Yet another religion thread: what constitutes weird?

[Northern Lights]

Tebus
To me the reason is that, helping others and acting for others often doesn't do much for the person performing the act. There is not an immediate payoff. The only way that it would make sense to act in such selfless ways is if there somehow were a payoff, and to me, this is where faith comes in. It's important to believe that there will be a reward, otherwise, there is no motivation for acting in such a way.

This is a good point. However, I wonder whether pure selfishness would also be considered as a motivator? Even if you throw yourself into an icy lake to save a drowning child, the reward will be that you'll feel remarkably good about yourself (if you live, that is), and this is the motivation for all altruistic acts. The reason why we feel good when we do good is debatable - it could be because we enjoy the sense of power (the power to decide the fate of others) it gives us, or that it makes us feel indispensable, or important in some manner. Or it's socially conditioned - through faith, among other things. Altruism is also necessary for a society to function, or we would be stuck with Hobbes' state of nature and life would be very nasty, brutish and short indeed.

MagSec
Many will argue that they are rich with moral value that people obtain, ..but I will respond that people derive moral value from many sources, including non-religious literature. I will also argue that morality does not necessarily come from religious-texts*, even though it looks like it does. And ultimately, I am certain that people do not need religion to derive "good" moral values.
...
And these are just 2 examples of the level of some of the bad morality displayed in the Bible. There are several instances when God commands and directs genocide. And I mean full-blown, kill-men-women-children-their-goats-horses-and-sheep genocide. And to top it off, something along the lines of "but keep the silver and gold for the Lord's treasury"

Again, very vaild points and I agree, there's little morality in these particular stories. They are all from the Old Testament, however, and I will argue that they do reflect the societies from which they emerged, and thus cater to the particular needs of the aforementioned societies. Genocide and plunder will get rid of that other bunch of people that are competing with your bunch of people for the same resources. And what's great about it is that God endorses it! Religion had (and still has, of course) a social function, in that it organised society and life within it in a time when powerful, centralised rule that would keep things in order wasn't really a practical option. The doctrine could be shaped so that certain things were excused and some things forbidden, everything according to what society needed. I find it interesting that when most (level-headed) Christians want to talk about morals, they draw exclusively from the New Testament.

Islam is one interesting examle of this. The Arabian Peninsula consisted of little else than bickering tribes with quite brutal "pagan" religions before Mohammed came along with his revised edition of Judaism and Christianity. The strict nature of Islam provided a great organising mechanism for getting people to stop fighting and start working together, hence why they were shortly after able to expand their rule. Islam in the 600s also meant a vast improvement of the lives of women (and children), who had previously been seen as entirely disposable. In this modern day and age, however, the Islamic view of women and their place in society is obviously less of a happy combination.

What you say about confirmation bias and prayer is also very interesting, and I would comment, were it not for the fact that I really should be reading about structural adjustment in Africa, the "nature" of the political as well as the impenetrable and tedious prose of Samir Amin. Whenever I next feel like procrastinating, however...

[marduk1507]

Originally Posted by Northern Lights

I find it interesting that when most (level-headed) Christians want to talk about morals, they draw exclusively from the New Testament.

This sounds like "I find it strange...", I hope it wasnt meant as such. In the same vein, I find it interesting that when most people try to find examples for their arguments against the Christianity, they draw exclusively from the Old Testament. The answer to that is simple - its so easy. The OT is full of awful things, and it is quite hard for most level-headed Christians to accept it as one of the corner stones of their religion. Similarly though, most of the level-headed atheists I know find it hard to dismiss the NT as utter nonsense.

[Northern Lights]

Marduk: No, it wasn't. More in the vein of interesting as in worthy of closer attention. Like you said, the Old Testament is the primary fuel for those wishing to argue against Christianity, but it's not like your average priest will preach fire and brimstone and encourage sacrificing your daughters all through the Sundays. At least not where I'm from.

[marduk1507]

Exactly (even though you get your share of other titbits). I am not a theologist, but this is what I think most atheists fail or refuse to acknowledge - that what actually founds Christianity is the New Testament. The life and words of Christ as they are captured in the gospels and epistles are or at least should form the basis of Christian religion and morality. It is therefore natural for most Christians to draw from there.

[MagSec4]

Originally Posted by marduk1507

This sounds like "I find it strange...", I hope it wasnt meant as such. In the same vein, I find it interesting that when most people try to find examples for their arguments against the Christianity, they draw exclusively from the Old Testament. The answer to that is simple - its so easy. The OT is full of awful things, and it is quite hard for most level-headed Christians to accept it as one of the corner stones of their religion. Similarly though, most of the level-headed atheists I know find it hard to dismiss the NT as utter nonsense.

And in making these observations, does it not tell you how little sense it makes with the idea of a unified religion? The Christian God is supposed to be almighty, allknowing, allseeing, and perfect. And here you have one book telling you about clearly different characters throughout. It's like Northern Lights said, these are all compiled stories and folklore from different time periods. Isn't it clear that this is all man-made and man-written. If the God you believe in were to have any hand in its writing I'm sure he'd slap himself in the face at the lack of organization, the travesties, and thousands of inconsistencies. I'm sure a God like the one you believe in would have everything figured out and clearly told. Even though you can see that these are different God characters (in the OT and the NT), you force yourself to believe that the Bible is a single unified scripture of one religion, which it clearly is not. And what you must have in the back of your mind instead, is a strange depiction of a God that's at best emotionally unstable and indecisive, and at worst dangerously insane (with evil tendencies even).
Even God did exist, what do you think is more likely? This (That he's actually not perfect and has mood swings and has to reconsider things, or just plain insane)? Or that it was all written by men like every single other book in existence? Men with great imaginations and with extremely limited knowledge back then. And that it is not at all an accurate reflection on the actual God (slapping himself in the face and shaking his head) that for the moment we assume to exist. What's more likely?

Now I'm sure, marduk, that you're a decent person. If you were around I'd invite you out for a beer and a turkey sandwich. And I know that you must believe in a God that is innately good. I would just like to extend to you the (very likely) possibility that the God you believe in is absolutely unrelated to the God-character(s) in the Bible (or at least the Old Testament) in the same way that Zeus is completely unrelated to Thor.


The New Testament, while a big improvement on the horrors of the Old, is still not exactly a fountain of good morals or the key to a happy outlook of life.
First of all, it's all drenched in the idea of original sin, which basically comes from a character from a very long time ago, that you have absolutely nothing to do with, who saw a piece of fruit and ate it. God warned them not to eat from it, but hey (maybe he just forgot, or thought it wasn't that big of a deal) Well it turns out that it was the cosmically most horrible thing in the world and they were made to suffer, work for their food, ..God even threw in "childbirth pain" there as a bonus. And not only that, but it has since been passed down along the line of men in the semen, and we all shall suffer for it. Is that not ridiculous in many different levels?

Jesus, if he existed, must've been a great person. And if he didn't exist, whoever made him up must've been a great person. Many good morals do come from Jesus. But he wasn't exactly a model citizen either. He was constantly rebellious, braking the sabbath, defying the Rabbis, defying his family.
And didn't he also say something along the lines of "He who cannot leave his family and get completely detached from them may not be my disciple"?
(I don't mean to criticize much, just playing devil's advocate to what you said about Atheist not touching the New Testament) ..but hey, is that not what cults do? Get you to leave your families and take you away so they may tell you "how it is".

Another interesting moral consideration can be found in Judas Iscariot. I could argue that he was dealt a rough deal. Unfairly. His 'betrayal' of Jesus was necessary for the cosmic plan that God/Jesus had. If God is allknowing, and it was all prearranged, then what fault is it of poor Judas. And if what the religious say is true, the poor guy is right now one of the people suffering the most in the absolute worst place of all (next to Satan* ..another interesting character)

That's another thing, such violent suffering...
If God wanted to forgive our sins, why not just forgive them? Why go through the trouble of getting somebody tortured and killed? ..and in the process condemn people such as Judas, Romans, and Jews to be hated in the future as "Christ-killers"?
In present day morality, it's hard to defend ideas of punishments of retribution, let alone the "scapegoat" idea, torturing and executing the innocent to pay for the 'sins' of the guilty.
But wait, a lot of you do agree that the Old Testament and specific stories, like that of Adam and Eve are only symbolic!, and not literal. So God/Jesus is going to have himself tortured and executed in such an impressive and passionate manner, by the hand of other men, as punishment for a symbolic sin commited by a non-existent individual?

..these aren't good morals.

The Apocalypse. It's decent story telling, but read through it. Do you really expect things to happen this way in our future at some point? And does it not say at some point that the people who will be saved are counted. marduk, there are a lot of really pious and "good" religious people out there ..do you think you'll be included in that number? It wasn't a big number from what I remember..
Do you know why the Apocalypse is so famous? Because people like that kind of stuff. It's something you could see in an anime film. Or something from a 30-minute long power metal song.
And why should we give validity to the writings of one man who had a vision (which he of course believed was God-given. Of course..I mean, he was a very pious (biased) man. We know this because he's now known with "saint" in front of his name) ..and not give validity to the writings of hundreds of other people who have visions? And I'm sure they are just as entertaining. Someone tell me. Why should we? Because it made it to the Bible? Not many people know that a lot of what made it into the Bible or not was determined by people in power. Religious leaders and Roman Emperors (and not for religious reasons, and not so long ago).


* Evil is an abstract man-defined ideal. And I argue that it does not exist in the 3rd-person/external sense that people make it out to be. Evil only arises from people. Evil is exclusively within the minds, psychology, and actions of people. I argue that Satan is one of the characters that people created in order to personify this "evil". Satan is a childish excuse. An irresponsible concoction of people's imagination. An easy way out to take away our responsibility. I've been around people talking about how another person they knew killed his spouse and then hung himself. And they, dead-seriously, claim that Satan was there. And that it was Satan that made these good people ("they seemed so fine last time I saw them" they say) do what they did. That, once the thought crossed his mind, it was Satan that helped with the actual hanging.

[Matse]

Personally, I do not think many Christians believe in every single word that is written in the bible, although they will probably tell you they do. What they usually do is to pick out the parts they like and ignore the others which is not a bad thing in my opinion but just the natural consequence of a society that has changed a lot over the millenia. So most of the arguments brought up by those who argue against Christianity will not apply to many "modern" Christians.

Nevertheless I enjoy reading this discussion here. Keep up the good work. *thumb up*

[hyena]

Originally Posted by Matse

What they usually do is to pick out the parts they like and ignore the others

I stand apart, as someone who normally picks the parts they do not like.

[DisplayofCharacter]

... I'm sorry, but I find this thread immensely fascinating. Great job participants.

[MagSec4]

Originally Posted by DisplayofCharacter

... I'm sorry, but I find this thread immensely fascinating. Great job participants.

Hey, hey buddy, no free shows after October. You know this. Either pay our thread cashier the 20 bucks,
..or post your thoughts or opinions.

Originally Posted by Northern Lights

Whenever I next feel like procrastinating, however...

I'll take that as a promise.

Originally Posted by hyena

I stand apart, as someone who normally picks the parts they do not like

Explain this.
By the way, I must say I'm a little surprised. I expected some debate from you.
Or are you just quietly taking it all in as a preview so you can come prepared for outgunning me when we have a real chat? :P

[hyena]

@mags: it was more or less a coincidence, i have been visiting my mother in the past few days, and i also have a very bad back at the moment, resulting in more pain that would be desirable. i'm heading to america on sunday tho, and probably staying there until dec 5th, so we can have teh chat.

[marduk1507]

Originally Posted by MagSec4

And in making these observations, does it not tell you how little sense it makes with the idea of a unified religion? The Christian God is supposed to be almighty, allknowing, allseeing, and perfect. And here you have one book telling you about clearly different characters throughout. It's like Northern Lights said, these are all compiled stories and folklore from different time periods. Isn't it clear that this is all man-made and man-written?

Absolutely. Ive never said that it was written by God. Do you think Im crazy?

Even if God did exist, what do you think is more likely? This (That he's actually not perfect and has mood swings and has to reconsider things, or just plain insane)? Or that it was all written by men like every single other book in existence? Men with great imaginations and with extremely limited knowledge back then. And that it is not at all an accurate reflection on the actual God (slapping himself in the face and shaking his head) that for the moment we assume to exist. What's more likely?

Im sorry, but are you ok? Dont you think you take this a tad too seriously? What do I know about God? And are you really so sure that the people who wrote these books were of extremely limited knowledge? What do you know? What lies at the bottom of all things? Is it a wave or a particle? Or both? Read Fritjof Capras Tao of Physics.

Now I'm sure, marduk, that you're a decent person. If you were around I'd invite you out for a beer and a turkey sandwich. And I know that you must believe in a God that is innately good. I would just like to extend to you the (very likely) possibility that the God you believe in is absolutely unrelated to the God-character(s) in the Bible (or at least the Old Testament) in the same way that Zeus is completely unrelated to Thor.

Oh man, you dont know how much Id love to sit with you drinking beer. As for the other part - thanks, but I already know that.

The New Testament, while a big improvement on the horrors of the Old, is still not exactly a fountain of good morals or the key to a happy outlook of life.

Isnt it really? What is a happy outlook of life? That youre definitely going to die and be food for wormy thought?

First of all, it's all drenched in the idea of original sin, which basically comes from a character from a very long time ago, that you have absolutely nothing to do with, who saw a piece of fruit and ate it. God warned them not to eat from it, but hey (maybe he just forgot, or thought it wasn't that big of a deal) Well it turns out that it was the cosmically most horrible thing in the world and they were made to suffer, work for their food, ..God even threw in "childbirth pain" there as a bonus. And not only that, but it has since been passed down along the line of men in the semen, and we all shall suffer for it. Is that not ridiculous in many different levels?

Absolutely. If you take it literally.

Jesus, if he existed, must've been a great person. And if he didn't exist, whoever made him up must've been a great person. Many good morals do come from Jesus. But he wasn't exactly a model citizen either. He was constantly rebellious, braking the sabbath, defying the Rabbis, defying his family. And didn't he also say something along the lines of "He who cannot leave his family and get completely detached from them may not be my disciple"? (I don't mean to criticize much, just playing devil's advocate to what you said about Atheist not touching the New Testament), but hey, is that not what cults do? Get you to leave your families and take you away so they may tell you "how it is".

Your arguments are truly weak, cant you see that? Jesus is the core of the whole Christianity for me. And I find exactly those things about him you say are weird so cool.

Another interesting moral consideration can be found in Judas Iscariot. I could argue that he was dealt a rough deal. Unfairly. His 'betrayal' of Jesus was necessary for the cosmic plan that God/Jesus had. If God is allknowing, and it was all prearranged, then what fault is it of poor Judas. And if what the religious say is true, the poor guy is right now one of the people suffering the most in the absolute worst place of all (next to Satan* ..another interesting character)

Uff, no comment.

That's another thing, such violent suffering...
If God wanted to forgive our sins, why not just forgive them? Why go through the trouble of getting somebody tortured and killed? ..and in the process condemn people such as Judas, Romans, and Jews to be hated in the future as "Christ-killers"?

What? Did God say Jews were Christ-killers? Come on!

In present day morality, it's hard to defend ideas of punishments of retribution, let alone the "scapegoat" idea, torturing and executing the innocent to pay for the 'sins' of the guilty.
But wait, a lot of you do agree that the Old Testament and specific stories, like that of Adam and Eve are only symbolic!, and not literal. So God/Jesus is going to have himself tortured and executed in such an impressive and passionate manner, by the hand of other men, as punishment for a symbolic sin commited by a non-existent individual?

Heidegger said God didnt know shit about whats it like being finite, so he had to be born as a human. I dont know...

..these aren't good morals.

Who are you to say that?

The Apocalypse. It's decent story telling, but read through it. Do you really expect things to happen this way in our future at some point? And does it not say at some point that the people who will be saved are counted. marduk, there are a lot of really pious and "good" religious people out there ..do you think you'll be included in that number? It wasn't a big number from what I remember..
Do you know why the Apocalypse is so famous? Because people like that kind of stuff. It's something you could see in an anime film. Or something from a 30-minute long power metal song.
And why should we give validity to the writings of one man who had a vision (which he of course believed was God-given. Of course..I mean, he was a very pious (biased) man. We know this because he's now known with "saint" in front of his name) ..and not give validity to the writings of hundreds of other people who have visions? And I'm sure they are just as entertaining. Someone tell me. Why should we? Because it made it to the Bible? Not many people know that a lot of what made it into the Bible or not was determined by people in power. Religious leaders and Roman Emperors (and not for religious reasons, and not so long ago).

No comment.

* Evil is an abstract man-defined ideal. And I argue that it does not exist in the 3rd-person/external sense that people make it out to be. Evil only arises from people. Evil is exclusively within the minds, psychology, and actions of people. I argue that Satan is one of the characters that people created in order to personify this "evil". Satan is a childish excuse. An irresponsible concoction of people's imagination. An easy way out to take away our responsibility. I've been around people talking about how another person they knew killed his spouse and then hung himself. And they, dead-seriously, claim that Satan was there. And that it was Satan that made these good people ("they seemed so fine last time I saw them" they say) do what they did. That, once the thought crossed his mind, it was Satan that helped with the actual hanging.

I dont know anything about Satan or evil.

[rahvin]

Originally Posted by marduk1507

Im sorry, but are you ok? Dont you think you take this a tad too seriously?

Rhetorical gimmick: ask enough questions whose answers are obvious and you'll eventually manage to slip a controversial one inbetween. Besides, he's sure you're a decent person, so STOP IT with all your HATING, for Funny-Named Deity's sake!

[DisplayofCharacter]

Originally Posted by MagSec4

Hey, hey buddy, no free shows after October. You know this. Either pay our thread cashier the 20 bucks,
..or post your thoughts or opinions.

That was an opinion.

About Judas though. I like the idea that his betrayal was unavoidable as a piece of a much bigger picture. It makes me wonder that if this God wouldn't have been more lenient on him (lots of purgatory time?) because without the betrayal, what means would Christ have to die for our sins? (Obviously an unanswerable question, but still interesting). Did Judas have any idea he was damned from the start? (I haven't read the bible, so I really don't know). How could a person live knowing that kind of fate? I generally don't believe in destiny (moments in time sometimes seem too perfect to me to not be destined, but that might be the romantic in me talking ), especially because I enjoy my free will very much.

Or are there designs that create the illusion of free will? The paradox continues...

[hyena]

Originally Posted by marduk1507

I dont know anything about Satan or evil.

Now i will anticipate ian.de's reaction: this is not acceptable on a death metal forum.

[marduk1507]

Originally Posted by rahvin

Rhetorical gimmick: ask enough questions whose answers are obvious and you'll eventually manage to slip a controversial one inbetween. Besides, he's sure you're a decent person, so STOP IT with all your HATING, for Funny-Named Deity's sake!

Oh father, you are so wrong! Its not hating, just a teasing reaction to what bigoted Christians are rightfully accused of - namely treating the opposite party like they were half-witted. I know Mags intentions were good, but thats also what the bigots say. No seriously, Im not a decent person.

Originally Posted by hyena

Now i will anticipate ian.de's reaction: this is not acceptable on a death metal forum.

Well, only if you like Deicide and the likes (which I do, damn!). Satan and evil are the sole propriety of the black metal flock.

[marduk1507]

Originally Posted by DisplayofCharacter

About Judas though. I like the idea that his betrayal was unavoidable as a piece of a much bigger picture. It makes me wonder that if this God wouldn't have been more lenient on him (lots of purgatory time?) because without the betrayal, what means would Christ have to die for our sins? (Obviously an unanswerable question, but still interesting). Did Judas have any idea he was damned from the start? (I haven't read the bible, so I really don't know). How could a person live knowing that kind of fate? I generally don't believe in destiny (moments in time sometimes seem too perfect to me to not be destined, but that might be the romantic in me talking ), especially because I enjoy my free will very much.

Yes, this topic is very interesting, and thanks for kicking it off a lot better than above. I cant for the life of me remember the names, but I know Ive read at least one really good book and seen a great film about Judas Iscariot and his part in the whole story. It was based on the idea that only Judas realised the true greatness of Christ and his ideas, and that he knew that they could prevail only if Christ would become a martyr. Exactly - how could a person live knowing that kind of fate? - but how do you know he really knew? Or to put it differently, how could he do it if he knew? What probably struck me most about Mags post was that it was as if he had no idea of the transcendent (but Ive realised it only now). But it happens to us everyday, doesnt it? We do what we know is not exactly ok, but we do it anyway. Is it some spiritual or psychological laziness? Maybe this was what Christ was for Judas. Christ was beyond him. He knew he was going to betray him, he knew it was wrong, and yet he did it. Why? Because he had no free will? "Hes weak with evil" says one of the lines in Loverman from Nick Cave, and I really like that image.

[Siren]

Regarding the Old vs. New Testament debate: as a Christian i was never taught the Old Testament extensively, except for some characteristic stories in Religion class at school or by parents, which was mostly informative and general knowledge kind of teaching, and maybe even introductory to my religious teaching. I was always under the impression that, while the God referred to in the Old Testament, New Testament and even the Quran is the one and the same, Old Testament equals Judaism and New Testament equals Christianity. Christianity accepts the Old Testament as divinely inspired (not written by God, we're not ridiculous), but doesn't pay that much attention to it.

Originally Posted by MagSec4

Many good morals do come from Jesus. But he wasn't exactly a model citizen either. He was constantly rebellious, braking the sabbath, defying the Rabbis, defying his family.

I'm sorry, but my idea of a model citizen is NOT one who is a sheep, always abiding by the letter of law, who is obedient and submissive and always does what is expected to or told.
My model citizen is one with a personality and mind of his own, who can tell right from wrong, sticks with what he thinks is right and stands up to defend his ideas.

Originally Posted by DisplayofCharacter

About Judas though. I like the idea that his betrayal was unavoidable as a piece of a much bigger picture. It makes me wonder that if this God wouldn't have been more lenient on him (lots of purgatory time?) because without the betrayal, what means would Christ have to die for our sins? (Obviously an unanswerable question, but still interesting). Did Judas have any idea he was damned from the start? (I haven't read the bible, so I really don't know). How could a person live knowing that kind of fate?

I don't think he knew his fate. He probably didn't fully realise what he was doing. And how can we know what he got in the end? Are we sure he got convicted in Hell? I believe in the end he did regret it, since he went back to return the money and hanged himself, which means he could end up being forgiven.
On the other hand, i like the idea marduk just presented, that he of all knew what was needed and had the guts to do it.

[DisplayofCharacter]

Originally Posted by Siren

I don't think he knew his fate. He probably didn't fully realise what he was doing. And how can we know what he got in the end? Are we sure he got convicted in Hell? I believe in the end he did regret it, since he went back to return the money and hanged himself, which means he could end up being forgiven.
On the other hand, i like the idea marduk just presented, that he of all knew what was needed and had the guts to do it.

Isn't suicide a cardinal sin? In that instance he would almost certainly go to hell?

I like Marduk's idea a lot too, simply because I find the interpersonal aspects of the bible a lot more interesting than all the intimidation/fire and brimstone. I am not a Christian, but I am fascinated by Jesus, simply because I wonder who he really was and what he was like. What kind of a man could touch so many, many lives, innumerable lives over two millennia, and be so relevant when life now would be inconceivable to those who wrote the bible or participated in its events? I enjoy looking at him from a humanistic and psychological point of view, because (and someone else said this before me, but I can't remember whom. if you can, please let me know) Jesus lived the most successful life of any human being.

Back to Judas. Personally, I have no opinion on whether or not he knew what he was going to do. I just find who he is almost as interesting as Jesus. I understand he was one of Jesus' most vehement supporters (?). Deceit makes a good story.

[MagSec4]

hyena: I see, and it's alright. But the other thing was, I wanted you to explain what you said (what I quoted from you) not why you hadn't debated :P
And where exactly will you be on your visit?


Siren, marduk: What I said about the New Testament (Judas, Jesus, etc.) isn't a black-and-white attack. I simply posed some possible arguments because I felt challenged by marduk into using things from the New Testament

In fact, Siren, I personally agree with you too. Hell, I'd love to drink with Jesus if I had the chance. I'd come up during the Sabbath.. whistle from the shadows, and Jesus would sneak out of the temple so we could go together to a nice hill. I'd whip out two shot-glasses and a gallon of water from my backpack, and say: "Jesus, do your thing" We'd sit around a nice mini table (snuck out of his carpenter father's workshop), and we'd have ourselves some of the best conversation I could claim to have had in a very long time. And before long, he'd be stumbling and swirlbanging his long-haired head to Zyklon's "Ways of the World" (I also carried a stereo system in my backpack).


EDIT:
rahvin: Woah, when did you start using capitals?

Originally Posted by marduk "tiger tiger" 15 0 7

Who are you to say that?

A man with an opinion. An opinion drawn from statistical consideration, as based on my first line (earlier in the paragraph) which basically said most people these days would not deem most ideas of torture, retribution, and scapegoats, most of the time.

[rahvin]

Originally Posted by MagSec4

EDIT:
rahvin: Woah, when did you start using capitals?

Apparently after you left. Was it the shock? We'll never know.

In hindsight, it's just that the more I write semi-official stuff over the Internet, the less it pays off to keep two standards, one for this board and another for basically everywhere else and e-mails. I guess I've got used to it.

[hyena]

@mags: not sure yet whether i'll make the trip, because my back is getting worse by the minute, but i should be in chicago 11-18 and in boston 18-dec 5th.

[marduk1507]

Originally Posted by MagSec4

Siren, marduk: What I said about the New Testament (Judas, Jesus, etc.) isn't a black-and-white attack. I simply posed some possible arguments because I felt challenged by marduk into using things from the New Testament

Id like to get one thing straight. I hope my replies didnt insult you, as I said to rahvin, I was only teasing you, because your reply seemed to me like a lecture to a half-witted person (sorry, but that was my impression). You said in your previous posts that there was plenty of evidence and information for everyone to grab and lead a life without any fairy-tales about God etc. (Im paraphrasing). Well, as far I know, the physicists managed to get as far as the level where the tiniest grains of matter are "visible". The problem is, these thingies sometimes behave like waves and sometimes like particles. Basically, what probably lies at the bottom of all things is energy. What is this energy? We dont know. What we know though is that there are people who can heal others just by placing their hands on the sore spot. One such person healed me, when the mighty doctors knew shit about what was wrong with me, and were only stuffing me with more and more meds. That person was deeply religious and didnt want any money for the treatment. This is not the experience that brought me to christianity, but still, how can you explain that?

Theres also this: http://home.att.net/~numericana/arms/bohr.htm

[rahvin]

Originally Posted by marduk1507

Id like to get one thing straight. I hope my replies didnt insult you, as I said to rahvin, I was only teasing you, because your reply seemed to me like a lecture to a half-witted person (sorry, but that was my impression).

For the record, I wasn't really thinking you were being too aggressive, marduk. I was making fun of the "decent guy" remark, if anything.

Let's go back to loving each other as much as we love ourselves, like God or a figment of our imagination commands!

[Txsxhx]

I CAN'T READ SO MANY WORDS!! MAD LOLZ!!

[marduk1507]

Originally Posted by rahvin

For the record, I wasn't really thinking you were being too aggressive, marduk. I was making fun of the "decent guy" remark, if anything.

I know, but maybe Mag was.

Let's go back to loving each other as much as we love ourselves, like God or a figment of our imagination commands!

Now that I look at it, it sounds like from plintus. THAT aspect of it is new to me!