pm

It's really hard to discuss religion without it getting heated, isn't it? When I was quite religious, I'd get upset by people pushing atheism. Now that I'm... agnostic I suppose, I get upset by people pushing religion!

I'm pretty sure everyone here has common sense.

by oftenwrong Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:18 pm

errr... Ask as many people as you like, but you won't find one to admit that they might be lacking in "common sense", or a sense of humour either.

by **Ivan** Sat Jun 09, 2012 8:04 pm

Haha. According to blueturando and the Tory Party textbook, hard-line lefties like me are all grim, humourless, bearded, vodka-swilling and swivel-eyed. Then I go on Twitter and read comments like these:-

From @mand_brin: special #ff - @ivanwhite48 without doubt some of my favourite tweets, current, sharp, funny, much appreciated.

From @mistidebonno: oh and please #ff @ivanwhite48 very interesting and knowledgeable guy, oh and witty!!! xx

Embarassed

by Adele Carlyon Sat Jun 09, 2012 8:10 pm

How dare they lie about you like that...you boring left wing, unhumourous, miserable, bearded vodka guzzling bugger you! Razz

Cheek of some folk! Wink

by **Ivan** Sat Jun 09, 2012 8:35 pm

LMAO. Thanks, Adele!! Laughing

by oftenwrong Sat Jun 09, 2012 10:47 pm

Would David Cameron understand the preceding message?

Let me ask one ....?

by blueturando Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:57 am

Haha. According to blueturando and the Tory Party textbook, hard-line lefties like me are all grim, humourless, bearded, vodka-swilling and swivel-eyed. Then I go on Twitter and read comments like these:-

Ahh come on Ivan, when have I ever said that? Soooo not true Smile

But you have discribed me minus the beard Very Happy

by polyglide Mon Jun 11, 2012 2:53 pm

One of the most interesting things [if interesting is the correct term] is how there can be so many different opinions based on all the same evidence available.

One would have thought we could all have sat down with a glass of lemonade and come to some kind of reasonable conclusion.

It is a fact of life that we all base many of our opinions on the manner we were brought up and the experiences we encounter but all of which do not actually change any of the evidence available.

It is also sad that, me included, appear not to be able to debate without sarcastic comments, which I feel tend to throw a little mist on any matter in quesion.

by oftenwrong Mon Jun 11, 2012 5:09 pm

Into each life a little rain must fall.

by polyglide Wed Jun 13, 2012 11:18 am

Some soak it up others let it go over their heads

regards

by **Ivan** Wed Sep 19, 2012 2:27 pm

Why are do people argue about religion when we’re all atheists?
Shocked

If you call yourself a Christian, then you don’t believe in Zeus or any of the other Greek and Roman gods and goddesses, and you don’t believe in Odin or the Celtic and Aztec gods who required human sacrifice.

Ralph Waldo Emerson once said that “the religion of one age is the literary entertainment of the next”. Thomas Jefferson (US President from 1801-1808) wrote: “The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”

Wikipedia lists 309 Hindu deities. The ancient Hittites claimed to have 1,000 deities. Christians don’t believe in any of them. As Sam Harris says in his ‘Letter To A Christian Nation’ (page 7): “You know exactly what it’s like to be an atheist with respect to the beliefs of Muslims…..Understand that the way you view Islam is precisely the way devout Muslims view Christianity. And it is the way I view all religions.”

There could well be at least 3,000 gods that human beings have believed in throughout history and prehistory. Atheists believe in none of them, let’s call that N. Therefore the number of gods which Christians don’t believe in is just N – 1. Is that really such a vast difference?

And maybe, as Oscar Wilde said, “truth, in matters of religion, is simply the opinion that has survived”.

by Guest Thu Sep 20, 2012 1:11 am

Ivan wrote:
Why are do people argue about religion when we’re all atheists?

If you call yourself a Christian, then you don’t believe in Zeus or any of the other Greek and Roman gods and goddesses, and you don’t believe in Odin or the Celtic and Aztec gods who required human sacrifice.

Your terminology is a bit off (underlined portion), as there are many documented instances of folks that call themselves Christian that neither know the truth nor willingly follow Jesus’ teachings insofar as they can today.

Precise communication requires precise, mutually agreed upon definitions of terms used therein. “Christian” is derived from “Christ”, the Anglicized version of “Christos” (transliterated), the Greek translation of “Moshiach” (transliterated), “anointed” or “anointed one.” “Christ” is not Jesus’ last name, which in the naming protocol of his culture would be (Anglicized) “bar Joseph” or “ben Joseph.” “Christ” is Jesus’ title; thus, Jesus entire name and title, fully translated/transliterated/Anglicized, is “Jesus son of Joseph the Anointed One.”

Luke the physician, writing to Theophilus in the Acts of the Apostles, states that Jesus’ disciples were first called Christians at Antioch. Given the description of these disciples’ behavior, they were called Christians (probably in Greek) because they faithfully emulated the Christ, the Christos, the Moshiach, the Anointed One. Jesus spoke of this, in a way, when he taught the parable of the sheep and the goats, paraphrased a bit here: “‘Lord, when did we do all of these good things unto you?’ The Lord said, ‘When you did all of these good things unto these, the least of my children.’”

Jesus also spoke of many who call themselves followers of Jesus when he taught this harsh lesson, a bit paraphrased: “Not everyone who says ‘Lord, Lord, haven’t we prophesied in your name?’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The Lord will say, ‘Get away from me, I never knew you. Cast them into outer darkness, where there is much weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Going slightly left field, I suspect that Uncle Adolf, the pope who consorted with him, and the various murderers/inquisitors who exterminated Jews hundreds of years before the dishonorable uncle rose to power, all are engaged in much weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Engaging now in precise communication via precise use of “Christian”, no Christian could simultaneously follow Jesus’ teachings and believe in anything that sacrifices ha adama, created by our Creator in his image. Moreover, as can be discerned in these two statements from Torah affirmed by Jesus as true (“Think not that I come to destroy Torah”), “B’r’shythe bara Elohim et hashamayim ve’et ha’arets” and “Sch’ma Y’srael, Adonai Eluheinu, Adonai echod”, one cannot be a Christian (or a Jew, or a Muslim, or a Baha’i) without knowing that YHVH Elohim is one, the author, creator, owner, and sovereign of all that is, was, and ever will be. Such knowledge precludes belief in such worthless, powerless trinkets as Odin and the Norse pantheon, Zeus and the Greek pantheon, or the Aztec pantheon.

by **Ivan** Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:06 am

Rock. My terminology may be "a bit off", but so is your response to my posting. The point I was trying to make - which you seem to have ignored - is that we're all atheists when it comes to about 2,999 religions and belief patterns past and present.

by Guest Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:55 am

Ivan wrote:
Rock. My terminology may be "a bit off", but so is your response to my posting. The point I was trying to make - which you seem to have ignored - is that we're all atheists when it comes to about 2,999 religions and belief patterns past and present.

My response is right on target, at the center of the bull’s eye. The tem “Christian” is used far too imprecisely, and thus far too loosely, in modern Western Society. Anytime that a preponderance persons using the term refer to inquisitors and Nazis, Jew exterminators, as “Christians”, something is more than just “a bit off.” I used that mild term in reference to your use of “Christian” because I know your heart is righteous and your intent is honest.

I understand and have responded to your point by going a step beyond, pointing out that “Christian” means more than believing in a deity, a “theos” or whatever the Greek term may be. To be Christian is to follow Jesus’ teachings to the best of one’s ability today. One teaching concerns Torah, about which Jesus says he comes not to destroy but to fulfill. Accordingly, one cannot be a Christian, precise meaning, without knowing that there is but one eternal, causative God, knowledge shared with Jews, Muslims, and Baha’is, and thus one cannot even contemplate worshipping two thousand nine hundred ninety-nine worthless, powerless trinkets that some folks choose to call “gods.” Knowledge of one God precludes such thoughts or emotions.

The term “atheist” has also suffered from imprecise use. If used precisely, “atheist”, or “a-theist” is a near synonym for “agnostic”, or “a-gnostic.” The second term, which is used precisely insofar as its root meaning modified by its prefix is concerned, means “without knowledge”, connotatively, “without knowledge of God/gods”, the “God/gods” being so non-specific as to encompass everything from the myriad of Hindu gods to the Creator of the universe, the one eternal, causative, immeasurable, incomprehensible power by which everything that is, was, and ever will be has come into existence. If “atheist” were used as precisely, the term would identify one who is “without God/gods”, with “God/gods” sufficiently non-specific as to encompass all that I’ve mentioned above.

If the two terms were used together with understanding of their precise meanings, one could truly say that one is atheist because one is agnostic. Reversing the terms, one could say in truth that, because one is without knowledge of God/gods (agnostic), one is without God/gods (atheist).

Such precise use of the word “atheist” precludes its use to identify Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Baha’is, all of whom know one God, and all of whom are therefore not “a-God”, without God, lacking knowledge of God. Knowing God is an effective inoculation which immunizes the inoculated one from ever falling into the trap of denying God. Remember that my use of the English word “God” is in reference to YHVH Elohim, also called “Adonai Eluheinu” in Torah (Leviticus 6:4).

by Tosh Fri Sep 21, 2012 10:49 am

[quote]

The term Christian” is used far too imprecisely, and thus far too loosely, in modern Western Society.quote]

The imprecise nature of Christianity is of its own doing, there are over 38,000 denominations with contrasting intepretations, all claiming they represent the teachings of Jesus, according to you 37,999 of them are wrong, I sense a familiar pattern developing here.

To be Christian is to follow Jesus’ teachings to the best of one’s ability today.[/

To be Christian is using Christian as an adjective: " relating to or professing Christianity or its teachings: ", the Christian identity is a noun, to be a Christian: " a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Christianity:"

Therefore a pedophile priest is a Christian but not Christian. Christianity preaches we all participate in unChristian actions or thoughts, hence the need for forgiveness. If the definition of a Christian was based purely on acting Christian then according to Christianity there would be no Christians. There is only one unforgiveable sin, to deny the holy spirit, therefore anyone who does not deny the holy spirit is a Christian, regardless of their actions, that is why Hitler and the inmates on Texas death row are all Christians.

Knowledge of one God precludes such thoughts or emotions.

You have no knowledge one God or many gods exist, you are an agnostic monotheist as I am an agnostic atheist, the existence or not of God or gods is unknowable ( without knowledge).
Deities have no identifiable properties, they are metaphysical and we can only test, observe and measure the physical.

A monotheist believes without knowledge no other gods exist, this makes them an agnostic atheist to all other gods.

I am not sure if one can say " disbelief " and " without knowledge " are synonyms, but maybe they are in Texas, they execute retards.

by oftenwrong Fri Sep 21, 2012 11:18 am

Most people have not "chosen" their religion, it came in a basket of goodies inherently provided by their birthplace which includes language, physical appearance, customs and access to self-improvement.

Generalising, it's possible to describe Europeans and Americans as mostly Christian, with Muslims, Hindu, Buddhists etc. from Asia but allowing for Confucians and Shinto in the Far East. Africa maintains tribal custom alongside Missionary-imported Christianity.

To describe onself as either agnostic or atheist requires a conscious decision to deviate from routine acceptance of the majority view. As such it's frequently just another manifestation of arrogance.

by Tosh Fri Sep 21, 2012 11:28 am

To describe onself as either agnostic or atheist requires a conscious decision to deviate from routine acceptance of the majority view. As such it's frequently just another manifestation of arrogance..

mmm, this is not your brightest masterpiece.....sage.

How is " I do not know " ( agnostic) arrogant ?

The majority routinely accepted female first born infanticide was acceptable practice, is it arrogant to consciously decide it is wrong ?

I never knew you were against rational thought, how does that work in the old sage business lolol.

In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."

Is it not arrogant to claim something exists without knowledge ?

by Tosh Fri Sep 21, 2012 11:34 am

Have a cup of coffee and start again, that last post almost proves you are polyglide. Very Happy

by Tosh Fri Sep 21, 2012 11:45 am

Most people have not "chosen" their religion, it came in a basket of goodies inherently provided by their birthplace which includes language, physical appearance, customs and access to self-improvement.

Can you explain to me what physical appearance has to do with choosing ones religion ? I come from a white Christian culture and chose to be an atheist, I didn't choose to be white.

Please....tick...tock....tick...tock.

No wonder you stick to cryptic conundrums.

by polyglide Fri Sep 21, 2012 11:47 am

There would have not been very much advancement made in many areas if you had to be certain of something before believing it was possible.

The thread is, regarding the possibility that religion may be irrelevant in the present day.

Wether it be relevant or not, if all the religions of the world suddenly vanished the world would be in a far more precarious state than it finds itself in at the present time and the state it finds its self in is partly due to the different religions.

This may seem a contradiction in terms but it is not.

What would replace religion?.

by Tosh Fri Sep 21, 2012 12:11 pm

Wether it be relevant or not, if all the religions of the world suddenly vanished the world would be in a far more precarious state than it finds itself in at the present time and the state it finds its self in is partly due to the different religions.

I am confused, are you arguing all religions are essential or just yours ?

Do you not believe religion divides humans and causes conflict, or is everything paradise on your planet ?

This may seem a contradiction in terms but it is not.

No, you were right the first time, it is a contradiction in terms.

What would replace religion?.

Universal values and ethics, all the good bits religion stole from classical philosophy.

Were you not quite impressed with the Japanese people's response to their tsunami/nuclear disaster, did they not show altruistic humanity and humility at its best ?

...and no Jesus in sight.

by Tosh Fri Sep 21, 2012 12:58 pm

We no longer need to promote morality, family unity, social cohesion and altruism through the meme of religion, there are many other mediums. Religion was a simple solution in simple times full of simple people, we no longer have simple societies or people, they are extremely complex and diverse.

by Guest Fri Sep 21, 2012 5:13 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
Most people have not "chosen" their religion, it came in a basket of goodies inherently provided by their birthplace…

True statement.

One consequence of this fact is unequal access to Torah, the Prophets, the Books of Wisdom, and the Gospel, which includes the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles, and the Revelation. Absent such access, folks do what folks do; they seek YHVH Elohim, the eternal causative power, however they can.

I’ve participated in years-long discourse with a few folks (all are smarter than me) regarding this fact in light of Jesus’ command (found in the last “stanza” of the Gospel of Matthew), “Go into all the world and make disciples of all nations”, most common translation, better translation, “As you go through the world, make disciples of all nations.”

Geography is one of my “strong suites.” The Mediterranean Sea is a spoken and written every time its name is spoken and written; in other words, “the middle of the world sea” ain’t. Yet this eleven apostles, joined shortly thereafter by a twelfth and a thirteenth, were all based at the eastern end of the Med. How in the world could they go into all the world during the age of foot, donkey, horse, camel, and cart land transportation? Sea transportation wasn’t much better; they got lost at sea in the Med, for God’s sake, where all one has to do is float awhile and one will hit land.

There exist records of events in China written in Cantonese which, according to one smart friend that is fluent in Cantonese, document the existence of Christians and Christianity as early as the 1st Century AD in parts of China. Did some apostle make a “Marco Polo” journey circa 40 or 50 AD? I don’t know; I do know that the records exist.

Other smart friends have since pointed out to me that the existence of these Cantonese records inadvertently addresses my major problem; as I know that I have a logical mind, I believe that everything that happens must be logical to my mind. That’s arrogance, which, when unchecked, can lead one to believe that one is the supreme arbiter of what is possible.

oftenwrong wrote:
To describe onself as… agnostic… requires a conscious decision to deviate from routine acceptance of the majority view.

Such deviation involves consequences, perhaps unanticipated consequences. I cannot speak authoritatively of the consequences of choosing atheism, as I’ve never so chosen.

I can speak with experientially-derived authority of the consequences of choosing agnosticism. As I attempted to explain the “mind journey” that lead to this self-designation, it became apparent that few that heard the individual words coming from my mouth actually heard me.

Ironically, had I not made that conscious decision then, I would not know YHVH Elohim now. The surety of this knowledge is a consequence of allowing myself to question the majority view.

oftenwrong wrote:
As such it's frequently just another manifestation of arrogance.

Agnosticism, in my case, was a manifestation of humility rather than arrogance. Deciding that apostles based in the eastern Med could not get to China is a manifestation of my arrogance.

by Tosh Fri Sep 21, 2012 6:28 pm

Deciding that apostles based in the eastern Med could not get to China is a manifestation of my arrogance.

.

The Han stones may or may not depict a creation story of sorts, assuming they do, there is nothing that distinguishes it as Christian, maybe a Jew told them the story of Genesis, it was their story after all.

by oftenwrong Fri Sep 21, 2012 7:19 pm

Tosh wrote:
To describe onself as either agnostic or atheist requires a conscious decision to deviate from routine acceptance of the majority view. As such it's frequently just another manifestation of arrogance..

mmm, this is not your brightest masterpiece.....sage.

How is " I do not know " ( agnostic) arrogant ?

The majority routinely accepted female first born infanticide was acceptable practice, is it arrogant to consciously decide it is wrong ?

I never knew you were against rational thought, how does that work in the old sage business lolol.

In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."

Is it not arrogant to claim something exists without knowledge ?

Dunno wot you're on about mate, but I'd wager you don't spend much time down the Pub - or perhaps that's the explanation for the wheelchair.

by polyglide Sat Sep 22, 2012 11:15 am

God promised that before the end all nations would be made aware of his promises and in fact that promise is almost fullfilled.

If there were no religions then we would have a free for all and mankind has never ever devised a means of all living together in a peaceful and happy manner.

The most primitive tribes often eat each other whilst the so called civilised ones just abuse and take advantage of each other.

If everyone adopted the way a Christian was instructed to live then irrespective of any other consideration we would have a far better world.

A respected scientist feels that we have at the most 50years to decide if we are to survive or ruin the earth and all that it contains.

I feel we have more like 10 years at the most before God decides.

As clever as some people think mankind is, we have no control whatsoever over natural events, there could be an earthquake today that completely destroyed half the world as we know it and there is not a thing man could do about it.

As far as I am concerned we are living on borrowed time and the sooner people realise the fact the bettetr.

The same applies in many other areas

by snowyflake Sat Sep 22, 2012 11:37 am

If everyone adopted the way a Christian was instructed to live then irrespective of any other consideration we would have a far better world.

If everyone adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights then irrespective of any other consideration we would have a far better world. Christianity is exclusive and disregards the rights of homosexuals, women, children and other religions and when stretched other races as well. So, frankly, polyglides world would be hell on earth. Any world with one religion would never survive because they would have to kill anyone with an opposing thought to Christian dogma and trust me, with the diversity of thought and people in the world that would most certainly happen. Rebels abound!

Polyglide, your dismal and apocalyptic view of life is most depressing. You need to see the world as it is, not the way you think it is from biblical prophecy which is at best a repeat all through the ages. Every generation thinks it's the last one. If you read your history you would know this.

The end of the world was supposed to happen one generation after the rebuilding of the state of Israel. Well that happened in 1948 and we are all still here. So that prophecy is bunkum in my books. And if prophecy is meant to be truth and shown that it isn't then what else is a lie? Prophecy never is revealed before hand. It is always revealed after the fact and people make it fit.

Good luck. I really wish you would see the world as a wonderful place full of mostly really good and decent people. The 1% of criminals, idiots, jihadists, christian fundamentalists and governments are the ones that are ruining it for the rest of us.

by oftenwrong Sat Sep 22, 2012 12:39 pm

The 1% of criminals, idiots, jihadists, christian fundamentalists and governments are the ones that are ruining it for the rest of us.

You left out trolls. Laughing

by Tosh Sat Sep 22, 2012 1:34 pm

Dunno wot you're on about mate,

Its very simple sage my dear, agnosticism is about uncertainty, and arrogance is about certainty, therefore your opinion that agnostics are arrogant is .................wait for it..................wait for it.

UTTER UTTER GOBBLEDEGOOK.

[quote]

To describe onself as either agnostic or atheist requires a conscious decision to deviate from routine acceptance of the majority view. As such it's frequently just another manifestation of arrogance..[/quote]

Stick to famous quotes, turkey.

by Tosh Sat Sep 22, 2012 1:48 pm

There are some who think we should respect primitive cultures, this is ok by me if these primitive cultures actually work.
However "primitive " cultures do not work, they require modern aid to prevent starvation, drought, disease, and to reduce tragic infant mortality rates and increase bronze age life expectancy.

So I say to these " live and let live " advocates, religion forms the basis of all cultures and these cultures will always be backward because of their religious beliefs, religion creates the need for religion.

by Tosh Sat Sep 22, 2012 2:17 pm

Jesus claimed he came to fulfil the law....except for the 5th commandment " honour thy father and mother, he wasn't too big on family values.

Matthew 10.

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household. Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

Oh dear.

by Sponsored content