Post deleted by User.
Ban On Gay Marriage Struck Down
Ban on Gay Marriage Struck Down
Fairy.Haxorking said:
Bismarck.Magnumatic said:
Fairy.Haxorking said:
The bible has been rewritten so many many times over the years it's impossible to tell if it even resembles the original. A lot of the bible teaches the morality of the past, morality evolves over time which is why you can't take the bible literally
Oh. Well that would explain it then!
By the way.. It was not intended to be a guide to becoming a better person.
It was intended for mind control!
One slave owner controling thousands of slaves?
Please..
Quote:
1 Peter 2:18 (New International Version)
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
Even though the slaves could overpower their master 10,000 to 1... The slaves thought they would go to hell if they disobeyed him...
Edit: But you know what? They're still rotting in the ground!
I think the point is that people aren't supposed to blindly follow and live according to some defined rule, we're supposed to improve ourselves infinitely. The bible is intended to be a guide to that, but it's thousands of years old, it's outdated... Religious fanatics just choose to follow it word for word for whatever reason, perhaps it's because they wish to be told all the answer and not have to seek them for themselves. But at any rate, we have the old one because no one is qualified to write a new gospel
Fairy.Haxorking said:
I think the point is that people aren't supposed to blindly follow and live according to some defined rule, we're supposed to improve ourselves infinitely. The bible is intended to be a guide to that, but it's thousands of years old, it's outdated... Religious fanatics just choose to follow it word for word for whatever reason, perhaps it's because they wish to be told all the answer and not have to seek them for themselves. But at any rate, we have the old one because no one is qualified to write a new gospel
You honestly think that someone who thought the Earth was flat was qualified to write a gospel?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YymNb-pr-Pc
That one there's pretty dumb Magnumatic,
And when I said if religion exits or not, I meant whether the god or the teachings are true, not if there is a religion
I apologize for assuming you could figure that out
That one there's pretty dumb Magnumatic,
And when I said if religion exits or not, I meant whether the god or the teachings are true, not if there is a religion
I apologize for assuming you could figure that out
Bismarck.Magnumatic said:
Fairy.Haxorking said:
I think the point is that people aren't supposed to blindly follow and live according to some defined rule, we're supposed to improve ourselves infinitely. The bible is intended to be a guide to that, but it's thousands of years old, it's outdated... Religious fanatics just choose to follow it word for word for whatever reason, perhaps it's because they wish to be told all the answer and not have to seek them for themselves. But at any rate, we have the old one because no one is qualified to write a new gospel
You honestly think that someone who thought the Earth was flat was qualified to write a gospel?
When did I say they were qualified?
Fairy.Haxorking said:
Bismarck.Magnumatic said:
Fairy.Haxorking said:
I think the point is that people aren't supposed to blindly follow and live according to some defined rule, we're supposed to improve ourselves infinitely. The bible is intended to be a guide to that, but it's thousands of years old, it's outdated... Religious fanatics just choose to follow it word for word for whatever reason, perhaps it's because they wish to be told all the answer and not have to seek them for themselves. But at any rate, we have the old one because no one is qualified to write a new gospel
You honestly think that someone who thought the Earth was flat was qualified to write a gospel?
When did I say they were qualified?
Scientologists are qualified, they wrote a new gospel.
Yes Bart but I read and worship my Battlefield Earth copy every day!
Where did I say that you said they were qualified?
I only implied that you said that, just as you implied that the people who wrote the original gospel were qualified:
I only implied that you said that, just as you implied that the people who wrote the original gospel were qualified:
Fairy.Haxorking said:
we have the old one because no one is qualified to write a new gospel
Currently, no one can prove what the origin of any ancient religion is. We have stories and beliefs that have been skewed by countless generations and with are current technology there's no way of knowing what's real and what's not. For all we know religion started out as a joke that got out of hand. And yes, throughout history religion has been used as a weapon, but that doesn't meant that the intent of the religion wasn't for self betterment. Most religions teach the same message of self betterment: Be kind and loving to others, don't lie, don't steal, ect. People just rely on religion far too much, and expect god to make the world a good place
Bismarck.Magnumatic said:
Where did I say that you said they were qualified?
I only implied that you said that, just as you implied that the people who wrote the original gospel were qualified:
I only implied that you said that, just as you implied that the people who wrote the original gospel were qualified:
Fairy.Haxorking said:
we have the old one because no one is qualified to write a new gospel
I never implied that, you assumed that
If I said that my car is still broken because there's no qualified mechanic, does that mean my last mechanic was qualified? Obviously not because if he was my car wouldn't be broken
Also, optical illusions and his argument had nothing to do with each other. If he said the image of god was created by smoke and mirrors that would be an optical illusion. He also didn't prove anything, he just showed that the events "could" happen without prayer, not that they do
Fairy.Haxorking said:
Bismarck.Magnumatic said:
Where did I say that you said they were qualified?
I only implied that you said that, just as you implied that the people who wrote the original gospel were qualified:
I only implied that you said that, just as you implied that the people who wrote the original gospel were qualified:
Fairy.Haxorking said:
we have the old one because no one is qualified to write a new gospel
I never implied that, you assumed that
If I said that my car is still broken because there's no qualified mechanic, does that mean my last mechanic was qualified? Obviously not because if he was my car wouldn't be broken
Also, optical illusions and his argument had nothing to do with each other. If he said the image of god was created by smoke and mirrors that would be an optical illusion. He also didn't prove anything, he just showed that the events "could" happen without prayer, not that they do
Implying cars don't break after repair
Leviathan.Lysianthus said:
Fairy.Haxorking said:
Bismarck.Magnumatic said:
Where did I say that you said they were qualified?
I only implied that you said that, just as you implied that the people who wrote the original gospel were qualified:
I only implied that you said that, just as you implied that the people who wrote the original gospel were qualified:
Fairy.Haxorking said:
we have the old one because no one is qualified to write a new gospel
I never implied that, you assumed that
If I said that my car is still broken because there's no qualified mechanic, does that mean my last mechanic was qualified? Obviously not because if he was my car wouldn't be broken
Also, optical illusions and his argument had nothing to do with each other. If he said the image of god was created by smoke and mirrors that would be an optical illusion. He also didn't prove anything, he just showed that the events "could" happen without prayer, not that they do
Implying cars don't break after repair
And if the car was never fixed to begin with because the shotty mechanic failed to repair it?
You're making assumptions and making this far too complicated lol
people mad about the prop8 ruling only because they lost the game
I hate having to spoon feed people...
You said we should follow the old one because noone is qualified to write one now.
So we can't follow gospels that are written by unqualified people. OBVIOUSLY, you meant that we can only follow gospels written by qualified people.
If we have the old ones, and they are a guide to becoming a good person.. Like you said...
OBVIOUSLY you meant that they were qualified to write it.. Since you don't think we can follow gospels that are written by unqualified people.
You said we should follow the old one because noone is qualified to write one now.
So we can't follow gospels that are written by unqualified people. OBVIOUSLY, you meant that we can only follow gospels written by qualified people.
Quote:
But at any rate, we have the old one because no one is qualified to write a new gospel
If we have the old ones, and they are a guide to becoming a good person.. Like you said...
OBVIOUSLY you meant that they were qualified to write it.. Since you don't think we can follow gospels that are written by unqualified people.
You skew what I have to say far too much, when I said "We have stories and beliefs that have been skewed by countless generations and with are current technology there's no way of knowing what's real and what's not." I was talking about how the religion began, who came up with it, who truly wrote the original gospel, you misunderstood that so everything you said makes no sense. I'm also not saying religion is true, I'm saying people are going to debate whether it is or not endlessly because no proof exists, only speculation. That's why I said it's pointless to argue about it, when there's no proof then the argument continues until someone gets bored and gives up, and that still proves nothing in the end. And along that line, prove to me that religion was created specifically to be a weapon, see? Goes nowhere. Religion also does a lot of good for society, the only problem is the extremists and if you abolish religion they'll likely just find something else to be extremist about. And for your last statement, alcohol is nothing but a negative influence on society, and there's proof to that. Why not argue about something that doesn't go in an endless circle?
Bismarck.Magnumatic said:
I hate having to spoon feed people...
You said we should follow the old one because noone is qualified to write one now.
So we can't follow gospels that are written by unqualified people. OBVIOUSLY, you meant that we can only follow gospels written by qualified people.
If we have the old ones, and they are a guide to becoming a good person.. Like you said...
OBVIOUSLY you meant that they were qualified to write it.. Since you don't think we can follow gospels that are written by unqualified people.
You said we should follow the old one because noone is qualified to write one now.
So we can't follow gospels that are written by unqualified people. OBVIOUSLY, you meant that we can only follow gospels written by qualified people.
Quote:
But at any rate, we have the old one because no one is qualified to write a new gospel
If we have the old ones, and they are a guide to becoming a good person.. Like you said...
OBVIOUSLY you meant that they were qualified to write it.. Since you don't think we can follow gospels that are written by unqualified people.
Christ lol, quit taking things out of context
We have the old one because we have nothing to replace it
Not because it's effective, or positive in any way
People need something to cling to
Pandemonium.Spicyryan said:
Fairy.Haxorking said:
You skew what I have to say far too much, when I said "We have stories and beliefs that have been skewed by countless generations and with are current technology there's no way of knowing what's real and what's not." I was talking about how the religion began, who came up with it, who truly wrote the original gospel, you misunderstood that so everything you said makes no sense. I'm also not saying religion is true, I'm saying people are going to debate whether it is or not endlessly because no proof exists, only speculation. That's why I said it's pointless to argue about it, when there's no proof then the argument continues until someone gets bored and gives up, and that still proves nothing in the end. And along that line, prove to me that religion was created specifically to be a weapon, see? Goes nowhere. Religion also does a lot of good for society, the only problem is the extremists and if you abolish religion they'll likely just find something else to be extremist about. And for your last statement, alcohol is nothing but a negative influence on society, and there's proof to that. Why not argue about something that doesn't go in an endless circle?
Do you not care that I say science has proven the basis of the bible and certain religions invalid? At all, just a little, nothing, anything?
Science has not proven that the basis of the bible is invalid. In some ways it strongly suggests that it is highly unlikely, but it has NOT absolutely proven it. Some details have been eliminated yes, but as a general statement there is no existing piece of evidence that proves that god does not exist. If there was there would be no argument
Fairy.Haxorking said:
You skew what I have to say far too much, when I said "We have stories and beliefs that have been skewed by countless generations and with are current technology there's no way of knowing what's real and what's not." I was talking about how the religion began, who came up with it, who truly wrote the original gospel, you misunderstood that so everything you said makes no sense. I'm also not saying religion is true, I'm saying people are going to debate whether it is or not endlessly because no proof exists, only speculation. That's why I said it's pointless to argue about it, when there's no proof then the argument continues until someone gets bored and gives up, and that still proves nothing in the end. And along that line, prove to me that religion was created specifically to be a weapon, see? Goes nowhere. Religion also does a lot of good for society, the only problem is the extremists and if you abolish religion they'll likely just find something else to be extremist about. And for your last statement, alcohol is nothing but a negative influence on society, and there's proof to that. Why not argue about something that doesn't go in an endless circle?
Honestly.. Most of the people who you call extremists would probably be good people if it were not for religion.
I will agree that good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things regardless of what their beliefs are..
But religion creates this logical pathway between god, and doing atrocious acts.
Religion can make good people do bad things, and still think that they are good people.
Money and power can not do that.
Why?
Because if I shoot someone over five dollars, I will still know what I did was wrong. I wouldn't be a good person.. I would be a bad person.
This is what religion does..
If you believe in a god, and thought that he wanted you to do something... Either during prayer, a dream, through the bible, or from a priest... That would make it a righteus act. No matter what it was. "God wants me to do this! It must be the right thing to do!"
But what if it were something terrible? Like when God asked Abraham to sacrafice his son in the bible. Or the muslims believing that killing americans is a religious duty from god.
What if god wanted you to kill someone?
If you think Logically.. Since god wants you to kill someone.. That 'must' make it an act of righteusness. In your mind.. You would be a good person!
I'll admit that it's responsible for a large number of atrocities, but that's only because people abuse it. That's the same for everything in life though, guns, alcohol, ect. It's all because people abuse it. Religion tries to teach betterment, it just fails at it for the most part
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.