|| Replies ||

User	Blue Monk | 2006-07-03 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Facts remain only until they are disproven (and then you can question that).

User	kanu | 2006-07-03 |
Subject	untitled
Message	that’s why the essential platform to understanding religion is that it is not a fallible man made creation At the same time it requires disrcimination to perceive what is actually proper religion (as opposed to imitation) Spiritual life is not easy (but then material life is impossible ...)

User	WolfStar | 2006-07-02 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Well it can be argued that any "fact" is only a theory that has not been disproven. Is it even possible to "prove" anything? Even if we all agree and the results are consistent 99 times in a row, there is still a chance we are wrong the 100th time.

User	Blue Monk | 2006-07-02 |
Subject	untitled
Message	If something is truly proven, it’s no longer a "theory".

User	ghostknight | 2006-07-01 |
Subject	untitled
Message	how retarded do you have to be to post something that inaccurate regarding the proven theory of relativity? i shouldn’t be suprised that when presented with perfectly good evidence people around here don’t even bother to look it up.

User	Outlaw | 2006-06-29 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Yes, to the relativity. No to it’s contradicting what I said. There is only one TRUTH, how you PERCEIVE it with your senses is different. But I like that allegory of the three blind men. Imagine only being able to touch an elephant’s tusk, physically being restricted from the rest of it by senses. You can imagine the rest of it, and out of the millions of possibility get the right one, because you’re metaphysical capacity is only finite itself.

User	Blue Monk | 2006-06-29 |
Subject	untitled
Message	"last I checked there was only ONE version of the truth, and an infinite amount of lies. " Very well said, except that you could have left out the words "version of the". After all, this is a writing forum as well as a debate. As far as truth is concerned, recall the story of the three blind men given the task of describing an elephant. All were right, yet incomplete.

User	ghostknight | 2006-06-28 |
Subject	untitled
Message	i’d be sad if there was only one version of the truth. a man standing under a blinking light in a moving train car will see the light hit the front and back of the car at the same time. a man standing on the bank of the railroad track watching the car go by will see the light hit the front before it hits the back. two different realities, both equally true. (relativity)

User	Outlaw | 2006-06-26 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Just a remark, there is a saying. If the entire world except three men were clinically qualified as insane, who do you think would be the insane ones? I think it be ironic that people say you can find truth in numbers, because last I checked there was only ONE version of the truth, and an infinite amount of lies.

User	dismentled | 2006-06-26 |
Subject	untitled
Message	ok, well the point I was trying to make was thinking of hell outside biblical term, though that seems undone. Known to whom, fair enough, known to an individual, such as yourself. There are pleanty of UFO sightings, ghosts, bigfoot; etc. with controversial photos yet so few believe it, but "how would you know if they were lying?" I remember when I was a kid I believed in Santa Clause, and even saw him(damn imposters!), as did millions of other kids. But that was short lived, soon pointed out, how could 1 watch over the entire world and know whether they were good or bad; than reward or punish accordingly(i only got coal once!) "For instance is it enoughto say that something is "real" simply if enough people agree with it at a particular point of time?" My answer would have to be no

User	Chell | 2006-06-26 |
Subject	untitled
Message	You know, most of the time, when someone says they saw God they are labeled insane, a religious fanatic. I thought it would be interesting to some of those who have claimed to have seen God. Here’s what the search brought up: General Buttnaked- aka Joshua Milton Blahyi - he believed that if he sacrificed small children and went into battle naked that he would be bulletproof. But one day, he "claims he saw God that told him that he was a slave to Satan, not the hero he considered himself to be. God commanded him to spread the word of the gospel so he started preaching. To put on some clothes was his own idea." http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/Liberia/Asadstateofaffairs.html Joseph Smith- founder of the Mormon Church- who claims he saw God, professed that Christ was going to come back by Feb 14, 1891, and that the inhabitants of the moon were of uniform height (about 6 ft. tall), dressed like Quakers and lived nearly 1,000 years. His legacy is a church that was polygamist, racist, and baptises- by proxy- those that have died. Oh, and they expect to become Gods of their own galaxies one day. Joshua Brookoff- the frustrated artist of “E.S.P. For Dummies” claims he saw God in the midst of recording this album...God apparently just wanted to tell him to move to Portland. William Blake, who was a poet, artist and visionary, claimed he saw God in a tree when he looked out the window one day at the age of four. Ayrton Senna, the winner of the Japanese Grand Prix of 1988 claimed he saw God on the final corner of the final lap. (Must be a sports fan...) But to answer the question about someone claiming to see God- it’s not possible to see God, at least according to Christ’s gospel. 1 John 4:12 "No one has ever seen God; ...." 1 Timothy 1:17 "Now to the King eternal, immortal, INVISIBLE, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen." 1 Timothy 6:15-16 "which God will bring about in his own time, God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in UNAPPROACHABLE LIGHT, whom NO ONE HAS SEEN OR CAN SEE. To him be honor and might forever. Amen. " So, if someone said they saw God, they’d be lying. Although many claimed they saw the angels of God in the Old Testament. Moses claims he saw the finger of God inscribe the ten commandments, so it’s hard to say. The Old Testament and New Testament are a bit contradictiory of this question. And interesting point- there hasn’t been an angel sent down since the Old Testament. The voice and spirit of God descended when Jesus was baptized, but it looked like a dove. As for being knowable to to whom? The Bible says if you seek Him you will find Him. So I guess the answer to that one is- anyone who looks. (Just not with your eyes,LOL)

User	kanu | 2006-06-25 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Actually Chell by my comment "Is it enough for something to be real if enough people agree it is real at a particular point in time" I was meaning that if there is a general consensus now that noone has seen god and that it has never been possible and we are just sitting around waiting for him to stick his head out of a cloud or something so noone knows god- The question is though "knowable to whom?" If someone said they had seen god how would you know if they were lying?

User	Outlaw | 2006-06-25 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Question: What does it matter how painful and eternally lasting hell is? Has it not been proven that we can psychologically ignore pain? And is it not normal for people to get used to pain, therein lessening it’s agonizing touch? I mean, this is obviously accepting the word for word definition of chell as the modern view of hell, but to a certain extent does it really matter if it’s agonizing or not? If you really think about it.. give or take a few years and no amount of pain will be unbearable. Out of pure instinct, modern use of hell is propaganda. I mean, the first example I’d refer to is Animal Farm with Squealer. He’d always remind the animals of the hellish life earlier on in the story with the farmer, and how if they didn’t agree with him it would become their near futur. Of course, here I am not arguing that the idea of hell exist purely as propaganda, but is used AS propaganda often. Children don’t know any better, and if you tell them - Matrix: "Which pill do you want Neo? Blue or Red?" - it’s the "right" way or hell, the decision is made by you FOR them. That’s like asking any grown adult - if you put a gun to their head - "Give me your wallet, or I’ll shoot you!" Now I know close to nothing about the bible, and I read a bit about what Chell wrote. As for his three love words. I did a project relating to love and had to work with all three of the things he described. I used: Erotic, Platonic and Aristotle’s "good will." His version of good will was a conterpart I think to unconditional love, it was loving a person for the SAKE of that person and their well being. Another thing I’d like to point out. We are all familiar with the story of The Tower of Babble, right? We are also hearing that God speaks no language, he understands purely and simply - Or so I have been told. So tell me where is the importance of which or what word? I believe that if God was UNDERSTANDING, and he saw that people’s INTENTIONS were good, or meant to be oriented the right way, that even if they were misled by misunderstandings they’d still be blessed and rewarded. Because, when it comes down to the fine line, nobody but the big man himself can entirely, and perfectly follow the right path. But if we intend to try and do so, at least the way I see it, is really what matters. Now let me take you to the dirty place I love so much, my parent’s ways of seeing things. My dad comes from a country that was assimilated by Islam, and my mother is a Roman Catholic. What do they have in common when it comes to teching me about religions? How it’s not about hell or heaven. How it’s not about the rest of the world. It’s just about Me and God. They both agreed to avoid textual teachings because of the obvious conflict, but they also decided to guide my morals. I am now fifteen, and wishing I was systematically droned into a religion head first without any doubt. Because of the conflict, for me, originating for the grosely big amount of religions in this world. But enough about that... I think we should, for the sake of this argument establish the fact that we won’t agree with one another. Eastern-Western conflicting ideas, national traditions; there are too many things that change the way we understand things like "Hell" or Gehenna, or whatever you want to call it. Alright? Let us instead try to UNDERSTAND each other’s point of view regarding the subject, instead of qualifying one as right above all others.

User	Chell | 2006-06-25 |
Subject	untitled
Message	It is NOT enough to say that something is "real" simply because enough people agree with it at a particular point of time? If we were to hold to that thought pattern, then at one time the world was actually flat, the sun rotated around the earth, We should use leeches to treat infections, Zeus, Thor, Jupiter were real living Gods, and humans are currently omnivores. Simply having a lot of people believe something doesn’t make it true, just commonly accepted. Right now, God is a commonly accepted idea, but that doesn’t necessarily mean He actually exists. (A seriously scary thought, but if we’re looking at logic...)

User	Chell | 2006-06-25 |
Subject	untitled
Message	***I looked up their definition of God the other day and if someone used that as a definition they could easily debunk the concept of god...*** To be honest Kanu, there is no physical, quantifiable, scientific proof of God existance, so the concept of God could be debunked as nothing more than a belief. Since Wikipedia relies of physical observations, historical evidence, the scientific method, etc., there is no other way for them to describe God in any other way than to call him a belief. Just because academics explain how they quantify God doesn’t change whether He really exists, right? Once God shows himself to humankind, then He will become a fact as far as the encyclopedia is concerned. Until then, Wikipedia can only describe the concept of God as a belief.

User	kanu | 2006-06-25 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Dismentled when people say things like "noone will ever know" it begs the question "knowable to whom?" For instance is it enoughto say that something is "real" simply if enough people agree with it at a particular point of time?

User	kanu | 2006-06-25 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Wikipedia is bogus - it is made up of definitions of academics - I looked up their definition of God the other day and if someone used that as a definition they could easily debunk the concept of god - basically they stick ANYTHING that ANYONE has said on the topic under the title. (and people think scripture has no integrity .....)

User	dismentled | 2006-06-25 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Hell, I here it’s nice this time of the year. I’m wondering, this thread(unsurprisingly) has been one thing after another exerted from the bible, a thought though. What are YOUR thoughts on Hell. Not the Bibles decription. Even many people who don’t believe in god(or the christian god) still believe in the existance of another realm, so to speak where the "wicked" are punished. Is it not possible that we as humans can not truelly fathom what beholds us after this life, if anything? No matter what your beliefs you can not be positive of what to expect after. Hell(exscuse the pun) some people believe that Hell is nothing more than a fictional place they hear about so they’ll behave nicely, I’ve my own thoughts/perspectives, but like everyone else will not know for sure until it’s too late to change.

User	Chell | 2006-06-25 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Which other teachings would you like to discuss on this debate? I haven’t touched on other teachings because I was addressing the topic of this thread. Which passages do you think I’m not looking at that have to do with the topic of hell? These are the scriptures I’ve looked at - in relation to this topic: The word Sheol (Hebrew) was translated into the word hell in: Isaiah 5:14; 14:9,15; 28:15,18; 57:9; Ezekiel 31:16,17; 32:21,27; Amos 9:2; Jonah 2:2; Habakkuk 2:5 In the of the King James Bible, Sheol is translated as lowest pit in: Deuteronomy 32:22; Psalms 86:13 Sheol is translated as pit in Psalms 55:15 The word Sheol occurs in the following scriptures 2Samuel 22:6; Job 8 11:8; 26:6; Psalms 9:17; 16:10; 18:5; 116:3; 139:8; Proverbs 5:5; 7:27; 9:18; 15:11,24; 23:14; 27:20 Sheol is translated grave in Genesis 37:35; 42:38; 44:29,31; 1Samuel 2:6; 1kings 2:6; 9; Job 9 7:9; 14:13; 17:13; 21:13; 24:19; Psalms 6:5; 30:3; 31:17; 49:14,15; 88:3; 89:48; 141:7; Proverbs 1:12; 30:16; Ecclesiastes9:10; Song of Solomon 8:6; Hosea 14 13:14 The Greek word "gehenna" is translated as "hell" in the following scriptures Matthew 5:22,29,30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15,33; Mark 9:43,45,47; Luke 5 12:5; James 3:6 Hades Greek) was translated into the word Hell in the following scriptures Matthew 11:23; 16:18; Luke 10:15; 16:23; Acts 2:27,31; Revelations 1:18; 6:8; 20:13,14 Can you please show me, in the Bible, where Jesus describes Hell as spending all of eternity in a place where evildoers suffer, populated by demons who torment the damned, and ruled by Satan; a domain of boundless dimension, scope, and torment. To quote Wikipedia.com, "Hell, as it exists in the Western popular imagination, has its origins in Hellenized Christianity, particularly taken from adaptation of the Hellenistic afterlife known as Tartarus." And hell, as most christians believe it to be, really does resemble the Greek mythology of Tartarus. But Jesus never uses the word ’Tartarus’ because ’hell’ wasn’t part of his gospel but is actually a Hellenistic belief of about afterlife in Tartarus that was used by Christianity after Christ was dead. This thread is about Hell, about people’s beliefs in hell, about the origins of those beliefs. If someone can show me where Jesus describes hell as being the way it is currently being portrayed in Christian religion, or a scripture where Jesus tells us to believe in the Greek myth of Tartarus, I’d greatly appreciate it. And if anyone would like to debate some of Christs other teachings you could start another thread...

User	mae | 2006-06-25 |
Subject	untitled
Message	But Chell, you weren’t there to hear Christ’s words. Why do you believe certain words - the ones about love - and not the others? It has been my experience that people like certain passages in the Bible - they certainly keep coming up - passages like the ones you mention, plus the ’don’t judge or you’ll be judged’ passage - because the former gives us all warm and fuzzy feelings - ’God loves everybody, so he must love me.’ - and because if they’re confronted with something wrong they’re doing, they can whip out the "How dare you judge me?" card. Those are rather self-serving passages if that’s all you look at. The fact is, the gospel consists of much more than just those two favorite pieces. Whether you want to believe the hard parts or not, they are just as valid as the rest of it. Rather than looking at a single word and deciding what a whole passage means, it seems like it would be more accurate to look at the whole passage. If Christ only spoke of the garbage dump, why did he say at least three times in the Gospel of Matthew that there would be weeping and gnashing of teeth? Most people don’t weep and gnash their teeth when they throw out the garbage. I think Wolfie has the idea right. Instead of being hung up on a single word, she understands the concept. Hell is a very unpleasant place to be. mae