Jump to content

Welcome to The OFFICIAL Pure Pwnage forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Religion


  • Please log in to reply
2248 replies to this topic

#801
Count_Pwntaculr

Count_Pwntaculr
  • Members
  • 211 posts
QUOTE (Schlitz @ Jun 29 2007, 05:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
If you raise a child to believe in nothing, when they are older they will believe anything. Religion ftw....
EDIT: I don't know why my browser decided to submit this form twice.


Eugh. Just Eugh. Seriously, religion is bad for society. If you don't care about the morals of brainwashing malleable children into your belief system, you surely can accept what overwhelming evidence suggests?

#802
Pawnator

Pawnator
  • Members
  • 5,495 posts
  • Gender:Male
QUOTE (Count_Pwntaculr @ Jun 29 2007, 02:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Eugh. Just Eugh. Seriously, religion is bad for society. If you don't care about the morals of brainwashing malleable children into your belief system, you surely can accept what overwhelming evidence suggests?


Eugh?


#803
RustyNail

RustyNail
  • Members
  • 176 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North America
  • Interests:Gaming
QUOTE (Count_Pwntaculr @ Jun 29 2007, 05:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I don't quite understand your example. Why is it logical to *state* that his baby may die? Everyone knows it. You would be just be reminding them of something, which for "logical" reasons (to preserve babies lives) disturbs them. It is logical from a evolutionary standpoint for fathers to be disturbed to think of their children dying.

Things feel "right" because they are (or were) helpful to our survival as a species in general. Often our evolutionary instincts overlap and can cause problems i.e. people still wish to have sex, but not for procreation. Clearly the desire to have sex is one fostered by evolution, but modern technology has cut out the procreation. Our desire for sex is just a part of evolution "cut off" by modern technology.


The survival of our species is dependent on filtering out people with bad genes. I already spoke of this. The statement I provided is still logical, but I wasn't using it as a statement about morality. I was saying we're dependent on fantasy and not just logic. Logical statements are not the end all. Choosing your wording correctly so as to not hurt another sentient being's feelings is absolutely useless from an evolutionary standpoint.

Charles Darwin was an agnostic, not an atheist. Throughout most of his career he left open the possibility of a God, though he was a Christian previously and ended up dropping it when a family member died. I do, however, agree that raising children with one specific religion is a bad idea. You should wait for them to ask you about it and then teach them various traditions and let them choose.

#804
Dohregard

Dohregard

    Master Dohbator

  • GA Private
  • -32,928 posts
  • xfire:dohreguard
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kansas City, KS
  • Steam ID:dohreguard
  • Xbox / GFWL:Dohregard
  • PSN:A1R5N1P3R
  • Wii:209737188728753
  • Rofl-Rupees:5
  • Gamer Army ID:3070
  • Company:Foxtrot
QUOTE (RustyNail @ Jun 30 2007, 10:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The survival of our species is dependent on filtering out people with bad genes.


not necessarily. We are actually working against nature and helping people with bad genes survive with medicine, therapy and just basically LIVING with them. kids with down syndrome are workin @ McDonnalds and Wal-mart, people with mental diabilities have medication to help them cope with civilization, its all working against evolution, which is why our race has shown that we have some kind of ability to overcome nature.

#805
Pawnator

Pawnator
  • Members
  • 5,495 posts
  • Gender:Male
QUOTE (Dohreguard @ Jun 30 2007, 11:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
not necessarily. We are actually working against nature


It always makes me lol when people don't view all persistent allels as suceeding in evolution just because they are viewed as "bad" and want to exempt societal sheltering from the catagory an evolved defense mechanism.

If they survive, they are suceeding in evolution. Be it by way of societal sheltering or by way of foraging sucessfully in the wild. In short, retarded people are sucessfull evolutionary variations if they can reproduce, no matter what facilitated that reproduction.


#806
Dohregard

Dohregard

    Master Dohbator

  • GA Private
  • -32,928 posts
  • xfire:dohreguard
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kansas City, KS
  • Steam ID:dohreguard
  • Xbox / GFWL:Dohregard
  • PSN:A1R5N1P3R
  • Wii:209737188728753
  • Rofl-Rupees:5
  • Gamer Army ID:3070
  • Company:Foxtrot
QUOTE (Pawnator @ Jun 30 2007, 01:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It always makes me lol when people don't view all persistent allels as suceeding in evolution just because they are viewed as "bad" and want to exempt societal sheltering from the catagory an evolved defense mechanism.

If they survive, they are suceeding in evolution.


I am unable to understand what your trying to say. that retards are retards because society LETS them live? That over the years the mentally and physically handicapped people have evolved into human parasites?

the aren't succeeding in evolution. your not understanding what I am trying to say. 10 million years from now, If we don't blow ourselves up, be wiped out by some disease/alien race/ rise of the machines we will still be of the same make up. Because we are no longer just surviving, we are surviving and making sure that everyone is along for the ride. we aren't ridding ourselves of genetic defects we are simply fixing them. We aren't abandoning our disabled, genetically inferior, we are adapting to their differences and making sure that they survive.

(switches gears)

This is probably why most people who believe in creationism think that we are "Made in gods image" because we have a brain that can push aside all our natural instincts and act upon what the individual thinks is right.

#807
Pawnator

Pawnator
  • Members
  • 5,495 posts
  • Gender:Male
QUOTE (Dohreguard @ Jun 30 2007, 11:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I am unable to understand what your trying to say. that retards are retards because society LETS them live? That over the years the mentally and physically handicapped people have evolved into human parasites?

the aren't succeeding in evolution. your not understanding what I am trying to say. 10 million years from now, If we don't blow ourselves up, be wiped out by some disease/alien race/ rise of the machines we will still be of the same make up. Because we are no longer just surviving, we are surviving and making sure that everyone is along for the ride. we aren't ridding ourselves of genetic defects we are simply fixing them. We aren't abandoning our disabled, genetically inferior, we are adapting to their differences and making sure that they survive.


The very fact that they survive proves that they are suceeding. Plain as that. If "everyone is along for the ride" then no young person would die. You don't really get evolution if you can't see that.

QUOTE (Dohreguard @ Jun 30 2007, 11:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I am unable to understand what your trying to say. that retards are retards because society LETS them live? That over the years the mentally and physically handicapped people have evolved into human parasites?


No. Think of it like this. Whatever adaptation allows for the surival of the genes of the organism is an evolutionary adaptation. In the environment of 1st world human society, retarded people suceed because their variation causes them to thrive in their environment. They are not evolving to become 'better' suited than normal people to live in society, but their variation does help them survive. Despite the drawbacks of being mentally retarded, the genetic variation triggers an environmental response which betters the organism's chances for survival. Humans cannot stop evolution by preserving "undesirable genes" because removing us from the evolutionary process isn't possible.


#808
Count_Pwntaculr

Count_Pwntaculr
  • Members
  • 211 posts
QUOTE (RustyNail @ Jun 30 2007, 04:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The survival of our species is dependent on filtering out people with bad genes. I already spoke of this. The statement I provided is still logical, but I wasn't using it as a statement about morality. I was saying we're dependent on fantasy and not just logic. Logical statements are not the end all. Choosing your wording correctly so as to not hurt another sentient being's feelings is absolutely useless from an evolutionary standpoint.

Charles Darwin was an agnostic, not an atheist. Throughout most of his career he left open the possibility of a God, though he was a Christian previously and ended up dropping it when a family member died. I do, however, agree that raising children with one specific religion is a bad idea. You should wait for them to ask you about it and then teach them various traditions and let them choose.


Firstly, I do not quite understand what you mean; what do you mean by "fantasy" for instance? What is the difference between a "fantasy" and logic? What is the "goal" that people are trying to archive in this, because we need to specify one to decide on weather their actions are logical or not.

I am not sure what you are arguing here, sorry icon_smile.gif. I think you could help me by defining what your argument is and also what you mean by the words you use i.e. what is "logic" to you, what is "fantasy". When you mean "logical statements are not the end all" do you mean that people do not follow logic always, or that logic is not ultimately successful?

#809
Count_Pwntaculr

Count_Pwntaculr
  • Members
  • 211 posts
QUOTE (RustyNail @ Jun 30 2007, 04:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The survival of our species is dependent on filtering out people with bad genes. I already spoke of this. The statement I provided is still logical, but I wasn't using it as a statement about morality. I was saying we're dependent on fantasy and not just logic. Logical statements are not the end all. Choosing your wording correctly so as to not hurt another sentient being's feelings is absolutely useless from an evolutionary standpoint.

Charles Darwin was an agnostic, not an atheist. Throughout most of his career he left open the possibility of a God, though he was a Christian previously and ended up dropping it when a family member died. I do, however, agree that raising children with one specific religion is a bad idea. You should wait for them to ask you about it and then teach them various traditions and let them choose.


Firstly, I do not quite understand what you mean; what do you mean by "fantasy" for instance? What is the difference between a "fantasy" and logic? What is the "goal" that people are trying to archive in this, because we need to specify one to decide on weather their actions are logical or not.

I am not sure what you are arguing here, sorry icon_smile.gif. I think you could help me by defining what your argument is and also what you mean by the words you use i.e. what is "logic" to you, what is "fantasy". When you mean "logical statements are not the end all" do you mean that people do not follow logic always, or that logic is not ultimately successful?

oO, News to me. I looked it up, and yes, you are right - Darwin remained an agnostic. I guess I just made an assumption given how his name is used nowadays icon_surprised.gif. And yes, raising children to one specific religion is a terrible wrong. Shouldn't be allowed.

#810
RustyNail

RustyNail
  • Members
  • 176 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North America
  • Interests:Gaming
QUOTE (Pawnator @ Jun 30 2007, 04:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The very fact that they survive proves that they are suceeding. Plain as that.


This is incorrect. Evolution doesn't work that way. We and animals want OUR genes to survive, and if they don't share our genes, they are not worthy of life. This is backed up by infanticide in the animal kingdom and even in early human life. Animals will actually kill other infant animals so the female will go into heat again so they can spread their seed. Chimpanzees do it all the time, and we did too. From a secular perspective, morality, by the most widely accepted definition, is us wanting our genes to thrive. If they aren't our genes or if they're not thriving (handicapped people) then they are not worthy of life. This is how morality works. Apparently, when we started living in larger communities, we didn't know who was a relative or not, so "be nice to everyone incase they're our family" became an instinct.

Count_Pwntaculr, humans have fantasies that are not grounded in logic (facts). Humanity is not logical and never will be, this is my point.

#811
Pawnator

Pawnator
  • Members
  • 5,495 posts
  • Gender:Male
QUOTE (RustyNail @ Jun 30 2007, 03:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
This is incorrect. Evolution doesn't work that way. We and animals want OUR genes to survive, and if they don't share our genes, they are not worthy of life. This is backed up by infanticide in the animal kingdom and even in early human life. Animals will actually kill other infant animals so the female will go into heat again so they can spread their seed. Chimpanzees do it all the time, and we did too. From a secular perspective, morality, by the most widely accepted definition, is us wanting our genes to thrive. If they aren't our genes or if they're not thriving (handicapped people) then they are not worthy of life. This is how morality works. Apparently, when we started living in larger communities, we didn't know who was a relative or not, so "be nice to everyone incase they're our family" became an instinct.


No, that is incorrect. You've been reading (and misinterpreting) too much Selfish Gene, my friend. You are assuming that species alleles are only able to coexist in a population in the animal kingdom by way of brute strength and fitness. Many animal populations have evolved as they did because the individual survives better in groups. You are also assuming that the handicap occured due to genes, and not due to extended oxygen deprevation, loss of a limb, etc. You are assuming that because we humans behave differently from other animals in our society that we are exempt from the evolutionary process. That is simply closeminded.

And chimpanzees don't do it "all the time" it happened on an occasion and became famous, but that was one chimpanzee in a whole population. Hardly the norm. Yes, it happens, but it's not what every Chimpanzee does if they have the opportunity, and not what most do if they have the opportunity.

and please find a source for "From a secular perspective, morality, by the most widely accepted definition, is us wanting our genes to thrive." please. And it better not be Dawkins, because most sociobiologists think his limited theory of cultural evolution is full of shit at the moment.

Every organism "protects its genes" in a different way. You call it parasitism, I don't. The point is, humans have not removed themselves or any member of humanity from evolution. It is impossible, because if it were possible then the theory of evolution would be completely impossible. You have drawn a line in the sand between us and the rest of the natural world for no reason whatsoever.

QUOTE
In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation. These traits are the expression of genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction. Mutations in these genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in heritable differences (genetic variation) between organisms. New traits can also come from transfer of genes between populations, as in migration or horizontal gene transfer. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either nonrandomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift.


Note the bolded part in that wikipedia quote. That is what is required for a change to be considered evolution. Our society, many argue, is a product of natural selection, right? Retarded people who breed are suceeding. Those that don't are failing. The cuckoo bird lays its eggs in another species of bird's nest, and the bird raises the eggs. Does this make it artificial selection? No. Our society doesn't encourage retarded people to mate any more than it does the average person. Yet it happens.


#812
RustyNail

RustyNail
  • Members
  • 176 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North America
  • Interests:Gaming
QUOTE (Pawnator @ Jun 30 2007, 06:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No, that is incorrect. You've been reading (and misinterpreting) too much Selfish Gene, my friend. You are assuming that species alleles are only able to coexist in a population in the animal kingdom by way of brute strength and fitness. Many animal populations have evolved as they did because the individual survives better in groups. You are also assuming that the handicap occured due to genes, and not due to extended oxygen deprevation, loss of a limb, etc. You are assuming that because we humans behave differently from other animals in our society that we are exempt from the evolutionary process. That is simply closeminded.

And chimpanzees don't do it "all the time" it happened on an occasion and became famous, but that was one chimpanzee in a whole population. Hardly the norm. Yes, it happens, but it's not what every Chimpanzee does if they have the opportunity, and not what most do if they have the opportunity.

and please find a source for "From a secular perspective, morality, by the most widely accepted definition, is us wanting our genes to thrive." please. And it better not be Dawkins, because most sociobiologists think his limited theory of cultural evolution is full of shit at the moment.

Every organism "protects its genes" in a different way. You call it parasitism, I don't. The point is, humans have not removed themselves or any member of humanity from evolution. It is impossible, because if it were possible then the theory of evolution would be completely impossible. You have drawn a line in the sand between us and the rest of the natural world for no reason whatsoever.
Note the bolded part in that wikipedia quote. That is what is required for a change to be considered evolution. Our society, many argue, is a product of natural selection, right? Retarded people who breed are suceeding. Those that don't are failing. The cuckoo bird lays its eggs in another species of bird's nest, and the bird raises the eggs. Does this make it artificial selection? No. Our society doesn't encourage retarded people to mate any more than it does the average person. Yet it happens.


Chimpanzee infanticide is well documented and common. With the Bonobo chimpanzees it is extremely rare, so perhaps you were thinking of them.

As for the rest of your post, I was arguing against the implications of morality being defined by us wanting to protect our genes. I wasn't arguing in support of it, and perhaps my "most widely accepted" remark was uncalled for. I should have called it a popular theory, as it is indeed popular amongst Western laymen atheists now; mostly from Dawkins' celebrity status. If you view morality as being culturally defined, then this proves my point of logic not being everything, which was my original purpose. If you want to get into a debate about morals, I'd be happy to do so, but I'd have to know what you believe the basis for morality is.

#813
MAGIKAL ICE

MAGIKAL ICE
  • Members
  • 200 posts
  • Location:NewYork
I have no religion, I don't follow anything at all

I live my lifestyle my way, I live life clean and pure and try to stay clean from all bad morals


I would like to discuss 'Masturbation And Religion"

Most religions fail to say that Masturbation is a sin. The religions fail to say Masturbation EVIL OR NOT?


I would like to say that masturbation is self pleasure, You feel great when you masturbate and many people have fantasies while they masturbate. Surely, The people fail to see anything wrong and they think it is a harmless and sinless action.

I would like to point out that "Sexual fantasies" are INDEED a SIN in religion. They say that sexual fantasy is generally Wrong and not pure. The Catholics, Muslims and other religions say that sexual fantasies are a sin. Even erotic images and acts are considered Wrong by some religions and impure thoughts.

Even the jewish say that masturbation is wrong and FORBIDDEN, Quite a few jews masturbate and they FAIL TO UNDERSTAND. They say that masturbation is a natural act... NOT IN JUDAISM!

But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Quote from religious text^^




Masturbation is sin. The fucking bible and many fucking religious texts do not say it. I can't fucking believe that shit. I couldn't give a fuck if some old man didn't write it down in a fucking book. You are living your lives on what some fucking people wrote in a book Supposedly "Gods word" But hey what the fuck men wrote the shit...How is it from god? WHERE IS THE PROOF.

Anyway, I got my information from people and their views and i think it is the truth

MASTURBATION IS A FUCKING SIN. Too bad not many people know


Some people say that masturbation is "SOLO SEX" "Giving yourself sex" "Sex with yourself" God and it goes on and on.

I am not flaming anyone at all, I am not angry or pissed, I am just amazed at how much bullshit goes down with religion and on how so much fucking shit is wrong and messed up...Eh oh well

#814
Myth

Myth
  • Members
  • 4,051 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brisbane, Australia
  • Interests:1234567890qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm
QUOTE (MAGIKAL ICE @ Jul 1 2007, 03:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I have no religion, I don't follow anything at all

I live my lifestyle my way, I live life clean and pure and try to stay clean from all bad morals
I would like to discuss 'Masturbation And Religion"

Most religions fail to say that Masturbation is a sin. The religions fail to say Masturbation EVIL OR NOT?
I would like to say that masturbation is self pleasure, You feel great when you masturbate and many people have fantasies while they masturbate. Surely, The people fail to see anything wrong and they think it is a harmless and sinless action.

I would like to point out that "Sexual fantasies" are INDEED a SIN in religion. They say that sexual fantasy is generally Wrong and not pure. The Catholics, Muslims and other religions say that sexual fantasies are a sin. Even erotic images and acts are considered Wrong by some religions and impure thoughts.

Even the jewish say that masturbation is wrong and FORBIDDEN, Quite a few jews masturbate and they FAIL TO UNDERSTAND. They say that masturbation is a natural act... NOT IN JUDAISM!

But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Quote from religious text^^
Masturbation is sin. The fucking bible and many fucking religious texts do not say it. I can't fucking believe that shit. I couldn't give a fuck if some old man didn't write it down in a fucking book. You are living your lives on what some fucking people wrote in a book Supposedly "Gods word" But hey what the fuck men wrote the shit...How is it from god? WHERE IS THE PROOF.

Anyway, I got my information from people and their views and i think it is the truth

MASTURBATION IS A FUCKING SIN. Too bad not many people know
Some people say that masturbation is "SOLO SEX" "Giving yourself sex" "Sex with yourself" God and it goes on and on.

I am not flaming anyone at all, I am not angry or pissed, I am just amazed at how much bullshit goes down with religion and on how so much fucking shit is wrong and messed up...Eh oh well


wtf? so you're saying masturbation is a sin? so, you're not religious yet you say masturbation is wrong? i dont understand. why do you think masturbation is morally corrupt? I mean, lust and emotion are considered devilish by religion, but since you're not religious, why do you find masturbation 'wrong and messed up'? what kind of 'sin' have someone done when the masturbate??? what harm did they do??? unless you're ofcourse, stating that religion is contradiction itself... that makes sense and i agree if you do mean that.

#815
Hrugnir

Hrugnir

    The Disciple

  • Retired Staff
  • 5,278 posts
  • xfire:hrugnir
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sweden
  • Interests:Gaming, Music, Theology, Mythology, Eschathology, Philosophy, Psychology.
  • PSN:A1R5N1P3R
  • Wii:1887372691017334
  • Gamer Army ID:165
MAGIKAL ICE, you make me realize why so many people remain non-religious in secular societies - while there are Atheists who actually don't have a belief because they researched religion and didn't find it to make sense - most non-religious people in Sweden at least just have no fucking idea what the Bible says, or that the two billion Christians in the world cannot be held responsible for the God behind what their beliefs are.

To get on to your rant:

There's nothing wrong with the actual act of masturbation - the only reason it's normally seen as wrong is because it tends to involves "looking at another woman with lust" (read: porn or fantasies about Kylie Minogue or anyone other than your partner) - and it's considered adultery. If you only think about your partner, however, or if you just do it for fun without thinking about anything sexual - then you're free to rub your stick as much as you want, in God's eyes.

Judaism I believe doesn't mention anything about it in the Tanakh (I am only really familiar with Biblical Judaism, rather than Pharisaic/Rabbinical Judaism and it's modern followers), and the only Old Testament quotation commonly thought to be about it is the story about Onan, which has nothing to do with masturbation, but rather that the guy should marry his brother's widow instead of keeping his seed to himself. If, by the way, you want to ask about that, the reason for that law was because in pretty much all of the Middle-East, and in society in general until the 20th century, unmarried widows usually ended up poor, so this was a law designed to protect those widows, before the days of welfare.

EDIT: I just checked the story to refresh my memory, and in fact he *was* married to his brother's widow, but his duty was to get her a child so that his brother would legally have a child considered his, but he kept pulling it out before ejaculating, so he was sinning by not impregnating his brother's widow. Either way, it's not about masturbation.

What you keep forgetting, though, is that while this is a sin, we will never be free of sin in the first place. I personally can't even keep track of all my sins. If I had to confess every single sin, ever, I'd be damned to hell for sure. But God forgave them all, and now my goal is simply to live an as pure life before God as I can, both because it does good to myself, because it does good to others and because I'm doing what God is pleased with. But 95% of sins aren't there because God doesn't like it, but because he created us, and hence knows what's good and bad for us in the long perspective of things.

#816
MAGIKAL ICE

MAGIKAL ICE
  • Members
  • 200 posts
  • Location:NewYork
I have read about the sins and how the sins can be ranged, What i mean is how the sins can be ranked

So basically they are "Degrees" of sin, You know from a little tiny sin to a serious sin, So it's like a scale from 1 to 10 as you can put it into example

starting from 1 would be little sins, For example stealing some money or a small amount, and as you go up to 10 you would go on to the more serious or sins such as murder, rape, adultery, which are very bad sins in religious text.

I am just giving an example on how sins can be non serious and can go to "Critical" and very bad sins.

So now you see how sins can range from.



I have read that masturbation is on the "Serious sin rank"
I have read on the internet and that "Feeling lust is equivalent to adultery"

you can masturbate without any "Lustful thoughts" Some people say that it is less of a sin if you don't lust when you masturbate...BUT THE PROBLEM IS THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE LUST! when they masturbate and have fantasy

For many people "Lust" Is not a sin. Well many religions say lust is a sin. Now we get into conflict of what religion says is "Wrong" "AND PEOPLE THINK IT IS NOT WRONG" Well clearly they are going against words that were "STATED IN RELIGIOUS TEXT" SO HOW CAN IT BE WRONG LOL>> DUMB PEOPLE

you see how pathetic this is...how pathetic people in religion are. Lust is a sin and some people say it is not a sin "BECAUSE IT DOES NO HARM" this is TOTAL NONSENSE


Seriously, People need to be educated in religion. Not this fucking bullshit saying "JESUS IS MY SAVIOR AND I GIVE HIM MY SOUL" A lot of religious people do not know JACK SHIT and they attend church "THEY REMAIN COMPLETELY IGNORANT"

I have nothing against religion, It's just filled with bullocks that need to be corrected and it seems like it's not corrected and peoplel have their own opinions

"NEWS FLASH: Did you know man edited religion to his own likings? do you know that? Well i think this is why we have all this shit cofusion

#817
Hrugnir

Hrugnir

    The Disciple

  • Retired Staff
  • 5,278 posts
  • xfire:hrugnir
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sweden
  • Interests:Gaming, Music, Theology, Mythology, Eschathology, Philosophy, Psychology.
  • PSN:A1R5N1P3R
  • Wii:1887372691017334
  • Gamer Army ID:165
I agree that there are quite a lot of people who say they are Christians while continuing to live in sin, but you obviously ignored the last paragraph of my last thought. We sin all the time and we think about sinning all the time. We think about murdering people, we think about jumping off cliffs... They are all sins, but just because we think the thought doesn't make them okay. But the fact that we are all sinners doesn't make a religion wrong.

#818
Vengeance

Vengeance

    MotM March 2007 | teh_cookierer

  • GA Sergeant
  • 2,057 posts
  • xfire:vengeance238
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mle Island ()
  • Wii:7099005730287119
  • Gamer Army ID:100
QUOTE (MAGIKAL ICE @ Jul 1 2007, 04:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I have read about the sins and how the sins can be ranged, What i mean is how the sins can be ranked

So basically they are "Degrees" of sin, You know from a little tiny sin to a serious sin, So it's like a scale from 1 to 10 as you can put it into example

starting from 1 would be little sins, For example stealing some money or a small amount, and as you go up to 10 you would go on to the more serious or sins such as murder, rape, adultery, which are very bad sins in religious text.

I am just giving an example on how sins can be non serious and can go to "Critical" and very bad sins.


That's just Catholic doctrine, venial and mortal sins. It's not generally accepted at all :/
QUOTE
So now you see how sins can range from.
I have read that masturbation is on the "Serious sin rank"
I have read on the internet and that "Feeling lust is equivalent to adultery"


Where have you read any of that? 4chan? icon_biggrin.gif
QUOTE
you can masturbate without any "Lustful thoughts" Some people say that it is less of a sin if you don't lust when you masturbate...BUT THE PROBLEM IS THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE LUST! when they masturbate and have fantasy


Awesome logic icon_biggrin.gif You can masturbate without lust and it's not a sin, but most people lust. Therefore, masturbation without lust in a sin, right? Oh wait icon_razz.gif

QUOTE
For many people "Lust" Is not a sin. Well many religions say lust is a sin. Now we get into conflict of what religion says is "Wrong" "AND PEOPLE THINK IT IS NOT WRONG" Well clearly they are going against words that were "STATED IN RELIGIOUS TEXT" SO HOW CAN IT BE WRONG LOL>> DUMB PEOPLE


Less caps, it hurts my eyes. Okay, sin isn't anything to do with what humans think is right or wrong. Sins aren't dependant on human views of morals.
QUOTE
you see how pathetic this is...how pathetic people in religion are. Lust is a sin and some people say it is not a sin "BECAUSE IT DOES NO HARM" this is TOTAL NONSENSE
Seriously, People need to be educated in religion. Not this fucking bullshit saying "JESUS IS MY SAVIOR AND I GIVE HIM MY SOUL" A lot of religious people do not know JACK SHIT and they attend church "THEY REMAIN COMPLETELY IGNORANT"


Right, well, no, hypocrites aren't cool. But I don't think there are too many Christians who have views on morals directly in conflict with the Sermon on the Mount, heh...
QUOTE
I have nothing against religion, It's just filled with bullocks that need to be corrected and it seems like it's not corrected and peoplel have their own opinions


What? Religion is full of cows? I won't press the typo, sorry, but still, I don't understand what you're saying. Religion is okay, but everything in religion sucks and needs to be changed?
QUOTE
"NEWS FLASH: Did you know man edited religion to his own likings? do you know that? Well i think this is why we have all this shit cofusion


What?

#819
Fin

Fin
  • Members
  • 1,347 posts
QUOTE
NEWS FLASH: Did you know man edited religion to his own likings? do you know that? Well i think this is why we have all this shit cofusion

this holds little truth indeed, but I would be actualy more intresting in what did the early christians add / remove / edit in the bible ..you know when Catholic church had a big meeting, men with funny robes sat down, and "fixed" the bible.
was there like 3-5 times when this happened? I'm too arsed to go to wikipedia, but if anyone here could help me on this one ?

#820
dewoo

dewoo
  • Members
  • 710 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
QUOTE (MAGIKAL ICE @ Jul 1 2007, 05:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I have read about the sins and how the sins can be ranged, What i mean is how the sins can be ranked

So basically they are "Degrees" of sin, You know from a little tiny sin to a serious sin, So it's like a scale from 1 to 10 as you can put it into example

starting from 1 would be little sins, For example stealing some money or a small amount, and as you go up to 10 you would go on to the more serious or sins such as murder, rape, adultery, which are very bad sins in religious text.

I am just giving an example on how sins can be non serious and can go to "Critical" and very bad sins.

So now you see how sins can range from.
I have read that masturbation is on the "Serious sin rank"
I have read on the internet and that "Feeling lust is equivalent to adultery"

you can masturbate without any "Lustful thoughts" Some people say that it is less of a sin if you don't lust when you masturbate...BUT THE PROBLEM IS THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE LUST! when they masturbate and have fantasy

For many people "Lust" Is not a sin. Well many religions say lust is a sin. Now we get into conflict of what religion says is "Wrong" "AND PEOPLE THINK IT IS NOT WRONG" Well clearly they are going against words that were "STATED IN RELIGIOUS TEXT" SO HOW CAN IT BE WRONG LOL>> DUMB PEOPLE

you see how pathetic this is...how pathetic people in religion are. Lust is a sin and some people say it is not a sin "BECAUSE IT DOES NO HARM" this is TOTAL NONSENSE
Seriously, People need to be educated in religion. Not this fucking bullshit saying "JESUS IS MY SAVIOR AND I GIVE HIM MY SOUL" A lot of religious people do not know JACK SHIT and they attend church "THEY REMAIN COMPLETELY IGNORANT"

I have nothing against religion, It's just filled with bullocks that need to be corrected and it seems like it's not corrected and peoplel have their own opinions

"NEWS FLASH: Did you know man edited religion to his own likings? do you know that? Well i think this is why we have all this shit cofusion

you do have a great point with the part about christians who just go to church and just agrees to what the priest says whithout thinking for themselfs.I have a philosophy:questioning! what ever you belive question it. Ask yourself "why do i think like that?" and if you dont't have a clear answer to that you become very vulnerable since you will fall for anything. But then we can't forget that religon is based on faith. Beliving what you can't see. However this does NOT justify beliving something becuse someone told you so. You can't build a religon on events that happend to some guy 2000,100 or 2 years ago, it has to be personal. I feel that many christians that has grown up in christian familes often tend to "take over" there parents faith instead of creating one of there own. And then there is the problem with the "christian look". I am talking about people who only pray in church when someone can see how "christian" and "good" thay are.

and on that last statement.. have you ever heard of the dead see scrolls?
Grass grows, birds fly, sun shines, and brother, I hurt people.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users