PDA

View Full Version : Can you be smart and religious ?


tennisjam
Mar 10th, 2005, 12:58 PM
(no offence to anyone, this form of question was just to make people react...)

...considering religions as they should be practiced by their so-called saint books...

Appearence or contents of any religion are easily understanable as part of human nature and history and their evolutions.

Based on my personal experience, more I learn about any religion, more I am convinced about the total absence of any "divine" nature of it...

Still, coming up to more abstract considerations about religions in "privileged" world, I always wonder:

"How any religion can be considered in any way as any God's message despite its numerous total incoherences?" :confused:

K.U.C.W-R.V
Mar 10th, 2005, 01:45 PM
YES - I used to be extremely hostile to religion & although I still don't yet neccessarily believe in the existance of god, I do believe in Christianity as a society-enhancing belief system.

Judeo-Christian philosophy is the bedrock of Western civilisation & its erosion in Western Europe has contributed to pervasive social breakdown & a conspicuous moral vacuum.

It is healthy for people to believe in something bigger than themselves & to feel that the virtue of their actions on earth will directly affect their fate after death.

Deeply religious Christians may not like gay marriage or abortion but by & large they arent the ones mugging old ladies & holding up banks are they?

Crazy Canuck
Mar 10th, 2005, 02:00 PM
...

Deeply religious Christians may not like gay marriage or abortion but by & large they arent the ones mugging old ladies & holding up banks are they?

No, they're too busy fucking little boys.

Seriously though, this question is rather silly. Of course you can be intelligent and religious. Yes, lots of stupid people are religious. Lots of stupid people are athiests too. There just happen to be a lot of stupid people.

K.U.C.W-R.V
Mar 10th, 2005, 02:16 PM
No, they're too busy fucking little boys.

Seriously though, this question is rather silly. Of course you can be intelligent and religious. Yes, lots of stupid people are religious. Lots of stupid people are athiests too. There just happen to be a lot of stupid people.

Thats pretty funny.

However, I think its liberal catholics rather than conservative evangelicals who have been banging kids. When I said "deeply religious" I meant DEEPLY RELIGIOUS.

JustineTime
Mar 10th, 2005, 02:51 PM
JHH :worship:
NASTYA :worship: :hearts:

We were :hehehe: CREATED :hehehe: for worship...everyone worships something (or someone).

What do YOU worship??? :hehehe:

:tape:

:p

griffin
Mar 10th, 2005, 02:52 PM
Thats pretty funny.

However, I think its liberal catholics rather than conservative evangelicals who have been banging kids. When I said "deeply religious" I meant DEEPLY RELIGIOUS.

Ohh, I like that defense - if they're stupid or doing something people don't approve of, they aren't "real" (insert religious demonimation). Convenient.

FYI, the priests busted for messing with kids ran the gamut of liberal/conservative. And the church leaders that let it happen were deeply conservative men.

None the less, of course highly intelligent people can religious. Two aren't mutually exclusive.

JustineTime
Mar 10th, 2005, 02:56 PM
Psalms 148:5 - Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created.

Revelation 4:11 - Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

nash
Mar 10th, 2005, 03:12 PM
Absolutely not - all religious people are blithering idiots who were lucky to make it out of third grade... ;)

DevilishAttitude
Mar 10th, 2005, 03:32 PM
George Bush is religious not clearly not smart so that version is NO :)

Personally I don't know or care ;)

tennisjam
Mar 10th, 2005, 04:36 PM
(please, I don't want to say that religious people are stupid...)

The fact is that if you take religions for what they pretend to be, that is God's message to humanity, there are quite few problems...

Today, to give some credibility to any religion, people tend to consider only the nice universal aspects of it and put aside all the rest...

It's just too easy. If you are religious, you should be as God is supposed to ask it through it's message brought by religions.

Now, the fact is that quite few aspects of any religious messages are totally incoherent if not totally wrong.

What I want to say is that it is very difficult, if not totally impossible to consider any "divine" source for any religion once you try to understand those things in a simple way.

I simply think (and I have often opportunity to see it too) that many people who consider themselves religious don't know many things about their religion at all, or know only those nice and universal aspects that are the only ones put in evidence for being credible,plausible or believeable at some point.

Wigglytuff
Mar 10th, 2005, 05:12 PM
"smart" is very relative and "religious" is similarly relative.

so its very relative.

i find few ivy league grads to be "smart" (see GW bush) and i find few "Christians" to actually be "religious" e.g. "Christ"ians as in following the teachings of CHRIST, (most** follow mob*** rule based on popular interpretations of poorly translations of books that were compiled 100 plus years AFTER Jesus died*, written by people who if likely never even saw Christ let alone knew him. and what worse is they cut up these faulty translations of books by people to justify actions that go explicitly AGAINST the teachings of Christ: war, abuse of the poor and meek and so on. oh but it doesn't stop there, then some of these folks who use mistranslated words of the teachings of a GOOD man by written by people who didn't likely know him to try to make you feel bad because even though you actually follow HIS teachings (opposing war abuse of the helpless and so on) you don't ascribe this misguided mob rule or support fools who manipulate HIS words to justify rape of nations) yes i am a bit bitter...

*i always find it funny, that few wonder why HE never wrote an account of his own life and teachings, and even more interesting that this really isn't an issue of concern for most. a god bears a son that is sent to earth to die for everyones sins, and tells everyone what to write about everything including how the world was created, but cant seem to find the time to tell the son to write his own account (in book form of course) of what he did while on earth?
personally i smell fish.

** i say most, i mean most, not all. if this rant doesn't apply to you, than it wasn't intended to, it means most and most does not mean all. most means most.

***mob Audio pronunciation of "mob" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mb)
n.

1. A large disorderly crowd or throng. See Synonyms at crowd1.
2. The mass of common people; the populace.
3. An indiscriminate or loosely associated group of persons or things: a mob of boats in the harbor.
4. Australian. A flock or herd of animals.

decemberlove
Mar 10th, 2005, 05:17 PM
since when did religious=christian??

Martian Willow
Mar 10th, 2005, 05:34 PM
Well, Kant and Kierkegaard, Darwin, Einstein, and Mariangelina all managed it, so I suppose so. :) Believing in dogma is a fairly stupid thing to do, but nobody's perfect.

Wigglytuff
Mar 10th, 2005, 05:43 PM
since when did religious=christian??

it doesnt. if you mean the early stages of my rant (and a very good one at that if i may say so myself) i said " i find few "Christians" to actually be "religious" e.g. "Christ"ians "

simply put: christians can be said to be religous because chirstian is A religion, BUT not all religous people (people belonging to a religion) are chirstians because there are thousands of religions. this is why i said "e.g. chirstians" e.g. = for example, in the cas of:

decemberlove
Mar 10th, 2005, 05:45 PM
it doesnt. if you mean the early stages of my rant (and a very good one at that if i may say so myself) i said " i find few "Christians" to actually be "religious" e.g. "Christ"ians "

simply put: christians can be said to be religous because chirstian is A religion, BUT not all religous people (people belonging to a religion) are chirstians because there are thousands of religions. this is why i said "e.g. chirstians" e.g. = for example, in the cas of:

no it was just directed at the whole thread. sorry if it seemed like it was directed at you. :)

i actually agree with you about finding few christians to be truly religious.

Lord Nelson
Mar 10th, 2005, 06:15 PM
Now I would like to hear abou other religious denominations such as shintoism (Jiggy Puffy), buddhism, islam etc...Come on we are a diverse world out there.

LiliaLee-Frazier
Mar 10th, 2005, 06:17 PM
Sure...just look the williams sistas :D

tennisjam
Mar 10th, 2005, 06:47 PM
as a thread starter I said indeed "religions"...


Well, Kant and Kierkegaard, Darwin, Einstein, and Mariangelina all managed it, so I suppose so. http://127.0.0.1:1120/bug.cgi Believing in dogma is a fairly stupid thing to do, but nobody's perfect.

as for those people, I hardly believe their conception of what is called "God" had actually anything religious...

Quite few "big minds" had faith in some "creative force" because their will to discover and understand the world that brings them to the real admiration of the same world and makes them always wondering.That is totally understanable.

But most of the time, this faith has not much to do with religions.

Fortunately, the faith is not monopoly of religions...

Even from the human point of view, human nature is made to wonder...And indeed, the humanity really progressed only after it started to search for some answers on its own world with its natural capacities...

Still, when it comes to religions, after getting deep knowledge of any religion, can anyone tell being able to find even a small part of answers of any kind of questions in any religion...? (not even considering the fact that you find yourself often confronted to total incoherences or unclear or wrong informations... )

JustineTime
Mar 10th, 2005, 06:55 PM
since when did religious=christian??

Or vice versa. ;)

:angel:

*abby*
Mar 10th, 2005, 06:57 PM
of course you can but i think that in order to be percieved as being smart by the world you have to be open to other ppls opinions and not be seen as forcing your religion onto other people

harloo
Mar 10th, 2005, 07:02 PM
If you are a part of organized religion that encourages it's worshippers to engage in cult like behaviour then you are not smart.

Otherwise, I don't see how religion has anything to do with your level of intelligence.

tennisjam
Mar 10th, 2005, 07:22 PM
of course I don't make direct connection between religion and intelligence...

this form of question was to attract people to eventually give their opinion...

still in abstract and theorical way, I find that this question is rather justified...

Mariangelina
Mar 10th, 2005, 09:06 PM
There are plenty of brilliant religious people, and plenty of completely moronic ones. Same with atheists.

Are you asking whether someone with deeply held personal religious beliefs can be intelligent? Definitely. Or whether someone who believes every literal word of the official dogma of an organised religion can be intelligent? Probably, although I'd guess that they'd have to be a bit gullible or insecure, or just too lazy to think critically.

I consider myself Christian and believe deeply in God, but I do not believe every piece of dogma the Catholic church flings at me. I do not feel this disqualifies me from being religious. I also believe there is some truth and beauty in everyone's beliefs- hell, in every organised belief system- and we all have something good and unique to contribute to the world. The world would not be half as terrific if we all believed the same things. Who's right? I can't know for sure, and I won't while I'm alive. But if religion or lack thereof makes us better people, more power to us. :D

I'd have asked Kierkegaard to answer this question, but he was busy. :p

Wigglytuff
Mar 10th, 2005, 09:41 PM
Now I would like to hear abou other religious denominations such as shintoism (Jiggy Puffy), buddhism, islam etc...Come on we are a diverse world out there.
1- Shintoism and Buddhism are not denominations they are religions into and of themselves.
2-i am at school right now (and feeling grossly unmotivated at that) anyway, i will right you reply when i get home.
3-did you get my PM about jumping to conclusions about what folks (namely, myself) believe

AjdeNate!
Mar 10th, 2005, 09:49 PM
stupid is as stupid does. no matter what god you do/don't believe in.

PointBlank
Mar 10th, 2005, 10:56 PM
Im a straight-A student and taking the highest classes I can as a Freshmen..so I like to think Im smart..and Im also religous..

tennischick
Mar 11th, 2005, 04:19 AM
i have a friend who has her Ph.D. in Maths. and she is Pentecostal. she sees no dissonance with this. she is as deeply religious as she is smart. sometimes i must admit that i don't get it.

*Karen*
Mar 11th, 2005, 10:27 AM
The religions that come to your door are the annoying one's. My opinion is believe whatever you like but leave everyone else alone. The bible is based on stories made up thousands of years ago I dont really feel it's very relevant to society today.

Lord Nelson
Mar 11th, 2005, 12:50 PM
Why only attack the bible Karen. How about the mahabarata, koran etc.. Oh, and what do you believe in? Wicccanism, Scientology etc, are they better than traditional religions? I myself am an atheist/agnostic but I'm wise enough to criticize religion as a whole without pin-pointing some religions such as Christianity.

JustineTime
Mar 11th, 2005, 02:55 PM
The religions that come to your door are the annoying one's. My opinion is believe whatever you like but leave everyone else alone. The bible is based on stories made up thousands of years ago I dont really feel it's very relevant to society today.

As a purely historical record, the Bible has been proven accurate time and again, and has never been disproved. ;) Your assertion about "stories made up thousands of years ago" does not comport with historical (or biblical ;) ) reality.

If you choose not to believe in Jonah and the whale, Noah and the flood, etc., fine, but just FYI :secret: the biblical prophets were 100% :hehehe: accurate. :secret:

:)

!!!--Duiz™--!!!
Mar 11th, 2005, 06:38 PM
well... it depends if you have faith....

My friend is a genius, he got almost a perfect score for hte college entrance exam. And he was called by harvard to come study to their university. He truned them down cuase he wants to go to BYU (mormon university).

I don't htink he is stupid, but rather intelligent. Because he knows that someday christ will come and save him, cause he was rather humble than prideful. Ohh well.. I may be stupid naturally... think whatever you want

Wigglytuff
Mar 11th, 2005, 07:24 PM
As a purely historical record, the Bible has been proven accurate time and again, and has never been disproved. ;) Your assertion about "stories made up thousands of years ago" does not comport with historical (or biblical ;) ) reality.

If you choose not to believe in Jonah and the whale, Noah and the flood, etc., fine, but just FYI :secret: the biblical prophets were 100% :hehehe: accurate. :secret:

:)

you like inventing things dont you?

remember the story about the guy who wouldnt let moses people go. and how his son got killed in a plague, you know the last one where the first born son the egyptians was killed, and this included the pharaohs first born son.

well, recently say. 3 weeks maybe 4, there was a special on live tv where they gave the public a tour of the son burial chamber. well as it were he (the pharaoh's son) was killed by a BLUNT OBJECT. now i read exodus, and dont remeber anything about the killing first borns with blunt objects.

Lord Nelson
Mar 11th, 2005, 07:42 PM
you like inventing things dont you?

remember the story about the guy who wouldnt let moses people go. and how his son got killed in a plague, you know the last one where the first born son the egyptians was killed, and this included the pharaohs first born son.

well, recently say. 3 weeks maybe 4, there was a special on live tv where they gave the public a tour of the son burial chamber. well as it were he (the pharaoh's son) was killed by a BLUNT OBJECT. now i read exodus, and dont remeber anything about the killing first borns with blunt objects.
If people want to believe in the bible, mahabarata, koran, nirvana etc.. it's their choice. I see that these religions are supposed to be more symbolic than scientifically accurate. I tend to believe that people want to believe in a religion (and I include shitoism/buddism/confuciusm) because they cannot accept that their is nothing after death. The good thing about religion is that it creates culture. Japan is a great country today because of shintoism, buddhism. Europe/U.S. are great because of Christianity. Turkey is great because of Islam. Israel proper is great because of Judaism and so on.

Crazy Canuck
Mar 11th, 2005, 08:02 PM
Thats pretty funny.

However, I think its liberal catholics rather than conservative evangelicals who have been banging kids. When I said "deeply religious" I meant DEEPLY RELIGIOUS.

Yeah, it's clearly those damn lefties. They fuck all the little boys. It's just not right, that. Why they can't just rape women like the righties, I have no idea.

Seriously though, I don't see a connection between being religious and being moral. I'm far more "moral" that some of the most religious people that I know, and I haven't been to chruch in 15 years. Unless you think that having multiple sex partners and stealing is "moral" so long as you pray for forgiveness afterwards. In which case yes, I'm clearly being beat.

Disclaimer: I see nothing wrong with having multiple sex partners. I just don't have them, and according to some lines of thought, this should make me more "moral" than those that do. This is not my line of thinking, so don't shoot the messenger! Stealing is a whole other issue, of course. Eets bad.

Crazy Canuck
Mar 11th, 2005, 08:04 PM
Ohh, I like that defense - if they're stupid or doing something people don't approve of, they aren't "real" (insert religious demonimation). Convenient.

FYI, the priests busted for messing with kids ran the gamut of liberal/conservative. And the church leaders that let it happen were deeply conservative men.


They were just your typical wishwashy libs posing as righties to make the righties look bad. You know how those immoral libs work. Always trying to ruin it for the rest of us.

Crazy Canuck
Mar 11th, 2005, 08:06 PM
Well, Kant and Kierkegaard, Darwin, Einstein, and Mariangelina all managed it, so I suppose so. :) Believing in dogma is a fairly stupid thing to do, but nobody's perfect.

For some reason I thought that Darwin was agnostic. I think I had him confused with Galton. Which is a terrible mess of confusion.

I'll sit down now.

SJW
Mar 11th, 2005, 08:07 PM
No, they're too busy fucking little boys.

Seriously though, this question is rather silly. Of course you can be intelligent and religious. Yes, lots of stupid people are religious. Lots of stupid people are athiests too. There just happen to be a lot of stupid people.

to make things easier...i'll just say now that whatever Rebecca writes in future, i agree with. she always gets there first :(:sad:

Crazy Canuck
Mar 11th, 2005, 08:09 PM
If you are a part of organized religion that encourages it's worshippers to engage in cult like behaviour then you are not smart.

Otherwise, I don't see how religion has anything to do with your level of intelligence.

Intelligent people can be sucked in by cults. Vulnerability doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of intelligence.

Crazy Canuck
Mar 11th, 2005, 08:11 PM
to make things easier...i'll just say now that whatever Rebecca writes in future, i agree with. she always gets there first :(:sad:
:banana:

Darop.
Mar 11th, 2005, 08:13 PM
me = atheist.

me = smart.

:p

Anyways, even ancient greeks thought that one could never know as much as he possibly could without being tied up by religion. That's what I think too.

Wigglytuff
Mar 11th, 2005, 08:15 PM
If people want to believe in the bible, mahabarata, koran, nirvana etc.. it's their choice. I see that these religions are supposed to be more symbolic than scientifically accurate. I tend to believe that people want to believe in a religion (and I include shitoism/buddism/confuciusm) because they cannot accept that their is nothing after death. The good thing about religion is that it creates culture. Japan is a great country today because of shintoism, buddhism. Europe/U.S. are great because of Christianity. Turkey is great because of Islam. Israel proper is great because of Judaism and so on.

nelson please!

i didn't say he didn't have a right to believe what ever he wanted, i said his claim that "the biblical prophets were 100% accurate." is untrue. i.e. a lie. (see the blunt object that killed the Pharaoh's grown son)

and ummm, the reason why japan is so great right now has more to do with the fact that they would trade with the white folks until they stopped trading in human flesh en masse (internationally and within their own borders). and because once they did start trading with white folks they knew what to take and what to not take from what the west was willing to send their way. to put it in a blunt and overly simplistic way.

about other religious. you are right there is a degree of hypocrisy. what i mean by that is that its unlikely one in America is spending millions of dollars to prove any other (none judo-Christian ) texts right or wrong. now the flip side of that is that other texts function in a fundamentally different way. for example, from the little i know about eastern religions many base themselves as a path that one can (or must) take to reach a pivotal center or apex in life (or lifetimes). rules are written in a different way and ask different things. and above all i don't know of any that at all inwardly concerned with proving themselves to be the ONLY right path (and there for all others as wrong and "dirty" as Christianity does) from a "scientific", "intellectual", or even "spiritual" point of view. in fact from my understand part of what marks these eastern religions is their willingness to allow member to belong to more than one system of beliefs. for example, since you mentioned japan, many, if not most, Japanese are both Shinto and Buddhist.

this willingness "sleep with" other religious, is part of what sets these religions in my head apart from judo-Christian worship in the most brutal sense. it is hard, if not impossible, to fully believe in the creation of earth as told in the bible and as told in most science texts equally and wholeheartedly without extremely conflict. not because they ideas themselves are intricately in opposition but because Christianity forbids it.

Kart
Mar 11th, 2005, 10:14 PM
It's easy to be smart and religious.

It surprises me that smart irreligious people can't see how it's possible.

flyingmachine
Mar 12th, 2005, 12:18 AM
Intelligent people can be sucked in by cults. Vulnerability doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of intelligence.
:worship:

JustineTime
Mar 12th, 2005, 12:32 AM
you like inventing things dont you?

remember the story about the guy who wouldnt let moses people go. and how his son got killed in a plague, you know the last one where the first born son the egyptians was killed, and this included the pharaohs first born son.

well, recently say. 3 weeks maybe 4, there was a special on live tv where they gave the public a tour of the son burial chamber. well as it were he (the pharaoh's son) :hehehe: was killed by a BLUNT OBJECT. :hehehe: now i read exodus, and dont remeber anything about the killing first borns with blunt objects.

It must be true. You saw it on TV. :)

Interesting how you have absolutely no problem accepting that as fact, but an historical record that has proven accurate time and again and stood the test of millenia you dismiss out of hand. :rolleyes: :shrug:

Please see signature. \/ :angel:

Wigglytuff
Mar 12th, 2005, 12:52 AM
It must be true. You saw it on TV. :)

Interesting how you have absolutely no problem accepting that as fact, but an historical record that has proven accurate time and again and stood the test of millenia you dismiss out of hand. :rolleyes: :shrug:

Please see signature. \/ :angel:

well you know when you see national geographic and discovery networks put something together, live with your own two eyes, its much easier to believe than the mistranslations of what some guy wrote 2,000 plus years.

now if you are more willing to believe mistranslations of what was written 2,000 plus years ago, than what can be seen with ones own eye, thats great for you. :wavey: :worship:

Wigglytuff
Mar 12th, 2005, 12:56 AM
It must be true. You saw it on TV. :)

Interesting how you have absolutely no problem accepting that as fact, but an historical record that has proven accurate time and again and stood the test of millenia you dismiss out of hand. :rolleyes: :shrug:

Please see signature. \/ :angel:

and by the way, you cant stand the test of anything if youve never been tested.

when the body of the pharaohs son was found, THATS when it was tested. not before. and he was killed with a blunt object.

now you only believe in testing things that arent there, but not in testing things that ARE "in the flesh" so to speak, that two is great for you. :wavey: :worship:

JustineTime
Mar 12th, 2005, 04:24 AM
you like inventing things dont you?

remember the story about the guy who wouldnt let moses people go. and how his son got killed in a plague, you know the last one where the first born son the egyptians was killed, and this included the pharaohs first born son.

well, recently say. 3 weeks maybe 4, there was a special on live tv where they gave the public a tour of the son burial chamber. well as it were he (the pharaoh's son) :hehehe: was killed by a BLUNT OBJECT. :hehehe: now i read exodus, and dont remeber anything about the killing first borns with blunt objects.

Ex. 4:22-23 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.

Ex. 12:29 And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD :hehehe: smote :hehehe:all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.

smite
v. smote, (smhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/omacr.gift) smit·ten, (smhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gifthttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifn) or smote smit·ing, smites
v. tr.

To inflict a heavy blow on, with or as if with the hand, a tool, or a weapon.

Now smite can also mean to afflict, as in to smite by plague, but nowhere in the text does it specify what death Pharaoh's son died. Now God did say "yet one more plague will I bring upon Pharaoh, and upon Egypt", but plague does not necessarily mean disease:




plague
n.

A widespread affliction or calamity, especially one seen as divine retribution.
A sudden destructive influx or injurious outbreak: a plague of locusts; a plague of accidents.
Nice try, though. :)

JustineTime
Mar 12th, 2005, 04:29 AM
BTW, welcome to the esteemed ranks of those who have set out to disprove the truth of the Bible, only to end up affirming it. ;)

:hug:

Wigglytuff
Mar 12th, 2005, 05:00 AM
Ex. 4:22-23 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.

Ex. 12:29 And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD :hehehe: smote :hehehe:all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.

smite
v. smote, (smhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/omacr.gift) smit·ten, (smhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gifthttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifn) or smote smit·ing, smites
v. tr.

To inflict a heavy blow on, with or as if with the hand, a tool, or a weapon.

Now smite can also mean to afflict, as in to smite by plague, but nowhere in the text does it specify what death Pharaoh's son died. Now God did say "yet one more plague will I bring upon Pharaoh, and upon Egypt", but plague does not necessarily mean disease:




plague
n.

A widespread affliction or calamity, especially one seen as divine retribution.
A sudden destructive influx or injurious outbreak: a plague of locusts; a plague of accidents.
Nice try, though. :)

i never argued that he wasnt killed. its the whole blunt object thing.

but hey, if god kills with a blunt object who am i argue. (in fact if i remember correctly it was YOU* who didn't like the idea of the killing with the blunt object. i just said i didnt believe thats how a god would kill a man. that is how a MAN would kill a man. but if god kills men to teach other men lessons and does so in away that makes look like a man killed the men he killed... what can you say? i

YOU not believing he was killed with a blunt object:
It must be true. You saw it on TV. :)

Interesting how you have absolutely no problem accepting that as fact, but an historical record that has proven accurate time and again and stood the test of millenia you dismiss out of hand. :rolleyes: :shrug:

Please see signature. \/ :angel:


but now you DO believe he was killed with a blunt object. because thats how god kills with blunt objects? :kiss: :bounce: :wavey:

ps. why are you such a "flip flopper"?

JustineTime
Mar 12th, 2005, 05:22 AM
I never said the blunt object contention wasn't true, I merely remarked about the fact that you accepted the one on, err :unsure:, blind faith...OK, tele-faith :p, yet reject the Bible seemingly out of hand. :shrug:

My point, though, is that what your beloved scientists discovered seems to support rather than refute the Biblical text. :tape: :shrug:

:)

Wigglytuff
Mar 12th, 2005, 06:38 AM
i never said i loved scientists (you know putting words in peoples mouths is like lying right?, i said that i am more likely to believe someone i see with my own eyes, (a hole in a mummy's head from the blunt objected that killed him) than a mistranslation of some guy writing 2,000 plus years ago. and sorry there is no "faith" blind or otherwise here. i think my eyes can see a big gapping hole on the side of a skull.

but you never answered my question, sidestepped yes, but answered no. why is it that at first you didnt believe (or like the idea that) he was killed with a blunt object, but upon realizing whatever it is you realized, suddenly not only do you seem to accept that he was killed with a blunt object but god did it? what promted that kind of flip flopping? and in just a few hours time?

I never said the blunt object contention wasn't true, I merely remarked about the fact that you accepted the one on, err :unsure:, blind faith...OK, tele-faith :p, yet reject the Bible seemingly out of hand. :shrug:

My point, though, is that what your beloved scientists discovered seems to support rather than refute the Biblical text. :tape: :shrug:

:)

and by the way as qouted earlier you never said anything about tele-faith.

i dont know if the new translations changed things much, but the version of the bible i read was pretty clear on lying as being a bad thing. :wavey: :kiss:

while this game has been fun. for the sake of your soul. STOP LYING. its pretty clear you didnt believe he was killed with a blunt object, went away looked it up and then found the translation you liked that made it seem as if it is possible that god may have killed him with a blunt object and POW!!! many bolds and italics later...you suddenly believe that yes he may been killed with a blunt object but only because god killed him with a blunt object, or whatever.

thats always been my beef with chirstianly. sure the book tells you not to lie cheat and steal, but its really far to easy to use these, admittedly good words, to lie, cheat, steal and even kill (i.e. a "just" war). nope not for me.

of course i believe in god. but a real god is smart enough not like someone repeating really bad translations of what some crazy drunk claimed he spoke to god 2,000 plus years ago supposedly wrote. nor would a really good create everyone but only give some people the magic book. in fact worshiping before a magic book sounds more hockey to me than anything. sure one can use something as a guide to living a good life. but when one goes blind to reality from looking to all that fine print, it looses the whole point.

i am not a fan of gods who kill someones grown first borns (with or without blunt objects*) to prove a point to so head fool in charge. that doesnt seem like what a good god would do. a good god who creates life has a lot more, decency and civility then that.

but again, i like my gods just and kind and without a history of killing the children of the guilty.

*but again, even gods who are into killing kids to prove a point wouldnt be so crass as to use a blunt object would they?

JustineTime
Mar 12th, 2005, 07:21 AM
i never said i loved scientists (you know putting words in peoples mouths is like lying right?,

No, but you're right, I was generalizing and I apologize.

but you never answered my question, sidestepped yes, but answered no. why is it that at first you didnt believe (or like the idea that) he was killed with a blunt object, but upon realizing whatever it is you realized, suddenly not only do you seem to accept that he was killed with a blunt object but god did it? what promted that kind of flip flopping? and in just a few hours time?

The truth is that I had to leave, and couldn't post until I got home. But please, if you have read my posts, you know I am rather well-versed in the scripture, and I was almost certain that God had said "I will smite the firstborn", or something to that effect, and to be quite honest, I couldn't wait to get home to look it up. :p

Until you posted what you did tonight, I had no idea, nor had I ever considered, what particular death Pharaoh's son might have died. It simply hasn't been something of great concern to me until tonight. :shrug:

i dont know if the new translations changed things much, but the version of the bible i read was pretty clear on lying as being a bad thing. :wavey: :kiss:

while this game has been fun. for the sake of your soul. STOP LYING. its pretty clear you didnt believe he was killed with a blunt object, went away looked it up and then found the translation you liked that made it seem as if it is possible that god may have killed him with a blunt object and POW!!! many bolds and italics later...you suddenly believe that yes he may been killed with a blunt object but only because god killed him with a blunt object, or whatever.

I'm a sinner and guilty of a great many of them. I would love to say that I have never lied, but I can not. However, I do not lie, have not for a very, very long time. If you're going to accuse me of it, please do so with hard evidence and not by inference and supposition.

thats always been my beef with chirstianly. sure the book tells you not to lie cheat and steal, but its really far to easy to use these, admittedly good words, to lie, cheat, steal and even kill (i.e. a "just" war). nope not for me.

of course i believe in god. but a real god is smart enough not like someone repeating really bad translations of what some crazy drunk claimed he spoke to god 2,000 plus years ago supposedly wrote. nor would a really good create everyone but only give some people the magic book. in fact worshiping before a magic book sounds more hockey to me than anything. sure one can use something as a guide to living a good life. but when one goes blind to reality from looking to all that fine print, it looses the whole point.

i am not a fan of gods who kill someones grown first borns (with or without blunt objects*) to prove a point to so head fool in charge. that doesnt seem like what a good god would do. a good god who creates life has a lot more, decency and civility then that.

but again, i like my gods just and kind and without a history of killing the children of the guilty.

*but again, even gods who are into killing kids to prove a point wouldnt be so crass as to use a blunt object would they?

It is of no concern to God whether you're His "fan" or not, nor is He obligated to fit your mold of what He should or should not be. Worship Dagon, Baal or Ashtaroth, it matters little, as all ways that seemeth right to a man lead merely to destruction.

Say of God what you will, rank Him to the dogs and back, for all the good it will avail you.

Jesus died for YOU. The just for the unjust. You are without excuse and you propose nothing in the sight of God. He loves you. He proved it. He paid the uttermost farthing to purchase YOUR redemption.

Either you will repent and be saved or your own words will condemn you on the day of judgement. Jesus is the Way and the Truth and The Life. All they that hate Him love death.

Life or Death. You make the choice. God gave you that freedom.

Whether you believe it or not.

Fingon
Mar 12th, 2005, 07:29 AM
of course religious people can be intelligent.

being intelligent doesn't mean you can't be wrong :devil:

Veritas
Mar 12th, 2005, 07:38 AM
IMO, religion has done a lot to form many of our basic moral concepts. I'm not saying that it's all thanks to religion we can tell the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, but it has helped to give people some idea about how to distinguish certain things.

of course religious people can be intelligent.

being intelligent doesn't mean you can't be wrong :devil:

Of course not. But being intelligent also means you can't be stupid :)

Crazy Canuck
Mar 12th, 2005, 07:48 AM
But being intelligent also means you can't be stupid

I know many intelligent people who have proven to be quite stupid ;)

*Karen*
Mar 12th, 2005, 11:56 AM
Why only attack the bible Karen. How about the mahabarata, koran etc.. Oh, and what do you believe in? Wicccanism, Scientology etc, are they better than traditional religions? I myself am an atheist/agnostic but I'm wise enough to criticize religion as a whole without pin-pointing some religions such as Christianity.

Because in Scotland we have bible bashers who come to your door and annoy you. We don't get koran bashers or mahabarata bashers coming to the door blabbing about how we should join their church. I don't care what people believe in I just think it should be kept in church.

DelMonte
Mar 12th, 2005, 03:41 PM
Judeo-Christian philosophy is the bedrock of Western civilisation & its erosion in Western Europe has contributed to pervasive social breakdown & a conspicuous moral vacuum.



What a completely a-historical statement to make! Your use of the term 'erosion' implies that there once was a period during which there was no soial breakdown and morality reigned supreme and now that is all gone because Christianity is in decline. Pray, when exactly was that lovely period in history?

JustineTime
Mar 12th, 2005, 04:59 PM
as a thread starter I said indeed "religions"...




as for those people, I hardly believe their conception of what is called "God" had actually anything religious...

Quite few "big minds" had faith in some "creative force" because their will to discover and understand the world that brings them to the real admiration of the same world and makes them always wondering.That is totally understanable.

But most of the time, this faith has not much to do with religions.

Very insightful. :)

Fortunately, the faith is not monopoly of religions...

Thank God! :bounce: :woohoo:

;)

Even from the human point of view, human nature is made to wonder...And indeed, the humanity really progressed only after it started to search for some answers on its own world with its natural capacities...

Still, when it comes to religions, after getting deep knowledge of any religion, can anyone tell being able to find even a small part of answers of any kind of questions in any religion...? (not even considering the fact that you find yourself often confronted to total incoherences or unclear or wrong informations... )

Thankfully, the only religion I believe in is James 1:27 religion. "Religions" tend to make people think that Christianity is so complex...it took the LORD YEARS of loving, gentle (sometimes NOT so gentle :eek: ) correction to penetrate my thick skull with the simplicity of the cross and to even begin, to scratch the surface of the depths of His mercy and Grace! :worship: :worship: :worship:

:)

I know...I'm preaching to the choir here. :p

:bolt:

Wigglytuff
Mar 12th, 2005, 05:29 PM
mr. just
you were "unsure" till you looked it up. if the wording i used earlier, offends you, my bad. thats fair. but its good to know i was right. i have a good gut and am pretty good about reading what people say when they post.

see, thats why i went on my rant about quote mistranslated text. from reading your quotes, it looks like you are looking at the KJV, which is what most people look at. but that version (like damn near all of them) was done by a punch of self serving fools without a shits regard to what was written in the earliest available versions of the original texts (that pre-date KJV by many a lifetime). for example in the early Hebrew versions of genesis the snake that made eve do the thing she did that got us all damned to life not in paradise, was....get this.... just a snake. not controlled or sponsored by any bad guys (i.e. Satan). later the Satan bit was added for dramatic effect and because the idea-turned-reality of Satan being personally responsible for the eviction, if you will, of mankind for paradise is much more effective in imparting the fear of Satan and thus getting people to convert. what amazes me is not that there kinds of flat out lies in translations where done in the first place but that the older texts on which these translations were based are still freely and widely available and all one has to do is, well, look it up. and spot the lies in translations for what they are.

(my personal favorite bad-job- of translating was the "sinners bible". that one said, something to the effect of "thou shalt commit adultery" LOL :lol: :lol: which is why people who sit around more concerned with a particular translation, rather than the idea behind the words in the earliest available translations are the biggest of fools. hell, there are thousands of different English translations, all one has to do to stop worshipping god and worship the word of man is to pick one, and stick to same dudes word choice like it was the word of god. this way god can say anything. god can say cheat on your wife, god can even say women aren't technically people. and yes many of these translations do predate KJV. (though i think the sinners bible was around the same time if not slightly later, i could be wrong so don't quote me on the date of that particular translations) :lol: hey, if the earlier available versions of the original texts mean to say that god went around whacking children over the head with club like objects than thats fucking awesome. but something, call it a mix of knowledge and common sense, tells me that no they did not mean that god went around killing kids with the forceful swing of blunt objects.)



now about this god thing smart thing.

this is why, its all relative. are you religious if your religious was made up by some guy in front of a computer two weeks ago or in front of scrolls 2,000 years ago? are you smart if you've read a book so many times you remember every word or if you've never read a book in your life but have a mental map of everything you've ever been told or if you can read to save your life but can create anything you think to, analyze and break down anything you want to and recall the names of every soul you've ever seen even once?

for me in my life, i am not a fan of sticking to any one religion most have too many fucking holes that can been seen with any focused eye, instead i hope that god, is a good god and therefore understands the reasons why i reject these religious, understand the conflict, and therefore has no beef with me living a good life and imploring others to do the same. in short "Do as you will, harm none." for smarts, i don't know. i think that mostly if you listen and are open to new words and ideas and willing to accept them as valid, then you are smart. so for me yes you CAN be smart and spiritual, but once one gets tired down by wording in religious dogma, it becomes harder, but not impossible to be smart and religious.

JustineTime
Mar 12th, 2005, 05:44 PM
First of all, I'm not "just", I'm justified, and there's an eternity of difference.

What should amaze me but really doesn't is that for all your rantings about translations, mistranslations, etc. , you have either failed to realize or choose not to regard one thing:

Regardless of my "motives", and setting aside my humanity (for which I can hardly be blamed) your original assertion pointedly did NOT contradict the Biblical account of Pharaoh's son's death.

Must be a mis-mistranslation. :shrug:

Wigglytuff
Mar 12th, 2005, 05:49 PM
Correction: the sinners bible was actually a bit before the KJV.

anyway,there is a link to the different versions in print now and to early versions.

http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Scriptures/default.htm

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/translations.stm

anyway, i have a paper due today so i am off for today.

JustineTime
Mar 12th, 2005, 05:55 PM
i have a paper due today so i am off for today.

Liar. You're going to watch the PLO on TTC. :p

But it's been fun. :hatoff:

:wavey:

Wigglytuff
Mar 12th, 2005, 06:08 PM
First of all, I'm not "just", I'm justified, and there's an eternity of difference.

What should amaze me but really doesn't is that for all your rantings about translations, mistranslations, etc. , you have either failed to realize or choose not to regard one thing:

Regardless of my "motives", and setting aside my humanity (for which I can hardly be blamed) your original assertion pointedly did NOT contradict the Biblical account of Pharaoh's son's death.

Must be a mis-mistranslation. :shrug:

no you never said that the blunt object was contradictory to the bible just belittled my statements and then supported them. kind of like beating a woman and then telling her you love her, but of course never saying you DIDNT love her, so no harm done. riiiiiiiiiiight.

the slight of hand that characterizes your postings is not going to work on me... because... well i am S-M-A-R-T.

ok seriously, I HAVE TO GO!

P.s. i do notice how whenever the questions get tough you switch the subject, (e.g.
Why not believe what see you with your own eyes?

Why is the KJV of god such a baby killing prick?

Why you so set on nit picking over words that are even anything close to the "original"?

Why would god be ok with people focusing on words that arent anything close to his "original" intent?

Isn't taking these words that arent what GOD said at all to fucking seriously, worshipping man not god?

How come they made the snake satan, when GOD said the snake was just a snake?

Isnt that lying in God's name? and Isnt that a good thing?

although, i would rather stay and read your answers (likely something like"none of that matters because the bible said so and here is where it said so" or "well, we are all sinners so its no big deal", though, hey, i could be wrong) than do my paper. its already a week over-due and i should do it. blah.
so i will see what you wrote when i log on tomorrow. )

tennisjam
Mar 12th, 2005, 11:01 PM
...of course I don't want too say that religious people are stupid (...being religious is rather a smart way to escape from some annoying questions nobody could answer to so far... ;) )

But once you learn about any religion, I wonder how is it possible not to consider that religions are products of human mind ?

For my part, I can't answer the question: Did God created humans or did humans created God ?


...but I am sure humans created religions...

Fingon
Mar 13th, 2005, 12:23 AM
Of course not. But being intelligent also means you can't be stupid :)

You won't find anyone who is intelligent at everything.

In fact intelligence is divided in several categories, like abstraction capabilities, imagination, musical talent, etc.

It's well known that some of the most intelligent people could be quite stupid for certain things, probably one of the best known examples was Rousseau, he was nearly a genious in the stuff her wrote, but he fucked up his entire life.

Particulary those good in abstract thinking, they can be very blind towards other things and act very stupid.

Veritas
Mar 13th, 2005, 10:13 AM
You won't find anyone who is intelligent at everything.

Indeed.

In fact intelligence is divided in several categories, like abstraction capabilities, imagination, musical talent, etc.

Certainly.

It's well known that some of the most intelligent people could be quite stupid for certain things, probably one of the best known examples was Rousseau, he was nearly a genious in the stuff her wrote, but he fucked up his entire life.

Ah yes, the guy who conceptualised 'tabula rasa' ;)

I also happen to think he's a genius.

Particulary those good in abstract thinking, they can be very blind towards other things and act very stupid.

Agreed. Take George Orwell for an example. His arguments about how the English language is being bastardised has a lot of good points, but I find suggestions like ridding the English language of any Latin/non-Anglo-Saxon words a bit too much to swallow :tape: He's a clever and insightful bloke, but he seems a bit miserable as well...

I know many intelligent people who have proven to be quite stupid ;)

I'm intrigued! Spill the beans please: who's intelligent, but is also proven "stupid"? ;)

*Karen*
Mar 13th, 2005, 10:57 AM
Although I dislike religion I don't think religious beliefs have an effect on intelligence

Oleh
Mar 13th, 2005, 07:54 PM
Maimonides. The Rambam.
Yes, yes you can. Because of him medicine is its way today, Astronomy is, Psyics is to a degree, and Judaism certainly is.

I dont know about you...but Im religious and intellegent. As are all Jews I know (Bar one or two :p;) jk)
Religion no matter what one, is NOTHING to do with intellegence/ knowlege which is fostered potential your born with. But at the same time Religion has alot to teach-not just spiritually for its followers.

JustineTime
Mar 13th, 2005, 08:31 PM
the slight of hand :hehehe: :lol: that characterizes your postings is not going to work on me... because... well i am S-M-A-R-T.

:haha:

Yes, you are...sleightly ;)

:)

Why not believe what see you with your own eyes?

Haven't you heard? Believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see.

Why is the KJV of god such a baby killing prick?

Why you so set on nit picking over words that are even anything close to the "original"?

Why would god be ok with people focusing on words that arent anything close to his "original" intent?

Isn't taking these words that arent what GOD said at all to fucking seriously, worshipping man not god?

How come they made the snake satan, when GOD said the snake was just a snake?

Isnt that lying in God's name? and Isnt that a good thing?

although, i would rather stay and read your answers (likely something like"none of that matters because the bible said so and here is where it said so" or "well, we are all sinners so its no big deal", though, hey, i could be wrong) than do my paper. its already a week over-due and i should do it. blah.
so i will see what you wrote when i log on tomorrow. )

The only answer I have for you is that if God is so incompetent that He can't keep His promise (Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away [Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33 ]), then you're on your own. Wing it, baby! :shrug:

The answer to your questions is found in His WORD. If you truly sought them, you would SEEK there, and they would be found, if you did so with all your heart.

But that isn't why you asked them...

Is it? :hehehe:

Wigglytuff
Mar 13th, 2005, 09:18 PM
:haha:

Yes, you are...sleightly ;)

:)
Haven't you heard? Believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see.

The only answer I have for you is that if God is so incompetent that He can't keep His promise (Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away [Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33 ]), then you're on your own. Wing it, baby! :shrug:

The answer to your questions is found in His WORD. If you truly sought them, you would SEEK there, and they would be found, if you did so with all your heart.

But that isn't why you asked them...

Is it? :hehehe:

lol, you are the champion of slight of hand.

again my motive is as the bible says it should be, to know god and to know.
so critiquing my motive is not going to work today.

me thinks you cant answer the questions. i have looked and looked for any sort of devote people to answer me a set of question of which these are only some.

anyway, if you ever feel like giving serious straight forward questions serious striaght foward answers here they are (again):

Why not believe what see you with your own eyes?

Why is the KJV of god such a baby killing prick?

Why you so set on nit picking over words that are even anything close to the "original"? (this question, unlikely the others whas directed at you personally over the choices that you have made to follow words that are in consistant with the "originals")

Why would god be ok with people focusing on words that arent anything close to his "original" intent?

Isn't taking these words that arent what GOD said at all to fucking seriously, worshipping man not god?

How come they made the snake satan, when GOD said the snake was just a snake?

Isnt that lying in God's name? and Isnt that a good thing?

PS. as always i am pretty straight forward with my questions. you are the sly one here. mr. i do not answer tough questions.

p.p.s you are not asking me to believe half of what i see you are asking me to believe none of what i see (or to at least pick and choice what of the things i see i should believe, and of course the things that i see that i should choose to believe should relienforce belief systems, i mean what kind of person would i be if i was actually open to new ideas that so much as questioned ever so slightly what i already believed??)

Halardfan
Mar 14th, 2005, 09:26 AM
The pressure should not be on people to prove there isn't a God, but on people to prove there is...its is religious people who have the bizarre baseless ideas.

If there were some benevolent, all-powerful being looking after us all, then it would be self-evident in he world we live in.

It isn't. Instead there is a world where horror, and needless, miserable suffering are common place.

How DARE people tell me that such suffering is part of some grand design.

In reality, its random, awful...affecting good, noble people as much as anyone, there is no mercy, becuase there is no-one to give mercy.

That is the grim truth.

Scotso
Mar 15th, 2005, 01:53 AM
Only if you're Jewish.

Szymanowski
Mar 15th, 2005, 08:00 PM
No, they're too busy fucking little boys.

Seriously though, this question is rather silly. Of course you can be intelligent and religious. Yes, lots of stupid people are religious. Lots of stupid people are athiests too. There just happen to be a lot of stupid people.
I'm catholic. I think you'd find most people like me could be offended by what you've just said; the vast majority of us would deeply condemn this kind of beheviour; nowhere in any religion I know of is this kind of behaviour justified.

I get the point, but please think who you're talking to.


+ to answer the question, I'm religious, and not all that dumb, I don't think;)

Wigglytuff
Mar 15th, 2005, 10:01 PM
I'm catholic. I think you'd find most people like me could be offended by what you've just said; the vast majority of us would deeply condemn this kind of beheviour; nowhere in any religion I know of is this kind of behaviour justified.

I get the point, but please think who you're talking to.


+ to answer the question, I'm religious, and not all that dumb, I don't think;)

if i remember correctly the greeks were ok with old men sleeping with young boys.

Crazy Canuck
Mar 15th, 2005, 10:14 PM
I'm catholic. I think you'd find most people like me could be offended by what you've just said; the vast majority of us would deeply condemn this kind of beheviour; nowhere in any religion I know of is this kind of behaviour justified.

I get the point, but please think who you're talking to.


+ to answer the question, I'm religious, and not all that dumb, I don't think;)
If got the point you wouldn't have felt the need to point out that it was offensive. I thought out perfectly well what I intended with that post. If it goes beyond some people that is not my problem.

Perhaps if you showed the same indignation over the post that I came up with that reply for, I might have some respect for your opinion. As it is... nay.

Szymanowski
Mar 15th, 2005, 10:40 PM
if i remember correctly the greeks were ok with old men sleeping with young boys.
is that really true?

I am most definately not OK with it.

Szymanowski
Mar 15th, 2005, 10:45 PM
If got the point you wouldn't have felt the need to point out that it was offensive. I thought out perfectly well what I intended with that post. If it goes beyond some people that is not my problem.

Perhaps if you showed the same indignation over the post that I came up with that reply for, I might have some respect for your opinion. As it is... nay.
I think you misunderstand me. I agree with your post in condemning anyone who sleeps with a child; but the tone in which you posted came across as perhaps hostile towards all catholics. I have no issues with you, however, + obviously agree with you on this point.

However, I think you would be silly to believe the post you were responding to was actually justifying this abuse of children in any way.

CJ07
Mar 15th, 2005, 11:00 PM
I'm catholic and I consider myself smart...Dartmouth considers me smart :p

Also Harvard was formed to train priests

Wigglytuff
Mar 15th, 2005, 11:42 PM
is that really true?

I am most definately not OK with it.

yes i believe it was the spartans that did it the most. i dont think anyone today (any besides mike J and other NAMBLA members are ok with it. thats why, thank god, its illegal).

Szymanowski
Mar 16th, 2005, 12:15 AM
As a purely historical record, the Bible has been proven accurate time and again, and has never been disproved. ;) Your assertion about "stories made up thousands of years ago" does not comport with historical (or biblical ;) ) reality.

If you choose not to believe in Jonah and the whale, Noah and the flood, etc., fine, but just FYI :secret: the biblical prophets were 100% :hehehe: accurate. :secret:

:)
I think there's lots of stuff in the bible that's more symbolistic than fact, and I do not know if it's word-for- word accurate truth, or simply a metaphor.

tennisjam
Mar 16th, 2005, 02:17 PM
I think there's lots of stuff in the bible that's more symbolistic than fact, and I do not know if it's word-for- word accurate truth, or simply a metaphor.


It seems too easy to me to always make this or that symbolistic or metaphoric interpretation of this or that religious source.

Most of those interpretations even seem to nearly totally take distances with their original source. It just doesn't make it.

Considering whatever divine source of those messages, then I think those messages are supposed to be something credible, plausible and understandable at some point.


It is very easy to analyse how and why those new society structures (religions) developped from the human's mind but how is it possible to consider any divine source of any religion ? :confused: That is my main question...

Lord Nelson
Mar 16th, 2005, 03:10 PM
The important thing to retain is that religion helps shape civilizations. Whether they be ancient ones such as that of Incas or modern ones such as those that shaped Europe and eventually the U.S. I love what Christianity has done for Western civilization. Yeah yeah I know, slaves this, native americans that, and so on... All civilizations have had their excesses. The thing is to learn from the past and Europe & U.S. are democratic. Also colonial powers were also Turks, Africans, Japanese etc...not just Europeans. The criticism that Europeans get I can show it on to another country.

Wigglytuff
Mar 16th, 2005, 03:28 PM
The important thing to retain is that religion helps shape civilizations. Whether they be ancient ones such as that of Incas or modern ones such as those that shaped Europe and eventually the U.S. I love what Christianity has done for Western civilization. yeah yeah I know, slaves this, native americans that, and so on... All civilizations have had their excesses. The thing is to learn from the past and Europe & U.S. are democratic. Also colonial powers were also Turks, Africans, Japanese etc...not just Europeans. The criticism that Europeans get I can show it on to another country.


:eek: :eek: :help: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:


what is your damage?? no one was criticism europe we were talking about religion. but that slavery comment really ...ummm.... freaked me out. i mean would you say "yeah yeah i know, holocaust this, child rape that, and so on ...."

( . )( . )
Mar 16th, 2005, 04:46 PM
the finest woman i've ever known is both smart and religious. not to mention very sexy ;) so yes, you can be both. :)

Lord Nelson
Mar 16th, 2005, 07:04 PM
:eek: :eek: :help: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:


what is your damage?? no one was criticism europe we were talking about religion. but that slavery comment really ...ummm.... freaked me out. i mean would you say "yeah yeah i know, holocaust this, child rape that, and so on ...."
slavery is bad, what happened to the native americans is bad. What I'm trying to say is that Europeans are alway criticized for this and Africans are not even though it was and is still quite common there. As for native Americans, they fought amongst themselves & they were not so native to begin with. They originally came from Central Asia. I said it before & I'll say it again. If a nation can learn about its mistakes then people should concentrate on the present & not always talk about the atrocities committed in the past.

Kiswana
Mar 16th, 2005, 07:08 PM
slavery is bad, what happened to the native americans is bad. What I'm trying to say is that Europeans are alway criticized for this and Africans are not even though it was and is still quite common there. As for native Americans, they fought amongst themselves & they were not so native to begin with. They originally came from Central Asia. I said it before & I'll say it again. If a nation can learn about its mistakes then people should concentrate on the present & not always talk about the atrocities committed in the past.

I don't care that you gave me a bad rep point but just so you know - Just because I posted that story about 'Passion' doesn't mean I do or don't agree with it. I thought it would be of interest to some posters. That's all. I think you should ask people rather than assume their stance on whatever article they c/p on this board.

Wigglytuff
Mar 16th, 2005, 07:45 PM
slavery is bad, what happened to the native americans is bad. What I'm trying to say is that Europeans are alway criticized for this and Africans are not even though it was and is still quite common there. As for native Americans, they fought amongst themselves & they were not so native to begin with. They originally came from Central Asia. I said it before & I'll say it again. If a nation can learn about its mistakes then people should concentrate on the present & not always talk about the atrocities committed in the past.

but no one said anything about europeans in this thread or in this topic. YOU WERE BELITTLING SLAVERY AND THE GENECIDE OF NATIVE AMERICANS IN THE MOST DISGUSTING WAY I HAVE SEEN ON THIS BOARD. and what is worse is that it had nothing to with the topic at hand, like you took some sick pleasure and making a small thing of millions of dead bodies. thats you what did. no one else here AT ALL SAID ANYTHING THAT WAS ATTACKING TO EUROPEANS. you, were the one who came out of nowhere acting like slavery was so kind of joke. which is why i asked you: would you say that about the holocaust or child rape or anything else for that matter?

where the hell are you coming from with this shit? why are you using some imagined attack on europeans (i say imagined because i have been following this thread and no one said anything about europeans let alone anything bad) as an excuse to justify that kind of sick and demented humor or whatever you call directed at africans and native americans?

like i said before WHAT IS YOUR DAMAGE?



EDIT: Jigglypuff was very rude here, its not ok. and she is sorry :o :o

Wigglytuff
Mar 16th, 2005, 07:46 PM
sorry but i am too fucking annoyed at thats bullshit to spell check.


EDIT: Jigglypuff was very rude here, its not ok. and she is sorry :o :o

Wigglytuff
Mar 16th, 2005, 09:47 PM
i was pissed at your comment, but i was more pissed about your response and now your continued "its ok to make light of dead brown here because people in some other place some people make fun of Europeans", meanwhile "some other place" has nothing whats or ever to do with the topic at hand.

you're right, i cant talk to you like an adult. not right now at least. why?

your post was disgusting and disturbing. first in this sense of being attacked that comes from (at least in this thread) your imagination, and second the idea that some lives (native American and African) aren't worth half a shit or least not as much as other lives.

yeah yeah I know, slaves this, native americans that, and so on...

so i asked if you would ever say "yeah yeah I know, holocaust this, child rape that, and so on..." in any context?

you are right, i have little patients and respect for this type of shit. and no, i have never and will never see racists ideas as intellectually equaled to even the finger paints of a child.

there is NO CONTEXT IN WHICH "Yeah yeah I know, slaves this, native americans that, and so on..." IS ANYTHING OTHER THAN RACIST BULLSHIT. i dont know if you know that or not. but i thought i might share that with you.

if that makes me a "bad" person to feel that way, i be that.
in you still dont get it go to your local synagogue and say "yeah yeah I know, Hitler this, holocaust that, and so on..." (unless of of course black and brown lives are worth as much as European ones :???: )

ps. as much as you like to jump to crazy conclusions based on anything other than the topic at hand, my love life has nothing to do with the fact that i have no love for racists bullshit.

anyway, i have to run to go class.

K.U.C.W-R.V
Mar 17th, 2005, 12:21 AM
i was pissed at your comment, but i was more pissed about your response and now your continued "its ok to make light of dead brown here because people in some other place some people make fun of Europeans", meanwhile "some other place" has nothing whats or ever to do with the topic at hand.

you're right, i cant talk to you like an adult. not right now at least. why?

your post was disgusting and disturbing. first in this sense of being attacked that comes from (at least in this thread) your imagination, and second the idea that some lives (native American and African) aren't worth half a shit or least not as much as other lives.



so i asked if you would ever say "yeah yeah I know, holocaust this, child rape that, and so on..." in any context?

you are right, i have little patients and respect for this type of shit. and no, i have never and will never see racists ideas as intellectually equaled to even the finger paints of a child.

there is NO CONTEXT IN WHICH "Yeah yeah I know, slaves this, native americans that, and so on..." IS ANYTHING OTHER THAN RACIST BULLSHIT. i dont know if you know that or not. but i thought i might share that with you.

if that makes me a "bad" person to feel that way, i be that.
in you still dont get it go to your local synagogue and say "yeah yeah I know, Hitler this, holocaust that, and so on..." (unless of of course black and brown lives are worth as much as European ones :???: )

ps. as much as you like to jump to crazy conclusions based on anything other than the topic at hand, my love life has nothing to do with the fact that i have no love for racists bullshit.

anyway, i have to run to go class.

The shrill cry of "racist" seems to be the default debating position for imbacilles out of their depth these days. :rolleyes:

Read & try to comprehend opposing arguments before reaching for the slanderous liberal cliches.

Almalyk
Mar 17th, 2005, 02:03 AM
As a purely historical record, the Bible has been proven accurate time and again, and has never been disproved. ;) Your assertion about "stories made up thousands of years ago" does not comport with historical (or biblical ;) ) reality.

If you choose not to believe in Jonah and the whale, Noah and the flood, etc., fine, but just FYI :secret: the biblical prophets were 100% :hehehe: accurate. :secret:

:)

LOL!

mykarma
Mar 19th, 2005, 09:23 PM
The important thing to retain is that religion helps shape civilizations. Whether they be ancient ones such as that of Incas or modern ones such as those that shaped Europe and eventually the U.S. I love what Christianity has done for Western civilization. [QUOTE]Yeah yeah I know, slaves this, native americans that, and so on... :rolleyes: :tape:

mykarma
Mar 19th, 2005, 09:29 PM
All I'm going to say Jig is take a deep breath & I mean a deep breath and just relax. Perhaps you need to do is look for a stable relationship or something. [QUOTE]I'm not going to justify what I wrote. In any case I'm only getting complaints from you because everyone else seem to understand what I said I think your comment was insensitive and cruel. I just don't care to go round and round with you about it.

Lord Nelson
Mar 20th, 2005, 12:25 AM
Jiggy is a nice girl and I apologized to her in person. Sometimes I write in the heat of the moment. The funny thing is that she did not insult me & I should have kept my cool. I will delete my previous message and I promise that I won't lose my cool again.
ALso Jiggy does not need to apologize she did nothing wrong.

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Mar 20th, 2005, 03:26 PM
LOL Christianity has put brakes on the advancement of civilization................umm, hello dark ages?