The Religion Discussion

[megadoc1]

^word !!.... I am in for the exercise though,

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ yup

faith /fāTH/
Noun:
Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

megadoc1 said he had proof that his beliefs are the right beliefs and others were wrong, so we were asking him for proof of that... haven't gotten it yet though

you do not believe in the teachings of Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism, it is therefore YOUR opinion that guides what you believe to be right.

I won't put my opinion or anyone's opinion over that of the Holy spirit, these other teachings mentioned, are not of the Holy spirit,they don't lay claim to being that of the spirit of God nor would anyone with the spirit of God recognize them as such.

that is your opinion!

o·pin·ion /əˈpinyən/
Noun:
A belief or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

the very same way you would say it is merely the OPINION of a Muslim that Jesus is not the son of God

[pioneer]

Question for the religionists...

Was having a convo with religious coworkers this week and they said/indicated/insisted HIV/AIDS was NOT man-made and that GOD created it to punish unfaithful and promiscuous people. They were very adamant that it was NOT created by man.

Is this true?

This is the first time i heard this in my life, and i really was in shock.

[meccalli]

^^Thats the same thing MG man said. U just repeated it in different words.

quite the contrary, a demon is an evil entity, an angel fallen from grace through Lucifer's witnessing. A believer can possess the holy spirit and its gifts which makes a dwelling in willing/ repented vessels., without it, one is susceptible to being possessed by a demonic entity.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

A believer can possess the holy spirit and its gifts which makes a dwelling in willing/ repented vessels., without it, one is susceptible to being possessed by a demonic entity.

what about people belonging to religions who do not believe in the holy trinity? are they even more susceptible to being possessed by a demonic entity?

[pioneer]

^^Thats the same thing MG man said. U just repeated it in different words.

quite the contrary, a demon is an evil entity, an angel fallen from grace through Lucifer's witnessing. A believer can possess the holy spirit and its gifts which makes a dwelling in willing/ repented vessels., without it, one is susceptible to being possessed by a demonic entity.

Do you all ever stop to think, this sounds insane?

[meccalli]

This man making me believe that man come from monkey and wasn't created.I believe every one who knows what is going on knows that although he spelt it 'cannon" he is talking about "canon"
Canon refers to the list of books thst are accepted as scripture,not the kind that is used to fight war,I will advise you to start following the thread from the beginning and you might have an idea of what's going on.

That man comes from monkey business is funny business that Christians make themselves look like fools, the whole thing is they believe that we both share a common ancestor. the real deal is to believe we all came from a primordial soup of elements and compounds.

[meccalli]

A believer can possess the holy spirit and its gifts which makes a dwelling in willing/ repented vessels., without it, one is susceptible to being possessed by a demonic entity.

what about people belonging to religions who do not believe in the holy trinity? are they even more susceptible to being possessed by a demonic entity?

Anyone can be including "christians", more so persons that pursue and dabble in invoking greater powers* than themselves. I believe that denying the existence of entities may work 90 percent of the time. Resist the devil and he shall flee works in alot of paranormal cases, but that is usually residual and unlike demonic attachments that seek to drive persons insane to the point of taking their own lives, achieving their purpose.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ let me rephrase

you said "without [the holy spirit], one is susceptible to being possessed by a demonic entity."
It would suggest that you also mean that with the holy spirit they are not susceptible to being possessed by a demonic entity.

therefore it begs the question: is there any way (other than converting to christianity) that someone of another religion can not be susceptible to being possessed by a demonic entity?

or is the christianity the only sure way?

[d spike]

...you operate on the childish premise that because:
1. The Spirit of God inspired the scriptures;
2. You read the scriptures;
3. Therefore your opinions (and those whose opinions agree with yours) are the result of the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

no that's a bad assumption if you left out the premise that one is being led by the spirit and with this spirit recognition of scriptures that are a result of the spirit,no room for opinions here

...and THAT is only your opinion...and anyway, you said it yourself:

my opinion is nothing

Who else claimed to be led by the Spirit?
Jim Bakker stole over $3,000,000 from PTL members. He then paid $279,000 to Jessica Hahn, a secretary at the church, to silence her allegations of rape.
Ted Haggard was the head of a Colorado MEGA MEGA Church. The kind that are big enough to house all the homeless, but don’t allow anyone who makes under $250,000 per year. Haggard was a general in the war against same-sex marriage. At the same time, he was paying a guy to bone him in a sleazy motel room and buying crystal meth from him. When the allegations began, Haggard went into full denial mode, but Mike Jones, the man who exposed Haggard, happened to have a tape of Haggard calling him and asking for meth. Haggard, disgraced, finally admitted to what he’d done and stepped down as pastor of the New Life Church. He then went into a “restoration” process where a team of counselors assisted him with his homosexual struggles. It is, after all, a disease…right?
Harold Camping started Family Radio, Inc. and has grown a congregation of followers who are told despise the church and listen to every piece of garbage that comes from Camping’s mouth. Camping has now predicted the end of the world twice. Once in 1994, and once in 2011. The first part of his end of the world prediction (a massive earthquake) failed to come true. We’re still waiting to see what happens in October. He did succeed in bringing in a ton of cash for Family Radio, Inc. during the end of the world chaos and was very clear that those who donated would not receive a refund of their donations.
Dena Schlosser killed her eleven-month-old daughter in 2004 and amputated her arms and legs. She claimed God told her to do this. (Christians love to take on this debate. They will claim that she was psychotic and evil. Of course, Abraham was told to do the same thing, wasn’t he? One will notice that Christians are quick to call those who “talk to God” crazy.)

Clearly, you know nothing of Jim Jones (among a multitude of other things) apart from his foolish end, for you to spout such stuff. Read up on his earlier life, his preaching and the testimonies of his followers from these times.

am....jim jones preached against Jesus and the bible , his program was that of mind control
and christianity was his hook
to use him as an example is stupid on your part or simply deceitful, all because you assumed I don't know the history behind him

What is simply deceitful is the feigned ignorance on your part... unless you really don't know... Let me quote exactly what I told you:

Clearly, you know nothing of Jim Jones apart from his foolish end... Read up on his earlier life, his preaching and the testimonies of his followers from these times.

Jim Jones began his career as a preacher in both Methodist and Pentecostal churches, and while the first church he opened in 1954 – Community Unity – was not formally affiliated with a denomination, it included elements of both those religious traditions. Community Unity became Wings of Deliverance – initially also without denominational affiliation – but the latter became known as Peoples Temple about the time that Jones was ordained as a minister in the Assemblies of God.

In part at the urging of Ross Case, a Disciples of Christ minister who became one of Jones’ assistant pastors, Peoples Temple applied to and was accepted in the Disciples of Christ in 1960. Jones received his ordination in that denomination four years later, in February 1964.
The Temple remained in good standing with the Disciples of Christ throughout the rest of its history, and was the largest denominational contributor in 1978.

In 1954, Jim Jones established the church that would become Peoples Temple. Even though Jones eventually turned against a traditional understanding of a Christian God, the church never lost the denominational affiliation with the Disciples of Christ it acquired in 1960.

Yet even from its earliest days, the Temple championed the plight of the poor, the disadvantaged, and especially racial minorities. Jones’ outreach to Indianapolis’ black population, his church’s efforts to desegregate local hospitals, restaurants, and other public facilities, and even his family’s composition of multiple races led to his appointment to the city’s Human Rights Commission in 1960.

He started his first church in 1954, yet you carefully chose to quote the nonsense he started spouting since early 1976. Which part of "his earlier life" you didn't understand? Now who is being deceitful... or is it simply stupidity on your part?

What premise? So people just wandered through the halls and randomly selected writings and stapled them together? Clearly you have not thought through your excuse for denying what is recorded history. Whatever jovial term I use to refer to those esteemed folk doesn't negate or lessen the importance of their actions - the result of which you use to base your arguments, decisions, justifications and whatnot on.

how you placed your argument should apply to peter vs Paul with same results if not
trash it

Codswallop! Did Peter and Paul's conflict create a lasting rift in the Christian Church? Didn't Paul correct an error on Peter's part? Didn't Peter agree with Paul, and was grateful for the correction? Stop spouting nonsense in an effort to misdirect readers.

I thought it was preached "God's laws were written in the heart of man"... I guess your ilk believe everyone else suffered from typographical errors and misprints...

wait wait wait .this is true but it happens when one comes to faith in jesus
nice try though
(new covenant)

Your interpretation, your opinion... and we already know what that's worth.

The simple fact remains (whether you continue to dance around it, pretending not to see it) pieces of the Bible were taken out by those who had their own agenda long after the Bible was compiled and accepted.

acceptance does not imply
that they were in inspired also

Again, your opinion - and an unlearned one at that. Writers from that era claim otherwise ('Google' is good, but you really should start reading those odd-looking heavy things called reference books). Now then, who should we believe... a whole gang of early Christians who assisted in the compilation of the Bible... or YOU? That's a rather easy one, isn't it?

You cannot claim to hold the Bible as "the Word of God" and at the same time, refuse to accept those writings as inspired as well.

yes I can and I do

You didn't read what went before this quote, did you?

reading the ones that are inspired shows that the ones rejected are not

Really? How?

[meccalli]

My belief is yes, having the holy spirit(the guard base), not necessarily just being a christian for names sake, is the only way to guard against a full blown possession in the worst possible scenario where demonic attacks are severe. Everyone, however,is subject to being demonized at some point during our weekly lives. In zecharia it shows where satan comes within the temple of God to challenge him and is rebuked. These entities can peek in and find loopholes in our lives which they can slowly begin to tempt and add turmoil to our lives. They can enter but the holy spirit dwells within the depicted holy of hollies where you also have the outer court and gathering place, this is where it blocks one from possession.

[pioneer]

noone gonna answer my question bout HIV/AIDS?

[d spike]

Was having a convo with religious coworkers this week and they said/indicated/insisted HIV/AIDS was NOT man-made and that GOD created it to punish unfaithful and promiscuous people. They were very adamant that it was NOT created by man.

Is this true?

This is the first time i heard this in my life, and i really was in shock.

This is an oft-told tale. I'm surprised that you have only now heard it.
It's just another turd on the Literalists' crapheap.

Ask them what happened to the threat of Hell? They are supposed to believe that Hell is the ultimate in Divine punishment. Can it now be bettered? Is there more than the ultimate?
Did God decide that wasn't enough punishment? Did God err in making Hell insufficient punishment? Did the sodomizers of Gomorrah get off easy by just ending up in Hell for eternity - with no AIDS?
...And what did Arthur Ashe do that was wrong? (Unless they see heart surgery as sinful.)
People who make these sort of statements do not expect rational responses.
Good luck.

[rspann]

Spike,you know that there are plenty religious asses too!

[d spike]

Spike,you know that there are plenty religious asses too!

At first, I agreed heartily with this statement...

But in reading it over, I have to ask: Why the use of "too"?
The statement, as written, implies more than is said - unless you just slipped, meaning to write:

Spike,you know that there are plenty religious asses!

in which case I agree. There's a lot of them out there (there's quite a few in here too ) and thanks to them and their tireless efforts to ensure their point of view is unquestioningly accepted as the only one, one can easily understand why so many refuse to accept to believe in the divine.

What one has to appreciate is that people understand things via concepts. Many people who claim to not believe in God, really mean they do not accept the concept of an old man with a white beard sitting in the clouds, taking terse notes in a big book... A person who has had a horrible relationship with an abusive father would either accept the concept of "a heavenly Father" quite happily ("Finally! A real, loving father!") or just as likely have major problems with the concept of "a loving father".

What is remarkable is when you speak to most people, they do have a concept that is God. If a person has a sense of right and wrong, then that is a concept of God. Fundamentalists will have serious problems with this, as their faith only allows them to accept the concept of God that it projects.
If you believe in God, then you would believe that He would make an infinite attempt to bring all men to a realization of Him. To believe that this realization must fit a narrow, finite, defined acceptance is a human error. By its very nature, the Divine is infinite, the Infinite is divine... Who is man to decide what God should be? (Smells of idolatry, doesn't it?)

A wise woman once said that we are all climbing a mountain. Some find an easier path than others, some stumble and slip... but we are all going in the same direction our own way.
What we think is at the top is up to us.
Are we supposed to tell others that their path is wrong? That they are going in the wrong direction because they choose their own path?
The most important thing is where YOU are in your journey. Stopping to direct traffic is only going to harm one person - you.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Spike,you know that there are plenty religious asses too!

At first, I agreed heartily with this statement...

But in reading it over, I have to ask: Why the use of "too"?
The statement, as written, implies more than is said - unless you just slipped, meaning to write:

Spike,you know that there are plenty religious asses!

in which case I agree. There's a lot of them out there (there's quite a few in here too ) and thanks to them and their tireless efforts to ensure their point of view is unquestioningly accepted as the only one, one can easily understand why so many refuse to accept to believe in the divine.

What one has to appreciate is that people understand things via concepts. Many people who claim to not believe in God, really mean they do not accept the concept of an old man with a white beard sitting in the clouds, taking terse notes in a big book... A person who has had a horrible relationship with an abusive father would either accept the concept of "a heavenly Father" quite happily ("Finally! A real, loving father!") or just as likely have major problems with the concept of "a loving father".

What is remarkable is when you speak to most people, they do have a concept that is God. If a person has a sense of right and wrong, then that is a concept of God. Fundamentalists will have serious problems with this, as their faith only allows them to accept the concept of God that it projects.
If you believe in God, then you would believe that He would make an infinite attempt to bring all men to a realization of Him. To believe that this realization must fit a narrow, finite, defined acceptance is a human error. By its very nature, the Divine is infinite, the Infinite is divine... Who is man to decide what God should be? (Smells of idolatry, doesn't it?)

A wise woman once said that we are all climbing a mountain. Some find an easier path than others, some stumble and slip... but we are all going in the same direction our own way.
What we think is at the top is up to us.
Are we supposed to tell others that their path is wrong? That they are going in the wrong direction because they choose their own path?
The most important thing is where YOU are in your journey. Stopping to direct traffic is only going to harm one person - you.

but each fundamentalist has their own opinion of their own religion and it differes from other fundamentalists. That's how we end up with different sects, denominations and even those who claim they are denominational but that in itself is technically a denomination.

AND they have their own opinion of other religions too.
it's just a whole bag of different opinions - looks we have 200 pages of it right here in this thread

[d spike]

Many people have the wrong idea about "religion" (but can you blame them?) and decry it... Again, this has to do with concepts. When a person learns, they acquire concepts. Combinations of concepts help create other concepts. If an errant concept is accepted and held, then a "ripple" effect will take place, affecting all the other accepted concepts that hinge on that first misconception.

Religion is simply the relationship man has with God. Due to man's social habits, we share concepts, habits, language, ideas, techniques... this is called culture. Just like everything else, religion too becomes part of culture.
People like megadoc decry "religion", but he is a member of a group that focuses together on the divine in their own way - a narrow-minded way... but a way that they each find acceptable enough to remain as part of the group. That is his 'religion'.
If you try to go to the estate once a week to cut the bush, fix the road, and you find peace in this... while you work, you can allow your mind to dwell on what you consider the "deeper realities" of life, and you commune with what you accept as God, then that is arguably your religion.
If on a Friday, you find time to be alone with a beer, just to contemplate what has gone right, and what has gone wrong... and you find peace in that moment... you vaguely decide to do better next week... then it is possible that is your religion.

A simplistic way of looking at it is to say that as man is human (and prone to error) then everything he gets involved in, becomes prone to error. As long as you have people running something (whether it's a government, a club, a family, a religious group) something is going to get screwed up sooner or later. That's life, that's the human experience. One picks up the pieces and moves on.

[hong kong phooey]

very well said spike.

[d spike]

but spike, from this same thread and around the world we see that even each fundamentalist has their own opinion of their own religion.

AND they have their own opinion of other religions too.

Almost every religion has a group that believes only strict adherence to the written words of the scripture would enable one to benefit from the religion: these are fundamentalists. (I think you made this point in an earlier post)
Some religions lend themselves easily to a fundamentalist point of view.
A true fundamentalist has only one opinion: his opinion is right, all others are in error. Tolerance is just a justification for not fighting/converting - nothing more than that. A perfect example were the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The Pharisees were perfect fundamentalists (the letter of the Law is the Law) while the Sadducees were at the other end of the pendulum's swing, not believing in an afterlife, but accepting that all rewards and punishment is meted out here.
They were always at each others' throats, for the Pharisees couldn't accept that people could think of themselves as Jews and be so lax in their acceptance of the Law... and the Sadducees refused to accept that seemingly sensible, learned and rational people could be so blind, to not see the form of the Law behind the words of the Law - talk about not being able to see the forest because the trees are blocking the view...
Neither group exists today.

[996vtwin]

The Bible is written perfectly. How else would we have gotten where we are today if it weren't taken literally. The Bible speaks the truth.

[d spike]

The Bible is written perfectly. How else would we have gotten where we are today if it weren't taken literally. The Bible speaks the truth.

Matthew 2:16 (KJV)
“Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under”

No historian writing close to this time mentions any such massacre. The author of Luke doesn’t mention it either. Josephus thoroughly documented the brutal deeds of Herod during Herod’s final years yet makes no mention of this incident which easily would have been Herod’s worst. Some Christian scholars estimate that there would not have been much more than 20 such murders of baby males in Bethlehem by Herod based on assumed population and birth rates thereby arguing that such a low number may have escaped Josephus’ attention... but even 20 murders of babies would have been Herod’s worst act. These scholars ignore that the text also says “and the regions all around it” (in all the coasts thereof).

Matthew 2:23 (KJV)
“And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.”

This prophecy fulfillment claim is unique in that scholars generally agree that there is no such prophecy in the Tanakh.

Matthew 6:1 (KJV)
“Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.”
is contradicted by Matthew 5:16 (KJV)
“Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.”

Gen 32:30 states, "...for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." However, John 1:18 states, "No man hath seen God at any time..."

How old was Ahaziah when he became king? (2 Kings 8:26 says "22 years old" vs. 2 Chronicles 22:2 says "42 years old". Clearly no error there...)

Did Saul's daughter, Michal, have any children, or not? (2 Samuel 6:23 says "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death"... 2 Samuel 21:8 says "But the king took...the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul") Nothing much wrong there either...

How many of each animal did Noah take aboard the ark?
Gen 6:20 says "Of fowls after their kind and of cattle [etc.]...two of every sort shall come unto thee..."
Gen 7:2,3 says "Of every clean beast thou shall take to thee by sevens...Of fowls also of the air by sevens..."

What were Jesus' very last words on the cross? Was it "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" (Luke23:46)... or was it "It is finished" (John 19:30)????

The Bible is replete with statistical discrepancies. Did David kill 700 Arameans (2 Sam. 10:18) or 7,000 (1 Chron. 19:18)? Did he buy a threshing floor for 50 shekels of silver (2 Sam. 24:24) or 600 shekels of gold (1 Chron. 21:25)? Did 24,000 die in a plague (Num. 25:9) or did 23,000 (1 Cor. 10:8)? Did God say that Abraham's descendants would be enslaved 400 years (Gen. 15:13) or 430 (Ex. 12:41, Gal. 3:17)? Did God ask for a census of Israel (2 Sam. 24:1-2), or was it Satan (1 Chron. 21:1-2)? (Conservatives really put non-conservatives down when they say, oh, God must have made Satan do it.) Was humankind the last thing God created (Gen. 1:26) or the first (Gen. 2:7)? Did Abraham move to Canaan before his father died (Gen. 11:32, 12:4) or afterward (Acts 7:4)?

These are only a few of the Bible's dozens of discrepancies.
But hey! What are some errors anyway? Remember, far more important than a warap of measly errors

The Bible is written perfectly. The Bible speaks the truth.

[pioneer]

Was having a convo with religious coworkers this week and they said/indicated/insisted HIV/AIDS was NOT man-made and that GOD created it to punish unfaithful and promiscuous people. They were very adamant that it was NOT created by man.

Is this true?

This is the first time i heard this in my life, and i really was in shock.

This is an oft-told tale. I'm surprised that you have only now heard it.
It's just another turd on the Literalists' crapheap.

Ask them what happened to the threat of Hell? They are supposed to believe that Hell is the ultimate in Divine punishment. Can it now be bettered? Is there more than the ultimate?
Did God decide that wasn't enough punishment? Did God err in making Hell insufficient punishment? Did the sodomizers of Gomorrah get off easy by just ending up in Hell for eternity - with no AIDS?
...And what did Arthur Ashe do that was wrong? (Unless they see heart surgery as sinful.)
People who make these sort of statements do not expect rational responses.
Good luck.

They really do lack any sort of rationality, when you ask them sumn they put their hands in the air and said jesus is my lord and saviour.

It's pretty LOL

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ I don't see anything wrong with that - everyone has their beliefs - it's when they start saying they alone are right and the others are wrong - that claim needs proof

[pioneer]

Yeah well they basically strike down anyone who doesn't share their beliefs or questions the rationale behind their beliefs.

[Dizzy28]

I live in a predominantly Hindu area and on Divali day a few years ago a Church from Balthazar Street, Tunapuna passed around and left pamphlets in every one yards saying Hinduism is a Devil religion.

Take that for tolerance.

[Devourment]

this is how religions of "peace" are formed.

[rspann]

^ I don't see anything wrong with that - everyone has their beliefs - it's when they start saying they alone are right and the others are wrong - that claim needs proof

And you find them in every religion.They alone have the "truth"as they call it.I heard an old man say once"the closer to church,the further from God" By the way vtwin,The problem with the bible is in the translation.When it was being translated hebrew words were translated into english words that could not convey their true meaning,also a lot of other stuff was added in like the word Godhead etc.The word where they used Godhead was theotes which means divinity,how that was changed into Godhead which men use to prove the trinity doctrine,i have no clue.I have a "bible"for the want of a better word,That is translated from the original Hebrew and greek by some masoretic Jewish scholars and if you read it you get a different meaning in some places.so when Guys come here to defend the bible as it is translated they are defending their beliefs ,and while nothing is wrong with that of itself,If you really want to show yourself approved ,you have to study to do so,not just read any versionof the bible and defend it likeit actually came from Gods mouth the way it is.A good method of studying,is using a study bible with the strongs annotations so you can see what the original intent was,it is available on C-D Rom.

[pioneer]

I live in a predominantly Hindu area and on Divali day a few years ago a Church from Balthazar Street, Tunapuna passed around and left pamphlets in every one yards saying Hinduism is a Devil religion.

Take that for tolerance.

LOL wut?...these people in my office invite me to something in da same church in november

I gonna troll dem tomorrow

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

A good method of studying,is using a study bible with the strongs annotations so you can see what the original intent was

intent based on whose opinion?

[rspann]

Based on somebody who believes in the bible opinion.