Which religion do you practice or identify with?

[Eiger]

Another poll. Just for curiosity. Anonymous again - however you can choose multiple items. For example if you were raised one religion but converted to another you can choose both if you desire. Or if you identify with one religion, but are actually an atheist, you can choose one or both. Up to you.

Here's a couple summary references in case anyone's interested:
http://www.webstationone.com/fecha/religion.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/features/world_religions/
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=religions&ei=UTF-8&fr=fp-tab-web-t&cop=mss&tab=

[Masamunae]

I picked Buddhism. And just for the record, it is not a religion, it is a philosophy and a way of life. There is a difference.

[Jondar]

While Im actually agnostic, there is a very powerful religion out there that has some good messages. Zoroastrianism (no, nothing to do with Zodiac and whatnot). It is a monotheistic religion which has a good, forgiving god, not a wrathful, vengeful one. It had a huge influence on Christianity and Judaism and Islam, as it was the dominant world religion at about the time Jesus came around (practiced in ancient Persia).

Anyway, check it out. Im not saying convert to it, because I dont quite know what to make of it myself, but its interesting nonetheless.

[Eiger]

I included Buddhism only because I thought someone would complain if I didn't. Ran out of spaces - would have liked to include more. Probably should have tossed in Agnosticism with Atheism, but then maybe not. Wish I had more spaces...

[Agonistes]

I also picked Buddhism on the basis that it is a philosophy. Outside of that.. I'm pretty much a quiet observer/open-minded agnostic.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

While Im actually agnostic, there is a very powerful religion out there that has some good messages. Zoroastrianism (no, nothing to do with Zodiac and whatnot). It is a monotheistic religion which has a good, forgiving god, not a wrathful, vengeful one. It had a huge influence on Christianity and Judaism and Islam, as it was the dominant world religion at about the time Jesus came around (practiced in ancient Persia).

Anyway, check it out. Im not saying convert to it, because I dont quite know what to make of it myself, but its interesting nonetheless.

As much as I hate slamming the positions of my guild members..

Zoroastarianism is (sorry) foolish. It's fundamental tenet is expressly the struggle between good and evil. However, in this case, the two concepts are presented as equal active, opposing powers. This is inherently a myth-based belief system (as opposed to one underpinned by reason), as if two principle powers of existence were in direct opposition, they would cancel each other out, and thus, nothing would be. The correct understanding of good and evil is that evil is a "lack", or privation of good, which is the underlying principle inherent in all things.

[ishbu]

Islam is listed twice.

[Eiger]

As much as I hate slamming the positions of my guild members..

Zoroastarianism is (sorry) foolish. It's fundamental tenet is expressly the struggle between good and evil. However, in this case, the two concepts are presented as equal active, opposing powers. This is inherently a myth-based belief system (as opposed to one underpinned by reason), as if two principle powers of existence were in direct opposition, they would cancel each other out, and thus, nothing would be. The correct understanding of good and evil is that evil is a "lack", or privation of good, which is the underlying principle inherent in all things.This post definitely does not qualify as playing nice. It appears that the core concepts of Zoroastrianism (the ancient religion of the Persians) are not quite understood as shown in this excerpt from this source: http://www.pyracantha.com/Z/zorofaq.html

The "dualism" of Zoroastrianism is known in the "West," but is mostly misunderstood. In the Gathas Spenta Mainyu, the "Holy Creative Spirit," is opposed to Angra Mainyu, the Hostile Spirit. This conflict takes place in the human heart and mind, not in the material Universe. It is the constant struggle between good and evil in human beings. This is ethical dualism, the dualism of Good and Evil. In later traditions this changed into a dualism that took in the material world, dividing the Universe into two camps, each ruled by the Good God or the Evil Spirit. This is called "cosmic" dualism.

Cosmic dualism sounds a bit like God and Satan to me...

The "correct" understanding of what good and evil is? There isn't any universal understanding of good and evil. I'd argue that people understand good and evil differently and that many will see the continuum you describe differently. Where you propose a continuum, composed solely of "good" say on a scale of 0-100, others may see that same continuum with total evil at one end (0) and total good at the other (100) with a midpoint of 50 dividing good from evil. Just a slight difference in perception, but it's the same continuum. For example if an action scores a 25 on the scale it's "somewhat evil" or "not very good", depending on how you want to look at it.

Personally, I don't believe that good and evil, in and of themselves exist (as nouns). I believe that humans have free will and can choose actions that can be characterized as good or evil (adjective). So while the cosmic dualism thing doesn't make much sense to me, ethical dualism makes a whole lot of sense.

Here's a short essay which agrees with your concept of evil as a lack of goodness. http://www.ganhalev.org/articles/the_concept_of_evil.html Kind of interesting it talks a little about the impact of the Zoroastrian concept of good and evil on Judaism and Christianity and about the concept of evil. Short easy read. It ends up being a little hollow for me though as it seems more of a treatise on why we shouldn't think of ourselves as being evil because it's counter-productive to think that way.

[Eiger]

Islam is listed twice. Oops! I was cutting and pasting to get things in alpha order. Screwed up I guess. Sorry about that. Hope I didn't offend you....:surprise:

[ishbu]

No problem. I don't know why, but I have an eye for typos.

[MastaBlasta]

I picked buddhism because since i've applied it to my life i have been so much better off. and its true that it is a philosophy and not a religion, which is an easy mistake to make since most people think that buddhists pray to buddha, but thats wrong. Cheers.

[Mallow]

I picked buddhism because since i've applied it to my life i have been so much better off. and its true that it is a philosophy and not a religion, which is an easy mistake to make since most people think that buddhists pray to buddha, but thats wrong. Cheers.

Would anyone care to describe the philosophy of Bhuddism a little bit?

[Jondar]

As much as I hate slamming the positions of my guild members..

Zoroastarianism is (sorry) foolish. It's fundamental tenet is expressly the struggle between good and evil. However, in this case, the two concepts are presented as equal active, opposing powers. This is inherently a myth-based belief system (as opposed to one underpinned by reason), as if two principle powers of existence were in direct opposition, they would cancel each other out, and thus, nothing would be. The correct understanding of good and evil is that evil is a "lack", or privation of good, which is the underlying principle inherent in all things.

And as much as I hate slamming the position of my guildmaster, to say that Zoroastrianism is foolish makes YOU a fool.

First of all, religion is a belief, nothing more. You can have "faith" in a religion, but that is along the same lines as extreme belief. Now, that said, you personally insulted me for knocking one of my beliefs. What gives you the right to judge what is foolish to believe and what is not? Is faith in the "one true" God not foolish? Why would you call belief in the eternal struggle between good and evil - the basis of everyday life, if you ask me - foolish, as opposed to blind faith in your Christian god, or whatever you decide to worship? Essentially, Zoroastrianism's main tenet relates to every choice we make in life - a choice between the lesser of two evils. Never did I mention that it is a battle between two physical beings in a fight to the death - ie Satan vs. God... good parallel there, Eiger - and even if I did believe that a giant Godzilla vs a T-Rex would decide our fate, how can you say what is foolish and what is not? Im sorry, but you have no grounds upon which to speak; you do not know if your God exists, so dont knock me for thinking a religion preaches something worth listening to. I do not see why that constitutes as foolish - in fact, the main tenet of Zoroastrianism sound much like the central belief of the Bible.

Now, Im a bit riled up right now - I apologize if I came off a bit gruff. But I do not like it if someone tells me that to believe in something is stupid. That is just plain ignorant.

EDIT: And besides, by saying Im foolish for believing it, you claim that millions of people back before Christ came along were also foolish. Who is to say that another man wont come along, bearing some world-shaking religious message, and you will become the fool in the end?

Oh, and Zoroastrianism was based on myths? What about Christianity, Judaism, Islam? Every one of those was; as convincing as it is that Moses was able to lift his arms to spread thousands of tons of water, I think that all of them have equal credibility.

-And sorry to those of you that believe deeply in the teachings of the Bible. Im not meaning to get personal here - it was just to prove a point.

[Qishi]

I picked Buddhism. And just for the record, it is not a religion, it is a philosophy and a way of life. There is a difference.


Really, there shouldn't be a difference there, but I guess the distinction has been made. But, on topic, I really don't think many people practice what the preach. People claim to be a lot of things, but end up being the things they'd rather not mention. Buddhists in business suits, I guess.

I was raised Catholic but really don't understand that whole mess. Never saw the use in gathering to worship god. I'd say the best way to be is to forget the whole idea of what you "practice". So I guess that makes me a bit of an agnostic.

Edit: Where's Scientology? Travolta is gonna be pissed.

[MastaBlasta]

Sure thing!

In a nut shell buddhism states that life is suffering, which means from teh day you are born you start the process of getting sick, getting old and getting...dead. The four noble truths( the basic outline of this statement) goes as follows 1) life is suffering 2) suffering is sickness aging and death 3) suffering is cuased by ignorance and desire 4) teh noble 8-fold path leads to teh renunciation of desire and nirvana ( enlightenment)

teh eightfold path is basically a guide to how to act to remove yourself from teh harshness of life. a good site to learn more about it is buddhanet.net

[Dementor]

I didn't participate in this poll simply because I do not fit into any of the above faiths, or to any faith in particular for that matter. I suppose I could be generalized into the "agnostic" category.

To me, wisdom comes from understanding our own ignorance. To believe without question in any one truth when mankind has proven it's ignorance again and again displays a lack a free thought. And yes, this category includes atheists.

The bible is not the truth. The bible is a truth perhaps. The same goes for any faith.

[Essex]

ok calm down we all get one bad post I think AOA will realize his mistake on this account.

I picked Buddhism because I like the philosphy, but I'm truly agnostic at heart.

[Masamunae]

Really, there shouldn't be a difference there, but I guess the distinction has been made. .
The difference is that in a relgion, you worship something. Buddhism is a way of living your life in a better way by relieving yourself of the suffering you cause to yourself. The difference being that in a religion you pray to some almighty invisible friend to make your life better, but in a philosophy you seek understanding of what you do in life, and how you can make it better for yourself. One is putting your life in someone/something elses hands, the other is taking responsibility for your own actions.

[ishbu]

I read that a form of Buddhism developed that saw Buddha and other holy men as "compassionate gods that could be called upon for help in everyday life as well as in achieving nirvana." I remember thinking that that was kind of opposed to the other stuff about Buddhism I'd read, and that the other form of Buddhism seemed purer, truer to the Buddha's teachings. So I'd say the first form is a religion while the second is a philosophy. In my opinion, the second is also the true Buddhism, but not being Buddhist, I can't really say.

[MastaBlasta]

well buddhism started in india a few hundred years BC, so it was during a time of many gods and many religions, so as it spread through india and china and to japan it was changed to suit different cultures, thats where they became dieties and etheral beings; thats where chan buddhism and zen buddhism comes to play, like teh many forms of judeo-christian forms. theravada buddhism is the one most like the original buddhism, its practiced mostly in southeast asia.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

To my friends Eiger and Jondar, and also Essex (thx for giving me the benefit of the doubt)

I don't have a problem with my post. Saying that, what conclusion will we come to? That I am arrogant, judgmental? Truly, no more than anyone else, though I do keep a strong tone. I can take the heat guys, believe me.

The source of my critiques stem from reason alone. As far as this post is concerned, I have not posted the religion I follow, as I believe it is irrelevant. My religion, as well as your religion, means nothing, if it cannot stand up to reason. This statement was backed up by Jondar, who mentioned "religions are beliefs, nothing more". (I would say they are more, but for the purposes of doing some patchwork and abating Jondar's anger, we'll go with this for now). Anyhow, it is indeed a very widely held notion that religion is indeed empty rhetoric. Eiger - I never promised a clean fight, but I will promise you the full honesty of my opinions, which in this case, delineates zoroastarianism. One other thing, I am very harsh with my own beliefs as well, and have no problem with any of you bashing me - just give me a reason - and you may end up winning me over. Perhaps I'm too rational for my own good, in that I can hurt the feelings of others. This being said, please accept my apology.

Now, to substantiate my claim. A click over to the abortion thread will elicit an argument on "objective values". Within that argument I mentioned 20th century philosopher Max Scheler pointing out that the heart is a "mirror to the cosmos". Simply put, the ordering and struggle of love and affective considerations is in accord with the fundamental laws of the universe. Zoroastariansm is thus foolhardy in that it violates natural law, as I have explained earlier.

So I'll have my readers know, that I delight in all the posters, even if they hate my guts, and oppose my writings. My guild is composed of just about every creed I can think of, and that's fine by me. I don't preach there - only here. That being said, I will post honestly and openly on THIS thread, and if I see posts that are ripe for burnination, I let loose. I apologize for the sake of your feelings, but expect the same manhandling of your posts in the future if they lend themselves to correction.

[DuskO]

I don't care to get involved in these arguments. It's been my experience that everyone involved just ends up angry and full of more questions. No one ever changes thier minds in these debates, so I'm not going to try and convert anyone. However, I am a Christian. I love God, he is my all in all.

*This will be my only post, so don't try and change my mind about it.

[BhsCrew]

I don't have a problem with my post. Saying that, what conclusion will we come to? That I am arrogant, judgmental? Truly, no more than anyone else, though I do keep a strong tone. I can take the heat guys, believe me.


Truthfully the contempt and arrogance that is in most of your posts is the main reasons that people get angry with you. You almost never say that you disagree with someone. Instead you say that the person is wrong because their ideas contradict the very fabric and rules of the universe.

The friendly debates that I've seen work well are usually the ones where both people state what they believe and then they discuss it. Because the first sentance that you type usually says that this person's ideas are baseless and that their opinions are idiotic, you come accross as someone who leaves no room for doubt. The idea that all disagreement with you is born of ignorance, and that all beliefs other than yours are guarenteed to be wrong tends to get the people you debate with a little agitated.

I see these debates to be friendly exchanges of ideas, where we can learn, try to convince the other person, and in the process we modify our views on the world. The key to this is that while we believe that we're right, we open the possibility that the other person could be correct or know something that we don't. When you write it seems that you are sure that you know the basic values and laws of the universe and that you are doing us all a favor by sharing the greater truth with us and our uninformed opinions.

Obviously this is a free country and you don't have to change anything, but you said that you don't believe that you're more arrogant or judgemental then anyone else so I thought I'd give you the view from over here.

[Booms]

A click over to the abortion thread will elicit an argument on "objective values". Within that argument I mentioned 20th century philosopher Max Scheler pointing out that the heart is a "mirror to the cosmos". Simply put, the ordering and struggle of love and affective considerations is in accord with the fundamental laws of the universe. Zoroastariansm is thus foolhardy in that it violates natural law, as I have explained earlier.


You do realize that just because a philosopher says something it doesn't mean they're right. The whole field of philosophy is basically theories and trying to answer unanswerable questions. Max Scheler is no more of an authority on the subject than I am, and just because he agrees with you it doesn't make you right.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Truthfully the contempt and arrogance

You would judge my character? I judge your opinions, but not their holders.

[QUOTE]
you come accross as someone who leaves no room for doubt. The idea that all disagreement with you is born of ignorance, and that all beliefs other than yours are guarenteed to be wrong tends to get the people you debate with a little agitated.


It is YOU who coined that idea mister. I mentioned TIME AND AGAIN that I did not "own" my methodology - I simply use it. If you are caught in its logic, dont whine and talk dirt to me. I ask people to look at my arguments. If you want to cry about being wrong, go right ahead. I've offered you texts in the past, and I sincerely hope they get read. Then you may not be so quick to brand my character. Indeed, people hail great sports heroes who demonstrate great ability - but that took discipline and practise. It is no different in the intellectual realm. My years of study does not grant me omnipotency or total enlightenment, but it does afford me some maneouverability on the posts. NEVER judge my character.



When you write it seems that you are sure that you know the basic values and laws of the universe and that you are doing us all a favor by sharing the greater truth with us and our uninformed opinions.


I would amend my tone if I were you. Dont judge a person's character because something "seems" to you. I offer you a perspective that one is free to accept or reject. I dont beg you to post here, and I dont beg people to agree. I offer my arguments. That is all. If you think me to be a pretentious intellectual overlord, that's your business. However, I'd like to see you answer one of my posts in kind.


Obviously this is a free country and you don't have to change anything, but you said that you don't believe that you're more arrogant or judgemental then anyone else so I thought I'd give you the view from over here.

Bhs, I always "qualify" my posts with some argumentation. If I wanted to be dogmatic, I'd leave it at that. May I also point out that I have indeed accepted correction from others in the past. I'm not perfect, but I'll have you know that I've been in the game alot longer than you have - and as such, you should follow my advice I gave you on the abortion thread and start reading those texts!

[AgeOfAbnegation]

You do realize that just because a philosopher says something it doesn't mean they're right.


Absolutely!


The whole field of philosophy is basically theories and trying to answer unanswerable questions. Max Scheler is no more of an authority on the subject than I am, and just because he agrees with you it doesn't make you right.


No answers to anything huh? Some days I wish that were true :uhhuh: .

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

I'm not perfect, but I'll have you know that I've been in the game alot longer than you have - and as such, you should follow my advice I gave you on the abortion thread and start reading those texts!

Just a quick curious question, I was under the assumption that your avatar was you, obviously I could be wrong. So exactly how long have you been "in the game" exactly? In other words just how old are you? :scratch:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Yep, it's me. I'm 27.

[BhsCrew]

I did not mean this as a judge of your character. I was just saying how you came accross in most of your posts. I realize that you don't actually believe that you know everything, because you told me earlier.

All I was saying was that if you stopped being so absolute in all of your posts, and dismissing everyone's opinons so quickly, you wouldn't appear so arrogant and judgemental.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

*hugs Bhs*. It's cool. It's been a stressful few days - and I do agree my tone was far above normal. Time to cool off.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

*hugs Bhs*. It's cool. It's been a stressful few days - and I do agree my tone was far above normal. Time to cool off.

Yikes, things are starting to get a little too homo-erotic in here all of the sudden. I better run over to the community forum for awhile. :lol:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

LMAO! Hey - I'm secure in my masculinity :p

[Qishi]

The difference is that in a relgion, you worship something. Buddhism is a way of living your life in a better way by relieving yourself of the suffering you cause to yourself. The difference being that in a religion you pray to some almighty invisible friend to make your life better, but in a philosophy you seek understanding of what you do in life, and how you can make it better for yourself. One is putting your life in someone/something elses hands, the other is taking responsibility for your own actions.


Yeah, that's not really what I was getting at, but thanks for the obvious explanation. Sorry, I tend to be extremely ambiguous and pretty much expect people to figure it out for themselves (kinda separates the people who care from the people who don't)

On the topic of the Buddha and others being seen as gods, considering Buddhism was born out of Hinduism, it's very likely that some people saw the Buddha in that way. Although, I don't think they saw them as "gods" in the exact Webster's definition, probably more along the lines of people of a higher state that should be looked up to and consulted for guidance. Some of that is basically what god is to a lot of people, but I don't think people saw the Buddha as the omnipotent and omniscient god of other religions.

[Drakeon]

DAMNIT >_<

I missed protestant because you added the ism to it (overlooked it) and i picked catholic (im really not, im protestant).

arghhh >_>

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

LMAO! Hey - I'm secure in my masculinity :p

As am I AoA, as am I.

*obliviously grabs ahold of Eigers butt*

Ok ok, I'm done with the jokes for now, I'll let the thread get back to being serious... maybe... :uhhuh:

[Essex]

who what where what? Man orgy what?

Damn I always miss the good parties.... *sigh* maybe next time.

[BhsCrew]

*hugs Bhs*. It's cool. It's been a stressful few days - and I do agree my tone was far above normal. Time to cool off.

*hugs AOA*
Heh, mine was a bit harsh as well.
However I won my race this weekend so its all good. Nothing can ruin my mood! :)


*xXxDraGoNxXx1123 obliviously grabs ahold of Eigers butt*
How could you do this to me Dragon? Last night meant nothing to you!? There goes my happy mood. :hanky:

[Agonistes]

Ehhh.. I'm not satisfied with how Buddhism was represented earlier. Makes it seem like something for the Goth kids. Even though that is technically the basis for buddhism, it is not pointing out the real basics of buddhism (moral code, philosophy for life, etc.)


The basis for all conduct is pretty much described by the four Brahma Viharas. Metta is caring, Karuna is compassion, Mudita is sympathetic joy or joy for the prosperous, and Uppekha is acceptance of all things for what they are(the good, the bad, friends, enemies, etc.).

You are not allowed to harm other living beings and should act kindly towards everyone and everything... and yes, you can eat meat and what have you, but you may not kill for it. ( I hear the vegetarian thing a lot with this one. )

Hmm.. No stealing. Be generous.

Do not lie or decieve, instead be honest and open.

Um... No sexual misconduct. Honor your spouse, etc., etc.

And absolutely no alcohol or drugs.

You have to keep your mind pure and focused and be mindful of everything you say or do.


This is just the most basic of moral codes for Buddhism and doesn't even really touch on all the more in-depth areas concerning practicing and meditation.

[GreenPenInc]

Lutherans aren't Protestants, darnit!

[BhsCrew]

Lutherans aren't Protestants, darnit!

Yes they are. Luther was one of the first people to protest the catholic church and break away from them. Hence the name Protestants. If that doesn't describe them then what are they?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Let's talk about buddhism for a bit. The eastern mystics mentioned some worthwile things, yet it remains locked in the temporal "cycle" if you will. Bring on the buddha initiates!

[Agonistes]

What exactly is it that you want to talk about, AoA?

[Dark Reaper]

I cannot not catagorize myself under any religion. My belief in god is my own. Its strange actually. Many realizations have come to my life in the past 8 months or so. Many I cannot explain. My focus on spiritualism within myself have become my main curiousity, after all, if I dont understand myself how can I ever even begin to contemplate God.

[theseus]

Yes they are. Luther was one of the first people to protest the catholic church and break away from them. Hence the name Protestants. If that doesn't describe them then what are they?
Yes they are. Luther was one of the first people to protest the catholic church and break away from them. Hence the name Protestants. If that doesn't describe them then what are they?

I think your find that all the "Christian" relegions are different, owning to each mans perception off God.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Agonistes - I was merely "baiting" the posters lol.. I just wanted to hear from the buddhists here as to the method of their practise, etc.

[Cale The Dark]

This has nothing to do with anything really....but I have more respect for someone who believes in something that I believe to be false than someone who refuses to take a stand and make up their mind. You don't know or you don't care. or you think that by stradling the fence you can avoid making decisions and facing, heaven forbid, conflict. fact is that all stradling the fence will get you is a fence post up the ***. but then again some might enjoy that so i guess there is at least a possible explaination for their refusal to decide. In short, i respect the athiests (IMO) blind refusal to accept what is to me the obvious more than the agnostic's "open minded" approach to the agnostic's devotion to the lack of personal opinions relating to the most important question in our existence.

~i got to the end of this and realized what started off as a nice post to simply interject a thought i was having at the time had become somewhat insulting and nasty. however i spent like 7 minutes on this so i'm going to post it anyway. i didn't mean to offend anyone (although i'm sure i have now), this was simply my thought process as i was typing. seeing the large numbers of agnostics and aethiests present i will prepare myself for flames.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Cale hinted at a good point - nobody is "neutral". To be undecided is still to have a position.

[theseus]

Could agree more

[Jondar]

As Ive said before, I hate starting up a day-old arguement or resentment, but unfortunately, Im over her ein Europe, and I still have something to say.

AoA - the thing is, Im not only upset because you say Zoroastrianism is foolish (while you still gave me no true grounds upon which to believe you - your god is abstract as any), but the fact that you say that even believing in somehting - whatever it may be! - is foolish is what annoys me. Once again, it is purely insulting to say that one shouldnt believe in something because it is not backed by your idea of logic - while religion to me in general defies most logic. I do not say that beliving in Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam, or Buddhism, or Shintoism, or any of the forms of paganism is foolish, because that is what the worshipper has faith in - and thus, when you say believing in one of these is foolish, youre saying that having faith is foolish. While you have it yourself. So dont knock me because I think something has a good message.

Oh, and please - do not hold back from "manhandling" my posts because you wish to "abate" my anger. Please, spare me of that condescending tone. While I havent been "in the game" as long as you, I am able to accept when Im wrong or when Im right - and I can also tolerate other people's beliefs and views. So, please, if theres something you feel you need to say, then say it - just because you most likely believe I am your intellectual inferior doesnt mean you have to sugar your posts up for my sake.

And on the end note... I am affronted, yes - religious tolerance is a big thing to me - and Ive been stressed out lately. Accept my apology if any of that seems personal and unnecessary. But do not hold back from arguing with me simply because I am a bit upset.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Apology accepted. I hope you've received mine as well. We'll clear things up on MSN. :thumbsup:

[Spensdawg]

Yikes, things are starting to get a little too homo-erotic in here all of the sudden. I better run over to the community forum for awhile. :lol:

*tries to quickly hide the oils he was prepared to use*

Masculine Voice: Ya, totally dude.

[ScreamingFire]

Here's a thing for all you non-beleivers - in fact everyone
You'll find out when you die!!

Also - I couldnt care less for anyones position, even the slackest american street bum could make his decision about what side he was on. it is just a matter of following it.

Also, with all the different "categories" of Christianity, heres an answer to your question:

Why all the different types? What are they?

Well they are similar to different brands of shoe and clothing. Its all about taste. In different types, the preachings are different, some are more joyful, while others are more dullfull. Its all about comparing them to a shoe brand? You like Nike? Why do you wear Nike and not adidas....the same reason i like joyful preachings and not dullfull (example - i find presbyterian a little slow...)

[Essex]

Here's a thing for all you non-beleivers - in fact everyone
You'll find out when you die!!

Also - I couldnt care less for anyones position, even the slackest american street bum could make his decision about what side he was on. it is just a matter of following it.

Also, with all the different "categories" of Christianity, heres an answer to your question:

Why all the different types? What are they?

Well they are similar to different brands of shoe and clothing. Its all about taste. In different types, the preachings are different, some are more joyful, while others are more dullfull. Its all about comparing them to a shoe brand? You like Nike? Why do you wear Nike and not adidas....the same reason i like joyful preachings and not dullfull (example - i find presbyterian a little slow...)
that's what i always disliked about Judeo-Christian faith. Lots of other faith too mind you but especially these last two. If you don't follow their code exactly your gonna burn in hell. I've never understood that concept why would an all loving God condem half (if not more) of the world to go to hell?

I mean sure you can say everyone has had the chance to hear The Word, but do you really think it's safe for some poor women in an Islamic houshold in Afghanistan or Iran to all the sudden decide she's going to be Christian? Of course not, they will abuse her and disown her and hell maybe even kill her in some of the more backwater areas. So becomeing Christian for her is impossible. Oh well sorry girlie your going to hell.

Then take me for example I'm g.ay I don't think anyone is shocked by that anymore, I feel that I was born this way, because I always take the path of least resistance, I always go for the easy way out and trust me being *** is not the easy way out, why in the hell would I choose this? So lets just say that it is something your born as, well it goes against the bible, well that means i'm going to Hell.... but i was born this way... oh well sorry kiddo burnination for you.

I like faiths that realize you can't convert everyone. In Buddhism even if your aren't Buddhist you are still treated kindly by karma, I ask the other people who study it here, do you all not think that Mother Teresa probably got one of the best reincarnations possible due to all the good work she did? Anyone who is good will be rewarded by karma even if they don't belive it. In fact there is no God to follow in Buddism, so if you wanted to you could still be Christian (zen christians like Phil Jackson for instance) there are other religions that are tolerant and you'd be surprised.

In Islam your still going to go to heaven (or your time in hell is very short don't remember) but either way so long as you are Jewish or Christian your still going to wind up in heaven. In fact Islamic hell is not an eternal damnation, it's like prison however bad you are is how long your in hell but eventually you'll get out.

How can the all loving philosphy of Jesus and the like mesh with the eternal damnation part of Chrisitanity? I'm very curious as to the answer there. If God is all loving how can he allow for the exisitance of hell? Because when you think about all the various sins in the bible and the fact that you have to be totall absolved of all them before you die there will probably be about 4 people in heaven when all is said and done.

I lost my place somewhere in there so please forgive any grammar and spelling, and it is not my intent to upset anyone :)

[Jondar]

I like to think that if God is all-forgiving, and if I live my life as a good man based upon good morals, then why could he not forgive me for doubting something so abstract?

[Agonistes]

I don't know what else you want to hear about Buddhism, AoA... I brought up the ideals that casual buddhists and monks both follow, which I figured was enough. It's a bit too vast of a subject to simply say "I just want to talk about it."

Edit: I agree, Essex. Far too many contradictions with the Judeo-Christian religions. It's not like I don't respect the beliefs or the followers... it's just, I find myself hard to be very compassionate for a religion that has been the cause of war and death throughout history. Even now, though it may not come in the form of Crusades, there are Christian groups out to turn *** people straight, convert the non-believers, and get lots and lots of money so "you" can go to heaven. Things like that don't sit well with me.. I know that things like this shouldn't be representative of the religion as a whole, but I still find that many Christians are very judgemental and very aggresive/passive-aggresive when it comes to other religions. There are many good things that The Bible teaches.. but there are also bad things. Soooo.. it's all sort of subjective and depends as much on the person as it does the religion... and I'm ranting...so maybe I'll shut up. >.>;

[Eiger]

To my friends Eiger and Jondar, and also Essex (thx for giving me the benefit of the doubt)

I don't have a problem with my post. Saying that, what conclusion will we come to? That I am arrogant, judgmental? Truly, no more than anyone else, though I do keep a strong tone. I can take the heat guys, believe me.

The source of my critiques stem from reason alone. As far as this post is concerned, I have not posted the religion I follow, as I believe it is irrelevant. My religion, as well as your religion, means nothing, if it cannot stand up to reason. This statement was backed up by Jondar, who mentioned "religions are beliefs, nothing more". (I would say they are more, but for the purposes of doing some patchwork and abating Jondar's anger, we'll go with this for now). Anyhow, it is indeed a very widely held notion that religion is indeed empty rhetoric. Eiger - I never promised a clean fight, but I will promise you the full honesty of my opinions, which in this case, delineates zoroastarianism. One other thing, I am very harsh with my own beliefs as well, and have no problem with any of you bashing me - just give me a reason - and you may end up winning me over. Perhaps I'm too rational for my own good, in that I can hurt the feelings of others. This being said, please accept my apology.

Now, to substantiate my claim. A click over to the abortion thread will elicit an argument on "objective values". Within that argument I mentioned 20th century philosopher Max Scheler pointing out that the heart is a "mirror to the cosmos". Simply put, the ordering and struggle of love and affective considerations is in accord with the fundamental laws of the universe. Zoroastariansm is thus foolhardy in that it violates natural law, as I have explained earlier.
Sorry, but I'm not clicking over to the abortion thread to look for a needle in a haystack - 300+ posts remember?

Sorry, but I'm not following how Zoroastrianism violates natural law. The ordering and struggle of love and affective considerations is in accord with the fundamental laws of the universe? Don't see the connection yet. Just not following you enough to have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about.

Everything is subject to reason, but reason is often faulty. Usually depends on what the reasoning is. I haven't seen a satisfactory elaboration on why Zoroastrianism fails a reason test.

[Eiger]

Never mind - looks like that got cleared up

[Eiger]

Never mind again

[BhsCrew]

Eiger, Eiger, Eiger
*sigh*
Triple posting? I always thought better of you. I mean you forget how to use the edit button or what? :)

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Eiger - were you referring to me when you mentioned twice that it was "cleared up"?

Essex and Agonistes - I'm in a rush at the moment, but I'll be getting back to you two later - you're both dead wrong about Christianity.

[Eiger]

Eiger, Eiger, Eiger
*sigh*
Triple posting? I always thought better of you. I mean you forget how to use the edit button or what? :)
Nah, I always forget how to ascribe quotes to multiple posts in one response, so I multi-post a bit here and there. Had to go back and "remove" a couple posts as the responses were outdated and at that point non-productive.

[Agonistes]

Ha. Very brash and bold, AoA.

I simply stated my opinion based on the facts. I respect your views on my opinion.. but to say I am wrong? And even then after that, to talk as though you have something to say that could change my views? Very hardheaded.


Let us have our opinions. Take the passive-aggresive attitude toward our views somewhere else. We are who we are and you are who you are. Our lives and what we know have sculpted our views and we don't try to prove you wrong or change you.. So leave it alone.

[BhsCrew]

Ha. Very brash and bold, AoA.

I simply stated my opinion based on the facts. I respect your views on my opinion.. but to say I am wrong? And even then after that, to talk as though you have something to say that could change my views? Very hardheaded.

Let us have our opinions. Take the passive-aggresive attitude toward our views somewhere else. We are who we are and you are who you are. Our lives and what we know have sculpted our views and we don't try to prove you wrong or change you.. So leave it alone.

I figured I'd get to this before AOA does. I never really saw his posts as passive agressive. They come accross as a little rightous, arrogant, big-headed, hard-lined, judgemental, but never really passive aggressive. I'm pretty sure he isn't trying to be mean, he just writes in ways that are a little heavy handed. :)

That being said, he might have something to say to change your views. It's pretty hard headed to say that your opinons are so set in their ways that nothing you learn here could change them. The whole point of debating is to learn something that you didn't know before. Personially I'm curious as to what he has to say. I might read something that I didn't know before.

If you just want to state your opinions that's your right, but if you state them here then we get to comment on them. If all my views were decided based on my life then I wouldn't bother to read, debate, or learn anything.

"...and we don't try to prove you wrong or change you..."
If you read the forums you'll find that most of us have spent lots of posts trying to prove AoA wrong or change him. Almost every post here is trying to prove someone wrong or change their mind.

[Agonistes]

Well, I did say I respected his view on my opinion, but I don't like the fact that he outright told I'm wrong.

I didn't go and say something about what he believes being wrong.

And it's the fact that the basis of my opinion is personal experience and actual facts... Christianty has caused a lot of bloodshed throughout history and there are many Christian groups that take their beliefs to the extreme and try to convert others with scare tactics and even set up groups to convert *** people straight. I know all this stuff as a fact and he says I'm wrong. Like I said, a buddhist believes in being mindful of everything you say and do.. and it just seems like he jumped the gun when he said what he said and it was passive-aggresive. He told me I was wrong and talked as if he was going to prove me wrong later. Maybe it's just me.. but that just comes off passive aggresive when I haven't done anything to him or tried to convert him from his views and opinions.

And yes, I also agree he might have something to say that I would like to hear.. but could it change my views? I doubt it. I am always open to knowledge and expanding the way I see things... but I've seen how he posts when it comes to religious topics and I just don't see how he would have something to say that will totally revolutionize how I see it. That's like me saying I have something to say that might stop him from being a christian. I respect him and his religion and I'm willing to talk openly about it.. but not when he tells me I am wrong. I just don't like that approach... maybe it's just me or something, I dunno.

[BhsCrew]

"I just don't like that approach... maybe it's just me or something, I dunno."
Agonistes, it's not just you. No one likes that approach. It wasn't any personal attack on you he's just stressed and short on time. With him you just gotta learn not to take it personially.



However, AoA, this was exactly what I was talking about. The way you phrase your posts get people all defensive. It's bad politics to speak in a manner that always angers whoever you debate with. Can't convince anyone of anything that way. Assume that a person posts because they have thought about what they are saying (no matter how much it may seem otherwise) and then provide evidence that might change their mind. If you can keep the other person from getting their guard up, they are much more open to information.

[BhsCrew]

I think your find that all the "Christian" relegions are different, owning to each mans perception off God.

I never said that all protestant religions were the same. All I said was that Lutherans are protestants. They were one of the first religions in the protestant group. Basicially this was a response to GreenPenInc's post that Lutherans aren't protestants and shouldn't be put in the protestant group.

[Battletorn]

I follow the church of Christ Science, though I doubt you know what that is.. (doesn't go in any of those categories) :P

Wasn't this a poll? Getting kinda... hot in here... Everyone chill. ;)

[E-Dub]

Well, I did say I respected his view on my opinion, but I don't like the fact that he outright told I'm wrong.


Dude, AoA said that what you had said about Christianity was wrong, not your beliefs in general. Be careful when you read so you don't get the wrong idea.

Also, as for what you and Essex said about Christianity, I agree with AoA on this one. I think you guys have the wrong idea of it. No TRUE Christian is one who is full of aggression. And Essex said there are a lot of things that are wrong or not good taught by the Bible... this is all a matter of opinion. Plus, most times when people say "the Bible has inconsistancies" or contradictions or whatever, that stems from verses or chapters that have been taken out of context. You can't take text out of context, otherwise you make it a pre-text which means you can make it say just about whatever you want to. You need to know the "what, when, where, who, and why" when referring to the messages of the Bible, otherwise you really don't know what is being said.

Last thing: The Bible says you will go to Hell for sinning. Not a particular sin in general, but ALL sins. And guess what? Everyone sins. You do, I do, everybody. The New Testament Heaven is described as a place for those without sin only, and no amount of good deeds can make up for our sins (Ephesians 2: 8&9). But the Bible also says through belief in Christ as your savior, and that he suffered and died for our sins, one can obtain salvation and be seen as perfect in God's eyes. It's all about atonement.

Anyway, no Essex, you won't go to Hell just for being g.ay, but (according to my Christian beliefs) you will go to Hell for being a sinner who is without salvation through Christ. And that's the core belief in ANY Christian religion. Every other difference is just trivial. AoA, I hope I didn't steal your thunder on this one :-)

[E-Dub]

I follow the church of Christ Science, though I doubt you know what that is.. (doesn't go in any of those categories) :P


Isn't that the one where the people don't go to doctors? I always thought that was a little... odd. I mean, if you break your leg and the bone is sticking through the skin, dontcha think God would want you to, i dunno, put a band-aid on it er somethin? If you detach a limb, no amount of staples will do the trick either. If i'm wrong, then I apologize, but I have a friend who (I think) is a follower of the church of Christ Science. IMO, and this doesn't go for ALL of them, but she herself is pretty stupid. She ran into a big metal pole and nearly broke her knee cap and wouldn't let any of us help her. She sat outside for 2 hours howling in pain. Stupid girl.

And what about the pneumonia? It can be treated with medical help, but without it, you die... I don't think that's God's idea of "smart planning". But hey, whatever. Sorry if I offended you, it's just what I've heard about it. If I'm wrong please let me know and I will correct it.

[Agonistes]

My spiritual beliefs were not the beliefs I was talking about.. I was talking about my views on Christianity. I said I think it teaches a lot of good things.. but historically it's been the cause of a lot of bloodshed and conflict and I don't like that. Still today, there are many christians that still are hateful and greedy and deceitful and do not practice what they preach. I made it very clear in my post that this does not represent all Christians as a whole, because I know many good Christians. I just don't agree with some of the teachings and I think there is some inherent bias in the teachings of the Bible. Well...not in The Bible, but with a majority of the people who interpret it and teach it.

I don't mean to disrespect Christianity or Christians... but it has a very shady and tainted history and even today there are a few things that rub me the wrong way. I just don't want people getting the impression that I don't like the religion or their followers... I just don't approve of what a lot of the organized(Church, etc.) portions do and say. But, I can say I know a lot more good Christians than "bad ones".

I could have some bias since I live in the south, now. There's a lot of anti-*** and anti-black stuff going on around my area still and some of it uses their Christian beliefs as their basis for it.

[Battletorn]

Isn't that the one where the people don't go to doctors? I always thought that was a little... odd. I mean, if you break your leg and the bone is sticking through the skin, dontcha think God would want you to, i dunno, put a band-aid on it er somethin? If you detach a limb, no amount of staples will do the trick either. If i'm wrong, then I apologize, but I have a friend who (I think) is a follower of the church of Christ Science. IMO, and this doesn't go for ALL of them, but she herself is pretty stupid. She ran into a big metal pole and nearly broke her knee cap and wouldn't let any of us help her. She sat outside for 2 hours howling in pain. Stupid girl.

And what about the pneumonia? It can be treated with medical help, but without it, you die... I don't think that's God's idea of "smart planning". But hey, whatever. Sorry if I offended you, it's just what I've heard about it. If I'm wrong please let me know and I will correct it.
Instead of using material and medical practice, we use God to understand the problem whatever it may be, and understand the Truth of the problem.

Basically.. we use God instead of material things. Spirituality above the material.

"Spirit is the real and eternal; matter is the unreal and temporal."-Mary Baker Eddy

[MastaBlasta]

When this conversation rolls around to buddhism shout me a holla, im not gonna jump in this christian god thing, dont want my head bitin' off or stumble into any man orgy...

and sry for my shotty synopsis of buddhism.

[Essex]

the thing is E-dub and others, I'm not talking about how you get into hell. I know that christians who go to church every day have as much a chance of getting into hell as i do.

My question is how can you reconcile that with what we are taught about god? The loving God, the fatherly protector, the Jesus loves the little children part. There are two sides to Christitanity it seems one that teaches love and the other that teaches damnation, it's the damnation part that gets me. Even if I was a whole hearted chrisitan I would hate to think there are so many peolpe who are gonna burn in hell no matter what they do, and if I belive that how can i belive that God really loves all his children when it seems so many are set up to go to hell no matter what.

Basically in a religion that teaches love, how is their room for damnation for anyone except the most evil of evils (Hitlers, and Stalins)

[Qishi]

This has nothing to do with anything really....but I have more respect for someone who believes in something that I believe to be false than someone who refuses to take a stand and make up their mind. You don't know or you don't care. or you think that by stradling the fence you can avoid making decisions and facing, heaven forbid, conflict. fact is that all stradling the fence will get you is a fence post up the ***. but then again some might enjoy that so i guess there is at least a possible explaination for their refusal to decide. In short, i respect the athiests (IMO) blind refusal to accept what is to me the obvious more than the agnostic's "open minded" approach to the agnostic's devotion to the lack of personal opinions relating to the most important question in our existence.

~i got to the end of this and realized what started off as a nice post to simply interject a thought i was having at the time had become somewhat insulting and nasty. however i spent like 7 minutes on this so i'm going to post it anyway. i didn't mean to offend anyone (although i'm sure i have now), this was simply my thought process as i was typing. seeing the large numbers of agnostics and aethiests present i will prepare myself for flames.


You'd agree that this isn't a decision to be taken lightly, yes? I'd rather people take their time and come to a decision logically and through experience rather than say, "Well, I gotta believe in something, might as well be this." Beliefs based on the latter approach end up being unfulfilling. I don't have a problem with people taking time with matters of faith, that is the way it should be done; and to tell you the truth, I don't understand where you're coming from at all.

[Essex]

one thing i've noticed in this and hell i may have done it to, but lets try to refrain from using words like stupid, idotic, or other such words when talking about someone's beliefes ok? You wouldn't want them to do that to you no matter what you chose to belive.

[Eiger]

I follow the church of Christ Science, though I doubt you know what that is.. (doesn't go in any of those categories) :P


That'd be the "other Christian based" category - unless you don't want to be lumped in as such. Sorry - just not enough categories....

[theseus]

Being good doesn't mean that your go to heaven. I think thats a common misconception people have.

[Minnesotaman]

Ah Essex has gotten to the heart of Christian beliefs. It is indeed possible to get into heaven. God sent Jesus to die in payment for our sins. Realizing this and asking for forgiveness wipes out these sins so we can be with God in Heaven eternally.

[Essex]

Being good doesn't mean that your go to heaven. I think thats a common misconception people have.
but doesn't that sound a little ****ed up to you? That good people are going to be tortured forever

[Minnesotaman]

Yes this is one of the tough issues of the Christian faith (The who goes to hell thing), and this is why it is usually not the first thing Christians will talk to you about when sharing their faith.

Yes truthfully, Theseus brings up a very good point. As Christians we believe you must accept Jesus as Savior and forgiver of sins to enter Heaven. That is the first priority over doing good or evil, because once you ask for forgiveness you are perfect in God's eyes no matter what you have done.

After you have done this however, going out into the world and trying to do good is the next priority.

[theseus]

but doesn't that sound a little ****ed up to you? That good people are going to be tortured forever
Being good has nothing to do with it. The far majority of people in the western world who have a thousand chances a day to go to a church and ask for a bible don't. The good people could but are to prideful or whatever. Its also our duty as christians to give everyone the chance to accept the word, by going to africa and the middle-east etc.

[Essex]

but you can't expect the Word to have gotten everywhere. I mean granted Christians get around but for some people in the middle east it simply isn't a choice, they would probably be killed for converting, sorry martydom went out with the Roman Empire.

Also there are some very remote places in the world, like the mountains of Tibet, how far could the Word get up there?

Plus what about the Jews? Do they get into heaven? Which branches of Protestantism, do the Catholics get in? Eastern Orthodox? All these christian religions are so very fundamentally different which ones get in?

Again I don't see how a religion can preach love when a majority of the world is gonna wind up in hell. Eh well I won't keep beating this to death because obviously your not gonna change your mind nor will I change mine.

[theseus]

Essex, try asking the pastor at your local church, he will know better than me.

Eh well I won't keep beating this to death because obviously your not gonna change your mind nor will I change mine.

Good call.

[Erad]

ok in my opinion


if you need someone to tell you how to live your own life, if you need someone to tell you what choices to make in life... if you dont know how to live your own life... then get a religion, A philosiphy is a different story

But if you can live your life without someone telling you what is right an what is wrong, why do you need a god to tell you what to do then?

I am Agnostic, i grew up as a Juhova Witness, Then other Christian religions

an ive chosen to be Agnostic because i think i dont need someone to tell me what is right and wrong, i know what is right and wrong, i dont need someone to tell me what i have done wrong, when i well already know what i did was wrong, if i dont have the will power to do good for people or for my self even, out of my own free will.... then i am to weak and need someone to guide me the right way

in my opinion, sorry if it offended anyone, i am not against someone that has a religion, or says they do for social/political reasons... because that is their own choice to make in life, it is their life to live, not mine, if they believe they need a guide, Then let the power be with you my son....lol

*edit*
i havent read all the posts already on this, to many freaken to read, lol :sleep:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Ha. Very brash and bold, AoA.


Really now.. Is it bold to correct some kid on his tabloid concept of a 2000 year old faith? When you can qualify your posts with some relevant textual references, I'll take the time to observe your henscratch with some respect.


I simply stated my opinion based on the facts. I respect your views on my opinion.. but to say I am wrong? And even then after that, to talk as though you have something to say that could change my views? Very hardheaded.


Facts? Personally, with an attitide like yours, there is little hope of being educated. You're here to air your own opinions. On this forum, expect to defend your position if indeed you do have one. Otherwise, haul a$$ to the community forums. Hate to break it to you pal, but your cardboard-cutout explanaiton of Christianity was dead wrong.



Let us have our opinions. Take the passive-aggresive attitude toward our views somewhere else. We are who we are and you are who you are. Our lives and what we know have sculpted our views and we don't try to prove you wrong or change you.. So leave it alone.

Agonistes, you really should stick to the lighter topics, which are all about airing opinions. These threads are here to provide us with an environment to argue and discuss matters, for the purpose of learning. If you're not willing to learn, you should really take a hike.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Ive chosen to be Agnostic because i think i dont need someone to tell me what is right and wrong, i know what is right and wrong

Who or what told you what was right or wrong to begin with? Something always gives a person their initial ideas.. That's the beauty - there's always a position a person finds themselves in. Yet.. what of its source?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Hi Essex! It's late, and I haven't picked on you lately. Feel special. :thumbsup:

I think you're pondering a perceived problematic regarding the "universality" of the christian faith in the apparent lack of it's representation. Indeed, an acquaintance once told me "the truth should be clear to everyone", when in fact, it is not. So, it would seem that since not everyone knows about the gospel, than its just another "book faith", or belief system like any others. Let's see what you've typed :).

but you can't expect the Word to have gotten everywhere. I mean granted Christians get around but for some people in the middle east it simply isn't a choice, they would probably be killed for converting, sorry martydom went out with the Roman Empire. Also there are some very remote places in the world, like the mountains of Tibet, how far could the Word get up there?


Correct, there are many who don't get a choice. Wrong on martyrdom however, there were martyrs from then till this day - it's just unpopular for the media :scared:


Plus what about the Jews? Do they get into heaven? Which branches of Protestantism, do the Catholics get in? Eastern Orthodox? All these christian religions are so very fundamentally different which ones get in?


It all sounds so technical! Man - I hope I don't get kicked out of my heavenly inheretance on a technicality! I attended the wrong church, or I tied my shoelaces improperly.. hmm. Christ is the sole saviour of all humaity through time and space, and we need not have knowledge of him for salvation. Our task is to respond to him as much as possible, even if that be in the form of an inherent faith for those who have not heard. For those who haven't, it's about being faithful to "the good", inherent in natural law. But hey, I'm definitely glad I had a chance to hear the good news.


Again I don't see how a religion can preach love when a majority of the world is gonna wind up in hell. Eh well I won't keep beating this to death because obviously your not gonna change your mind nor will I change mine.

You dont know that Essex. We can judge actions, but not the person. I bet alot of death row prisoners who reach out for their Lord on their way to the injection chamber will be risen and well on the last day, and conversely, some regular churchgoers who will find themselves in a rather precarious position come that final hour. The chaos we see in life need not indicate God's mishandling of it. Christ can be found in and through the malestrom of life. In him we are already saved - just receive it. Outside his incarnation, we're already in hell. His work has been "done already". He loves all, including you. Only his love will change your mind.

[Jondar]

Anyways, this post is exclusively for AoA, and maybe for Eiger, too, since he expressed some interest in Zoroastrianism. Im not gonna get heated up, this time ;) Just providing some info for your reading pleasure.

Now, AoA, Im sure youve studied this in some sort of depth, as it seems you do with most things. And if you have, then you will notice the obvious parallels between Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and namely Judaism. Isnt it interesting how a religion that is so - whats the word - foolish can have such huge influences on our modern day religions ( ;) )

For example, you have these rather striking parallel between these religions: the doctrines of a regenerate world, a "perfect" kingdom (aka Heaven), the coming of a Messiah in which the dead will walk the earth (sound a bit like the Second Coming?) and the eternal life after death. Not to mention that Zoroastrianism says that all the world descended from one single couple named Mashya and Mashyana (Adam and Eve, anyone?) and that in the Bible, a natural disaster destroys all of humanity but one religious man and his family - Noah - yet the same thing happens in the Zoroastrian Avesta in which a winter obliterates all of mankind with the exception of some place called Vara. Oh... not to mention that their prophet received revelations ans sermons from their God on a hill (hmm. Moses and the Ten Commandments?), making the prophet a sacred lawgiver - much like Moses.

Ah, damnit. I gotta run now. Those are just a few examples - there are other rathe rimpressive similarities between demonology and angelology as Eiger pointed out, which are essentially the same with the two. The good god will eventually obliterate the evil being... also like the Second coming. Thats not to say that Zoroastrianism has its faults (marry a blood relative or leave your dead on tall towers for birds to devour) but for a religion thats so "foolish," it certainly has a LOT in common with Christianity and Judaism.

Anyway, like I said, I gotta go. Thats just some food for thought.. :D

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Yes Jondar, I'll offer the point that one will find a common thread running through various forms of spirituality - heck, the 3 wise-men kings who found baby Jesus were likely astrologers. I know of a native american soothsayer who predicted the coming of missionaries to his tribe. The "spiritual world" is not without its connections to be sure. Yet, I'd offer the point that one must look for the "culmination" of all truth, and in this case, most expressly found in the revealed Christ - Jesus.

My main critique of Zoroastarianism essentially has to do with the dualistic aspect. While it does speak of the inner struggle that is very much present, it does offer what I see as an erroneous inerpretation of these forces at work in us and in the world. As I mentioned in an earlier post, two equal powers will cancel themselves out. One will always be the greater, with the weaker power being of a vacuum-like nature in its manifestation.

[Jondar]

My main critique of Zoroastarianism essentially has to do with the dualistic aspect. While it does speak of the inner struggle that is very much present, it does offer what I see as an erroneous inerpretation of these forces at work in us and in the world. As I mentioned in an earlier post, two equal powers will cancel themselves out. One will always be the greater, with the weaker power being of a vacuum-like nature in its manifestation.

Ah, yes, but thats the thing - the Avesta distinctly states that in a final battle, good will defeat evil - thus, the worshipped god will defeat the evil power (such as God would defeat Satan). So the powers wont cancel themselves out, as the "good" power is definitely the greater - it is the exact same thing as in Christianity.

Anyway, I think we're both tired of the topic. Unless you desire to continue, Ill wash my hands of it and call it quits. 'Twas fun

[Halcyon's Dawning]

but you can't expect the Word to have gotten everywhere. I mean granted Christians get around but for some people in the middle east it simply isn't a choice, they would probably be killed for converting, sorry martydom went out with the Roman Empire.

Also there are some very remote places in the world, like the mountains of Tibet, how far could the Word get up there?

Plus what about the Jews? Do they get into heaven? Which branches of Protestantism, do the Catholics get in? Eastern Orthodox? All these christian religions are so very fundamentally different which ones get in?



Catholics believe that Jews will get to heaven, and most branches of Protestantism as well..
Most of the religions occured because of some little problem they had with the Church at the time.. most of these problems have been fixed. One of the main goals and prayers of the Catholic Church right now is for unity..

Again I don't see how a religion can preach love when a majority of the world is gonna wind up in hell. Eh well I won't keep beating this to death because obviously your not gonna change your mind nor will I change mine.

And nobody knows except God who will end up in heaven or hell..
We preach love because God loves, and we are called to love.
You may say, if God loves us, he wouldn't let us go to hell.
God wishes so much that we would choose him, however one who rejects God completely will be thrown into Hell, because of his or her free will. God will not force us to choose Him. But God loves us so much he sent his own Son into the world.. into this chaotic place.. in the hopes of guiding us back, and also to gain for us a place of heaven..

God knows the soul.
Just because a person isn't of a certain faith doesn't necessarily believe they won't go to heaven.. As I said, God knows the soul. One of the main factors however is whether or not they accepted the truth, having heard it.
Nobody's perfect, and some people ultimately choose their own fates. . But we preach love because we hope the world will see and understand..

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Ah, yes, but thats the thing - the Avesta distinctly states that in a final battle, good will defeat evil - thus, the worshipped god will defeat the evil power (such as God would defeat Satan). So the powers wont cancel themselves out, as the "good" power is definitely the greater - it is the exact same thing as in Christianity.


Even though I chat with you on MSN and in our guild forum area, I still must offer clarification for the other readers. The problematic arises in the last sentance in that it's the same as christianity. In scripture, it's clearly presented throughout the new testament, and especially in the book of revelation that "evil" had already been defeated. The language of the battle is figurative in nature, and is for our better understanding of our situation, which seems like a battle between good and evil. "Evil" came about when the rejection of God took on a personality (satan), which influenced the fall, etc. Thus, humans have "knowledge of good and evil", but this is to be understood in terms of having the choice to accept the good (God), or to reject it (evil). Hence, there is only one prime power, and its negation.