Religion thread 2.0

Making it because CJ a dickhole for closing it. Personal Attacks, my ass.

So as we left off, Frankenollie, Goliath, Heartless, and I have been trying to explain how Abrahamic religions was founded and how it wasn't much different from any of the ancient religion. There's a lot of history involved in creation of how a religion is formed and spread.


Tell us your views, any views, related to any religion. Buddhism, Shinto, Judaism, Hinduism, etc

CJ told me that I could start another religion thread exactly one month from now (you know, when the site is closed) so I'm glad you started one here. The only thing we require now is Disney Duster signing up to this site, because if it wasn't for him, who would we debate with?

true. But won't be for awhile, if ever, since Duster doesn't want to come here(some drama with thinking Heartless was being "heartless" on him).

And LOL at CJ's response to you.



Anyway, To continue where we left off,

Duster failed to realize that History, politics, and geography plays important role in creation various religions and how each is connected each other.

Even In Judaism, it originally started out as a polytheistic religion with multiple gods and goddess as well. Just like all the other ancient religions of the time. Somewhere along the way the combined all the traits of various gods and goddesses to form what we have called YAHWEH.

I was planning on creating this topic again too.. I certainly did not feel it needed to be locked (along with most of the other topics that get locked at UD.. but that's beside the point >.>)
What exactly is the point of locking a topic, and then allowing someone to make a new one a month later? I just don't understand lol.

I'd like for Duster to come here to mix things up a bit.. but if he wants to continue to constantly play the victim/start drama that's not my problem.
Anyways, for the time being, I'm just interested to get a response from Duster.

I'm glad there's a debate section here. Maybe there could be two different religion threads in different sections; one where we just post what we are and the other for the I-have-a-religion vs. I-don't-believe-in-religion thing. That's one topic that probably needs it.

Heartless wrote:

Anyways, for the time being, I'm just interested to get a response from Duster.

I concur. I never thought I'd ask this but: where is Disney Duster when you need him?

Just so everyone knows: Duster is posting in 7 days because he can't add links yet.

Hey everyone. This is my first post here. I didn't really want to do an introduction, as I think you all can tell who I am. I'm coming after UD has already been saved, but I told Dr Frankenollie I would come, so here I am. I can't really split my time over two forums though, so I will probably post mostly on UD still, though I shouldn't spend so much time on any forums anyway lol. Hope you understand. But I'm happy to be here. At least unless things get really hostile and all that. Hope it doesn't. I like yous. So let's get on with it!

First, I know that with lost of evidence and such, historians and others think they know how religion was made. But they really have no real proof as to how it was made. They can come up with theoires based on evidence, but I'm sorry, that's all you got. Unless someone back then wrote down "This is why I made this religion, I made it up!" then you can't say they did, and actually, the kind of things they did write down were "God informed me of these things, so I made this religion!" So...

Heartless wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:

I have explained over and over how the Bible is different from Greek myths. If you and others here don't get it because you are choosing to not to or whatever reason, fine. The only thing left after that is people believe in the Bible but not Greek and Roman myth. There's something more realistic and believable about what the Bible says. And someone surviving getting eaten by a whale does sound more believable to me than a Greek tale about someone cutting off a sea monsters head to turn people to gold or something. If you don't understand the difference then fine, but I bet you really could if you wouldn't be so mad at me and not caring to even try to get what I mean.

I think I've tackled this already. Greek and Roman myth NOW is completely unrealistic, and thusly people have ceased to believe in it. Of course, back in ancient times, there was no reason not to believe in it. It made sense to people back then. It offered answers to the questions they had. And all that time, no body knew it was made up. Yet they believed it without doubt.

The same reasoning can be applied to Christianity. Christianity today can be compared to Greek mythology in ancient times. Although right now, in the present, you can say that Christianity has surpassed all other religions because people still believe it today. However, maybe in a hundred years (anytime in the future really), we will have concrete proof that Christianity was made up just like Greek mythology. The only reason why Christianity has survived is because it provided answers to questions that could not be answered at the time of the religion's creation. It's probably been so successful because most of the 'answers' it offers are ones that are impossible to answer in today's world. Perhaps one day we will be able to finally answer those questions logically, and everyone will look back in history and laugh at how silly Christianity was (just like how today we laugh at how silly Greek mythology was).

Heartless wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:

If the Bible told me something and scientists told me the opposite, it would depend and I would go with my own mind and heart. Because even scientists are only using theories and such. I want to decide myself, but if you want to know where I would lean, I probably would purposely decide to lean towards trust in the Bible over what the scientists say, to go with my heart more than mere physical observations. And you and others will probably think that's silly for various logical reasons, but that's you.

There are many instances in life when the line between logic and belief (or, as you say "mind vs. heart") is unclear.. and I'm not talking about religion necessarily, I'm talking about ALL aspects of life. I believe that you cannot be blinded by either logic of belief in such a way that you are not looking at the full picture. In other words, you need to carefully look at all sides of the spectrum. Look at all possibilities and measure them with both logic and belief. I'm really not addressing you personally here, this is just a general belief of mine.

Heartless wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:

God loving humans isn't choosing good or evil...though I guess anyone in the world could agree love is good, and since anyone, "bad" or "good" can agree on love, in a way it's neutral...

Something irked me about this statement.. I guess I just don't like when people say "anyone can agree that ________". Because I know for a fact all people don't believe that. The same can be applied to your statement here about love.

I think Goliath and Super Aurora have done a superb job addressing you. You continue to say that we 'just don't get what you mean.' I am confident that we understand your opinions.. perhaps you should try to look at our views in a not-so-myopic view.

Heartless, people are comparing Greek mythology to Christianity, but I already explained time and again how they are different, and tried to explain why people actually believe in the more realistic and believable Christianity. Pretty much everyone here has chosen not to see, understand, or believe it, and so, that's all you. I'm pretty sure all people anywhere can agree love is good and want love, but if you find somone who truly, really doesn't, then I guess I will have been wrong. And I try to, and am sure I do, understand all of you. I don't think however that you all are understanding me, because usually I will point out specific things like differences between things like Christianity and Mythology, and you all, basically, say "no, they are all the same" without really saying why or talking specifically about my points. You often even say you can't understand what I mean by "more believable impossible things". If you say you can't understand it, but I say I can understand you, then there we go. The only thing I can't understand is why you nonbelievers all really want to say or believe what you all do, but factors like your life experiences, simple lack of believing, fear of not being as smart as you can (of which you may think adherence to logic or science is the only way to be smart), or wanting to do whatever you want on Earth certainly are factors I could understand, so even then, I do.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:

Dr Frankenollie, but it is more amazing for everyone to have a choice, a power, to be able to decide to be good or evil, than for God to make everyone be happy. I mean in a way it makes us like God, having choice. And God maybe didn't have to give us a choice but just wanted to because it's great. If you don't think it's great, well that's your negative opinion.

Duster...I know that it's wonderful to have a choice, but God didn't have to make it possible for us to be evil; he could have allowed us to be good or somewhat flawed, but why would he allow us to become completely evil? If God is real, then the fact that he allows us to make even the most despicable of choices (like Hitler's choices, for example) is appalling, as such evil has led to extreme pain and suffering.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:

Like enigmawing beautifully said, (and thank you so much enigmawing, that was GREAT and very well said!), it is through pain and suffering that we can better see our true character. The reason we apologize for sinning is because God knows what we do not, what you do not, and often we sin because we choose badly in a world that has some pain and suffering.

Yes, our true character can be seen via pain and suffering, but some suffer much more than others, so the theory of a 'test' justifying evil still doesn't make sense. As a sidenote, if pain and suffering is a test, then why do Christians try and end it? Why do religious people donate to scientific centres developing a cure for cancer if cancer is just a test to see both the sufferer and their family's true character? Why don't Christians just let innocent children going through miserable pain and agony die if it's part of a test? If life is a test, then it's clear that trying to stop pain and suffering is wrecking God's test; gee, does that mean that all the scientists in the history of the world who found cures for various diseases and illnesses are now in Hell because they ruined God's plans?

Furthermore, Duster, life can't be a test because it would mean that there's no free will. If Bin Laden existed to test the victims of 9/11, then he couldn't have complete free will.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:

And you keep saying we have the worst world ever, but that is merely an opinion of yours and others. Not everyone agrees the world is a terrible place, whether it's bad or not will always be opinion. Since just as many people can see the world is good, why not take the more positive route like them?

Duster, seeing the world as a nice place is being ridiculously optimistic. People die all the time not just due to age when it's natural and time for them to pass away, but because of crime, because of suffering, and because of humanity's immense amounts of greed, stupidity and selfishness. I will not see life as more happy than sad until, at the very least, there is total peace, which wll unequivocally not be achieved in my lifetime.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:

As for Heaven, if you were the kind of person who would be ready for Heaven when the time came, you would be the kind of person who could be happy in it. Heaven is ctually something grander than the world or anything you can imagine, and you are using logic of your biological human body on Earth to say you think you wouldn't like heaven, which is something impossible for your very mind to imagine or understand all of. Generally, I think you can understand that in heaven, most likely a feeling would overcome you that you felt happy forever and didn't worry about anything, not even the fact that you were to be in heaven forever. You just wouldn't want anything else. Yes, you worry on Earth now, but this ain't heaven. You just have no idea what exactly it will be like.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/guXCIlsaHh8

Dr Frankenollie wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:

The one was about religious people stopping illnesses or I guess any suffering in the world, because it's a test? Well, it easily makes sense that's part of the test! If bad is happening, do you let it happen, or do you try to stop it to save other people even if it isn't happening to you?

...That doesn't make any sense, because you said in the religious thread that things like disease exist because it's a test; how the sufferer (as well as their family and friends) deals with the test, e.g. if their faith in God is shaken or not. Whether somebody else tries to stop the disease or not can't work because that's interfering with another person's test.

That's like a teacher handing out a different test paper to everyone in the class; somebody gets a really difficult one (even though that is unfair because, like I've been saying over and over again, for a test to be fair and for its results to matter it has to be the same), yet somebody else gives them the answers and they cheat the test. Does that mean that the person who helped them cheat the test has passed his own test? Because if it does, then that makes no sense whatsoever.

In case you don't realise, this is an analogy, with the person who has the difficult test being a substitute for the disease sufferer and the person who helps them cheat their test being a disease curer. And don't get the wrong idea and start to think that I believe curing disease is bad because I compared it cheating; I'm just proving that if getting a disease is a test, then a cure is a cheat.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:

As for people that cause evil and that is seen as a test, ultimately that is people's true free wills doing what they will. The only part of "the test" it is is that they have the God-given ability to do evil things. I know you don't think that's good or fair or whatever, but to have the option to do evil, and to choose not to, is a powerful thing indeed.

Yeah, it is powerful: powerful enough to result in the deaths of millions, perhaps even billions. You can't deny that God not only allowed evil but also created it, and as there are so many evil people in the world, then he must have implanted a rather strong desire in all of us to be what we consider to be evil. I realise that we'll never agree on this, but to me, if 'God' did this, then he's not as all-loving as you believe.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:

As for the "is the after-life feasible" thing, well we aren't our physical senses. Our senses allow our brains, and yes, also our souls, to know things. We aren't our senses, but our souls use our brains and senses to know things outside of ourselve. It is more our thoughts, feelings, views, opinions, and decisions, that are made about/using the information we get from senses, that show who we are, and what our soul that lives on is. The soul is a non-physical idea, so any talk of physical senses doesn't apply. Besides, the concept of what "we" are is also subjective and debatable!

But there is no scientific proof of the existence of a soul or its residence within the human body...and thus this is a kind of copout. I gather that you mean that the soul works with the brain and gathers the same kind of information and also makes decisions; yet it can't make a lot of the decisions, seeing as scientists would have discovered that not all choices are made by the brain in this scenario. (I'm not 100% sure about that however, but I'm quite sure nonetheless).

When people say that bad things are a test, we only say that as the closest kind of thing to what it is. But it is not the kind of test that can be analagied in every detail. Anyway it doesn't matter, because once someone has a disease, they are already recieving the test of having something bad happen to them, and deciding whether they will still be a good person, believe in God, believe could pray about it, et cetera et cetera, before any curing happens.

I would be okay with the idea God created evil, but I think what happened is he created all good, but allowed things to be evil of their own accord. In other words, he gave humans great power, almost God-like power, to create very bad evil. It's pretty terrifying but also pretty amazing. And remember, a lot of "evil" comes from desires for things that are usually good things, but we may make evil choices that hurt other people to get them. That is how we ourselves create evil.

Well, yea, there's no proof of a soul other than our own feelings and belief in it. You can either think what you're feeling inside you is one or not, or ignore it. If scientists say the brain is making choices, that would only be like saying a machine controlled by a human makes choices. The actual person is making the choice, and yet they would be saying the machine is the chooser. In other words, the soul makes the choices but uses the brain to do so. You can choose to believe it or not, but I don't know why you'd want to believe all you are is some physical machine-like thing.

A friend of mine actually told me scientists do not know what makes choices, but even if scientists said they did, so before you thought you had control but now you actually think you're just some slave to a machin/puppet-like thing making choices, I wouldn't believe it. No matter how much evidence they had. If that being able to not believe boggles your mind, oh well, but you could choose to believe or not, too. That would be yet another choice. Of the will. Of the soul. Free will and all that.

Whew, what a lot to look at! But it is really more for everyone to see where we left off and me and Dr Frankenollie's conversation after that, and for him to respond to the last, un-quoted part.