Page 16 of 32

Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science

Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 9:59 pm
by marthwmaster
All for the Empire!!

Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science

Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 11:37 pm
by zaseo
The Bible has been use to help, and deceive people. This is why I rather read the Holy book myself, but I will still listen to the opinions of others. Someone could tell you BS like this. Do you want to be saved?
Acts 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
They could say just believe, and accept, you shall be saved. Do this, and you don't have to attend church on Saturday, or follow the Commandments. There is much more things require to reach the gates of Heaven. It easily for Satan to tell people the half truth, or twist the truth according to the bible.

What makes the bible rather difficult to understand is the meanings of the words in it. You often have to look in a dictionary, or look at the Arabic, or Greek meaning of the words to understand them.

Question We each have a consciousness. We decide whether to do good, or evil if you believe we have the angel, and devil like things. Does a demon take control of someone to cause them to do evil things, or do the simply have much motivation on a person?

Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science

Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 12:08 am
by Altre
Did I mention I was baptized 3 times? My mom was weird about that... I did all of the normal things you would do being raised in the South (US) going to church.

Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science

Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 6:41 am
by marthwmaster
zaseo wrote:Do you want to be saved?
Acts 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
They could say just believe, and accept, you shall be saved. Do this, and you don't have to attend church on Saturday, or follow the Commandments. There is much more things require to reach the gates of Heaven. It easily for Satan to tell people the half truth, or twist the truth according to the bible.
The way you phrase it makes it sound like you don't believe Jesus when he says, "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (Jn. 14:6). Fair enough I suppose, but again, picking and choosing parts of the Bible to believe is not the way it was meant to be taken. Besides, I've always felt that a true follower of Christ chooses not to ignore the Scriptures or the Commandments. It should be done out of a genuine love of God and neighbor, not because you believe you have to, and that you'll go to hell if you don't.

As for going to church, I guess you can read the Bible by yourself if you'd rather not be involved in a church setting. For me, the fellowship is important: being able to share and grow in my faith through the help of others. And if there is something in the Bible that troubles me, I can ask my pastor about it, rather than casually trust the anonymous wisdom of the internet.

Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science

Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 12:34 pm
by zaseo
I feel the same way. I think people are believing that they can be saved just by believing in Christ. Much more is required. You must obey all of the Commandments. The first 4 are the Commandments of God, and the remaining 6 are the Commandments of human morals. The reason why I just don't trust many churches anymore because they're more about money, bigger churches, and short term salvation base to get people out of short term troubles.

At first I wonder why we are supposed to go to church on Sunday. The Sabbath is forever so if we the 3 monotheistic religions believe in the same Commandments than why do most Christians attend on Sunday? I figure since the Old Testament is the first part of our bible then we should follow what it says in the first 5 books like the Jews. The Seal of the Living God is require to get in Heaven if I read it right.

What makes things more difficult is the different versions of the bible. Some things sound much different between the KJV, and New international versions. If I go up to the former church I attended awhile back, and ask questions like why is Sunday the Sabbath, why do you eat pork, or do you know what the Seal of God is I wonder what people would say?

Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science

Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 1:41 pm
by Altre
marthwmaster wrote: Fair enough I suppose, but again, picking and choosing parts of the Bible to believe is not the way it was meant to be taken.
Btw, I did mention that my acceptance of some parts of the Bible is based on logic. It's not some simple process where I just flipped through marking out what seemed ridiculous and leaving what seemed compatible with my life style. The parts that I see as most likely to be exaggerated are the stories.

The Bible actually scared me as a child. My sister would read to me and some of punishments described scared me to death. I made sure to never do anything that would land me in the shoes of the punished. I still follow this today, just without the fear of punishment part. Revelations became my favorite book (still is).

My favorite part of my, I'd say now, theories on religion is death. I don't fear dying, or the thought of being dead. I'd still rather not have a painful death. But even science can relate to the Bible on the spirit and being released after death, as well as the positive and negative karma that builds up causing your destination to change after death. Buddhism is also applicable in my beliefs here. I don't believe that your complete sentience is "reborn" as another creature, but your body is essentially used to create new life eventually. The bonds keeping your matter break down and is released back into the universe.

I'd like to do a study on the human experience of positive and negative energy causing positive and negative things to happen. I'd like to think that polarity has something to do with it, but that's what I need to study. The father of a friend of mine told me about this "The Secret" video, which was along the lines of what I'm thinking, but not all the way there. If "Hell" would essential be ones loss of freedom and eventually existence (the 2nd death), then if negative energy could cause ones energy to be attracted to a "void" in space (as AT mentioned, a vacuum), then this could be an essential Hell. Maybe having positive karma build leads through the most beautiful and enjoyable locations of our universe. Being composed of pure energy would be the way to get closest to "God", the energy of our and everything else's existence. Negative karma would be the equivalent of sin.

I think I did forget the most important part of my beliefs: they are mostly theories. I follow these theories in faith that they are plausible and that maybe someday, someone else would adopt these views. It does require meditation to focus on some of these ideas. I meditate in many ways on these. It's be much easy to explain in person, I think my abilities of expression would help people understand better.

Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science

Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 3:10 pm
by AuraTwilight
Wasn't there text in the Bible that stated God breaths life into us through his own life force (or something of that caliber)?
If we're gonna go with the Bible, it specifically says that God is neither "Matter nor Energy, Light nor Dark, but creator of both."
Question We each have a consciousness. We decide whether to do good, or evil if you believe we have the angel, and devil like things. Does a demon take control of someone to cause them to do evil things, or do the simply have much motivation on a person?
Er, you mean like those cartoons with the devil and angel on your shoulders? That's just a metaphor, it's not really supported by any religious thing.

All humans have the capacity for good or evil within them. Whichever they exhibit is because of their own will, their upbringing, and their surrounding environment and conditions.

Altre, I'm just going to say that scientifically, energy does not work that way, and leave it at that.

(The concept of pure energy is so bafflingly stupid that it's basically just a Sci-Fi invention to weasel in magic).

Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science

Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 3:26 pm
by Altre
AuraTwilight wrote:
Wasn't there text in the Bible that stated God breaths life into us through his own life force (or something of that caliber)?
If we're gonna go with the Bible, it specifically says that God is neither "Matter nor Energy, Light nor Dark, but creator of both."
An example of something I see as being ridiculous (not your post, AT, the Biblical text). If it is so (as in it is the truth and proven), though, then I'll change my definition to fit: "God is interchangeable with existence. God is the factor of our reality and energy is a tool of God used in creating as is matter."

Again, I'm trying to rationalize how I think about the Bible, not change how it's written for everyone else.

Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science

Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 4:04 pm
by marthwmaster
To segue a bit from Christianity and move into the human experience as a whole, I wanted to mention this.

Christopher Tin, best known (to me at least) as the composer of "Baba Yetu" (Our Father), the anthem to Civilization IV, released an album last last year by the name of Calling All Dawns. The twelve songs including "Baba Yetu," each in a different language, are supposed to convey a theme of human unity, one that transcends different cultures, religions and ideologies. I'm posting a link here: Calling All Dawns.

I just discovered this album, and I find it amazing.

Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science

Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 4:25 pm
by Altre
I'm listening to the first song now and must say it sounds like it could be used in the "resolution" part of a movie or play (something I studied throughout my years in theater). So far, the music is satisfying.

Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science

Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 11:21 am
by marthwmaster
Altre wrote:I'm listening to the first song now and must say it sounds like it could be used in the "resolution" part of a movie or play (something I studied throughout my years in theater). So far, the music is satisfying.
Picture this: you're setting up parameters for a game of Civ4 where you and some friends are going to guide your respective cultures from the dawn of civilization. All the while you're staring at a revolving planet Earth, and you hear that song. It really creates a strong sense of humanity. ^^

Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science

Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 5:57 pm
by zaseo
Maybe this is a good question. What do you think about Global Warming? Are we (humans) causing the planet to heat up, and melt the ice caps, or are we simply having a period in time where the average temperature is hotter?

Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science

Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 10:31 pm
by S1lentOp
zaseo wrote:Maybe this is a good question. What do you think about Global Warming? Are we (humans) causing the planet to heat up, and melt the ice caps, or are we simply having a period in time where the average temperature is hotter?
Yes. Anthropogenic climate change is real. You don't just pour billions of metric tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere each year and expect there to be no consequences.

Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science

Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 3:23 pm
by AuraTwilight
There is no scientific controversy about Global Warming being man-made. The only reason people think so is because of big lobbyists trying to divert the blame away so they can keep up their business models and keep making a profit without having to change anything.

Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science

Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 11:28 pm
by shugo_lover
zaseo wrote:Maybe this is a good question. What do you think about Global Warming? Are we (humans) causing the planet to heat up, and melt the ice caps, or are we simply having a period in time where the average temperature is hotter?
In my oppinion. I think its both. I mean come on glasiers have been melting for like a 1,000 years now. But I also think that we as humans are also makeing things worse with all are pollution, and now I do not think it is caused by Cows farting (Who ever thought of that must have been on crack -_-'

Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science

Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 11:53 am
by AuraTwilight
I mean come on glasiers have been melting for like a 1,000 years now.
Whoever told you this is a f*cking liar.

Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science

Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 3:58 pm
by Altre
There are plenty of people now actually studying global warming, some go a little more overboard with it than others though. I don't think that all of the gas emission that we cause has no effect on the world. Now, you can be a skeptic and blow it off completely or you can actually think about it a little further and maybe come to a more logical conclusion, like it's possible that ozone eliminating gases are eliminating chunks of our ozone layer. But hell, I'm no scientist and I'm just speculating like anyone else that doesn't have hands on experience with it.

Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science

Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 5:25 pm
by nobodyknows
shugo_lover wrote: I do not think it is caused by Cows farting
Methane does account for quite a large amount of the pollution in the atmosphere, and cows do produce one helluvalot of Methane, and humans eat tonnes and tonnes of steak; so there's your answer.

Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science

Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 8:47 pm
by shugo_lover
nobodyknows wrote:
shugo_lover wrote: I do not think it is caused by Cows farting
Methane does account for quite a large amount of the pollution in the atmosphere, and cows do produce one helluvalot of Methane, and humans eat tonnes and tonnes of steak; so there's your answer.
True, very true. I never though of it like that.

Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science

Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 5:21 pm
by zaseo
Damn it BP. Now tar balls are coming on the Texas shores. Hopefully I can go to Galveston, or other places on the coast before the beaches get closed.

As far as global warming is concern the O3 layers are very screwed up at the moment. It can heal on its own, but that would take years if we stop using things that produce pollution.