Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/10/07 07:24 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 2/10/07 12:33 PM, Jesus-made-me-do-it wrote: God is black. He also looks like Morgan Freeman.

Morgan Freeman is God; Samuel L. Jackson and Chuck Norris are his divine enforcers, constantly battling the evil hordes of Sagget.

You don't get much better than Morgan Freeman

What about Beyonce` Knowles?

Clearly she is god.

At 2/11/07 10:39 PM, DJ-Jerakai wrote: What about Beyonce` Knowles?

Clearly she is god.

nope

pfffft, what would you know foo?

You're not even black.

At 2/9/07 06:51 PM, random8982 wrote: "Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should ... With you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me... No one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion... For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church."
— St. Augustine (354–430): Against the Epistle of Manichaeus called Fundamental, chapter 4: Proofs of the Catholic Faith

Many of those who apply the term "Catholic Church" to all Christians indiscriminately object to this use of the term to designate what they view as only one denomination within what they see as the "whole" Catholic Church. However, the Roman Catholic Church considers itself to be the Catholic Church, with others as "non-Catholics", and regularly refers to itself as the Catholic Church. This practice is in application of the belief that not all who claim to be Christians are part of the Catholic Church - a belief that goes back to Saint Ignatius of Antioch, the earliest known writer to use the term Catholic Church - and that communion with the Roman Pontiff is essential for membership.

The early Catholic church proclaimed many things that were untrue, such as, they told many simpletons that if they did not pay a tax to the church that they would go to hell, and because many people were not educated enough to read the bible or understand it for that matter, they did as they were told, and took gold out of their pockets to feed the greed of power hungry Catholic bishops. I refer back to the bible in this statement...

St. Matthew 23:6-7

16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?

Both perfect examples of the early Catholic church, and why I see you as a Pharisee. The Catholic church in its middle stages was more of a business, a bank, if you will, than a holy temple or place. This alone is a good enough example to condemn even the beginnings of what is today the Catholic church, but there is more. When the pagan Roman Empire became the Holy Roman empire, it absorbed Christianity but kept its pagan traditions and customs... hence, the Roman Catholic Church. This is where we derive the traditions involved with Christmas, Easter, Halloween, and much more.

The Catholic church is naught but an orginization. It is supposed to be an individual belief and connection with God the father, not an enormous body of uneducated slaves blindly following everything they are told by their corrupt and evil clergymen.

From what I see there, Christian and Catholic are generally the same thing. The only people that try to avoid the term are Protestants who replace the term Catholic with Christian.

I'm not a protestant.

"Some Protestant Churches avoid using the term completely, to the extent among many Lutherans of reciting the Creed with the word "Christian" in place of "Catholic". [5][6][7] The Orthodox Churches share some of the concerns about Roman Catholic papal claims, but disagree with some Protestants about the nature of the Church as one body. For some, to use the word "Catholic" at all is to appear to give credence to papal claims."

What are you suggesting? That the original word for Christian was Catholic and that the Lutherans and Protestants changed it? HA! The Catholic church did not exist long after Christianity was developed.

Yea....Catholicism and Christianity both have no prayers that call for the aid of the saints to 'contradict the teachings of God.'

Why should we need the aid of the saints to have a connection with the holy father, when the saints are not the ones with the power to assist us in our lives? Where in the bible am I told to pray to the saints? Where in the bible does it say that the dead saints pray for the living in the face of God? Why should we have to confess our sins to a clergyman, when he is not the one with the power to cleanse our sins? All of these things are of the Catholic church, but not of the bible.

I think that's enough for now. If you want more Google it yourself.

I know who the saints are.

Dre-Man, you won't understand until you've gone through high school and have gone through a little bit if college (especially after the first college report card). After you turn 16, you really go through a lot of important realizations that are going to impact you for the rest of your life and no one will ever know it until they've already gone through it. You'll realize it one day. It's really going to be a 'foot in my your mouth' experience.

Consider only what is said, not who has said it.

Christmas is not purly any religion. It's a catalyst used to unite all the branches under Catholicism, Christianity, etc to celebrate the birth of Jesus and the message he gave to the world.

Christmas was a celebration of the sun's return, during winter, being towards the period of time when the days begin to get longer. The pagans that absorbed Christianity had an extensive history of sun worship, and brought their traditions with them when they were converted. The bible tells us if the roots are evil so are the branches. Sun worship is sinful, and thus so are the branches. Christmas is a branch off of the orignial pagan traditions of Christmas, hence it is evil. And I still to this day have not read in the bible that mentions Christmas or even celebrating the birth of Christ.

You're not supposed to just pray but you're supposed to go out and try to make them realize the fallacy of their ways through good works and forgiveness, not harsh words and demoralization. Do you have any idea what it means to be Christian or Catholic? Clearly, you don't truly live through your religion. Either that or you're age and inexperience in the world is overcoming your faith.

I am attempting to relieve you of your ignorance of the truth, you refuse to listen, that's not my fault. If God truly believes that it is neccessary that you see what is good and truthful, than he will do so, and I pray that he does. But until then, I will continue to forgive you for your erronious ways, and I pray that he will as well, and you're not one to talk about harsh words or demoralization.

I was a military brat too. So I can relate to what you're saying and you would have more experience than most people your age. 3 years in and 3 years out can really get you through a lot of places before you go to college. The only thing that you have against you is that you're still only 14. You have a tremendous amount of learning to do before you can really boast true life experience. Just moving around doesn't mean you know everything about the world and the inner workings of things like religion. So while others on this site may not have the grounds to call you inexperienced, I do.

I have seen more than most people will ever even hope to see in their entire lifetime, I will continue to see more and more until I could not possibly be more cultured. Almost no one, not even the average college graduate, can call me inexperienced or immature, not even you. Stop boasting about your age and prove your point, we all know you're older than me, so drop it. If alls you came here for was to pick at people for their age, just leave.

The bible is rather shaky due to the fact that it's a 'selected compilation' of things that happened well over a thousand years ago, specifically constructed to empower the people who follow the faith. The faith that someone puts into their religion and the interpretations of the Bible that they themselves find is what makes it important.

And?

Why are you still here Dre?

Consider only what is said, not who has said it.

In that case, don't bother going to college, since degrees lose all meaning by this phrase. Socrates, Aristotle, Sophocles, Pausanias, Perikles, Livy, Thucydides, Ghandi, Mother Theresa: All idiots.

Consequently, the President should listen to my kid brother and his recomendations on diplomacy, as well as my own. Furthermore, any speech given by the President can be countered with a speech done by any simple-minded American.

And don't bother labelling people as "pharisees" then, hypocrite.....

Both perfect examples of the early Catholic church, and why I see you as a Pharisee.

Wait, isn't that my title? You know what they say about the boy who cries wolf too much.....

When the pagan Roman Empire became the Holy Roman empire, it absorbed Christianity but kept its pagan traditions and customs... hence, the Roman Catholic Church.

Roman Catholic Church is derived from the fact that the head was the bishop of Rome, not from the fact that Christianity became legally recognized in the Roman Empire.

The Catholic church is naught but an orginization. It is supposed to be an individual belief and connection with God the father, not an enormous body of uneducated slaves blindly following everything they are told by their corrupt and evil clergymen.

Thank you!

I'm not a protestant.

Well you sure do protest a lot........

HA! The Catholic church did not exist long after Christianity was developed.

Yeah it did.....

Christmas is a branch off of the orignial pagan traditions of Christmas, hence it is evil. And I still to this day have not read in the bible that mentions Christmas or even celebrating the birth of Christ.

False. Christmas is not a "branch", it's a reactionist holiday designed to counter the Mithras cult. Like I said, the date has been changed several times for that very reason. Of course, that's just coming from my knowledge from a class termed "Pagans and Christians", but since you only look at "what is written" and not "who wrote it", I guess that doesn't matter.

I am attempting to relieve you of your ignorance of the truth, you refuse to listen, that's not my fault.

Odd, this plays either direction.....(btw, you're in the minority here Dre, in case you haven't noticed: no one is supporting you.....might be a good indication of something.....hint hint)

I have seen more than most people will ever even hope to see in their entire lifetime, I will continue to see more and more until I could not possibly be more cultured

Bullshit BULLSHIT! I call fundamental BS on that one!

Almost no one, not even the average college graduate, can call me inexperienced or immature, not even you.

Alright, now you're just being ridiculous........
You don't like it when I propose being the end all on Christianity, so don't act similarly mister Renaissance Man......hypocrite #2

Many people on this thread are stupid and dont know what they are talking about, relligious people are making sence (except dre-man), the atheists are claiming atheism is the best scientific anser because of 'facts', but dont know what the facts are or what does it prove (ie- ignorence). Charles Darwin wanted to be a minister and said that it would be imposibe for life to just happen by chance.

Also many people are ignorent in knowing about relligion itself, as demonstrated by people asking how a Hindu be an atheists, a Atheist some one who believes in a relligion with no god, a montheist is some one that believes in one god, and a polytheist believes in many gods. So saying you dont believe in god or relligion is cotradictory, you just said I believe in a relligion with no god and yet i dont have a relligion... so how can i be a atheist? your not, you just dont have a theory and dont want to know, so by deffinition your Ignorent by every sence of the word.

So... you dont have a thoery and dont want to know, you are insulting others faith, you claim you are right and we are wrong, and you blaim us for many of the worlds problems, you had a leader that killed many people in a genocide of jews and ortodox christians (that would be Stalin)... My God! the ignorent Atheists have become the next Nazis!

At 2/12/07 04:47 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: Many people on this thread are stupid and dont know what they are talking about, relligious people are making sence (except dre-man)

This is interesting. You're basically saying that people who agree with you are making sense and that people who disagree with you aren't making sense. This is entirely arrogant. Many people, such as yourself, are unwilling to accept that somebody who disagrees with them can make a sensical argument. This kind of behaviour just pisses me off...as an atheist, I am willing to accept and consider the opinions of a theist on say, morality, as well as the differing opinions of other forms of nontheists.

Take this guy for instance. I disagree with almost everything he says. However, I still find his writing enjoyable and I also find it worth to consider a lot of what he says and use it to analyse and refine my stance of atheism.

the atheists are claiming atheism is the best scientific anser because of 'facts', but dont know what the facts are or what does it prove (ie- ignorence).

Clearly your definition of ignorance differs entirely from mine. Deriving incorrect conclusions from circumstancial, anecdotal or thought-related evidence isn't ignorance. I'd sooner call it a poor analytical ability.

Now first of all, you're doing the usual "oh well they're wrong, because I say so" argument. Well, how much water does that hold? You're putting theists in a bad light here, and it's pissing me off.

And while we're basing our arguments off circumstancial ad-hominem attacks here, how about I claim that you can't call anyone "ignorant" because you can't spell the word, indicating that you're ignorant yourself of the English language. See how fallicious these kind of attacks are?

Charles Darwin wanted to be a minister and said that it would be imposibe for life to just happen by chance.

Completely irrelevant.

Also many people are ignorent in knowing about relligion itself, as demonstrated by people asking how a Hindu be an atheists, a Atheist some one who believes in a relligion with no god, a montheist is some one that believes in one god, and a polytheist believes in many gods. So saying you dont believe in god or relligion is cotradictory, you just said I believe in a relligion with no god and yet i dont have a relligion... so how can i be a atheist? your not, you just dont have a theory and dont want to know, so by deffinition your Ignorent by every sence of the word.

Could you rephrase this paragraph? Because as far as I can tell, it makes no sense.

So... you dont have a thoery and dont want to know, you are insulting others faith, you claim you are right and we are wrong, and you blaim us for many of the worlds problems, you had a leader that killed many people in a genocide of jews and ortodox christians (that would be Stalin)

Yes, you're right that atheist mass-murderers have existed. However, atheists are, overall, far less responsible for mass homicides than theists are. Maybe this is because atheists aren't likely to rise to power in the first place, or maybe it's because atheists are less common than theists in general, especially in history before the 18th century. I don't know. However, it stills stands that your argument is fallicious.

My God! the ignorent Atheists have become the next Nazis!

Now you're combining your ad-hominem attacks with your ignorance of the fact that Stalin was a COMMUNIST, not a NAZI.

If you ask most religious leaders why, if God is all powerful and benevolent, bad things still happen all over the world, they'll tell you it's because He wants us to make and learn from our mistakes. Is it really so hard to believe that He would extend this over a scale of millions of years, to make it so that single cells could gradually mutate, with the strongest and smartest surviving, until they reached the level of highly sentient beings like us? That's why I think that religion and evolution go together perfectly.

At 2/12/07 05:32 PM, Peter-II wrote:

At 2/12/07 04:47 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: Many people on this thread are stupid and dont know what they are talking about, relligious people are making sence (except dre-man)

This is interesting. You're basically saying that people who agree with you are making sense and that people who disagree with you aren't making sense. This is entirely arrogant. Many people, such as yourself, are unwilling to accept that somebody who disagrees with them can make a sensical argument. This kind of behaviour just pisses me off...as an atheist, I am willing to accept and consider the opinions of a theist on say, morality, as well as the differing opinions of other forms of nontheists.

Maybe, but it is about as arrogent as people saying that atheism is right because science is on my side. I say that science is on relligions side, also im not saying atheists are stupid or anything im just saying moast atheists on this thread are ignorent, most atheists are just sheep that believe in what other people say and do not make there own arguments.

Take this guy for instance. I disagree with almost everything he says. However, I still find his writing enjoyable and I also find it worth to consider a lot of what he says and use it to analyse and refine my stance of atheism.

the atheists are claiming atheism is the best scientific anser because of 'facts', but dont know what the facts are or what does it prove (ie- ignorence).

Clearly your definition of ignorance differs entirely from mine. Deriving incorrect conclusions from circumstancial, anecdotal or thought-related evidence isn't ignorance. I'd sooner call it a poor analytical ability.

I call ignorence in this context not looking for meaning beyond your world and looking at things with wisdom (if not intelligence), despite being wrong or not.

Now first of all, you're doing the usual "oh well they're wrong, because I say so" argument. Well, how much water does that hold? You're putting theists in a bad light here, and it's pissing me off.

Im not saying all atheists are ignorent, im just saying the ones that act with no wisdom wich you are not i think.

And while we're basing our arguments off circumstancial ad-hominem attacks here, how about I claim that you can't call anyone "ignorant" because you can't spell the word, indicating that you're ignorant yourself of the English language. See how fallicious these kind of attacks are?

Im not ignorent in english because i never claimed that i cant be wrong.

Charles Darwin wanted to be a minister and said that it would be imposibe for life to just happen by chance.

Completely irrelevant.

I agree, sorry i just wanted to put that somewere.

Also many people are ignorent in knowing about relligion itself, as demonstrated by people asking how a Hindu be an atheists, a Atheist some one who believes in a relligion with no god, a montheist is some one that believes in one god, and a polytheist believes in many gods. So saying you dont believe in god or relligion is cotradictory, you just said I believe in a relligion with no god and yet i dont have a relligion... so how can i be a atheist? your not, you just dont have a theory and dont want to know, so by deffinition your Ignorent by every sence of the word.

Could you rephrase this paragraph? Because as far as I can tell, it makes no sense.

Monotheist relligion, a relligion like christianity or Zorostrianism that believes in only one god.
Polytheistic relligion, a relligion like mainsreem Hinduism that believes in more than one god.
Atheistic relligion, a relligion like a sect of buhdism that doesnt believe in god.

You claim to be a atheist but you dont believe in relligion so you have no insight beyond your own little world, nor do you care, your a faithless zeolot.

So... you dont have a thoery and dont want to know, you are insulting others faith, you claim you are right and we are wrong, and you blaim us for many of the worlds problems, you had a leader that killed many people in a genocide of jews and ortodox christians (that would be Stalin)

Yes, you're right that atheist mass-murderers have existed. However, atheists are, overall, far less responsible for mass homicides than theists are. Maybe this is because atheists aren't likely to rise to power in the first place, or maybe it's because atheists are less common than theists in general, especially in history before the 18th century. I don't know. However, it stills stands that your argument is fallicious.

My God! the ignorent Atheists have become the next Nazis!

Now you're combining your ad-hominem attacks with your ignorance of the fact that Stalin was a COMMUNIST, not a NAZI.

I know that stalin was a communist and not a Nazi, I was just turning the table one the oldest atheist argument there is, It is the individuels in power that make the horrible things happen and blaiming an entire group of people for these things, that is what hittler did, and he went ahead and did it too, argo the stupid 13 year old atheists are making the same hittler argument at the theists, im sorry you diddnt get the joke.

The point is I dont hate anyone, i just dont like ignorent people, nomatter what they believe in.

At 2/12/07 07:04 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: Maybe, but it is about as arrogent as people saying that atheism is right because science is on my side. I say that science is on relligions side

IMO, science is science is science, and is on no side in particular. It's up to us to decide the implications of theories that religions claim to be invalid because it disagrees with its religious dogma.

All I can say is that science and religion are in different categories entirely, and I don't think that they should be compared in the way that you're doing. What science does do is contradict things like the creation hymn of Genesis 1 if we're taking the Old Testament completely literally; but then, who says that holy texts are meant to be taken word for word anyway?

We might as well agree to disagree here, since I don't think that science is on either side.

amost atheists are just sheep that believe in what other people say and do not make there own arguments.

Yes, I will give you that. However, most people in general are just sheep that believe in what other people say and do not make their own arguments. I would, however, say that there is a weak correlation between coming up with individual arguments and atheism, simply because atheism implies free thought (in most people's eyes) and isn't attached to any particular dogma.

I call ignorence in this context not looking for meaning beyond your world and looking at things with wisdom (if not intelligence), despite being wrong or not.

Well, in general the atheist philosophy is, why look for meaning beyond your world when nothing more is needed to impress oneself? Life is fucking amazing, nature is fucking amazing and the universe is fucking amazing. Unlike yourself I don't feel the need to attribute this wonder to a big creator guy, because I'm satisfied with life as it is.

Im not saying all atheists are ignorent, im just saying the ones that act with no wisdom wich you are not i think.

Okay, I will admit that atheists annoy me when they start saying things like evolution and the big bang disprove the existence of a deity, which they obviously don't. It especially ticks me off when they don't know very much about said theories...=P

Im not ignorent in english because i never claimed that i cant be wrong.

I'm aware of this. I'm just demonstrating how irrelevant and fallicious ad-hominem attacks are and can be.

Monotheist relligion, a relligion like christianity or Zorostrianism that believes in only one god.
Polytheistic relligion, a relligion like mainsreem Hinduism that believes in more than one god.
Atheistic relligion, a relligion like a sect of buhdism that doesnt believe in god.

You claim to be a atheist but you dont believe in relligion so you have no insight beyond your own little world, nor do you care, your a faithless zeolot.

Okay, atheism doesn't need to be related to a religion in order to be truly atheism...atheism is simply a disbelief in a deity. It doesn't need dogma, or rules or anything.

I know that stalin was a communist and not a Nazi, I was just turning the table one the oldest atheist argument there is, It is the individuels in power that make the horrible things happen and blaiming an entire group of people for these things, that is what hittler did, and he went ahead and did it too, argo the stupid 13 year old atheists are making the same hittler argument at the theists, im sorry you diddnt get the joke.

Alright, alright, fair enough...I just found your paragraph a little over the top. I suppose you can't really get the jokey tone across a message board that easily. And I agree wholeheartedly, corruption occurs with people in power regardless of their religion or lack thereof.

The point is I dont hate anyone, i just dont like ignorent people, nomatter what they believe in.

Yes, ignorant people are indeed deeply annoying.

now now now,

how can you PROVE evolution?

you say that it has been proven but it has not.

if evolution is fact then why is it still the "theory of evolution."

And for your information every time that science has ever challenged scripture, it is the science that changes, not the scripture.

IMO, science is science is science, and is on no side in particular. It's up to us to decide the implications of theories that religions claim to be invalid because it disagrees with its religious dogma.

Im going to interject here cause this isn't entirely true, in fact, it's rather false.....
Science is very much a subjective art, it's people who decide what to study, how to study it, and for what purposes. We've seen where that can go awry with human experimentation, Nazi "scientists" working on Jews, etc.

Science used to create super-soldiers is VERY much one sided, especially if you get to play "human guinnea pig"......

In the context of religion the only thing you will hear stout defiance against is the idea that science supercedes religion, thereby making religion worthless. You've heard it before, and it's expressed on these boards quite frequently. Other than that, theists don't really have much to say about science, unless they happen to be scientists themselves.....

No different from any other person though.....

All I can say is that science and religion are in different categories entirely, and I don't think that they should be compared in the way that you're doing. What science does do is contradict things like the creation hymn of Genesis 1 if we're taking the Old Testament completely literally; but then, who says that holy texts are meant to be taken word for word anyway?

COMPLETELY disagree. Science and religion can intertwine with each other in ways you wouldn't believe (clearly you don't). In most cases, religion USES science to EXPLAIN the impact of God, thereby nulling arguments that science somehow "disproves" religion. The two were never supposed to be separate entities, I dunno why people want to think of it that way, most Christians, Buddhists, Hundus, Jews, etc don't see science and religion in competition.

I mean hell! If 95% of this country is Christian, does that automatically mean the other 5% make up all the scientists? Not a fat chance in hell. You'd be amazed how many theists ARE scientists.....

At 2/12/07 07:48 PM, deadjimm wrote: now now now,

how can you PROVE evolution?

Now now, there's no need. You're foolish if you don't believe in evolution. You're more foolish if you think evolution contradicts religion.

you say that it has been proven but it has not.

It's about as sound a theory as gravity, so if you don't believe one, I suggest you not believe the other either......

if evolution is fact then why is it still the "theory of evolution."

Because you're too young to understand the scientific community's interpretation of the word "theory".

And for your information every time that science has ever challenged scripture, it is the science that changes, not the scripture.

Ironically enough, based on my limited experience, I've found this to be the case as well......wonder why that is?

At 2/12/07 08:02 AM, DJ-Jerakai wrote: pfffft, what would you know foo?

You're not even black.

you're confusing goddess of hottness with all powerful being.

God whats with all the 'science knows everything' kids on here? I'm doing a science at uni and even though I'm in first year I get one or two "we don't know how this bit works, maybe you'll grow up and find out" bits every day. That what makes science better than religon, its all logic and being able to admit we don't know everything instead of just shouting 'GOD did it'.

In all fairness, evolution probably is not 100% perfect: Today we were looking at flowers that had evolved to look like bees, so bees come and try fuck them, get covered in pollen and spread it on the next one......... While I'm not religious, let alone a Christian I can't help but wonder what the intermediate phases would have looked like. If they weren't accurate, no bees would fancy them, so the flowers would die. Its almost like they were trying to achieve a goal in a coordinated manner for hundreds of years. All I can say is I don't know how it happened, and from a quick bit of research looks like no-one really does. But at least I don't make up a story about some all powerful entity who loves us all and lives in a magical happy fairy land with chocolate rainbows, marshmallows and eternal happyness.

fair enough, but try this one.

The evolution of man is not only a guess, but a very wild one; and it is totally unsupported by any convincing arguments. It can be mathematically demonstrated to be an impossible theory. Every proof of the unity of the human race in the days of Adam or Noah shatters the theory of the evolution of man. If the evolution of the human race be true, there must have been, hundreds of thousands of years ago, a great multitude of heads of the race, in many parts of the earth, without one common language or religion. The present population of the globe proves that mankind must have descended from one pair who lived not earlier than the time of Noah. The unity of languages also proves one common head about the same time. Certain beliefs and customs, common to various religions, point to one original God-given religion in historic time, in contrast to the evolution idea of many religions invented by ape-men in millions of years. The history of the world and the migration of nations point to one locality where the human race began in times not more remote, and show that man was created in a civilized state, and, therefore, never was a brute. If evolution were true, there would have been many billion times as many human beings as now exist, a great multitude of invented languages with little or no similarity, a vast number of invented religions with little, if anything, in common. Even the sciences invented and exploited by evolutionists, the Mendelian Inheritance Law and Biometry, also prove evolution impossible.

No, it doesn't. It just doesn't. Its not impossible, what you are saying is not true, it cannot be proved impossible unless you set out to do so, and the fact that people were aware of other people around the world about when noah never existed is just common sense.

At 2/12/07 08:11 PM, emmytee wrote: No, it doesn't. It just doesn't. Its not impossible, what you are saying is not true, it cannot be proved impossible unless you set out to do so, and the fact that people were aware of other people around the world about when noah never existed is just common sense.

lets think about this. Evolution also cannot be proved possible unless you "set out to do so"

God whats with all the 'science knows everything' kids on here? I'm doing a science at uni and even though I'm in first year I get one or two "we don't know how this bit works, maybe you'll grow up and find out" bits every day. That what makes science better than religon, its all logic and being able to admit we don't know everything instead of just shouting 'GOD did it'.

Yeah, my religion hasn't changed at all in the last 2000 years.......

Jackass, this is the bullshit that pisses me off! Open a damn textbook and find out for yourself about all the "we don't know" bits in Christianity, instead of talking from your ass like there isn't any........

Man, you don't see me doing that shit to science, so WHY the fuck are you gonna stereotype religion? Ass clowns, the lot of you!

THIS IS A COMPOUND *points*
It does this to this and BAM you have heat!

That's science, answering the how but not the why

THIS IS GOD *points to everything*
It does this because of this and BAM you have existance!

That's faith in an omnipotent entity, answering the why but not the how

I'm pretty sure that that's correct......................................
..........hmmmmmmmmm

At 2/12/07 03:56 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

St. Matthew 23:6-7
16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?

Both perfect examples of the early Catholic church, and why I see you as a Pharisee.

I doubt you even understand the symbolic meaning of that term since you throw it around like candy.

The Catholic church in its middle stages was more of a business, a bank, if you will, than a holy temple or place. This alone is a good enough example to condemn even the beginnings of what is today the Catholic church, but there is more. When the pagan Roman Empire became the Holy Roman empire, it absorbed Christianity but kept its pagan traditions and customs... hence, the Roman Catholic Church. This is where we derive the traditions involved with Christmas, Easter, Halloween, and much more.

When you finally get to college, you should really take a course on religious symbolism. Almost every part of Christianity and Catholicism are based off of pagan symbols and beliefs, twisted to fit the needs of the church. In that class, you will learn about why Christmas, Easter, and Halloween exist.

Examples:
Halos - symbol of the sun God worshipped by pagan romans.
Satans pitchfork - bears a striking resemblence to Posiden's trident.

Hell, you could watch the Da Vinci code and pick up on that kind of stuff.

And no, personally I've never officially taken the course but I have sat in on quite a few of the classes and you're pretty off in what you believe kid.

The Catholic church is naught but an orginization. It is supposed to be an individual belief and connection with God the father, not an enormous body of uneducated slaves blindly following everything they are told by their corrupt and evil clergymen.

And this is relevant to today how?

I'm not a protestant.

I never said you were, and quite frankly, I don't give a damn. I was stating that the Protestant branch is the only branch that abhors using Catholic and Christian as a synonym, while everyone else seems to do just that.

"Some Protestant Churches avoid using the term completely, to the extent among many Lutherans of reciting the Creed with the word "Christian" in place of "Catholic". [5][6][7] The Orthodox Churches share some of the concerns about Roman Catholic papal claims, but disagree with some Protestants about the nature of the Church as one body. For some, to use the word "Catholic" at all is to appear to give credence to papal claims."

What are you suggesting? That the original word for Christian was Catholic and that the Lutherans and Protestants changed it? HA! The Catholic church did not exist long after Christianity was developed.

Lol...that MA in theology is really paying off for you isn't it? The Catholic Church existed for a LONG time after Christianity was born.

And you should go back and re-read my post. It is clearly defining that Catholicism and Christianity are closely related in just about every way. And from the passage that you decided to use, it's suggesting that Lutheran, Protestant, and various Orthodox Churches don't like the connection, and find alternate phrases to use. I, nor the passage suggest that the original term for Christian was Catholic, and then those specific churches changed it.

You're just pulling it out of your ass now.

Why should we need the aid of the saints to have a connection with the holy father, when the saints are not the ones with the power to assist us in our lives? Where in the bible am I told to pray to the saints? Where in the bible does it say that the dead saints pray for the living in the face of God? Why should we have to confess our sins to a clergyman, when he is not the one with the power to cleanse our sins?

Then why should we pray to Jesus? Why should we offer alms to Mary, the Mother of Christ? For that matter, why do we even go to church at all? Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus will be the one who issues our final judgement? I believe that we stand before God at the apocalypse. And let's not confess our sins and abstain from forgiveness. Let's

All of these things are of the Catholic church, but not of the bible.

LMAO....have you ever been to a Christian church?

I know who the saints are.

Yet you don't seem to realize that we pray to them just as much as we pray to God himself.

Christmas was a celebration of the sun's return, during winter, being towards the period of time when the days begin to get longer blah blah blah...

And then it was adopted by the Catholic, Christian, etc religions as a sort of catalyst to unify the people who believed in Christ and his message. So are you going to go off on another irrelevant discussion on the paganist origins of Christmas or are you going to realize that it's exactly what I just told you?

I am attempting to relieve you of your ignorance of the truth, you refuse to listen, that's not my fault. If God truly believes that it is neccessary that you see what is good and truthful, than he will do so, and I pray that he does. But until then, I will continue to forgive you for your erronious ways, and I pray that he will as well, and you're not one to talk about harsh words or demoralization.

Lol...can you say contradiction? You yourself do nothing but defame and demoralize other people and their religious beliefs, then refuse to accept things when you're wrong. When that does happen, you simply fall back on the comment you just gave me (read above) or start spouting off random bull shit about how we're wrong and that we worship paganist ideals, labeling everyong else who doesn't march to your beat Pharisee. You don't need to pray for me pal, nor anyone else for that matter. The lord preaches to his followers that they should practice humillity and acceptance of others, yet you do neither. It is I, and others such as Imperator who should pray for you, and that you one day learn humility and acceptance of the differences that are so common in the world.

I have seen more than most people will ever even hope to see in their entire lifetime, I will continue to see more and more until I could not possibly be more cultured. Almost no one, not even the average college graduate, can call me inexperienced or immature, not even you. Stop boasting about your age and prove your point, we all know you're older than me, so drop it. If alls you came here for was to pick at people for their age, just leave.

It's called a life lesson kid. People try to teach them to you from time to time; whether it be your dad, your teacher, your boss, or some guy on the internet, it is best to take what you can and learn from it, which you clearly don't. No part of my statement was deroggative and demoralizing (like many of your posts are).

Also, it does not matter how 'cultured' you are. It does not matter if you've seen more than the average college student, or even people who are well into their retirement. You still have a lot to learn about life that comes with age. At 14, you are still far from experienced, and by the tone that you so frequently use in your posts, you have the typical teenage mentality that says 'I'm better than everyone else, I'm always right, and people should just accept it.' It doesn't matter who you are, or how cultured you are, or even what background you come from. Every teenager experiences that stage to some extent, you, however, seem to have it in the worst way.

And I'm going to leave it at that. Feel free to rant on it if you want. But it's more than true.

And?

You're original comment of "A Catholic calling the Bible shaky? For shame." was completely moronic.

At 2/12/07 08:15 PM, Imperator wrote:

God whats with all the 'science knows everything' kids on here? I'm doing a science at uni and even though I'm in first year I get one or two "we don't know how this bit works, maybe you'll grow up and find out" bits every day. That what makes science better than religon, its all logic and being able to admit we don't know everything instead of just shouting 'GOD did it'.

Yeah, my religion hasn't changed at all in the last 2000 years.......

Jackass, this is the bullshit that pisses me off! Open a damn textbook and find out for yourself about all the "we don't know" bits in Christianity, instead of talking from your ass like there isn't any........

Man, you don't see me doing that shit to science, so WHY the fuck are you gonna stereotype religion? Ass clowns, the lot of you!

So if I walk up to a priest and say 'excuse me, what exactly does religion not have not answer to?' He'll just get out a list and run off a few things for me.

It is true religion has changed over the past 2000 years, but mainly because: although the church has murdered scientists, denied the facts bluntly, and kicked and screamed all the way they have been proved so wrong that they cannot keep it up any longer without losing the rational members of their congregation. For instance the church said the earth was orbited by the sun. They refused to accept anything different for many years. Eventually they were forced to. Same thing happened with the discovery of other planets and evolution. Yes the church has changed, but only after being categorically proved wrong by science. The thing is, changing your dogma is different from changing scientific theories, because when you start off by saying "god made the earth in six days, 4000 years ago" every change you mak to taht is a defeat. When you say "I wonder how the earth was created, and how long ago lets try and find out" every breakthrough is a victory.

At 2/12/07 08:40 PM, emmytee wrote:

So if I walk up to a priest and say 'excuse me, what exactly does religion not have not answer to?' He'll just get out a list and run off a few things for me.

He probably will...only it will be a modified list followed by a long lecture on why the divine doesn't need rational explanations all the time.

"It is true religion has changed over the past 2000 years, but mainly because: although the church has murdered scientists, denied the facts bluntly, and kicked and screamed all the way they have been proved so wrong that they cannot keep it up any longer without losing the rational members of their congregation...."

You see...the thing about religion is that it doesn't need a proper explanation for everything. If there was, then there would be no humility under the divine beings that are worshipped (Allah, Yaweh, Jesus, etc). It is strong faith and the willingness that to believe in what has no explanation that keeps religion going. If not for that, we would probably all be atheists.

as many people have said, religious people will not change, nor will athiest. as to whomever has, or will post the "if there's only one, or a few, they will change quickly." nope. they will, however, stop talking, and continue believing in private. that's the best you can hope for, or that everyone would stop trying to convince everyone else that they're right.

At 2/12/07 08:40 PM, emmytee wrote:

So if I walk up to a priest and say 'excuse me, what exactly does religion not have not answer to?' He'll just get out a list and run off a few things for me.

No, he would tell you to learn how to speak and call you a dumbass.

At 2/12/07 08:40 PM, emmytee wrote:

For instance the church said the earth was orbited by the sun. They refused to accept anything different for many years. Eventually they were forced to.

how wrong you are! it was astronomer(scientist of his day) Claudius Ptolemy that said the universe was centered around the sun!

At 2/12/07 08:47 PM, random8982 wrote:
You see...the thing about religion is that it doesn't need a proper explanation for everything.

Yeah, that really is what it comes down to. I for one don't see why in the hell not.

At 2/12/07 08:58 PM, deadjimm wrote:

how wrong you are! it was astronomer(scientist of his day) Claudius Ptolemy that said the universe was centered around the sun!

Was he related to the Ptolemy's of Egypt?

Either way, "orbited by" = The sun going round the earth = what the church believed...