Christianity

[Lamb Boy]

Why are you resorting to yet more ad hominems? Why are you further derailing the thread with evolution? If you want to discuss the merits or demerits of evolution, I suggest you go to the proper thread, and we all know where that is, or make a new one. I said it before, and I will say it again, the evidence that supports evolution is scanty at best, and limited. For the amount of evidence there is, evolution makes bolder claims than it can support.

You were the first one to mention evolution in this thread so you’re the official "derailer". Would you like me to show you where since you’re incapable of remembering what you write and post?

Ladies and gentleman, notice how the human creature is an interesting thing. When man closes his mind to dogma, whether religion or otherwise, he is forced to resort to any measures to defend his mental investment. Often times, we are quick to point out the flaws, faults, limitations, ignorance, and arrogance of the other side with regard to what they believe, but when it comes to what we believe, somehow it is transformed into undeniable laws. When the other side blindly adheres to some set of beliefs, it is dogma, but when our side does it, it is perfectly rational, logical and "supported by evidence". Essentially, if one is honest enough, there is much more in common here with ace and Lamb Boy, than they would care to admit. Both are very much emotionally, and mentally invested in their said dogmas, and both obviously believe that their version of belief is somehow better. Of course, stating this will certainly rile up either of the two, and they will protest of how I am somehow suffering from dogma, and I cannot see the light, etc., and how dare I suggest that they are dancing with dogmatism.

Wow way to reiterate the exact thing I just stated to you. Now you're incapable of producing an original idea. There is nothing dogmatic about evolution to those who are actually able to read and understand the evidence.

While it is a childish pastime trying to poke holes in other peoples dogma's and accuse them of arrogance and blind faith, it is more of an effort in wisdom to admit humility, and that it is quite possible that we don't know anything at all. But people often cannot see beyond their mental acquiescence.

Here we go again with Anons' Dogma "Nothing can be proven 100%" including the Armenian genocide right Anon?

No I did not. You are suggesting that just right now as you mentioned it.

I posed it in a question to you which suggests nothing.

You clearly then have not read or researched the many different religions out there. I have read the Bible, I have read parts of the Koran, I have read the Mahabharata, and the Bhagavad-Gita, I have read Albert Pike's Morals and Dogma, which is the Bible of Freemasonry, I have read part of the Analects of Confucius, and the Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu. I can safely say that, what you are talking about is technicalities. The similarities are not in reincarnation, or the eucharist, etc., it is in the messages of each. Try not to jump to hasty conclusions so things can fit in your preconceived notions of "organized religion boo", but "evolution yaaa".

What did you read the cover? You're the one speaking in technicalities when you correlate blanket generalities.

Actually, that is not true. In case you have been following the forum, in the Love and Romance forum there is a thread about One Armenians view on interracial marriages or something, and in it, I clearly state peoples' shyt smells different. It's only logical, I mean, different people have different diets, and different foods produce varying degrees of gas and odor, and its logical that the different foods and diets differ racially and culturally.

Yeah I know I responded to that thread and you responded back to what I posted. That was the whole point ... totally missed by Anon. Then you repeat almost pro bono what you stated before lol!! Further derailing this thread. You seriously are incapable of remembering anything that much is for certain!

Really? Can you please show me where?

You wouldn't remember if I did ... probably call me a liar.

I am glad you see me in that light. As for the Buddhists burning themselves, in both Christianity, and Buddhism, violence is seen as a sin, and violence against the self, i.e. suicide, is no exception. However, many Buddhist sects have come to interpret that somehow self-immolation is part of that Buddhist notion of "sacrifice" such as in Vietnam, and the example I referred to was the self-immolation of the monk Thich Quang Duc in Vietnam.

It is not I who see you in a certain light more than the way you assert yourself ...

I did not chastise Buddhism in it's entirety I merely raised that point to address that you are doing exactly that to Christianity, so your point is moot. But apparently, we are always willing to criticize the other side, but never look at our own actions, that we might just possibly be engaging in the same thing we are arguing against. Harping on the anti-Christian bandwagon is a must if you are an atheist or evolutionist of the modern age. It's almost a pre-packaged ideology that once you accept one of the sufficient conditions, you automatically accept all the others in an all-or-nothing deal.

OMG, no pun, I never stated you did!! It's called an example Anon created from the catalyst you provided to me. The point is lost on you that's for sure. You're the one who first stated that scientists could also be religious and hold a disbelief in evolution, so I suppose that that's now false in your pre-packaged ideology theory?

The Chinese wanted to take control of Tibet and expand, like any other government, they only used force when people resisted, in that sense, yes they did "exterminate". But to suggest that somehow their motives were to exterminate Buddhist monks even before entering into Tibet is silly.

BS again ... you sound just like a *urk you know!?! If you would actually research the topic you will find out exactly how much contempt the Chinese government held for Buddhist monks the religion and the people ... practice what you preach.

Every religion has an idea of selflessness and sacrifice, to go beyond the self, for something that is greater than you. The allegories, symbols, rituals differ, but the meaning and message is the same. You should definitely read more as your repeated personal attacks are only showing your frustration and lack of ability to reason.

You fingers are moving but as usual you're not saying anything. Specifically does every religion call for literal self sacrifice?

Oh, I'm so sorry kind sage, my apologies if I have somehow tarnished your cyber well being by suggesting that. Let me clarify so as to avoid confusion. From what I have read here, you are more hateful with regard to Christianity, than you are of Buddhism (perhaps you are Buddhist), but I will warn you, Buddhism is still an organized religion.

The only admission of incorrectness on your part has to be tinged with complete sarcasm. Sorry to prove how false you can be from time to time. REVISION: "From what I've read here ..." You are truly incapable of admitting when you're wrong AND remembering. I already stated that I am confirmed Episcopalian I used Buddhism as an example of a religion that was outside the old and New Testament. I have studied it quite a bit but am certainly no Buddhist.

Wow! Would you look at that? Ladies and gentlemen, look, Lamb Boy has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that evolution is a scientific law, and all you have to do is go to the evolution thread to see his proof. So you researched the topic, and found that only the mechanics are in debate. Well, I'm glad you believe that, because I researched the topic as well, and I came to a very different conclusion. Making your self believe that evolution is a scientific law, does not make it a scientific law, just like your garden variety fundamentalist might believe that Christianity is the only way, and if you don't believe in it your damned to hell, doesn't make it so.

You never came to a conclusion you had your mind made up before the debate ever started. I could say the same things to you "Making yourself believe that evolution is a faith based dogma doesn't make it a faith based dogma" in your unoriginal style of rebuttal.

Lamb Boy, everything on earth is about belief. Nothing is or will be known with 100% certainty, if you argue otherwise, which you seem to be doing, then that is truly a display of arrogance. So then, don't act surprised when people call you on your arrogance, as if somehow you are better than others for confusing your belief with undeniable truth. Remember, never succumb to any person, group or ideology that claims to have answers to everything, because that is how deception occurs.

There's Anons prepackaged religion and dogma everyone. He likes to save the best for last instead of sharing his belief system early on. Once again I never claimed to know everything and my knowledge of the evidence that fully supports evolution in no way implies this false accusation.

Actually I never claimed to be neutral. Strange as to where you are getting that? I have claimed to not know everything, and if that is construed as neutrality I guess it is, I don't know. I have, on the other hand, maintained that all of the questions that we don't know, we cannot know, and thus, that is where reason ends, and where reason ends, faith begins. And who said I am a philosophy major? I was not. Where are you getting all these assertions from?

"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing. And in knowing that you know nothing, that makes you the smartest of all".

If that isn't implied neutrality towards any given topic then I don't know what is ... it also implied that a neutral opinion is somehow the most wise.

I thought I had read in a post about your education somewhere ... I could be wrong or you could be forgetting. Maybe you changed??

Any idea that talks about and/or makes truth claims about origins, is ipso facto metaphysical be default, therefore, it is not science, it is philosophy, religion, etc. That is why evolution cannot talk about "how we came to be" without dipping into the cookiee jar of faith and conjecture.

BS I just posted 29+ evidences for Macro Evolution ... none of the reasons dip into your imaginary cookie jar of faith.

For example, if evolution were not about faith, and if you were not fully immersed in the dogma, you wouldn't desperately throw jabs at the religious folks or the intelligent design folks. But often times, two sides that are competing for a monopoly on claims to truth will resort to the bitter sweet game of name calling and diminishing the importance or veracity of the other side through nothing more than mental gymnastics.

If you could read what posted for what I was trying to get across then you would have never derailed this thread with talk of evolution. My main gripe with Christianity is the fact that the live by a highly revised book that has lost some if not all meaning in revisions and omissions. If you could actually disseminate information from what I wrote then you would have already known that ...

Wow, you posted a pretty picture. Don't worry, it's all about you being in the right and everyone else suffering from arrogance, but I wouldn't dare claim to be right, so I concede victory, and you win because you not only answer all my questions, but you also know all the answers to life’s questions.

Talk about arrogance here you are accusing me of knowing everything when in fact I have posted the opposite. This topic and evolution somehow must mean everything in the world to you!

To repeat myself for the third or fifth time I never said I know all the answers. It's true you avoid answering direct questions. I did respond back in the evo thread which I'm sure you'll get all wet about.

P.S. The new episode of Lost will not air until January 11, 2006.

Yeah that sux ...

[TomServo]

I gave up on Lost even before that one kid died. The fat guy was the best though. Sayid was pretty funny too. Everyone else was uninteresting.

[Otto3]

religion sucks

[TomServo]

religion sucks

Allahu akbar!

[Otto3]

are you ready to die for allah? take this explosive belt... see that button... ok.. you look so cute..now go and die..

[TomServo]

are you ready to die for allah? take this explosive belt... see that button... ok.. you look so cute..now go and die..

Inshallah!

[Anonymouse]

You were the first one to mention evolution in this thread so you’re the official "derailer". Would you like me to show you where since you’re incapable of remembering what you write and post?

Actually, I did not derail anything by mentioning evolution. You are trying too hard to find something to use against me, you cannot even notice when I was using evolution in terms of comparison to Christianity regarding dogma, and faith. It was officially you that started off on a tangential trip about evolution, because I dared to use it in a comparison regarding dogma and faith, and how dare anyone speak like that about your cherished idea. Maybe you should be remembering what you write and post, before trying to use that as a supposed leverage in an interweb discussion.

Wow way to reiterate the exact thing I just stated to you. Now you're incapable of producing an original idea. There is nothing dogmatic about evolution to those who are actually able to read and understand the evidence.

There is a fine line between believing in evolution, and going beyond that and declaring it as an undeniable scientific law, expressing views along the lines of "There is so much evidence, how can anyone deny it?" or "There is so much evidence, surely it must be self-evident." or "How can anyone deny it, since there is so much evidence?" You are using your own criteria as a barometer of what other should should acknowledge as undeniable truth. That maybe to you the evidence for evolution is sufficient, is pretty much scanty and limited at best for someone who is actually holding things to the strictest measure.

Here we go again with Anons' Dogma "Nothing can be proven 100%" including the Armenian genocide right Anon?

You really should not follow in winoman's footsteps and think for yourself. The sad and desperate last refuge of the pointless is resorting to this oft-repeated and weak analogy that holds no ground. You cannot compare a metaphysical point, or something that makes claims of truth about origins, to something that is a historical event, and able to be verified, was observed and corroborated.

What did you read the cover? You're the one speaking in technicalities when you correlate blanket generalities.

Might I suggest a course on the metaphysics or philosophy of religion? That would greatly clear things up for you. I would recommend maybe you read Albert Pike's Morals and Dogma. Further explaining this is a wasted effort, like water poured on sands.

Yeah I know I responded to that thread and you responded back to what I posted. That was the whole point ... totally missed by Anon. Then you repeat almost pro bono what you stated before lol!! Further derailing this thread. You seriously are incapable of remembering anything that much is for certain!

I am glad I make you laff and type "lol" on the interweb, but I felt in case you forgot, I should reiterate it and repeat it, after all repitition is the mother of all learning. Strange, that you continually feel the need to compensate by resorting to the basic of getting personal and making me the subject.

You wouldn't remember if I did ... probably call me a liar.

Stop with the pretension and if you have legitimate issues nothing is holding you back. What do you care if some stranger online calls you a liar at worst, or at best challenges your claim?

It is not I who see you in a certain light more than the way you assert yourself ...

You made a claim, thus it was a valid point. How you see me makes no difference to me.

OMG, no pun, I never stated you did!! It's called an example Anon created from the catalyst you provided to me. The point is lost on you that's for sure. You're the one who first stated that scientists could also be religious and hold a disbelief in evolution, so I suppose that that's now false in your pre-packaged ideology theory?

How many times do you repeat a catchphrase? Well, if you are Lamb Boy, more than once, that's for sure. Another case of the "the point is lost on you". Apparently, when I made an example of a specific group, you used yourself, as an exception, to somehow disprove the rule. That I admitted that scientists can hold religious beliefs, yet believe in evolution at the same time, is mutually exclusive from the group I am referring to. You do know that an exception to a rule does not in any way disqualify the rule, don't you? Winoman, more so than you, and countless other internet people I have seen in different forums, and in school, fit exactly in the mold of that category type I referred to. Stop thinking this is always about you.

BS again ... you sound just like a *urk you know!?! If you would actually research the topic you will find out exactly how much contempt the Chinese government held for Buddhist monks the religion and the people ... practice what you preach.

Now you're comparing me to a Turk because I stated something you happen to disagree with? Resorts to such personal attacks only indicate desperation, frustration, and an inability to reason cordially, logically, basically, not emotionally. For someone that resorted to ad hominems constantly, and complaining that somehow I don't have evidence supporting me, you engage in the same thing. When someone points it out, it is discomforting. What evidence is there, to corroborate the claim, that the Chinese government had motives to exterminate (a word used mostly for genocidal claims and connotation), Buddhist monks? Before you get emotional about this, bear in mind no one is denying China's harsh policies and persecution of Buddhism, after all, what else do you expect of a Communist government? The same was in the Soviet Union as my parents would tell you. The point is, which was implied by you initially that somehow China had a golden plan of exterminating Buddhist monks.

You fingers are moving but as usual you're not saying anything. Specifically does every religion call for literal self sacrifice?

I don't understand what you're saying because I don't have my blah blah blah translator on me. Your point? Anyone can engage in ad hominems. Such useless ad hominems do not do anything other than deflect from the issue, and waste disk space, as well has show that you have nothing much to offer. All you seem to be doing and all that your argument seems to hinge on is this ad hominem style of trying to bully your way to your point, whereas you complain about a lack of substance from me.

And as far as sacrifice and religion, I am not aware of any religion that stresses gluttony, indolence, selfishness and hedonism as salutory marks for the soul, perhaps you can name me some that I am not aware of. Otherwise, almost all the religions that I know of, preach some sort of idea of selflessness and sacrifice beyond the mere self-gratification of yourself and something greater than yourself.

The only admission of incorrectness on your part has to be tinged with complete sarcasm. Sorry to prove how false you can be from time to time. REVISION: "From what I've read here ..." You are truly incapable of admitting when you're wrong AND remembering. I already stated that I am confirmed Episcopalian I used Buddhism as an example of a religion that was outside the old and New Testament. I have studied it quite a bit but am certainly no Buddhist.

Are you not satisfied that I, unlike you, admitted to incorrectness? It does not matter what religion you are, and I merely clarified the point which was perhaps vague at first pass, namely that, from what you have offered, I have gathered more spitefulness toward Christianity than Buddhism. You don't have to like it, but that is the way you came off.

You never came to a conclusion you had your mind made up before the debate ever started. I could say the same things to you "Making yourself believe that evolution is a faith based dogma doesn't make it a faith based dogma" in your unoriginal style of rebuttal.

How do you know that I came to a conclusion and I had my mind made up already, before the debate ever started? Are you psychic? If so, please tell me more, I would love to know my future. Other than that, do not make any spurious assumptions, since the conjecture boomerang that you throw at me only comes back to you. I'm sorry you don't like to accept the fact that in this world, there is something called disagreement. It seems like the eternal struggle for you, on how to deal with this.

There's Anons prepackaged religion and dogma everyone. He likes to save the best for last instead of sharing his belief system early on. Once again I never claimed to know everything and my knowledge of the evidence that fully supports evolution in no way implies this false accusation.

I am glad you found my advice helpful and/or useful. But what else am I supposed to think, when one expresses the views such as you have, that somehow evolution is undeniable, and a scientific law? I can only and reasonably assume that you succumb to it as somehow the truth of truths. Please correct me if I am wrong, did you not state that it is undeniable if one somehow accepts the evidence? Did you not also state that it is a scientific law?

"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing. And in knowing that you know nothing, that makes you the smartest of all".

If that isn't implied neutrality towards any given topic then I don't know what is ... it also implied that a neutral opinion is somehow the most wise.

I am glad you are paying attention Lamb Boy, you will learn much yet. I never claimed I am neutral, and that quote is not only taken out of context, but it is also misunderstood. It is meant to convey that all the things we come to believe about origins and so forth, are all beliefs, whether you believe yours to be undeniable laws - like a Christian or a Muslim who believes that his belief is somehow an infallible law and word of God - or not. Claiming that I believe in aliens, is not the same thing as claiming aliens are undeniable and it is a scientific fact and law that they exist and have caused our creation. Having a neutral opinion precisely means admitting to a belief, but knowing that you do not somehow possess the elixir of man's questions.

I thought I had read in a post about your education somewhere ... I could be wrong or you could be forgetting. Maybe you changed??

I have read philosophy, and I do like philosophy, but it was not my major and I believe I have mentioned I was a history major somewhere.

BS I just posted 29+ evidences for Macro Evolution ... none of the reasons dip into your imaginary cookie jar of faith.

I am glad you are using my catch phrases. By the way, the things you posted are not evidence of anything other than preconceived minds. They don't show me evidence of anything other than a limited claim withing the myriad of claims in evolution.

If you could read what posted for what I was trying to get across then you would have never derailed this thread with talk of evolution. My main gripe with Christianity is the fact that the live by a highly revised book that has lost some if not all meaning in revisions and omissions. If you could actually disseminate information from what I wrote then you would have already known that ...

So, since we know that you would never like to or will admit to fault or incorrectness, why would you admit that you derailed the thread by going off about evolution, when I merely brought it up, not for the truth of the matter, but for the effect in terms of comparison within the rubric of the discussion?

What is your point? Christianity has been revised? So has evolution. At one time Darwin's gradualism was touted as somehow the truth. And when they were desperately searching for intermediate forms, they believed they had found the silver bullet when they found gemules, bathybius, and eozoon, only to have those turn up as not being intermediate forms at all? What about desperate attempts to try to pass off things such as the forgery of Piltdown Man, as somehow a legitimate fossil? And when evidence for Darwin's gradualism could not be affirmed, the theory had to be revised yet more, since the facts could not be brought to support an immutable theory, the theory had to be revised to fit the facts, to remain immutable. Then Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldridge came to the rescue with their evolutionary cape, positing 'punctuated equilibria'. Since Darwin's gradualism was getting boring, tiresome and couldn't be affirmed, they moved from gradualism to radicalism - change from one species to another, in other words, was drastic and sudden, as opposed to gradual and slow. So before you harp on another ideology for its revisions, please consider your own ideologies revisions.

Talk about arrogance here you are accusing me of knowing everything when in fact I have posted the opposite. This topic and evolution somehow must mean everything in the world to you!

To repeat myself for the third or fifth time I never said I know all the answers. It's true you avoid answering direct questions. I did respond back in the evo thread which I'm sure you'll get all wet about.

I'm sorry kind sage, but from my perspective, anyone who claims something about origins and how we came to be as undeniable, and a scientific law, to me, that smacks of a know-it-all.

[ArmenianKid]

I'm was going to walk away from this one....

How can you prove that christanity is based in fact?
how can you disprove any other religion.

And besides i practice FSM: http://www.venganza.org/

THAT IS THE ONE TRUE RELIGION!!

[Sip]

FSM prpophecized there will be other false religions. But we both know the Truth kid All hail FSM.

[Otto3]

all of you will burn in hell.... how can you deny the fact that god created the universe.. it is all around us..see that bird.. it is flying and that proves there is a god.. do you really believe that bird was some kinda frog once upon a time... what a imagination