First off, I want you to read the following statements:
- I hate a specific, or all religions.
- I hate atheists.
- My beliefs are right, and yours are wrong.
If any of the above apply to you then close this window now. You are not wanted here.
Ok, so the basic idea for this club is, as the title implies, the discussion of theology and/or ethics. I know there are plenty of religion clubs about, but as far as I can tell there isn't one designed for a wide range of beliefs. So, whether you're Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, or belonging to any other religious denomination, all are welcome.
As you have probably already guessed by now, this isn't a club for flame wars, anyone who comes here posting emo rants about how religion is wrong will be ignored. Of course, what we do want to see is people posting challenging/interesting points about their beliefs in contrast with others. For example, discussion of how recent scientific breakthroughs have contradiced, or supported a specific belief is fine, as long as you don't turn it into a vendetta.
So the main aims of this club are:
- Discussion of religion
- Discussion of ethics
- Debate on contrasting beliefs
And now to lay down a few ground rules:
- No flaming/ranting/sensationalist bullshit
- 100% respect for the beliefs of others. You don't have to agree with them (there wouldn't be much room for debate if you did), but at least try to empathise to the best of your ability
- Try to keep discussion relevant and on-track
You don't need to ask permission to join, this club is open to anyone with their own views on theology, just post a little about the extent of your beliefs, and jump right in.
Failgrounds.
I'll be in, I do this in Relgious Studies at college anyway. Maybe it'll improve my great grades even more.
As far as my views go, I'm not really religious since I've not found anything that makes me want to believe. But I do believe in something. I just need to find it. THe only real strong view I have is that I believe in reincarnation and a second life on Earth and such.
At 11/26/05 10:49 AM, -TheDoctor- wrote: First off, I want you to read the following statements:
- I hate a specific, or all religions.
- I hate atheists.
- My beliefs are right, and yours are wrong.
If any of the above apply to you then close this window now. You are not wanted here.
ok,i dont believe my god (christ) is real.i mean we have no proof we ar just living organisms like wolves or protoplasma.all we do when we die is decay.religion is a scam like christ mas(can i be co admin?????).
At 11/26/05 11:03 AM, -Nev- wrote: I'll be in, I do this in Relgious Studies at college anyway. Maybe it'll improve my great grades even more.
As far as my views go, I'm not really religious since I've not found anything that makes me want to believe. But I do believe in something. I just need to find it. THe only real strong view I have is that I believe in reincarnation and a second life on Earth and such.
Hmm, I might try to convert you to Buddhism at some point then ;)
That's my religion, I've been looking into it for a few years, but only got down to any kind of serious practice a few months ago. I was in a similar position to you for most of my religious life, I always had some inkling that there was more to life than scientific fact, but (as something of a scientist myself) could never quite put faith in any kind of "higher power".
After reading up on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama however, everything seemed to make a hell of a lot more sense.
The interesting thing I found was that faith can, to some degree, be learned. Don't get me wrong - if you don't have the foundation of belief then I doubt there's much point, but as I started trying to follow the Buddhist way of life, the teachings I first thought of as "the right idea" became a lot more like "the best idea".
For example, one of the Buddhist precepts is not to kill with intention, and whereas before I did occasionally kill insects and such, by abstaining from that kind of action I now wouldn't dream of squashing a fly when I could just spend a little more time catching it without harm.
Failgrounds.
Well guess a Neo-Buddhist can be here, Let the Debate begin!
/join
May you live in interesting times.
I am Agnostic, but grew up in a Catholic home. I studied World Religions for a couple years, and have a strong interest. Well, to be accurate, I studied World Beleifs, as not everything we studied was a 'religion' per say.
If anyone is wondering Agnosticism is a belief that implies that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. Though my specific beliefs are a little different, basically I believe that there is a greater power, it is just that we, as humans, don’t have the capacity to ever fully understand it. My littler self beleif, that is by all means not common to Agnoticism is that I beleive... well, here is a little quotse I say to help explain:
"No one knows anything. Everyone knows Nothing." - Me
Religion to me is simply a community of common thought. Where faith is the individual connection to that common thought. If you are religious, you believe in something within a community of people who have the same belief. If you have faith, then you have a connection with what it is you believe, and have dedicated yourself to that common thought, but on an individual, personal, and sometimes more detailed level.
Faith and belief are similar in the way that the belief is represented, but are different in opinion. Some followers may have a more conservative belief, while others a more contemporary in their faith, but could be following the same religion within the same community of believers.
To further elabortae: I am not religious, but I have faith - faith that there is a greater power, and something beyond death, but I don’t follow any specific religion, because I don’t believe that anybody out there has it, for lack of a better phrase, spot on.
At 11/26/05 11:06 AM, Kei_Kurono wrote: ok,i dont believe my god (christ) is real.
I just wanted to point out to you that there is proof that Jesus existed. There are many documents and artifacts from that time. Also, the artwork of the eras that reflect it.
The only lacking proof is finding his exact corpse... no one really can decipher that. And the fact that no one knows if he actually was the son of God. However, it is proven that Jesus Joseph (aka Jesus Christ) did exist and was a spiritual leader, the biggest of his time.
At 11/26/05 01:09 PM, -TheDoctor- wrote: Hmm, I might try to convert you to Buddhism at some point then ;)
I've been wondering about Buddhism for some time. Do they believe you come back as a new person or as a new object, like an animal or something?
Feel free to try and convert me. :D.
At 11/26/05 03:06 PM, Myst_Williams wrote: The only lacking proof is finding his exact corpse... no one really can decipher that. And the fact that no one knows if he actually was the son of God.
Or that he walked on water....or anything other of those CRAZY super powers.
He apparently also had a brother. This discovery was all "hush-hush" because that would go against the bible...or something like that.
Anyways, I'd like to be a part of this. I'm an atheist, was raised by atheists but I think religions are very interesting. I don't think people are stupid for following religious activities, because I understand that it gives them a purpose in the world, that it comforts them. I just think that we were random accident, and I can find a purpose to life through other means.
I bascially just believe that we shouldn't consider WHY we were put here, because then we're stuck in the past. I enjoy history and I think it's important to know, but I also understand that finding an ultimate answer to existential questions is, well, impossible. Many people I know just fill in the gaps with God, which is also why I think it's useless debating with them. I just prefer to live in the present and make my own life, rather than dwell on things I cannot comprehend (and never will) and fit into the "perfect" mold that is written in some religious book.
Just one thing: don't try to convert me. It's not going to happen.
At 11/26/05 03:43 PM, DancingTurkeyGod wrote:At 11/26/05 03:06 PM, Myst_Williams wrote: The only lacking proof is finding his exact corpse... no one really can decipher that. And the fact that no one knows if he actually was the son of God.Or that he walked on water....or anything other of those CRAZY super powers.
He apparently also had a brother. This discovery was all "hush-hush" because that would go against the bible...or something like that.
If you are referring to the virgin birth, Mary gave birth to Jesus as a virgin, but to quote Dogma:
'You do really think a husband would stay with his wife if he wasn't getting any between the sheets?'
In other words, they probably had sex after the virgin birth.
Don't take this as my personal opinion, but my former RE teacher said that Buddhism isn't actually a religion, its just a belief. Her reason for this is that she says Buddhism doesn't actually have a God, and Buddha was just a prophet. Is this at all factual, or was my teacher just being a know-it-all bitch like usual? I don't trust her at all, so i think it best to get the opinions of an actual Buddhist.
At 11/26/05 03:43 PM, DancingTurkeyGod wrote: Or that he walked on water....or anything other of those CRAZY super powers.
I am not even christian, and I would not go so far as to say it is crazy. If I was christain, I would probably be insulted.
He apparently also had a brother.
People spread things like that on false information and odd interpretation all the time. Mary Magdaline (spelling?) isn't considered to be a service lady anymore either, but no one can actually say. Some say Jesus had kids with Mary, but all of this is even less accurate than the bible, because at least the bible is written historic text.
This discovery was all "hush-hush" because that would go against the bible...or something like that.
I don't think it would go against anything in the bible, except change the views of catholicism slightly, as they beleive Mary was all pure, but it could be meant as all pure before and during Jesus' conception.
At 11/26/05 04:01 PM, HeartbreakHoldout wrote: Don't take this as my personal opinion, but my former RE teacher said that Buddhism isn't actually a religion, its just a belief. Her reason for this is that she says Buddhism doesn't actually have a God...
In my opinion, religion has nothing to do with whether there is a God or not, but that is my opinion. It is the beleif and faith in something associated with teachings and a way of life. So I would certainly consider it a religion
yeah sure i will join up to.
I am currently 16 years old, i go to a catholic high school, all my family is catholic, i go to church once a week and most likely will go to a catholic uni.
I am willing to argue and back up my points and i'm willing to be openminded about certain things two. As long as it's not sacrificing puppies to Klondar, King of the Klondike Bar,
Between the idea And the reality
Between the motion And the act, Falls the Shadow
An argument in Logic
I'll join. I'm muslim.
At 11/26/05 04:01 PM, HeartbreakHoldout wrote: Don't take this as my personal opinion, but my former RE teacher said that Buddhism isn't actually a religion, its just a belief.
I think that religion does not nessecarily pertain to having a God or not (as Myst said). I think that religion is the collection of your beliefs of the spiritual, or other world.
At 11/26/05 04:01 PM, HeartbreakHoldout wrote: Is this at all factual, or was my teacher just being a know-it-all bitch like usual? I don't trust her at all, so i think it best to get the opinions of an actual Buddhist.
Well that all depends on how you define religion. One could theorise that religion constitutes believing in Gods, or a "higher power", in which case your teacher is right in what she says.
In fact, the issue of deities in Buddhism is quite an interesting one. Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha) only saught out a solution to personal suffering, he wasn't trying to found a religion. Indeed, several accounts of his life describe the Gods of Indian religion frequently appearing, or gathering to him. There are also many references like this scattered throughout Buddhist scriptures. Now I don't actually believe in these Gods myself, it was 400 years after Siddhartha's death that any of his teachings were actually written down (they were considered too sacred to be put into words) so there is plenty of room for embellishment.
So it would be pretty accurate to say that the first Buddhists at least lived in a society that worshipped Gods, although these aren't a part of Buddhism in themselves. There is clearly room for deities, but as Buddhism has grown this aspect has become more and more obsolete.
However, I don't believe in omnipotent beings - as Buddhism teaches, if there are indeed Gods then humans are equally powerful, if not more so. Buddhism certainly started as a philosophy, and I'm sure many people treat it as such today, but in the majority, Buddhists do not believe in any religion other than their own, and in modern society Buddhism is just as much of a religion as anything else.
At 11/26/05 03:43 PM, -Nev- wrote:
I've been wondering about Buddhism for some time. Do they believe you come back as a new person or as a new object, like an animal or something?
I'm actually not entirely sure, it all depends on the specific sect of Buddhism you follow. There is talk in the scriptures of only coming back as a human, where karma (what goes around comes around) decides what innate characteristics you will have. Alternately, others speak of a bad karma resulting in the Buddhist coming back as an animal, or insect.
Finally there seems to be some mention of the most negative karma (that attained from murdering a parent, or teacher) resulting in a rebirth into one of the hells (I have no idea what is meant by this), as a perfect karma, or state of "Nirvana with remainder" (living Nirvana) will deliver the Buddhist into a state of "Nirvana without remainder" (final Nirvana) which could be likened to heaven (although the meaning is much more complex in nature - it is the freeing of the Buddhist from the cycle of death and rebirth).
Feel free to try and convert me. :D.
Well I'll doubtless post lots of stuff about Buddhism as this thread progresses, so read up and see if you like the idea :)
Failgrounds.
At 11/26/05 04:01 PM, HeartbreakHoldout wrote: Don't take this as my personal opinion, but my former RE teacher said that Buddhism isn't actually a religion, its just a belief.
Actually it matters which budhisim. there a sect of Budhisim that worships Buddha as a diety and god then there's the other sect that follow his laws as a belief.
Between the idea And the reality
Between the motion And the act, Falls the Shadow
An argument in Logic
At 11/26/05 04:43 PM, fenrus1989 wrote:
Actually it matters which budhisim. there a sect of Budhisim that worships Buddha as a diety and god then there's the other sect that follow his laws as a belief.
Heheh, yeah some people worship the remains of the Buddha, and believe they contain a divine power. I take all of the stuff about him being a God with a pinch of salt. He was an incredible man - but he was a man.
Oh and he made no laws as such - he just told people how to achieve what he had. The Buddhist precepts were set in place some hundred years later as a means to better define the Buddhist way of life (Siddhartha was slightly vague in this respect - he encouraged people to find the answers themselves, essentially what worked for them. However not everyone has the capacity for this, hence the precepts).
Failgrounds.
At 11/26/05 04:32 PM, Myst_Williams wrote: I am not even christian, and I would not go so far as to say it is crazy. If I was christain, I would probably be insulted.
I didn't mean crazy as in insane, but more in the slang way of saying "cool" (c'mon, walking on water IS pretty cool). I'm sorry and I didn't mean it to be insulting. I'll watch out about how I'm describing things from now on and try to remain (relatively) intelligent.
People spread things like that on false information and odd interpretation all the time.
Or the church is hiding everything. CONSPIRACY! No but seriously. Some say it's rumors, some say it's the church hiding the evidence so it doesn't confuse people. I think it's a mix of both. The Catholic church DOES have a lot of power, and they definately wouldn't want to introduce doubt into their religious teachings/stories.
I don't think it would go against anything in the bible, except change the views of catholicism slightly, as they beleive Mary was all pure, but it could be meant as all pure before and during Jesus' conception.
I do believe it says she's a virgin in the bible, but yes, it changes their views more than anything. Part of the problem is that too many people follow these stories word for word, instead of understanding the morals and values that these stories are preaching.
I actually heard that in those times, if you had sex on a certain day, it was allowed and thus you remained a "virgin". Hence why Mary was still a virgin at the time that Jesus was born.
Bullshit? Maybe. Actually probably. It's still interesting though to see how people explain these things.
At 11/26/05 04:41 PM, -TheDoctor- wrote: in which case your teacher is right in what she says.
God forbid.
So it would be pretty accurate to say that the first Buddhists at least lived in a society that worshipped Gods, although these aren't a part of Buddhism in themselves. There is clearly room for deities, but as Buddhism has grown this aspect has become more and more obsolete.
So you're saying that Buddhism was loosely associated with Gods when it was considered neccesary to have Gods to be a real religion?
most Buddhists do not believe in any religion other than their own, and in modern society Buddhism is just as much of a religion as anything else.
But it is possible to follow Buddhism as well as other religions?
Well I'll doubtless post lots of stuff about Buddhism as this thread progresses, so read up and see if you like the idea :)
Please do, i'm quite interested in Buddhism myself, even though I am a Catholic.
Would you guys say that following a religion is worthwhile even if you don't feel a particular amount of faith towards it? I mean, i am technically Catholic, i do go to church, i do essentially believe in God, but I don't have any strong feeling of God in my life. I like helping others, and helping at my church where i can (reading, helping at events), but I don't know if i'm just following this religion because of how i've been raised.
At 11/26/05 10:49 AM, -TheDoctor- wrote:
You don't need to ask permission to join, this club is open to anyone with their own views on theology, just post a little about the extent of your beliefs, and jump right in.
ok i believe in God and that but i don't follow any organised religion because i see it becoming corrupt (not all of it but some). forgive me if this caused offence.
At 11/26/05 05:00 PM, HeartbreakHoldout wrote:
So you're saying that Buddhism was loosely associated with Gods when it was considered neccesary to have Gods to be a real religion?
Not quite, Buddhism in itself has nothing to do with Gods, at the time however, many Buddhists would have been members of other religions. So for example: say today a Christian discovered a revolutionary new way to live life that contained spiritual meaning in itself, but that didn't directly contradict the idea of God. The Buddha was like that, as I say, at the time it was more of a philosophy, nowadays - because other religions don't acknowledge the idea of reincarnation/karma - it is more of a religion.
But it is possible to follow Buddhism as well as other religions?
Theoretically, yes. But then again you could say the same is true of all beliefs. Buddhism is probably just more compatible with other religions than anything else, as it doesn't contradict the idea of a specific deity.
Would you guys say that following a religion is worthwhile even if you don't feel a particular amount of faith towards it?
Well, everyone has their own religious standing. I say as long as you believe, and enjoy the practices that come with it, then everything's well and good.
Failgrounds.
I'm all in... I dunno if i'll post much since i've seem to be drifting in and out of NG the past few weeks but im in...
At 11/26/05 04:54 PM, DancingTurkeyGod wrote: I didn't mean crazy as in insane, but more in the slang way of saying "cool" (c'mon, walking on water IS pretty cool). I'm sorry and I didn't mean it to be insulting. I'll watch out about how I'm describing things from now on and try to remain (relatively) intelligent.
Oh.. I got you. Sorry, people don't use crazy in that context around here. And I wasn't actually insulted, I was just stating so that you knew that it could be seen as insulting... but I didnt realize you meant it in another way.
Or the church is hiding everything. CONSPIRACY! No but seriously. Some say it's rumors, some say it's the church hiding the evidence so it doesn't confuse people. I think it's a mix of both. The Catholic church DOES have a lot of power, and they definately wouldn't want to introduce doubt into their religious teachings/stories.
I guess, but that in itself would be going against their own teachings... hypocricy isn't in the ten commandments. lol. I think speculations are just speculations, but everyone has their own opinion.
I do believe it says she's a virgin in the bible, but yes, it changes their views more than anything.
Ya, "Immaculate Conception" virgin upon Jusus' birth. It doesnt mean she didnt hit the shack afterwards haha... so most sects wouldnt change.
Part of the problem is that too many people follow these stories word for word, instead of understanding the morals and values that these stories are preaching.
I agree. I happen to beleive the bible is a series of philosophical concepts expressed in fictional prose by some genious of that time. And the re-counts of Jesus may be partially accurate, but I dont feel fully and were meant to spread love and a positive way of life. Or... he actually thought he was Gods son. Who knows really... but Judas.
I actually heard that in those times, if you had sex on a certain day, it was allowed and thus you remained a "virgin". Hence why Mary was still a virgin at the time that Jesus was born.
Hmm... never heard that.
At 11/26/05 05:19 PM, Myst_Williams wrote: Ya, "Immaculate Conception" virgin upon Jusus' birth. It doesnt mean she didnt hit the shack afterwards haha... so most sects wouldnt change.
Me already made that point :P.
Also on Buddhism I might like that since it doesn't revolve around Gods. Cause I just don't feel a connection with another external being.
I dunno if it means anything but the other day I was the Big Dipper and Orion for the first time in my life and I was pretty awe stuck. I know its nothing really spectacular or out of this world, but it just so great and made me feel good in the sense that I've seen it.
Then later I pondered whether I actually felt a connection with God (cause we talk about the whole 'Seeing as Gods creation' in RS) and I felt no connectionwhat so ever. I just felt amazed at the sight.
At 11/26/05 05:38 PM, -Nev- wrote: I dunno if it means anything but the other day I was the Big Dipper and Orion for the first time in my life and I was pretty awe stuck. I know its nothing really spectacular or out of this world, but it just so great and made me feel good in the sense that I've seen it.
If i remember my terms correcly, that would possibly be a numinous experience, showing pethaps a belief in an external being. I can't remember exactly what the experiences mean, but its definately some connection to God right there.
At 11/26/05 05:42 PM, HeartbreakHoldout wrote: If i remember my terms correcly, that would possibly be a numinous experience, showing pethaps a belief in an external being.
It would have been a numinous experience, had I actually felt a connection with an external being. I've forgot about all that stuff, I've been doing a lot of David Hume and Holland, so my knowledge of religious experiences has been pushed to the back of my mind. I'll have a read through tomorrow when I'm sorting out my file.
I can't remember exactly what the experiences mean, but its definately some connection to God right there.
Its only a connection if you personally feel it. A believer could argue that those constellations were the product of God and that God put them there for us to see.
I don't nessecarily see it that way though since I'm open minded since I don't want to settle with something until I know that there isn't a greater option for me.
At 11/26/05 05:56 PM, -Nev- wrote: It would have been a numinous experience, had I actually felt a connection with an external being. I've forgot about all that stuff, I've been doing a lot of David Hume and Holland, so my knowledge of religious experiences has been pushed to the back of my mind. I'll have a read through tomorrow when I'm sorting out my file.
Yeh, same here, it has been over a year since i've done any work on the religious experiences. Can you explain why you felt awe when you saw those constellations?
Its only a connection if you personally feel it. A believer could argue that those constellations were the product of God and that God put them there for us to see.
This is anther thing I lerned but can't remember. Is it the theologian's argument that says that some things are so complex that they can't just be there, they'd have to have been created by a higher being.
I don't nessecarily see it that way though since I'm open minded since I don't want to settle with something until I know that there isn't a greater option for me.
I'm settles with Catholicism until i find sometihng more fulfilling, and I figure i have the rest of my life to find something. I'm still not so satisfied though.
Considering there is a discussion on Buddishm going on in here, I was curious as to what you thought about this story about a boy in the Nepalese jungle who is supposed to be the reincarnation of The Buddha himself.
Anyway, I wish to join. As for my personal beleifs, I am an agnostic although latley I've started thinking that the probability of their being a Creator is greater than the probability of there not being one.
But I do also have a storng interets in Buddihism and Wicca, although the latter is just because I happen to have an interets in the occult.
I seem to remember a club like this, with the discussion of serious religious debate.
It only lasted (and I believe Myst knows about it) a couple pages, but since it seems to be inactive I will come in here once in awhile and debate, I have been looking for a place to have some serious discussions.
Faith tramples all reason, logic, and common sense.
PM me for a sig.
At 11/26/05 06:14 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Anyway, I wish to join. As for my personal beleifs, I am an agnostic although latley I've started thinking that the probability of their being a Creator is greater than the probability of there not being one.
That is basically what Agnoticism is. Or I read that wrong...
At 11/26/05 06:18 PM, Velocitom wrote: I seem to remember a club like this, with the discussion of serious religious debate.
It only lasted (and I believe Myst knows about it) a couple pages, but since it seems to be inactive I will come in here once in awhile and debate, I have been looking for a place to have some serious discussions.
Ya, it collapsed because of the somewhat demanding rules and the lack of the creator. He never posted again. this one seems to be going quite well though. TheDoctor always has my support.
Select between 5 monster racers, upgrade your monster skill and win the competition!
4.18 / 5.00 3,534 Views
Build most powerful forces, unleash hordes of monster and control your soldiers!
3.80 / 5.00 4,200 Views
© Copyright 1995-2014 Newgrounds, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.
