Okay this is what I have to say to all you Christians

[beli]

Thats what I was thinking!

Yep, the nation of "half arsed sceptics" where the church and state are separate (theres no huge impact on daily life unless you choose) is arguing about religion.

 

[Laura M]

I know only too well how spiteful and arrogant Christians can be (not in this thread) to Athiests but thats no reason for you to do the same. Kindness is the key.

I have met some Christians at uni. Coming from a Catholic grammar school to a place with lots of different religions was a totally new experience for me. I have lots of protestant friends but they like me, never go to their church so our religion was never discussed. Living here, religion is not something people talk about.

I don't like some of the Christians who I have met, if I have gone out to a pub they assume I'm an alcoholic and take drugs. They also think they are better than people who drink because they can resist temptation. What's Christian about saying that to someone? I don't slander other peoples choices not to drink I don't appreciate someone assuming I drink too much and take drugs because I stepped foot into a pub.

This thread has just made me even more confused. I don't think I'll ever be completely convinced one way or another about the existance of God/ need for religion.

 

[beli]

I don't think I'll ever be completely convinced one way or another about the existance of God/ need for religion.

You dont have to be Lara. Think want you want to think.

 

[AcrobatMan]

I don't think I'll ever be completely convinced one way or another about the existance of God/ need for religion.

 

[iacrobat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Okay this is what I have to say to all you Christians

Who claimed it was Jesus's shroud? The Christians. They lied, pure and simple. And if it wasn't it used to prove Jesus existed, why did they make it up then? The historical texts are not enough to convince people that Jesus supposedly existed, they needed hard proof. Recruitment tool for some reason I believe, I do not know a lot about the renaisance period, including the spelling.

Okay you are still saying "the Christians" as if that is sufficient. Are talking now? Or in the past? If what you want to say is that those in power sought to use the shroud to enhance their control of the populace, etc, that is another thing. Or that it reflects a group of people in power at the Vatican, not all the Christians that were and are. If we are talking 300 years ago, well most people would not have needed the shroud because the existence of Christ was taken for granted. Among all the relics to inspire faith amongst masses, one more would not have made a great difference. If it was made because Christianity was being challenged and losing influence, well those with power don't let go easily do they?

There are 1001 reasonable explanations, why dream up a conspiracy theory? Angela is right too, those in power probably believed it was authentic anyway.

'P.S If you ask me, I would take the side of science anytime. 'it can be made, tailored or presented in a way to suit whoever is funding the research.' Huh? How could science favor someone who funds the research when it must be accepted by everyone? People who come up with fucked up theories aren't recognised obviously, becuase people must actually accept them in order for these theories to be sucessful. Science would be a much more reliable system than whatever they claim in the Christian faith in my opinion. And yes it must be pretty damn accurate. Man on moon? Television? Communication? etc etc.
Seeing and touching isn't believeing enough? But word of mouth and a couple of books is? Hmmmm......

No need to chose sides Aussie, science is not a replacement for religion. Science is objective, people are not, which is why we have business interests suppress or cut off funding for research when it suits them(big tabacco). Should I discount all science because a lot of research is funded by business interests? There is and has been bad science accpeted by lay people as truth, what does that mean for science?

"Word of mouth and a couple of books?" Is that how you sum of 4000 years of history? You do yourself a disservice by doing so.

 

[U2Kitten]

Question for Aussie man: do you just hate Christians or people who believe in God in any religion?

 

[AussieU2fanman]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Okay this is what I have to say to all you Christians

Okay you are still saying "the Christians" as if that is sufficient. Are talking now? Or in the past? If what you want to say is that those in power sought to use the shroud to enhance their control of the populace, etc, that is another thing. Or that it reflects a group of people in power at the Vatican, not all the Christians that were and are. If we are talking 300 years ago, well most people would not have needed the shroud because the existence of Christ was taken for granted. Among all the relics to inspire faith amongst masses, one more would not have made a great difference. If it was made because Christianity was being challenged and losing influence, well those with power don't let go easily do they?

There are 1001 reasonable explanations, why dream up a conspiracy theory? Angela is right too, those in power probably believed it was authentic anyway.



No need to chose sides Aussie, science is not a replacement for religion. Science is objective, people are not, which is why we have business interests suppress or cut off funding for research when it suits them(big tabacco). Should I discount all science because a lot of research is funded by business interests? There is and has been bad science accpeted by lay people as truth, what does that mean for science?

"Word of mouth and a couple of books?" Is that how you sum of 4000 years of history? You do yourself a disservice by doing so.

Yes I could have been more specific, obviously not every Christian was in on it, but you know what I mean. I've been doing some reading and I can't find any solid reason as to why they did what they did, it was too long ago. Logically, whoever was responsible did it for a reason, not just for a leisure activity. And nobody is helping me find another reason as to why it could have possibly been done, apart from what I have been saying before.

'Word of mouth and a couple of Books.' Keep it in context. That was pretty much the form unto which history has been passed down? Of course there is art, structures etc. but that wasn't really the main point. The point I was trying to make is that I would rather choose scientific explanation if applicable rather than religious conviction, as religious history as a base for anything, is very iffy, rather than science, which has proven itself almost every time. Somebody said previously that science shouldn't be relied on so heavily as a rebuttal to my statement that science is proving some parts of religion wrong (eg. Shroud discussion). That is why I am comparing both religious and scientific conviction in this paragraph.

 

[AussieU2fanman]

Question for Aussie man: do you just hate Christians or people who believe in God in any religion?

Wow, this is the frivolous question I have ever heard. For the 12th time please read my posts before asking things like this! How could you think that I HATE Christians?! HUH! That is absolutely ludicrous! Let alone hate EVERYONE that believes in any religion. I have absolutely nothing against people that believe in God from any religion. I am expressing how I don't agree with some religious teachings (specifically Christianity). Comeon, I don't want to offend you, but that's a stupid question. If it's a joke, I don't get it. If it isn't, please don't be so careless.

 

[AcrobatMan]

I am expressing how I don't agree with some religious teachings (specifically Christianity).

Why target Christanity specifically ?

I am ok till as long as you say that you dont agree with religious teachings.

 

[iacrobat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Okay this is what I have to say to all you Christians

Yes I could have been more specific, obviously not every Christian was in on it, but you know what I mean. I've been doing some reading and I can't find any solid reason as to why they did what they did, it was too long ago. Logically, whoever was responsible did it for a reason, not just for a leisure activity. And nobody is helping me find another reason as to why it could have possibly been done, apart from what I have been saying before.

No, I don't know what you mean. Are you admitting that you are casting judgement on an entire religion based on the actions of a few? Based on a relic? Well, why stop there? There are hundreds of them that most likely are not real, but what difference does it make? Was it a grand to conspiracy to legitimize the invention of Jesus Christ? Or were they pieces that people honestly thought were connected to saints and Christ? I doubt this is a conspiracy 2000 years in the making.

BTW, I also gave you 2 possible reasons for the shroud's creation in my last post, you didn't respond to them.

'Word of mouth and a couple of Books.' Keep it in context. That was pretty much the form unto which history has been passed down? Of course there is art, structures etc. but that wasn't really the main point. The point I was trying to make is that I would rather choose scientific explanation if applicable rather than religious conviction, as religious history as a base for anything, is very iffy, rather than science, which has proven itself almost every time. Somebody said previously that science shouldn't be relied on so heavily as a rebuttal to my statement that science is proving some parts of religion wrong (eg. Shroud discussion). That is why I am comparing both religious and scientific conviction in this paragraph.

Keep what it context? Don't assume I know what you mean when you make dismissive comments.

Don't place to much weight on the importance of the shroud. I think it is safe to say that most Catholics' faith do not rely on it's authenticity.

Nobody here is arguing that the world is flat or that the world was made in seven, 24 hour days, so your argument is somewhat misplaced. You are ignoring the diversity of Christianity. Try reading Dominic Crossan if you haven't.

BTW, do you happen to be reading the Da Vinci Code?

 

[Kieran McConville]

I think all these issues get needlessly mixed up and muddled.

Just my personal perspective, but I always try to draw a very clear distinction between 'Christ' and 'Christianity'. You'll never catch me trying to defend any institutional church, because really, why bother? These are human institutions, and subject to gross corruption like any large political or corporate body.

As for science, don't worship it. Science is a method. It's silly to be 'pro' or 'anti' science, it is simply a method for attempting to objectively observe and predict things. It's not impossible to find scientists who believe in God, and really, there's no reason why the two need be mutually exclusive. If there is a God, scientific probing won't make him go away like the tooth fairy or something. If there isn't, well, then there isn't.

 

[iacrobat]

Kieran

 

[U2Kitten]

Why target Christanity specifically ?

I am ok till as long as you say that you dont agree with religious teachings.

Exactly my point. That's what I meant, why pick on Christians specifically? If you are against religion, and God, then you obviously don't believe in ANY religion so why just single out Christians for your statement? Can't you see how offensive that appears?

 

[AussieU2fanman]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Okay this is what I have to say to all you Christians

No, I don't know what you mean. Are you admitting that you are casting judgement on an entire religion based on the actions of a few? Based on a relic? Well, why stop there? There are hundreds of them that most likely are not real, but what difference does it make? Was it a grand to conspiracy to legitimize the invention of Jesus Christ? Or were they pieces that people honestly thought were connected to saints and Christ? I doubt this is a conspiracy 2000 years in the making.

Well like any other religion, although Christianity has a greater sense of community, it is still in the form of a Hierachy. I am not casting judgement on everyone, that's silly. The power was pruely in the hands of the very wealthy over the history of Christianity. The people in power could change whatever they sought please, and if anyone disagreed, they were classed as Heretics and were brutally slaughtered. Let's say for a second that none of the Jesus story actually happened, I guarantee we would get a similar\identical result today. This religion\sects were absolutely necessary at the time to turn the people away from Paganism that was tearing society apart. In my opinion, a person like Jesus would have been invented who is a Messiah, who will free the slaves, who will provide salvation for everyone, including the lower classes. If you suffer now, you will have true treasure in Heaven. Think about it, it would be just a ploy invented by the powerful to control the masses and create order in society. Even if all these stories didn't happen (which I believe), surely there would be a similar\identical result in today's society. I strongly believe this religion was going to be formed irrespective of whether the whole Jesus story was true. There was no choice.

Keep what in context? Don't assume I know what you mean when you make dismissive comments.

Don't place to much weight on the importance of the shroud. I think it is safe to say that most Catholics' faith do not rely on it's authenticity.

Nobody here is arguing that the world is flat or that the world was made in seven, 24 hour days, so your argument is somewhat misplaced. You are ignoring the diversity of Christianity. Try reading Dominic Crossan if you haven't.

BTW, do you happen to be reading the Da Vinci Code?

Keep whatever was in quotes prior to when I said, 'Keep it in context.'
BTW what authenticity is this religion based on then? This is a concept I can't grasp. And no I am not reading the Da Vinci Code.

 

[AcrobatMan]

Kieran

Everything is not as simple as you think.

There are fantasies and there are facts. Please dont get confused.

AcrobatMan

 

[AussieU2fanman]

Exactly my point. That's what I meant, why pick on Christians specifically? If you are against religion, and God, then you obviously don't believe in ANY religion so why just single out Christians for your statement? Can't you see how offensive that appears?

Because I know nothing bar the spelling of Hinduism, Buddhism etc. (I know a bit about Judaism and how it developed over the years.) Why I am 'picking' on Christianity should have been obvious. I have been a Catholic for 17 years and fed quite a bit of gruel. And this shouldn't be offensive, I'm not calling Christianity and Christians bullshit\dickheads. I am saying with why I disagree with it. Be shocked but not offended. BTW this is becoming quite difficult to fend of all these attacks, some non-Christian back me up here, I seem to have my hands full.


GO VERTIGO GO!!

 

[U2Kitten]

Because I know nothing bar the spelling of Hinduism, Buddhism etc. (I know a bit about Judaism and how it developed over the years.) Why I am 'picking' on Christianity should have been obvious. I have been a Catholic for 17 years and fed quite a bit of gruel. And this shouldn't be offensive, I'm not calling Christianity and Christians bullshit\dickheads. I am saying with why I disagree with it. Be shocked but not offended. BTW this is becoming quite difficult to fend of all these attacks, some non-Christian back me up here, I seem to have my hands full.

So you're saying that other religions are valid, then that means you DO think God might really exist after all, so you're not an atheist, you just have a vendetta against Christianity. Right?

There are several atheists on this forum and some of them have posted in this thread but they have never done anything offensive. You can believe what you want but when you attack others for their beliefs that crosses the line. I don't see how anyone can 'back you up' because what you're saying is so hate filled and offensive. And, as I have had to learn myself the hard way, if you aren't up to negative posts and 'fending off attacks' it's best not to post something this controversial. Be it religion, music, sports or fashiion, I have grown weary of people who post something provacative and then get annoyed at the negative responses. Oh, then they cry 'freedom of speech.' Well, like Bush said about the Dixie Chicks getting mad at the outcry against them after they dissed him, freedom of speech goes BOTH WAYS. If you are to be free to say what you want, others are also free to say they don't like it.

 

[AcrobatMan]

i think some people should be more careful with the language they use

 

[iacrobat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Okay this is what I have to say to all you Christians

Well like any other religion, although Christianity has a greater sense of community, it is still in the form of a Hierachy. I am not casting judgement on everyone, that's silly. The power was pruely in the hands of the very wealthy over the history of Christianity. The people in power could change whatever they sought please, and if anyone disagreed, they were classed as Heretics and were brutally slaughtered. Let's say for a second that none of the Jesus story actually happened, I guarantee we would get a similar\identical result today. This religion\sects were absolutely necessary at the time to turn the people away from Paganism that was tearing society apart. In my opinion, a person like Jesus would have been invented who is a Messiah, who will free the slaves, who will provide salvation for everyone, including the lower classes. If you suffer now, you will have true treasure in Heaven. Think about it, it would be just a ploy invented by the powerful to control the masses and create order in society. Even if all these stories didn't happen (which I believe), surely there would be a similar\identical result in today's society. I strongly believe this religion was going to be formed irrespective of whether the whole Jesus story was true. There was no choice.



Keep whatever was in quotes prior to when I said, 'Keep it in context.'
BTW what authenticity is this religion based on then? This is a concept I can't grasp. And no I am not reading the Da Vinci Code.

Whoah! Leaps and bounds here! How would a messiah that liberates the poor serve those in power? If anything, the radical message of love and tolerance would have subverted the power structure, therefore it was generally was ignored and replaced with fear and superstition.

Paganism tearing society apart?? Roman you mean? There are numerous reasons why Rome fell, least of them religious. Christianity was hardly successful in unifying society after that anyway. Christendom was divided for hundreds of years, until the middle ages.

The Protestant church has no hierarchy, and I believe the Orthodox is less so than the Catholic. Have you looked at the reformation, the social gospel or liberation theology?

For me the authenticity of Christianity is based on at least 2000 years of human experience and history.

 

[AcrobatMan]

aussieman - are you an atheist ? YES OR NO

 

[AussieU2fanman]

So you're saying that other religions are valid, then that means you DO think God might really exist after all, so you're not an atheist, you just have a vendetta against Christianity. Right?

There are several atheists on this forum and some of them have posted in this thread but they have never done anything offensive. You can believe what you want but when you attack others for their beliefs that crosses the line. I don't see how anyone can 'back you up' because what you're saying is so hate filled and offensive. And, as I have had to learn myself the hard way, if you aren't up to negative posts and 'fending off attacks' it's best not to post something this controversial. Be it religion, music, sports or fashiion, I have grown weary of people who post something provacative and then get annoyed at the negative responses. Oh, then they cry 'freedom of speech.' Well, like Bush said about the Dixie Chicks getting mad at the outcry against them after they dissed him, freedom of speech goes BOTH WAYS. If you are to be free to say what you want, others are also free to say they don't like it.

I am in no way completely endorsing the valdility of God based on the fact that I am unaware of the doctrine\history of the other major religions. I am specifically talking about Christianity, and what they teach about God. And stop calling my posts 'hate filled.' This is the 3rd post you have made which is quite frankly pissing me off. We are having discussions here and the only real negative posts are coming from you. I don't hate anybody, and I am not condemning any forms of people. And I am getting tired of repeating myself to people that won't listen. I am doing the best I can to listen to everyone here.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Kieran

Everything is not as simple as you think.

There are fantasies and there are facts. Please dont get confused.

AcrobatMan

Hey Acrobatman, I haven't a clue what this is supposed to mean. Which of my statements brought that on?

Please don't assume I 'think' everything is so simple. In fact, please don't assume, full stop.

 

[U2Kitten]

I am in no way completely endorsing the valdility of God based on the fact that I am unaware of the doctrine\history of the other major religions. I am specifically talking about Christianity, and what they teach about God.

I'm saying DO YOU BELIEVE there is a supreme being in control of the universe? By saying the Christian God doesn't exist, it's the same as saying the Jewish and Islamic God don't, because they are one and the same. From your first post, you seemed not to believe in any supreme power in any form. Is that it, or do you just have a vendetta against Christianity?

And stop calling my posts 'hate filled.' This is the 3rd post you have made which is quite frankly pissing me off. We are having discussions here and the only real negative posts are coming from you. I don't hate anybody, and I am not condemning any forms of people. And I am getting tired of repeating myself to people that won't listen. I am doing the best I can to listen to everyone here.

The purpose of this thread was to tell people off and hence piss people off. If you didn't want it taken that way, why did you do it?

 

[AussieU2fanman]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Okay this is what I have to say to all you Christians

Whoah! Leaps and bounds here! How would a messiah that liberates the poor serve those in power? If anything, the radical message of love and tolerance would have subverted the power structure, therefore it was generally was ignored and replaced with fear and superstition.

Paganism tearing society apart?? Roman you mean? There are numerous reasons why Rome fell, least of them religious. Christianity was hardly successful in unifying society after that anyway. Christendom was divided for hundreds of years, until the middle ages.

The Protestant church has no hierarchy, and I believe the Orthodox is less so than the Catholic. Have you looked at the reformation, the social gospel or liberation theology?

For me the authenticity of Christianity is based on at least 2000 years of human experience and history.

Of course a Messiah that liberates the poor would serve those in power! Think about it. I am a slave that is serving under Christian rule (generally speaking). I have a shit life, BUT, what keeps me going? Why don't I just give in and die? The idea of Jesus coming to save me from all that I have suffered in this world, and I would be living forever in a happy place called heaven. The more pain I live here, the more treasure I will have in heaven (similar to the execution of Jesus story). It's really very simple.

Christianity suceeded for many reasons. It was so appealing to the people. Roman Paganism taught that God's were vengeful and hated humans. But then comes along Christianity that taught that God loved everyone and everyone is equal etc. Who wouldn't like that? This is a fantastic revolution in the world. Christianity was brilliant at uniting society, (there were some problems during it's birth in relation to the Halakah being phased out.) but nontheless, it was so appealing to the people that it spread thoughout the world and eventually, Rome adopted it because people were turning away from Paganism.

A MAJOR reason why Christianity suceeded was the money. Paganism was funded by the state while Christianity was funded by communities with voluntary donations. When the Roman government saw that Paganism was so damn expensive to sustain, they switched to Christianity. (just a bit of history I'd like to add). Even though it is very community based, it is still in the form of a great and somewhat untouchable hierarchy.

 

[AussieU2fanman]

I'm saying DO YOU BELIEVE there is a supreme being in control of the universe? By saying the Christian God doesn't exist, it's the same as saying the Jewish and Islamic God don't, because they are one and the same. From your first post, you seemed not to believe in any supreme power in any form. Is that it, or do you just have a vendetta against Christianity?

No I don't believe that there is a supreme governor, but I will not publically say that Hindu\Muslim teachings are void, I know nothing of them. From what I personally believe, there is no supreme being at all, but I won't condemn any other religions. I am using Christianity as an example.

The purpose of this thread was to tell people off and hence piss people off. If you didn't want it taken that way, why did you do it?

People may be angry with me, that was a side effect of starting such a debate. The pure motive is to tell people off? That is ridiculous. It's not even a part motive of starting this thread. We are trying to have a civilized debate here.

 

[AcrobatMan]

Okay I stay away from this thread from now on.

Just a useless misdirected thread.

 

[Kieran McConville]

I guess that means I don't get my question answered, huh.

 

[Liesje]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Okay this is what I have to say to all you Christians

I do know quite alot about Christianity. After all, I have been a Christian for 17 years and went to Church EVERY week (obviously by name only, but now I have withdrawn form Christianity). In Catholicism the Ten commandments are very relevant. I was brought up with it. I heard them in Church, I was taught them in a Catholic school. They are extremely relevant, I don't know what you are talking about. Even though they were taught in the Old Testament, Christianity still does recognise it. Jesus was recognised as the new covenant that overwrote the Jewish dietry\circumcision laws. The old laws of Moses ie. 10 commandments, were still kept and are still alive today, and that's why I, and everybody else was taught them under Christian power. (This may only be in my country, I could be wrong, please correct me if I am).
Please read my posts before commenting people, not just the first one! I can't be bothered explaining things I have already explained, for instance, this guy said I have no interest in Christianity. I made it quite clear that I was very interested in all religions, especially Christianity! Just because I don't believe what they teach, it doesn't mean I don't admire their orginality and creativity.

OK, so you're critiquing CATHOLOCISM, not Christianity in general. You should've made that more clear.

 

[AussieU2fanman]

I was wondering where that statement from Acrobat man came from also.

 

[Liesje]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Okay this is what I have to say to all yo

Christianity was brilliant at uniting society

I'm sorry, but that's the most blissfully ignorant thing I've read in a LONG time!