What do you Believe??? (Religion)

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

15 minutes ago, Llevron said:

Yea I guess. But tolerating stupid people got us to 2018 where Donald Trump is the president. 

 

We should be able to see the error there. 

Yeah... I think I'm the 2nd post in this thread and I say that I don't believe in God but I have no problem with religion. Person A is a republican and Person B is a democrat... they should be able to get along. Person A is a vegetarian and person B likes meat lovers... cool. Person A thinks that the kids from Parkland are liars and Person B is well, anyone with a brain and some decency then they should be saying, "**** you Person A."

 

No, no, no... pretending like an idiot's views have validity just to be nice is very dangerous. And in reality, encouraging their bull**** isn't being nice. It's crippling. It's enabling their distorted view of reality. To love a moronic drain on society is to confront them with their own worthlessness.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I noticed that.  Part of me feels the evolution of that terminology was done intentionally to further undermined the whole thing, but that's me being cynical.

I absolutely think it was done intentionally.

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, Llevron said:

 

Yea I guess. But tolerating stupid people got us to 2018 where Donald Trump is the president. 

 

We should be able to see the error there. 

*Sigh, you're not wrong, but if half the country didn't stay their ass home we wouldn't be having this conversation, now would we?  

 

There's always going to be stupid people saying stupid **** and people are going to believe them, smart people outsmarted themselves on that one and dropped the ball.  This guy isn't changing his vote anyway (if he even did vote), so what do you do?  

 

I get where you're going with this, but I don't think the two issues you're trying to compare are synonymous. I can almost assure you (guess I'm agnostic on that) he didn't vote based on the way he's talking, and isn't going to.  He can totally be ignored. 

[Renegade7]

48 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Yeah... I think I'm the 2nd post in this thread and I say that I don't believe in God but I have no problem with religion. Person A is a republican and Person B is a democrat... they should be able to get along. Person A is a vegetarian and person B likes meat lovers... cool. Person A thinks that the kids from Parkland are liars and Person B is well, anyone with a brain and some decency then they should be saying, "**** you Person A."

 

No, no, no... pretending like an idiot's views have validity just to be nice is very dangerous. And in reality, encouraging their bull**** isn't being nice. It's crippling. It's enabling their distorted view of reality. To love a moronic drain on society is to confront them with their own worthlessness.

Hmm...I don't think anyone is validating or encouraging his nonsense.  The question is and remains: Do you attack the person or the message in that situation?  I don't think they're the same thing.  You absolutely can be wrong when you're right if you go about it the wrong way.

[The Sisko]

8 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

Ok, I'm just going to come out and say it:

 

I knew the results would be closer then if I started this thread back in '06 (last time I made a religion thread).  But I was not expecting nearly as many people picking Atheist as all the other Monotheistic religions combined (two more votes and its going to be more).  I have a really weird feeling in my stomach on that one, and I'm very weary on how to further comment on that, if at all.

:-D I sincerely hope we get to the point where most of the country are non-believers. I don't have anything against believers per se, other than a tendency to want to legislate their own morality for other people and to see it as a command from Jesus himself to vote for any piece of garbage with an R after his/her name. Those folks that love to pull the blacks on the Dem plantation nonsense out of the hat *cough* twa *cough* seem awfully blind to all the cotton being picked by white evangelicals for the Republic party. j/s

 

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

If someone says they believe Jesus was a real person and the Son of God, but then someone asks how sure they are, does any other other answer outside of 100% certainty mean their agnostic?  We may need to re-evaluate that term if that's the case, or at least any attempted connection to Monotheism, because that's not fair.

3

Now see, you've gone and opened up a can of worms there. What if I told you that I believe it's only maybe 60/40 that Jesus ever even existed at all?

[zCommander]

This is my belief: I was born without a religion. I was bestowed the religion of my fathers and mothers 7 days after I was born. I follow the religion of when I was less than a second old into this world. 

 

My wife is very religious and is teaching all the kids about the faith. I sit quietly and let them be. She doesn't bother me and I don't bother her.  I still do religious stuff with her and the kids. We have been married for almost 21 years. 

 

My wife still loves me and trusts me. My wife and my kids: That is the most important and the only religion for me. 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

27 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Hmm...I don't think anyone is validating or encouraging his nonsense.  The question is and remains: Do you attack the person or the message in that situation?  I don't think they're the same thing.  You absolutely can be wrong when you're right if you go about it the wrong way.

We'd all agree that there comes a time where you call a spade a spade.If someone is a nutjob or a liar or a horse's ass, is it an attack to call them what they are?

[Renegade7]

23 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

:-D I sincerely hope we get to the point where most of the country are non-believers. I don't have anything against believers per se, other than a tendency to want to legislate their own morality for other people and to see it as a command from Jesus himself to vote for any piece of garbage with an R after his/her name. Those folks that love to pull the blacks on the Dem plantation nonsense out of the hat *cough* twa *cough* seem awfully blind to all the cotton being picked by white evangelicals for the Republic party. j/s

 

Now see, you've gone and opened up a can of worms there. What if I told you that I believe it's only maybe 60/40 that Jesus ever even existed at all?

 

Oh, its coming, I just hope we pull as much good stuff out of it as we can to show people before people completely ignoring it.  

 

As for your question, I don't get your point.  Not only would I disagree with you, as would many archaeologist, but what does that have to do with what I believe and what "category" it would fall under?  

Edited April 3, 2018 by Renegade7

[Mr. Sinister]

10 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

We'd all agree that there comes a time where you call a spade a spade.If someone is a nutjob or a liar or a horse's ass, is it an attack to call them what they are?

 

If everyone already knows what they are, do you still need to call them that, serving no real purpose other than giving them exactly what they want, while simultaneously  bringing down overall duscussion and detracting from the actual discussion?

[Renegade7]

39 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

We'd all agree that there comes a time where you call a spade a spade.If someone is a nutjob or a liar or a horse's ass, is it an attack to call them what they are?

 

There's a certain point in conversations I've had in my life where I was no longer interested in the well being of that person while I was telling them exactly what was on my mind. Many times it was necessary and I didn't ask for forgiveness.  

 

This is an Internet Message board.  People should expect to be called out for ridiculous remarks, especially ones people take to heart.  But even when we get into it in the Stadium over something that's supposed to be as unoffensive as football, someone eventually shows up when it starts to get personal.  There's a reason for that.  This isn't 4chan, this ain't infowars.

 

Look, I want to set his *** on fire, too, sometimes.  But I'd rather just prove him wrong, and if he doesn't agree with me, move on with my life (at least I'm really trying to).  I learned that when I was a teenager in here.  Everytime I got personal with someone in here it went further then it needed to, and that's not why I'm here.  I expected someone like that to show up in a thread like this eventually, moth to a flame, bro.   I'm happy we don't have a Jesus Nut to deal with, too.

 

And truth, we shouldn't be having this conversation anyway, he shoulda been banned by now.  You're getting stretched to your limit trying to figure out how to deal with that, I get it, I'm still trying to make sense of it, too.  My plan was to tag every single mod the next time he made a post admitting he was posting in a way just to get a negative reaction out us, which is against forum rules.  I was this close in here until he confessed the cult thing and chilled out, every other time its come up someone got personal with him which would've negated our argument to get him out of here because we're stooping to his level; that's also against forum rules.  I'm still holding that up my sleeve, but some of ya'll keep f'n it up.

 

You cannot beat him at his own game, I don't understand why ya'll are even playing it outside of pure frustration and/or having time on your hands.

[Kosher Ham]

2 hours ago, Llevron said:

 

Yea I guess. But tolerating stupid people got us to 2018 where Donald Trump is the president. 

 

We should be able to see the error there. 

 

That's a deeper discussion, that...we will disagree about. 

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, The Sisko said:

Now see, you've gone and opened up a can of worms there. What if I told you that I believe it's only maybe 60/40 that Jesus ever even existed at all?

 

This seems exceedingly unlikely.  The vast majority of historians accept the early Paul's letters as authentic documents written by a person (though not necessarily named Paul) and Paul names Jesus and writes that he met his brother and connects to others like Peter.

 

That Paul after having successfully establishing Churches (to write them letters) would claim to meet the brother of a man that didn't exist seems unlikely, and that those churches would continue to follow him doesn't make much sense.

 

The main argument against a historical Jesus is a lack of Roman based historical record of Jesus.  Interestingly, the same is true for Paul to the point that we don't even know if his true name was Paul.

 

However, clearly, such a man existed and that man was an important figure in the context that he laid the ground work for the early Catholic Church and was extremely important in the formation of the Catholic Church based on his own letters that are accepted as historical documents.

Edited April 3, 2018 by PeterMP

[thinwhiteduke]

51 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

We'd all agree that there comes a time where you call a spade a spade.If someone is a nutjob or a liar or a horse's ass, is it an attack to call them what they are?

 

your assumptions and insults of me are based on childish ignorance. You havent proven anything I have said,wrong. You dont know how to and you couldnt if you tried. You wont even try because you know you cant.. But i'm the dumb one?

You are so intellectually inept, that my first beginner logic lesson for you, went right over your head.

 Belief: is a pointless, useless, invented word to keep and make people stay stupid. There is no such thing as a belief. Beliefs dont exist.

You can believe anything you want but it will never make it so. Thats why fake religion, all religion is based in belief.

the word 'Think' falls pretty much under the same category. You either know something or you dont. It either exists or it doesnt.

you cant believe/think anything into existence as far as corporate religion is concerned and the 'beliefs' they try to make you have.

 I say that, in that way because who really knows what the human mind was capable of, before we were exponentially dumbed down the last 300 to thousand years?

we have been reduced to a drooling lump who looks for an imaginary leader in a sky while having to earn green paper to survive because you believed someone when they told you to do it, without questioning them.

America is the youngest,dumbest country on earth. We were the ultimate control experiment. We have been conditioned to think we are superior to other countries when we in fact have less history and no real culture and no nothing about about other countries ,aside from what news media god tells us.

 turn off all your electronic sh-- for two months and actually try thinking for yourself ,for the first time in your pathetic robot,rat wheel life. You may be surprised what comes up.

lol you dislike me but you fail to realize , I am in fact your only friend because i'm telling you the ultimate truth about what you perceive to be reality.

I am your friend. I am your allie

 

 

 

 

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

19 minutes ago, thinwhiteduke said:

I am your friend. I am your allie

Hey Allie, can you educate me please? I’m curious if these things are real or not.

 

1. The holocaust

2. The moon landing

3. Sandy Hook Massacre

 

Thanks friend.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[PeterMP]

20 minutes ago, thinwhiteduke said:

You havent proven anything I have said,wrong. You dont know how to and you couldnt if you tried. You wont even try because you know you cant.. But i'm the dumb one?

 

You haven't proven anything that anybody else has said is wrong either, and you really haven't tried.

 

[Renegade7]

35 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

The main argument against a historical Jesus is a lack of Roman based historical record of Jesus.  

 

I made a comment about Romans having records from a Guardian article, and looked again and found some Roman historians did keep records.  Are you saying the Empire itself didn't keep records, or that none of the Romans even acknowledged his existence?  I can see them covering it up or that data not making it from the Middle East all the way back to Italy.  Was it clear Pilate even told the Emperor, because why would he if they were supposedly already threatening him to keep things under control?

 

"Yes, so taxes has been collected, as has the census.  Roads are looking good, and I had to kill some messiah or something."

[thinwhiteduke]

29 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

You haven't proven anything that anybody else has said is wrong either, and you really haven't tried.

 

I did 2 times  already. I explained the ultimate definition of a belief. All you have is a belief. Reading something that says it's true, doesn't make it so. Just because you can connect locations and dates with a bible, doesn't prove that diety walked the earth. You need to focus on the whole of my previous  post anyway.its more profound than anything you've read in a while.learn to think for yourself for once.

Edited April 3, 2018 by thinwhiteduke

[Llevron]

7 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

*Sigh, you're not wrong, but if half the country didn't stay their ass home we wouldn't be having this conversation, now would we?  

 

It's not really about the vote in this case. But if half of the country wasn't designed allowed to be racist, xenophobic and ****ing stupid as hell then it wouldn't be nessesary, would it? 

 

My point is we let the dummies win. Not whose fault that was. It was clearly our own. 

 

6 hours ago, Kosher Ham said:

 

That's a deeper discussion, that...we will disagree about. 

 

Yea I'm sure lol. But I'm just trying to make a point. It may be at the expense of some truth or reasoning in this case. Don't let my simplicity here trip you up, all I'm saying is yall were having a good convo and now yall ain't so much. 

 

If tall haven't had enough of the "your not as smart as me and your belifies are stupid and fake" **** in your own topic about NOT attacking people's beliefs then that's on you. But this is why stupid people have power. Cause we refuse to call that **** what it is. 

[grego]

8 hours ago, Llevron said:

 

Yea I guess. But tolerating stupid people got us to 2018 where Donald Trump is the president. 

 

We should be able to see the error there. 

 

Not a popular sentiment, but unquestionably true (just ask them) - I think calling people who disagree with you 'stupid' (among other things) may have been the biggest factor. 

[Zguy28]

7 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

We'd all agree that there comes a time where you call a spade a spade.If someone is a nutjob or a liar or a horse's ass, is it an attack to call them what they are?

NO its not. But it seems, to me at least, that as a culture, we are beginning to describe anything we personally disagree with in the worst possible negative terms. The slightest thing is an attack. Maybe this has always been the case and we just got spoiled by "polite society"? I know in other cultures historically, people were hyper-sensitive to dishonoring words (in Japan you could get your head cut off! Or in Soviet Communism you end up in the Gulag.)

[PeterMP]

5 hours ago, thinwhiteduke said:

I did 2 times  already. I explained the ultimate definition of a belief. All you have is a belief. Reading something that says it's true, doesn't make it so. Just because you can connect locations and dates with a bible, doesn't prove that diety walked the earth. You need to focus on the whole of my previous  post anyway.its more profound than anything you've read in a while.learn to think for yourself for once.

But belief is all you have too.  Defining a term is not a proof.  Words take and shed definitions through history.  I actually disagree with your definition of belief.  You've proven nothing.

 

(unless we are talking about things that can be mathematically proven.)

Edited April 3, 2018 by PeterMP

[Zguy28]

6 hours ago, thinwhiteduke said:

 

your assumptions and insults of me are based on childish ignorance. You havent proven anything I have said,wrong. You dont know how to and you couldnt if you tried. You wont even try because you know you cant.. But i'm the dumb one?

You are so intellectually inept, that my first beginner logic lesson for you, went right over your head.

 Belief: is a pointless, useless, invented word to keep and make people stay stupid. There is no such thing as a belief. Beliefs dont exist.

You can believe anything you want but it will never make it so. Thats why fake religion, all religion is based in belief.

the word 'Think' falls pretty much under the same category. You either know something or you dont. It either exists or it doesnt.

you cant believe/think anything into existence as far as corporate religion is concerned and the 'beliefs' they try to make you have.

 I say that, in that way because who really knows what the human mind was capable of, before we were exponentially dumbed down the last 300 to thousand years?

we have been reduced to a drooling lump who looks for an imaginary leader in a sky while having to earn green paper to survive because you believed someone when they told you to do it, without questioning them.

America is the youngest,dumbest country on earth. We were the ultimate control experiment. We have been conditioned to think we are superior to other countries when we in fact have less history and no real culture and no nothing about about other countries ,aside from what news media god tells us.

 turn off all your electronic sh-- for two months and actually try thinking for yourself ,for the first time in your pathetic robot,rat wheel life. You may be surprised what comes up.

lol you dislike me but you fail to realize , I am in fact your only friend because i'm telling you the ultimate truth about what you perceive to be reality.

I am your friend. I am your allie

 

 

 

 

 

You do realize what you are arguing right? You are pleading with people to believe you. I don't.

 

I know Christ exists. I am certain of it. I have felt the flames of Hell literally lapping at my feet (no kidding) and felt to sweet balm of God's grace.

Hebrews 11:1 - Now faith is the reality of what is hoped for, the proof of what is not seen.

 

Faith is so much more than believing a set of facts. Faith is how you live, its what you do, its who you are. In this way it is concrete.

[Renegade7]

57 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

It's not really about the vote in this case. But if half of the country wasn't designed allowed to be racist, xenophobic and ****ing stupid as hell then it wouldn't be nessesary, would it? 

 

My point is we let the dummies win. Not whose fault that was. It was clearly our own. 

 

 

Yea I'm sure lol. But I'm just trying to make a point. It may be at the expense of some truth or reasoning in this case. Don't let my simplicity here trip you up, all I'm saying is yall were having a good convo and now yall ain't so much. 

 

If tall haven't had enough of the "your not as smart as me and your belifies are stupid and fake" **** in your own topic about NOT attacking people's beliefs then that's on you. But this is why stupid people have power. Cause we refuse to call that **** what it is. 

 

We have had enough, but we can't ban him ourselves.  Far as I'm concerned, I don't want to talk about both his behavior and the topic of the thread, but it seems no matter how many times I keep saying he'll come back if attacked personally, its not stopping people from doing it.

 

I'm not denying a lot of Trump's base is not putting two and two together, but from my perspective, the TV media (outside of Fox News) and the Clinton campaign did  go about Trump on a personal level over the stuff he was saying and doing, especially as it got closer to election day.  Kaine lost the VP debate not because Pence's platform was superior, but because he was coming across as an asshole towards him, and people that didn't know him that well that was their first impression. 

 

During and after the debates, the campaign wasn't talking about what they wanted to do anymore, it was 95% about her not being Trump and how horrible a person he was versus why his policies were bad for the country.  They did that because they didn't think they needed to because Trump's character spoke for itself.  That didn't work and should be a lesson to all of us.

 

 

Edited April 3, 2018 by Renegade7

[PeterMP]

8 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

I made a comment about Romans having records from a Guardian article, and looked again and found some Roman historians did keep records.  Are you saying the Empire itself didn't keep records, or that none of the Romans even acknowledged his existence?  I can see them covering it up or that data not making it from the Middle East all the way back to Italy.  Was it clear Pilate even told the Emperor, because why would he if they were supposedly already threatening him to keep things under control?

 

"Yes, so taxes has been collected, as has the census.  Roads are looking good, and I had to kill some messiah or something."

 

The only non-Biblical references to Jesus come at most decades after his death, and some of them are dubious in that they appear to have been at least altered later.  For example, Tacitus discusses Christ, but his Annals are not written until about 116 AD.

 

I agree though in that I don't think it is very surprising that there aren't contemporary records, which was my point about "Paul".  Somebody clearly wrote the letters in the time frame that makes sense in the context of the Bible  and was starting Churches.  In the context of the time and places he was, he was clearly influential (drawing people to Christianity to the point that the Catholic Church was able to start) and he was acting much closer to Rome in a manner that was more important to Rome, but other than his letters, we appear to have no contemporary record of him.

 

Given the general sparsity of records and that other than his letters there are no contemporary records of Paul, it then isn't surprising then that somebody whose ministry was much less a concern of Rome's (Jesus was already practicing among people that were non-Roman in their belief system), would have been more confusing to the Romans (it seems likely the Romans would have seen Jesus and his ministry another faction within Judaism and of no special note), further way, and for a shorter period of time than Paul left no contemporary record.

Edited April 3, 2018 by PeterMP

[Llevron]

1 hour ago, grego said:

 

Not a popular sentiment, but unquestionably true (just ask them) - I think calling people who disagree with you 'stupid' (among other things) may have been the biggest factor. 

 

I'm sure it didn't help. But it also doesn't make it not true. It was stupid. Period. It shouldn't have been tolerated like it wasn't. There was NO reason to validate them or this guy at all past the fact that it is stupid. And its not his opinion im calling stupid, I actually think there is validity to it (ask me, its a fun topic and one I have explored on many of occasions while high as ****). But the way he presents his arguments as 'you cant understand me because you are not smart enough and i just blew your mind" is ****ing asinine and I honestly cant believe you people are letting him get away with it. Again, had we called out this stupid **** 2 years ago we would be in a much better place. I dont care if its not nice. 

 

I feel what yall are saying. I guess I just disagree it should be tolerated further. But at this point, im more of a distraction than he is so ill leave it alone.