Quote :

"Also, I tend to think that anybody who doesn't pick either a specific religion or atheist is kind of a dumbass."

and i'm sure they think you are a dumbass. why would you have to "pick one" if you still are in an exploration phase? just "picking one" is like going to a tattoo parlor and just picking the first tattoo off the wall that you see. wouldn't you rather give it deep thought, and find one that meshes with your personality well?

2/27/2006 3:17:10 PM

yea, i'd prefer people who aren't stuck in one bullshit religion. there's nothing wrong with faith, it's the organization of religion that makes it so damn bad. my religion is better than yours. no it isn't ours is true and yours isn't. fuck you i'm going to kill your people unless you convert.

2/27/2006 3:25:37 PM

Quote :

"which branch of christianity is the one that thinks jesus is gonna come back someday"

[Edited on February 27, 2006 at 3:26 PM. Reason : got lost at the bottom and some alias gave me rolly eyes for some reason]

2/27/2006 3:26:02 PM

isn't that all of them?

2/27/2006 4:03:13 PM

So far.....

(includes changes and additions)

kbbrown3 : Agnostic - [Theist leaning?]
Stiletto : Atheist
Mindstorm : Christian - [unspecified]
smheath : Christian - [unspecified]
bmdurham : Evolutionary Humanist, Satanist, Existentialist
Ronny : Jedi
YanTheManV : Jewish - [non-practicing]
joe17669 : Agnostic
SaabTurbo : Agnostic
qntmfred : Christian - [nondenominational]
Amsterdam718 : Christian - Catholic
LadyWolff : Neo-Pagan - Wiccan
hempster : Frisbeetarian, Agnostic - [Pythagorean leaning]
puck_it : Christian - Catholic
Kitty B : Agnostic, Neo-Pagan - Eclectic Pagan
bottombaby : Christian - Free Will Baptist
coolguy1335 : Agnostic - [Buddhist tendencies]
Kodiak : Atheist
drunknloaded : Christian - Catholic
amazon : Agnostic
Shank : Fremen - [Zensunni?]
Cherokee : Agnostic - [Atheist leaning]
spaced guy : Agnostic
‡ Lutra : ??? [former Southern Baptist?]
Jere : Agnostic
msb2ncsu : Christian - United Methodist
Lutz : Christian - Baptist
CalledToArms : Christian - [nondenominational]
jimb0 : Agnostic - [theist leaning?]
Natalie0628 : Agnostic
Beardawg61 : Christian - Evangelical Lutheran Church of America
Supplanter : Classical Pagan - Greco-Roman Polytheist
zxappeal : Agnostic
abcdefg13 : Scientologist
strudle66 : Atheist
chembob : Christian - [nondenominational, Catholic tendencies]
bigTHEW : Christian - Baptist
tdwhitlo : Agnostic, Neo-Pagan - Wiccan
bgmims : Christian - Catholic
tartsquid : Agnostic - [Catholic leaning]
darkmage : Christian - [nondenominational]
ncsutiger : Christian - [nondenominational, Sabbatarian]
ShawnaC123 : Atheist
E30turbo : Agnostic
SouthPaW12 : Christian - [nondenominational]
RJCNCSU : Christian - Presbyterian, [nondenominational]
Lelacake : Agnostic
Gamecat : Agnostic, Buddhist - [Sufi practices]
BelowMe : Christian - Baptist
‡ salsta415 : Christian?? Galactophasic Determinist?? - Zen Baptist
Sayer : Taoist
Boss DJ : Christian - Presbyterian
Turnip : Atheist, Deist
pablo_price : Agnostic - [Atheist leaning]
Garthok : Christian - United Methodist, [nondenominational]
robster : Christian - Mormon
HayleyToye : Unitarian Universalist
cyrion : Agnostic - [Deist leaning?]
Queti : Christian - Southern Baptist, Church of Christ
quiet guy : Agnostic
Wolfpacker06 : Christian - [nondenominational]
AxlBonBach : Christian - Baptist
bassman803 : Christian - [nondenominational with Jainist, Buddhist, Taoist, and Hindu beliefs]
TheTabbyCat : Christian - United Church of Christ
Snewf : Atheist, Agnostic, Humanist
NyM410 : Christian - Roman Catholic
scrabz : Christian - Roman Catholic
spöokyjon : Theoretical Particle Physics Buddhist
Wlfpk4Life : Christian - Roman Catholic
sparky : Gnostic - [Eastern Karmic beliefs]
AntiMnifesto : Atheist
Smath74 : Christian - [nondenominational]
punchmonk : Christian - [nondenominational?]
klsutton : Christian - [nondenominational]
ssjamind : Hindu
arghx : Christian - Roman Catholic
packboozie : Christian - Baptist
McDanger : Agnostic - [Atheist leaning?]
appamali : Hindu
theDuke866 : Christian - [nondenominational Protestant]
JSteen : Christian - Baptist
‡ Grapehead : [transitional]
HZW0483 : Muslim
BridgetSPK : Agnostic
pirate5311 : Atheist
Minkagrl01 : Christian - Catholic
rjrgrl : Christian - Moravian
bous : Christian - [nondenominational, Agnostic leaning]
Lowjack : Scientologist
sfshaikh : Muslim
absolutapril : Christian - Moravian, [self-denomination]
sylvershadow : Agnostic, Neo-Pagan - Eclectic Pagan
Burlgirl : Christian - Catholic
danmangt40 : Atheist - [Agnostic leaning]
Josh8315 : Humanist - Transhumanist
blasphemour : Satanist
dannydigtl : Agnostic
bruiserbrody : Neo-Pagan - Asatru
caesar : Christian - Episcopalian
alee : Christian - Southern Baptist, [nondenominational]
mrfrog : Christian - Lutheran
DirtyGreek : Agnostic, Panthiest?
shakdizzle : Muslim
bethaleigh : Christian - Methodist
RattlerRyan : Agnostic
RachelMarie : Christian - Catholic
Waluigi : Christian - United Church of Christ
MrT : Heaven's Gatist - [non-practicing]
chuck_t : Agnostic
supercat329 : Christian - Presbyterian
Specter : Muslim
Sugarush4u : Hindu
Restricted : Agnostic
zenobia0000 : Atheist
GrumpyGOP : Christian - Eastern Orthodox
JayMCnasty : Christian - Episcopalian?
phongstar : Atheist
jbtilley : Christian - Mormon
Hankypank : Agnostic, Atheist
FlufyEarmufs : Christian - [nondenominational]
Raige : Agnostic



(Sorry if I got anything wrong....just LMK.)


The count:

Agnostic: 32
Atheist: 12
Christian: 53
Humanist: 3
Satanist: 2
Existentialist: 1
Jedi: 1
Jewish: 1
Neo-Pagan: 5
Frisbeetarian: 1
Buddhist: 1
Fremen: 1
Scientologist: 2
Unitarian: 1
Theoretical Particle Physics Buddhist: 1
Gnostic: 1
Classical Pagan: 1
Taoist: 1
Deist: 1
Hindu: 3
Muslim: 4
Panthiest: 1
Heaven's Gatist: 1

(‡ Not in the count--too little information.)

2/27/2006 7:10:02 PM

atheist

2/27/2006 7:36:22 PM

Epicurean

2/27/2006 7:48:01 PM

Patron Goddess of Athens... Pallas Athena - Goddess of Wisdom
Born from her fathers head in full battle gear, but also bearer of the Olive Branch & of Nike(Victory)






[Edited on February 27, 2006 at 10:13 PM. Reason : .]

2/27/2006 10:10:21 PM

Catholic

2/27/2006 10:40:45 PM

Quote :

"well some of the puritanical religions might require you do without while on earth so you can be rewarded in heaven which would kind of suck if your entire existence was do without"

But that's sort of an arbitrary judgement. You're automatically equating quality of life (or existence) with some or another degree of materialism. From a nontheistic point of view, you really don't have much grounds to say that a lifetime of doing with is any more fulfilling, any more an "experience" than a lifetime of doing without.

I want to know what pack of geniuses got together and decided that "experiencing life to its full extent" entailed doing the sorts of things that are commonly restricted by religions.

Quote :

" why would you have to "pick one" if you still are in an exploration phase?"

That's all fine in theory, but the number of agnostics I've run into who are seriously trying to pick the appropriate belief versus the number of agnostics who just don't want to put the effort into it, or who just want to seem aloof, who are just plain dumb, or who are basically atheist but don't want to admit it...well, the ratio points heavily in one direction.

Same with people who pick a broad category but say "unaffiliated." In my experience few of these people could tell you the difference between any of the demoninations they are "considering" and are essentially just too lazy to adhere to any one code when its easier to just sort of make shit up as they go along.

Ditto again with all the fucking "spiritualists" who talk about belief in some higher thing but don't really do much about it.

Following a half-assed amalgam of beliefs is basically saying, "Obviously good things are good, but I don't want to work really hard."

2/28/2006 12:22:17 AM

part of me wants to believe god really does exist

the other part of me is the skeptic thats like wait a second...

2/28/2006 12:30:50 AM

Do you have a reason you need religion?


I think it starts from whether a logical view of society is made.

2/28/2006 2:23:11 AM

Buddhist

2/28/2006 2:27:02 AM

"I want to know what pack of geniuses got together and decided that "experiencing life to its full extent" entailed doing the sorts of things that are commonly restricted by religions"

When I said that some church activities are just as fulfilling, but the more puritanical ones might not be... I was talking about things like starving yourself for brief periods of time occasionally, prohibiting certain foods, or feeling bad every time you have an unclean thought. I wasn't talking about doing drugs or gluttony or things like that.

No group (pack of geniuses) got together and decided having 10 options in a given situation is more fulfilling than having just a couple that church allows.

I think its not unreasonable to claim that a life more options is better than a life with less options (unless there is a reward for going with less options). But this is all part of the its better to believe in god on a just in case bases argument, which is a silly argument to begin with. What god could possibly want you to believe on a just in case basis? And if you are going to do that for one god, why not do that for all gods just in case to increase your odds?

2/28/2006 4:52:36 PM

^and its not just ruling out things that religion like... the greek polytheists for example had lots of gods that allowed lots of different things. Aphrodite or Eros certainly wouldn't mind you getting it on & being lustful. Monothiests in particular do like to pick out things that have substantial impact on peoples lives and limit those.

2/28/2006 9:48:01 PM

Quote :

"Oh come on, "Christian"? Got to be more informative than that. (Denominations people)"

*late reply*

Okay.

Non-Denominational Christian.

2/28/2006 10:00:58 PM

Quote :

"I think its not unreasonable to claim that a life more options is better than a life with less options..."

One of the restrictions in my religion is no smoking. At a glance you might view the rule as limiting my options. I remind you that I still have my agencey. I can start smoking whenever I feel like it. Compare that to someone that already smokes. It would be much easier for me to take up smoking than it would be for that person to quit.

In that sense I claim that I have more options available to me than the smoker. My options are continue to not smoke or start smoking. The smoker's options are keep smoking or try really really hard to quit.

A trivial example but in a way that's how I view religion. I can start doing what the doctrine considers to be sins at any time I so choose but if I do I feel as though I am limiting my eternal options if you will.

2/28/2006 10:07:26 PM

Polytheism can incorporate new gods, and tolerate a lot of variation of what people think about Gods. (Like Aphrodite can be said to be the daughter of Zeus & Dione, or formed from Kronos’s genitalia/blood falling into the sea near Cyprus) There are countless alternatives, and Greco-Roman Polytheism accepted that you could go multiple ways, as long as you just in general respected the Gods.

The Greek Gods weren't obsessed with peoples thoughts, whether they were clean or not or anything like that, it was less strict... just don't be overly disrespectful/disruptive publicly/don’t incite riots against the hierarchy of the gods & men. If you lay low, then it doesn't really matter what you believe.

2/28/2006 10:15:30 PM

methodist

2/28/2006 10:21:20 PM

^^^You make a solid point, but I think you might not be aware of the discussion you are in since it goes a few pages back.

Quote :

" if I do I feel as though I am limiting my eternal options if you will."

You are responding in the "believe in god just incase argument"
Where if there is a god then it’s good for you to have believed in it,
but if there’s not then no harm done.

Since this is a discussion of whether in the 2nd case there is harm done... in the scenario you have no eternal options.

If you are presupposing eternal options then you are involved in a different discussion than the one thats going on here.

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 10:36 PM. Reason : .]

2/28/2006 10:22:08 PM

is athiest a religion?

Thats new to me.

Anyway, you really cannot catagorize everythign as Religion....

for example Islam really is not a religion by itslef its a way of life that you revolve around, not something that revolves around you and your desires.
its not something you say you are when you want to, and its not something you can practice whenver you want, its a way of life its something you have to follow and learn and excel in during your whole life...Its basically divine law of how to live your life.

2/28/2006 11:56:29 PM

from an atheist point of view I'd imagine all religions are just ways of life, just with varying degrees of intensity.

"its not something you say you are when you want to, and its not something you can practice whenver you want"

No organized religion lets you just be in because you suddenly decide to be, but I think this is a tally of what people consider themselves, not a tally of who the different organized groups actually have on their rolls for their social groups. All organized religions have some degree of divine laws to tell you how to live your life; if they didn’t offer any guidance whatsoever then they wouldn’t really be an organized religion. Again it just seems to be varying degrees of intensity. But you are probably right that Islam is on the higher intensity level as compared to many sects of Christianity. (although I can't claim that last sentence too strongly since I haven't studied Islam as much as other mostly western religions)
--
So many people seem to move to non denominational, or just a general since of spirituality without committing to specific dogmas. Polytheism allows for the generalized respect for spirituality, without giving up the specifics that make religion interesting, but with lots of Gods you have more options on how to live your life in a spiritually fulfilling way.

3/1/2006 12:12:05 AM

Quote :

"When I said that some church activities are just as fulfilling, but the more puritanical ones might not be... I was talking about things like starving yourself for brief periods of time occasionally, prohibiting certain foods, or feeling bad every time you have an unclean thought."

It doesn't matter. It can just as easily be asked, "Who says that a life of eating forbidden food X is more fulfilling than a life of not eating X?"

You continue to assume that certain physical, earthly actions carry with them some inherent value. You do so without any pretension to justification.

Quote :

"I think its not unreasonable to claim that a life more options is better than a life with less options"

Why don't you back this up? Who says any option or number of options is better than any other?

I have the option to shoot you in the face if I ever meet you. Do you think that I should consider that option by virtue of keeping my prospects open?

Quote :

"the greek polytheists for example had lots of gods that allowed lots of different things."

Show me a couple of people who still believe in the Greek gods and we'll have some reason to discuss this matter.

3/1/2006 12:15:49 AM

I guess you are right, I can't back it up any futher than that. You either accept or reject that warrentless limits on your options/freedom is bad thing or you don't. I for one value freedom, so more is better. If thats not something you value then I can't take the argument any futher with you, but I can still say many other people might feel as if their is harm done in having limited options. And I think its what the multitudes think that is relevant to this line of discussion.

"You are responding in the "believe in god just incase argument"
[case 1]Where if there is a god then it’s good for you to have believed in it,
[case 2]but if there’s not then no harm done."

I feel a need to point out what line of discussion this is in, because otherwise what I say might sound odd out of context. The context is I'm saying many people would consider it harm done to have warentlessly have freedom limited when we are supposing case 2 where there is no god.

I believe I posted earlier in this thread about modern greco-roman polythiests. (which is good since hemp is requiring there to be atleast 3 modern believers to include it on his list). Heres an example group, although there are more, that I found mention of from wikipedia.

"The worship of Apollo has returned with the rise of revivalist Hellenic polytheism, and the contemporary Pagan movement. One example of this revival is the group Kyklos Apollon. Also, together with Athena, Apollo (under the name Phevos) was controversially designated as a mascot of the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens."

3/1/2006 12:38:28 AM

That's me in the corner.

3/1/2006 1:06:25 AM

thats me in the spotlight

3/1/2006 1:19:59 AM

"Apollo (under the name Phevos) was controversially designated as a mascot of the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens."

My guess is that Phevos is an alternative spelling for Phoebus Apollo, which I think means something like light bearer... since Apollo supplanted Helios (sp) as the dominant sun God.

(just for reference, Helios was the one whose bright chariot went across the sky, and he once let his sun use it to prove his fatherly love or some such thing, but the kid came too close to the earth and burnt up parts creating deserts... but Zeus stuck him down & killed him with a thunderbolt before he could destroy the earth)

3/1/2006 1:35:27 AM

Quote :

"I for one value freedom, so more is better."

Without the existence of some or another specific higher power and the belief system he/she/it lays out, what possible justification do you have for saying that?

Or are you expecting me to say, "Well, I don't hate freedom, so I guess he's right."???

3/1/2006 1:37:51 AM

I don't need justification for placing value on freedom, I simply need to back up the claim that some people value freedom (even if they do so irrationally, unjustifiably, & without backing), to make the further claim that some people would see their lives as less valuable if they gave up freedoms unwarrantedly.

And I can back up the claim that atleast some peope valuable freedom since I for one value freedom.

I am surprised that there has been this level of continued defense for the “you should believe in god just in case" argument.

3/1/2006 2:03:19 AM

I'm not defending that argument, I'm attacking its opposite number.

Quote :

"And I can back up the claim that atleast some peope valuable freedom since I for one value freedom."

This is silliness and you know it. At least some people value raping little boys/murdering nuns/burning down black churches/etc.

Quote :

"to make the further claim that some people would see their lives as less valuable if they gave up freedoms unwarrantedly."

I don't care if they "see" their lives as purple flying unicorns. You've yet to demonstrate why that should matter in the least.

3/1/2006 2:20:01 AM

the list needs to be edited

mormons are not christians

"4For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough... 13For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve."
2 Corinthians 11:4 &13-15
and thats just one of many examples of scripture on false prophets

even mormon doctrine doesn't follow christian beliefs, mormon doctrine says that the blood of christ does not atone for all sins. this is in disagreement with the christian faith.


on a related note: jehova's witnesses and christ. scientists are also not christians

[Edited on March 1, 2006 at 2:52 AM. Reason : .]

3/1/2006 2:42:06 AM

I mentioned this several pages back, but the all knowing all smoking hempster decided that anybody who wants to call themself a Christian, or anything else for that matter, is a Christian.

3/1/2006 4:29:39 AM

^^Here is a few links to mormon doctrine on the atonement:

http://tinyurl.com/gjhuu

http://scriptures.lds.org/bda/atnmnt

You really wouldn't want to go down the path of saying denomination such and such is not christian because they preach a Jesus other than the Jesus the apostles taught. You'd find that in that case there would be precisely zero present-day christian denominations as all have a slightly different doctrine than the other and all have flip-flopped on some major doctrines at some point in time.

I guess you could also say that there is exactly one true denomination and all others are false because their teachings deviate from the true one - of course nearly everyone makes claim to be the one.

I'll just give everyone the benefit of the doubt and accept that they are christian when they say they believe that Jesus is the Savior and they are trying to live a life according to his teachings. Seems like it is the more christian thing to do than attacking their claim at christianity at any rate.


[Edited on March 1, 2006 at 7:40 AM. Reason : -]

3/1/2006 7:29:58 AM

"I'm not defending that argument, I'm attacking its opposite number."

Oh. I've been arguing the whole time against the "believe in god just in case" by saying that people would see in the case where there is no god, would feel their life is less worthwhile than it could have been with less unwarranted restrictions. (it doesn't matter if their feelings are rational, justifiable, or back up at all, since feelings are like love... when you think you love someone, you love someone... when you think you value freedom, you value freedom)

My response only functions inside that argument.

"This is silliness and you know it. At least some people value raping little boys/murdering nuns/burning down black churches/etc."

It is silliness if taken outside of the argument that I have mentioned over and over that I'm working within. But since you responded to my attack on the just in case argument, I just assumed we were working in the same boundaries.


I was using premises that someone who accepts the "believe in god just in case argument" to show that someone who does this would feel their lives to be less valuable if they turned out to be wrong. If you are attacking an argument, rather than accepting & defending the premises of the "just in case" argument... then my arguments wont work on you... but they were never intended to work on anyone who doesn't accept the "just in case" premises.

3/1/2006 8:30:35 AM

ok if you dont like me using the bible to show you why mormons aren't christianity i will just use stuff that mormons wrote

"But under certain circumstances there are some serious sins for which the cleansing of Christ does not operate, and the law of God is that men must then have their own blood shed to atone for their sins. Murder, for instance, is one of these sins; hence we find the Lord commanding capital punishment."... "President Joseph Fielding Smith has written: "Man may commit certain grievous sins -- according to his light and knowledge -- that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved, he must make sacrifice of his Own life to atone -- so far as in his power lies -- for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail. . . . Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ. If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent. Therefore their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone, as far as possible, in their behalf"' [Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 133-138]"
(Mormon Doctrine, Bruce McConkie, pages 92-93)

this is pretty clearly stating that there are situations when the blood of christ can not atone for your sins. the bible in many places teaches that all sins are atoned for through the blood of christ, and it is through christ we seek forgiveness. its a very important part of what makes us christians.


also the mormon church has a different idea of the holy trinity. you can not change the holy trinity and still call yourself a christian:
"I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of a being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth, for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why He interferes with the affairs of man. God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible. Say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form, like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another. In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 345)
joseph smith teachers that god was not always a god, the scriptures clearly state that god has always been god. to say otherwise is false doctrine.

Quote :

"but the all knowing all smoking hempster decided that anybody who wants to call themself a Christian, or anything else for that matter, is a Christian."

well lets turn to the bible, luckily there is scripture on that very subject

21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
-Matthew 7:21-23
basically just calling yourself a christian doesn't make you one

3/1/2006 8:42:54 AM

A monotheist, who accepts church dogma as truth, can feel different ideas as a personal attack. Monotheists are doomed to ever more fracturing of their church. Ex: Orthodox -> Catholics -> Countless Protestants... on and on. What does it matter who technically counts in what group, as long as they believe they belong in a certain group, and live their life based on that assumption.

3/1/2006 9:10:17 AM

I'd rather not get in a religious debate here but let's turn to the bible, luckily there is scripture on that very subject.

Matthew 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

Mark 3:28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:
29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:

Perhaps the people you quoted were referring to those verses. I'm just using the stuff the bible wrote. I'm wondering how you reconcile these verses. Like I said, I'd rather avoid heated debate. I really don't think it is in the spirit of being a christian

[Edited on March 1, 2006 at 9:19 AM. Reason : ]

3/1/2006 9:11:01 AM

i'm american

3/1/2006 9:31:03 AM

^^ if one rejects the evidence given by the holy spirit that person rejects the only evidence faith is based. without this there can be no forgiveness. it is not saying that this is an unforgiveable sin but that by its nature it rejects faith, which is needed to ask for forgiveness

1 Timothy 1:13 explains it a little better. the reason it is split up is that if someone is blasephemous against the son of man they may see their sin through the testimony of the holy spirit and become a beleiver. if one rejects this holy spirit they can not see their sin.


this is not what the mormon doctrine is doing. mormon doctrine says that some sins are so greivous in nature they cannot be attoned by the blood of christ, this is false doctrine. it is not christian doctrine

basically if you are trying to use that scripture to support mormon doctrine it isn't going to work.



[Edited on March 1, 2006 at 10:10 AM. Reason : .]

3/1/2006 9:50:58 AM

Whats the criteria for deciding which tenants of a faith are wrong enough not to be a part of your sect, and which tenants if you get wrong are enough to put you outside of the religion all together?

3/1/2006 10:30:01 AM

Well I guess we can agree on this:

Quote :

"basically just calling yourself a christian doesn't make you one"

I guess we will all have to wait until the final judgment to see who should and shouldn't be tallied as a christian on the list.

3/1/2006 10:34:56 AM

see ive never met a mormom that can defend their position

[Edited on March 1, 2006 at 10:37 AM. Reason : .]

3/1/2006 10:37:20 AM

Aha this thread has sucked me in…

Quote :

" 3/1/2006 9:10:17 AM"

That was my post time earlier today from Harrelson Lab on the 3rd floor, when I had a class starting at 9:10:00 on the 1st floor.

I've shown pics of several Gods, including Zeus... but to be fair I should show his brothers too
Poseidon:

Hades:


Hades wife Persophone's time spent in the underworld, away from her mother - the earth goddess Demeter, is what causes winter, but the time during the year she spends with her mother makes for nice weather again.

3/1/2006 10:46:24 AM

Quote :

"I've been arguing the whole time against the "believe in god just in case" by saying that people would see in the case where there is no god, would feel their life is less worthwhile than it could have been with less unwarranted restrictions. (it doesn't matter if their feelings are rational, justifiable, or back up at all, since feelings are like love... when you think you love someone, you love someone... when you think you value freedom, you value freedom)"

I think the only way to really argue against the "just in case" argument is from the persepective of the religion; that is, by saying few deities going today are truly pleased by a false show of faith that is effectively just "hedging one's bets."

One on level the "just in case" bit actually works -- descriptively speaking, it is probably a preferable fate to die a Christian in an atheistic universe than vice versa. Missing your shot at life may suck, but at least it only sucks while you're alive, you know? But on another level, the argument does not work -- it isn't a reason unto itself for believing in God.

3/1/2006 1:45:51 PM

Quote :

"^^understanding divinity as distinct supernatural entities makes it alot more sensible when dealing with what seems like conflicting viewpoints coming from the divine. McDanger said in reference to Aphrodite "That's not on her way to the party, that's after a few beers" You better believe that you wont catch Artemis topless and live to tell about it. Passion & Virtue are both real, strong, and opposing forces... understanding them seperately makes it not a spiritual crisis any time you notice contradiction from the divine. The monothiests can push the Oneness a little hard sometimes."

I think Dionysus would certainly tolerate Hempsters actions. Its not that all religions put off bounds enjoyable freedoms… just some… I don’t know if that a characteristic of Christianity specifically or monotheism in general. But some religions are more accepting of different behaviors.

In light of this it seems like Christians (or maybe most monotheists) are restricting freedoms, rather than a “group of geniuses” deciding that whatever Christians put out of bounds is actually what counts as an enjoyable freedom.

3/1/2006 5:06:14 PM

Southern Baptist...have been all my life

3/1/2006 7:22:32 PM

^^I think you're taking a narrow view of things.

Even in polytheistic classical times, there were certain things you were expected to do and not to do. It's generally accepted that people who were kind to strangers and travellers got in good with the gods, and those who weren't, well, didn't. You also had to devote at least some of your time and money to at least one god if you expected anything good to come of it. And even if one god approved of your actions, you might still be in trouble with a "more important" god who had rather more say in your fate.

So Zeus and Bacchus restricted freedom, too. Admittedly, they did so to a different and perhaps lesser extent than Christianity, but so do all others. I've yet to come across an actual religion that doesn't attempt to restrict some freedoms, even within the realm of what is legal and illegal by civil law. That is, there is not a religion that says, "Do whatever the fuck ever," or even, "Do whatever the fuck ever as long as you have the right to do it anyway."

3/2/2006 2:56:22 AM

Quote :

"Evangelical Lutheran Church of America ...Lutheran"

3/2/2006 2:23:08 PM

Catholic

3/2/2006 2:24:37 PM

methodist

3/2/2006 2:28:40 PM