Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/24/08 12:14 PM, morefngdbs wrote: I have often wondered about the cross.
Mostly about the many 'christians' who openly wear & seem to worship the cross. First I find that it fits the requiremnets to be considered an idol... and a false idol at that .
After all it was what -'Eh Zeus (jesus)- was supposedly killed upon.

Wearing the cross is supposed to act as a reminder to remain humble, just like WWJD bracelets. I don't know anyone who actually worships it, as it's just a symbol of what Jesus went through.

There's about as much reverence that goes for the cross itself as there is for the eternal flame at Kennedy's tomb. (and actually, our culture does have this weird pseudo-"hero-worship" type status to bestow. Certain people are held in high regard after their deaths and revered appropriately, much the same way the Greeks and Romans would create a hero cult around certain individuals. Your "fun fact" for the day).

Chances are good that Jesus was a historical figure, and if he was as much a renegade as the Bible says, then crucifixion was the standard Roman punishment.

See, the Bible actually does carry some important historical references. Pontius Pilate, the "washing of the hands", the crucifixion and upheaval of the Jews at this period, are all very standard for Roman history.

I mean, a Roman praefect being swayed by an angry mob and executing Jesus on the basis of that mentality and his otherwise rebellious nature against Roman rule and the Imperial cult fit too nicely into your standard historical memes to not be considered with some weight.

So they are all wandering around with a torture device their god's Son was killed on.... & they worship it as well ! -can I be the only one who consideres that disgusting ?

It's not worship, it's just a sign of respect. Sorta like how one gives respect for the guy who throws himself on a live grenade to save his friends in combat.

So they killed him & the christians made up this wonderful fairytale of "Jesus's great sacrfice" give me a break, he was supposedly killed in a way reserved for particularly nasty criminals .

Crucifixion was one of the standard ways Romans had of Capital Punishment. Since it involved being UN-burried, it was considered a rather humiliating experience. It was a preferred method for rebels, pirates, slaves, and people of those nature: indirect combatants or dissenters from Roman rule.

Spartacus' revolt ended when Crassus crucified like 5000 of em along the via Appia. Since Jesus fit the profile (especially since his status as "Son of God" went way outside the tenants of the Imperial cult) he was crucified to humiliate him and dissuade others.

The reason it's considered "sacrifice" is because it would have been remarkably easy for Jesus to have escaped that punishment. Really that's what's the most confusing about Christians to the Romans, the fact that they didn't simply save their own asses (which the Romans had made a fairly easy thing to do). Some evidence for this is the famous letter of Pliny to Trajan.

At 6/23/08 03:22 PM, GunnerX86 wrote:
So is science really that different from religions?Is science actually a religion?

Well I think science is a religion. I think some freak accident is harder to believe then God so that's
why I believe the God's word is right.

At 6/25/08 11:21 AM, ManlyMan97 wrote:

At 6/23/08 03:22 PM, GunnerX86 wrote:
So is science really that different from religions?Is science actually a religion?

Well I think science is a religion. I think some freak accident is harder to believe then God so that's
why I believe the God's word is right.

What's scary is that you guys are wrong, but the belief that science is a religion is becoming more popular.

Scientology and Creationism are two examples where science is being "bent", as it were, into the significance of an actual religion. Which is rather frightening, because science has already shown to be very open to abuse under significantly less controlling methods than a religion......

This new "fad" of turning science into a religion reminds me of Dr. Zaius; Minster of Science while simultaneously being the Chief Defender of the Faith......

End Times indeed......

At 6/25/08 11:16 AM, zoolrule wrote: atheist is not a belief.

Everything is a belief. There is no line. You small thinkers.

At 6/25/08 11:16 AM, zoolrule wrote: Well according to your logic, if you you think Gorge Bush is the USA president it's a belief, If you think that earth is round it's a belief, 1+1=2? It's a belief, There are people living in India? It's a belief.

You gotta put the line somewhere, atheist is not a belief.

Beliefs can be substantiated by facts.
The difference is that religion is Faith because it's a belief without fact.

There's your difference in terms.

I believe my friend is Vietnamese.
I have faith (I 'believe') that he'll come visit me this weekend.

The first is a belief backed by fact, the second is a prediction that's not as substantiated. Chances are good, since he said he would, but there's no guarantee he'll follow through.

In Greek, beliefs as in the first statement are done with Subjunctives, "beliefs" in the latter are done by Optatives (which are considered overall further from reality).

At 6/25/08 10:52 AM, SolInvictus wrote: Belief:
- something believed; an opinion or conviction
- confidence; faith; trust

belief that the stars are giant flaming masses millions of miles away is still a "belief". belief is not neccessarily the believing/having faith in something with no proof, it is the of having accepted something as true.
so in conclusion; religious people who say "ha! atheism is a belief" have won absolutley nothing and atheists who deny its a belief are ignorant of the definition of the word and thus give those same religious people, and that claim, power.

You lying little shit!! You're trying to change the definitions of words to forward your own viewpoint.

Belief:
something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents

Also you missed out these:

confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.

a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

You also said this:

belief is not neccessarily the believing/having faith in something with no proof.

Ummm...what? Not only do one of the explainations say belief means having faith but faith means trusting something with no proof.

I see this is the part where everyone whips out their dictionaries and pretend like they have massive penises......

Before we begin, can I just throw this out here, so we can get back on track with some moderate level of speed?

We will never get to the point in which the big bang theory is accepted universally. The "why is there something instead of nothing" argument will live on. However, God and superstition continue to fall back to explaining more and more limited occurrences as the real explanations are slowly uncovered, thus pushing God back. Theoretically, if all else fails the religious will either need to make their stand on the origin of the universe debate or bury their heads in the sand. They still hold onto the origin of life debate, but we are getting very close to uncovering that answer, so God will need to retreat. We already know how simple amino acid chains could form naturally and survive based on natural selection, so that argument will soon become futile. However, even once surrounded on all sides by scientific evidence contradicting them, they will cling to the origin of the universe debate, which will never end. However, I doubt religion will be pushed back that far because they are known for burying their heads in the sand.

At 6/25/08 11:28 AM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 6/25/08 11:16 AM, zoolrule wrote: atheist is not a belief.

Everything is a belief. There is no line. You small thinkers.

ever heard the saying "keep your mind open, but not so much that your brain falls out"?

Where on earth does it leave you to start expanding the meaning of words like they were supernovas about to explode and consume the solar system?
All you'll achieve is stringing together completely meaningless sentences no one can understand.

Banana cheese car monkey in space!!!!

k idk
but I don't think scientists can prove about the big bang theory
or if God is real.
Whatever atoms start the universe do need a creator because time starts from that moment.
o and anyone who says there is no such thing as an entity or a God or higher power doesn't understand basic logic.
There is God. I for one believe in God. I might not be able to change what you already "know". What you KNOW is your perception. You can't understand the universe has 10 dimensions because that is improbable with how your brain evolved.
If you look outside of the box your biological composition has created, youd see what is just LOGICAL.

idk why people try to convince eachother that God is real or the science is true or whatever.

At 6/25/08 02:26 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 6/25/08 11:28 AM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 6/25/08 11:16 AM, zoolrule wrote: atheist is not a belief.

Everything is a belief. There is no line. You small thinkers.

ever heard the saying "keep your mind open, but not so much that your brain falls out"?

Where on earth does it leave you to start expanding the meaning of words like they were supernovas about to explode and consume the solar system?

Everyone believes that they're standing on the ground? That's using the word correctly? You guys are using the word belief like it only applies to something religious, it doesn't. If you want to talk about those, say religious beliefs, it's another word to type out, I know. Tough shit.

All you'll achieve is stringing together completely meaningless sentences no one can understand.

That's when you, being in a debate, should choose quote these sentences instead of just throwing out another dead weight statement.

Banana cheese car monkey in space!!!!

Like that.

I said nothing of the sort really. Probably somewhere way back in this thread there are a few broad statements that I made at the wee hours of the morning that lack some coherency, but those are irrelevent at this point unless you wish to go back and find them and quote them.

Now, in fact if you look back to one of the most recent responses you'll see that you're the one who said that religious people look at words differently. Care to clarify?

At 6/25/08 02:36 PM, sinicide wrote: k idk

This is how you post:

Idk or whatever, whatever idk, idk, idk, idk whatever.

It's funny because it's not an accident.

but I don't think scientists can prove about the big bang theory

That's because you live in a magic fantasy where that is true but false everywhere else.

or if God is real.

Now THAT is true.

o and anyone who says there is no such thing as an entity or a God or higher power doesn't understand basic logic.

So believing in something that's unproven and is using blind faith and trust is logical? WOW you're REALLY logical!

There is God. I for one believe in God. I might not be able to change what you already "know". What you KNOW is your perception.
You can't understand the universe has 10 dimensions because that is improbable with how your brain evolved.
If you look outside of the box your biological composition has created, youd see what is just LOGICAL.

You're definatly rambling a lot and asserting a lot that you haven't yet proven.

idk why people try to convince eachother that God is real or the science is true or whatever.

Science is true because it's a method used to gain knowledge which forwards our society and our species as a whole.

At 6/25/08 11:20 AM, Imperator wrote:

At 6/24/08 12:14 PM, morefngdbs wrote: I have often wondered about the cross.

Wearing the cross is supposed to act as a reminder to remain humble, just like WWJD bracelets.

;;
I don't know what a wwjd bracelet is ( I probably skipped sunday school that day). Your explaination of the people wearing them may be correct, but you go into churches & there are crosses on the walls, Catliks have them with a lovely image of a man nailed to them as well (that one would think might be somewhat humbling) THey carry crosses It is an image that is used in worship.... in my opinion in direct conflict with "thou shall not worship false idols & graven images."

Now I know there is & has always been contention on what images & objects constitute idolatry & what should be considered reasonable images. But you got the statue of a person(jesus) hanging from a damn cross being carried through the church by the head priest & that's Idoltary my friend, white wash that fence as hard as you want & I will not be convinced otherwise.

Chances are good that Jesus was a historical figure, and if he was as much a renegade as the Bible says, then crucifixion was the standard Roman punishment.
Crucifixion was one of the standard ways Romans had of Capital Punishment. Since it involved being UN-burried, it was considered a rather humiliating experience.

;;
as you say & I have read in more than one publication in my life .
Jesus would not have been taken down, so there is no chance he could have been put in a tomb & then magically ressurected, just one more fantasy or actual outright fabrication in the 'holy' book.

Spartacus' revolt ended when Crassus crucified like 5000 of em along the via Appia.

;;;
Actually there was a jewish historian at that time (who does mention jesus by the way twice) Flavious Josephus, although most scholars today believe what has been found had been edited/changed by early christians to paint Jesus in a better light. Any how he is one of those credited that when the Romans put down the Jews in that area, "they had denuded the landscape of trees for the crucifixions

There is also of course the rumor of Jesus being 'drugged' and instead of being dead, he was only comatose. BUT like everything else this can't be true
http://halexandria.org/dward229.htm

Then somehow they got him down off the cross (which was almost NEVER done)

At 6/25/08 10:11 AM, Brick-top wrote:

At 6/24/08 04:52 PM, The-evil-bucket wrote: But you are "religious" if you go to an atheist church every Friday and examine ancient civilizations and try to learn from them.

It's really lucky that those places don't exist and I wouldn't go to one even if they did.

How is it any different from a church where you make up the past and force it to fit the present?

At 6/25/08 03:51 PM, The-evil-bucket wrote:

At 6/25/08 10:11 AM, Brick-top wrote:

At 6/24/08 04:52 PM, The-evil-bucket wrote: But you are "religious" if you go to an atheist church every Friday and examine ancient civilizations and try to learn from them.

It's really lucky that those places don't exist and I wouldn't go to one even if they did.

How is it any different from a church where you make up the past and force it to fit the present?

Are you saying that I make up stuff? Or are you saying that Churches make up history?

What exactly are you saying?

At 6/25/08 03:59 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 6/25/08 03:51 PM, The-evil-bucket wrote:

At 6/25/08 10:11 AM, Brick-top wrote:

At 6/24/08 04:52 PM, The-evil-bucket wrote: But you are "religious" if you go to an atheist church every Friday and examine ancient civilizations and try to learn from them.

It's really lucky that those places don't exist and I wouldn't go to one even if they did.

How is it any different from a church where you make up the past and force it to fit the present?

Are you saying that I make up stuff? Or are you saying that Churches make up history?

What exactly are you saying?

I think he's saying that churches make things up to explain the present via the past and to give religious people a reason for making what they do seem right. If it were not for religion, no one would "know" that killing someone else was exactly the right thing to do.

I believe you are trying to fit my statement into a particular church. I'm just saying, hypothetically, what is the difference between a church that examines ancient civilizations and tries to learn from them, and a church that makes up the past and forces it to fit the present? Since you say you would not attend the first one.

for the peeps saying Science is a belief as a technacality yes but everything is Belief the you believe that I have typed this you Believe that antartica exists have you ever been there. then how do you know. you believe because there is evidence ,Tv Radio Internet, why do believe in god proberly indoctrination mixed with faulse evidence. The bible (which by the way is an awesome story judges was awesome the guy has his eyes pokes out and drops a building on those heathens and on himself) now what I have said in there fucks up a lot of Beilefs now doesnt it that guy in judges kills himself and murders. oh you say thats just one lets look at moses now you may say he is well and good he drops the stones feeds grounded gold dust to his people. lets look at... God he kills thousands of inncoent animal along with the humans how loving. I could pick out more and it seems god is powerful but not powerful enough he can create a universe but it seems not let Abraham and his wife and sons breath under water. And why is Religion up to interpretation I mean its not like yes i like this bit of the bible but this other bit nahh i dont like that.
sorry for the rant

At 6/25/08 04:07 PM, The-evil-bucket wrote: I believe you are trying to fit my statement into a particular church. I'm just saying, hypothetically, what is the difference between a church that examines ancient civilizations and tries to learn from them, and a church that makes up the past and forces it to fit the present? Since you say you would not attend the first one.

No, I said I would not attend an Atheist church since they do not exist. I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

At 6/25/08 04:09 PM, ILovezoms wrote: for the peeps saying Science is a belief as a technacality yes but everything is Belief the you believe that I have typed this you Believe that antartica exists have you ever been there. then how do you know. you believe because there is evidence ,Tv Radio Internet, why do believe in god proberly indoctrination mixed with faulse evidence. The bible (which by the way is an awesome story judges was awesome the guy has his eyes pokes out and drops a building on those heathens and on himself) now what I have said in there fucks up a lot of Beilefs now doesnt it that guy in judges kills himself and murders. oh you say thats just one lets look at moses now you may say he is well and good he drops the stones feeds grounded gold dust to his people. lets look at... God he kills thousands of inncoent animal along with the humans how loving. I could pick out more and it seems god is powerful but not powerful enough he can create a universe but it seems not let Abraham and his wife and sons breath under water. And why is Religion up to interpretation I mean its not like yes i like this bit of the bible but this other bit nahh i dont like that.
sorry for the rant

Wow, ILovezoms, way to be on topic. That may have been a valid point; I can't tell though because your ideas and points are so completely haphazardly arranged and unrelated. Anyway, the church that examines past civilizations is different from the one that completely makes things up because one has solid and verifiable evidence. I agree with The-Evil-Bucket, though, because both try to do the same thing--namely, explain the way things are today by examining possibilities of what happened in the past.

At 6/25/08 04:20 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 6/25/08 04:07 PM, The-evil-bucket wrote: I believe you are trying to fit my statement into a particular church. I'm just saying, hypothetically, what is the difference between a church that examines ancient civilizations and tries to learn from them, and a church that makes up the past and forces it to fit the present? Since you say you would not attend the first one.

No, I said I would not attend an Atheist church since they do not exist. I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Hypothetically is a funny word.

hy·po·thet·i·cal
-adjective
1. assumed by hypothesis; supposed: a hypothetical case.
2. of, pertaining to, involving, or characterized by hypothesis: hypothetical reasoning.

So we we assume that an atheist church exists, does that help you answer my question?

a church of atheists lol...
from what your saying a church is a mueseum

At 6/25/08 04:24 PM, ILovezoms wrote: a church of atheists lol...
from what your saying a church is a mueseum

Museums simply provide information and do not attempt to sway you in any way. A church is a place where specific ideas are shared and supported, regardless of what kind of evidence they have. It's silly to say that just because a group of people are looking at ancient artifacts to provide evidence for their particular ideas, it's the same as a place where objects are displayed only for information and pleasure.

At 6/25/08 04:24 PM, ILovezoms wrote: a church of atheists lol...
from what your saying a church is a mueseum

Why do you deny the existence of atheistic churches?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhuddism

Since I seem to be explaining terms today:

a·the·ism
-noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Where does it say, in that definition, that atheism has anything to do with religion?

At 6/25/08 04:24 PM, The-evil-bucket wrote:

At 6/25/08 04:20 PM, Brick-top wrote:

So we we assume that an atheist church exists, does that help you answer my question?

Nope, still confused.

But that doesn't matter I've poped some illegal painkillers for my bust neck and I'm in la la land.

FUCK YOU my grammars fine.

At 6/25/08 04:23 PM, Skwinch wrote:

sorry as i said i was ranting meaning i waffle stray off topic dont organise ect.

At 6/25/08 04:52 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 6/25/08 04:24 PM, The-evil-bucket wrote:

At 6/25/08 04:20 PM, Brick-top wrote:

So we we assume that an atheist church exists, does that help you answer my question?

Nope, still confused.

But that doesn't matter I've poped some illegal painkillers for my bust neck and I'm in la la land.

FUCK YOU my grammars fine.

May I ask what you are confused about?

Have a nice trip. Send me a rainbow post card.

Did I miss something?

At 6/25/08 04:52 PM, ILovezoms wrote:

At 6/25/08 04:23 PM, Skwinch wrote:

sorry as i said i was ranting meaning i waffle stray off topic dont organise ect.

I might remind you that if you can't get your point across, there's no point in posting.

At 6/25/08 05:02 PM, Skwinch wrote:

At 6/25/08 04:52 PM, ILovezoms wrote:

At 6/25/08 04:23 PM, Skwinch wrote:

sorry as i said i was ranting meaning i waffle stray off topic dont organise ect.

I might remind you that if you can't get your point across, there's no point in posting.

Would you care to clarify what you were trying to say in a way that the rest of the world might understand?

At 6/25/08 03:45 PM, morefngdbs wrote: I don't know what a wwjd bracelet is ( I probably skipped sunday school that day). Your explaination of the people wearing them may be correct, but you go into churches & there are crosses on the walls, Catliks have them with a lovely image of a man nailed to them as well (that one would think might be somewhat humbling) THey carry crosses It is an image that is used in worship.... in my opinion in direct conflict with "thou shall not worship false idols & graven images."

"What Would Jesus Do" bracelets. It was supposed to be this great idea about getting kids involved by having them wear these bracelets, but I personally don't know anyone who did. In my day we always used the phrase as a punchline.

Now I know there is & has always been contention on what images & objects constitute idolatry & what should be considered reasonable images. But you got the statue of a person(jesus) hanging from a damn cross being carried through the church by the head priest & that's Idoltary my friend, white wash that fence as hard as you want & I will not be convinced otherwise.

Sorta ends that conversation, doesn't it? Every Passover Jews also kidnap the first born child from Christian homes and murder them, another fun fact.

Actually there was a jewish historian at that time (who does mention jesus by the way twice) Flavious Josephus, although most scholars today believe what has been found had been edited/changed by early christians to paint Jesus in a better light. Any how he is one of those credited that when the Romans put down the Jews in that area, "they had denuded the landscape of trees for the crucifixions

Right. Crucifixion was fairly common practice.
We also have mentions, besides the Pliny piece, in Suetonius and Tacitus, who were big under the Flavians. Hurrah for the Silver Age, que no?

Then somehow they got him down off the cross (which was almost NEVER done)

A perfectly executed wide range claim followed by that magic safety word, "almost". S'one of my favorites, I wonder why more people here don't use that one? It's a perfect way of saying what you want without needing substantiation and still protecting your ass in case they say something......