Jesus, Christianity and whatnot.

[DocBot]

There are.. 9 spelling mistakes there, not including capital letters and full stops

nothing wrong with forgetting a capital here and there...

 

[BiG D]

there is if i go ahead and also forget any other punctuation which causes some of the longest run on sentences ever i mean like how can people possibly read stuff like this and not go insane there is absolutely no reason why people cant go through and toss some punctuation in there so the rest of us actually have a chance to comprehend what you're trying to say i think ive made my point and it's getting seriously painful to type like this

 

[DocBot]

there is if i go ahead and also forget any other punctuation which causes some of the longest run on sentences ever i mean like how can people possibly read stuff like this and not go insane there is absolutely no reason why people cant go through and toss some punctuation in there so the rest of us actually have a chance to comprehend what you're trying to say i think ive made my point and it's getting seriously painful to type like this

well do you really think capitals would have made that much of a difference? Punctuation though, that's another story...

 

[Gopha]

Do you people need to breath while you read in your head or do u read aloud lol

 

[SgtSafety]

well basically, Religion is behind most wars.

Ive said this before but i got bitched about it. but i still agree with it

 

[Gopha]

Ive said this before but i got bitched about it. but i still agree with it

yes im saying that but that is the argument which people use against religious people, they forget, the ten commandments,jesus's sayings ,mohammeds preaches etc which set down the basic guideline for all laws so you cannot put the wrap on religion unti lyou go threw it all , also people say "where was god when the tsunami happnened" well it wouldn't have happened if everyone in the world was christian, im not saying the people of malaysia are all bad but im saying, not everything can be stopped but things could be prevented in the forecoming

 

[Fi$hy]

also people say "where was god when the tsunami happnened" well it wouldn't have happened if everyone in the world was christian, im not saying the people of malaysia are all bad but im saying, not everything can be stopped but things could be prevented in the forecoming

Excuse me?

 

[Gopha]

what i was saying is that people cannot criticise unless they have experience and also that its too late and i believe that the end of the world is upon us(i am mental!) well i think that bad things have started to happen and the Humans (us) have destroyed the world slowly,we have to change within the next ten years or we will have ruined it!

 

[Fi$hy]

Ah yes, I too am afraid of the effects climate change etc has on the world, and whether there are any connections.

I was however objecting to the idea of Malaysia experiancing a Tsunami due to it not being a christian continent. That sounds a bit too "biblical" for my liking. I'd point the finger at geography more than anything. (for example, if Europe froze over, I'd expect people to call it as a fault of the Northern Hemisphere, not a result of Europe not being a majority Buddhist continent. )

 

[Gopha]

yes so do I, i was talking about the people who blame god for the tsuanami, and i was saying it wasnt pointed at them it was just really an effect of the climate, and it is all due to climate change, ie the end of the world which is probably actually happening at the moment, i just dnt like it when christians get the wrap for everything

 

[DeZmond]

I don't like the Church. It seems too dominating, straight-laced and traditional for my liking.

A vaild point perhaps, but...

I have to disagree. (You knew I would anyway!)

I go to church every Sunday. The church I go to is a Baptist church, and it's in a reasonably deprived areas of Glasgow (no you Neilstoners, it's not Barrhead :|) but I have to say I actually enjoy it. Why? Because it's not a traditional church in any sense. The worship that takes place isn't hymns, or sitting for ages on pews. We get comfy chairs (we've even got leather sofas ) and the worship we do rivals an AC/DC concert (the laugh is you think I'm joking). Example: I'm the bass player in the church, and also my friend sometimes plays guitar. Last Sunday he brought along his Marshall amp and let fly with the heavy distortion - and wow that was a fun song!

Also, it's not a traditional church in terms of the background of the people attending. At this church, while you get some locals, we also have some asylum seekers (people from places like Iran and Africa) and it's in this situation that you also realise that multiculturalism CAN work, as the place is very harmonious and indeed, we even incorporate foreign styles of worship into the service (even in some cases singing translated versions of songs in French or Farsi). And it's a very rewarding experience.

We're also packed with the latest technology - it seems I've been elected the in-house computer guru and so I was asked to specify a cutting-edge and durable system for projections and whatnot - the result of which is that we now have a nice Athlon 64 system linked up to a projector . And don't even get me started on the sound desk .

I hope you see my point - worship is what you make it. If you find that the church you go to just isn't doing it for you, try another denomination - it could surprise you!

And of course going to church is not essential to practise the religion but it does make it a whole lot easier (and in this case a whole lot of fun ).

 

[Gopha]

another valid point, the church i go to lets me play guitar occasionally and i sing there, hi-tech modern, the whole works has its own football team which im in,a youyth club called xf and a coffee bar with surround sound live msuic huge tv's etc, its a kool place

 

[Fuzzy Bunny]

From that point on, humans were no longer inherantly evil, and would go to Heaven unless they deserved otherwise.

I think that people are still inherently "evil" in the sense that they would do most anything to get what they wanted if they didn't practice self-restraint. People are "evil" but they're capable of acting "good."

I define "evil" as doing things you know are morally wrong. "Morally" being according to the morals of the masses, rather than one's own personal morals. Acting "good" would be acting in a way that the masses won't object to, or in a way that the masses will praise you for.

 

[Wraith]

I think that people are still inherently "evil" in the sense that they would do most anything to get what they wanted if they didn't practice self-restraint. People are "evil" but they're capable of acting "good."

I define "evil" as doing things you know are morally wrong. "Morally" being according to the morals of the masses, rather than one's own personal morals. Acting "good" would be acting in a way that the masses won't object to, or in a way that the masses will praise you for.

Warning, some of the following has the potential to offend. This is not my intention, but I will be stating my own views and I apologise in advance for any offence caused.

So the babies as found by docbot are inherantly evil. And maybe people would do anything if they didn't practice self-restraint. But that self-restraint is the definition of being good.

Bottom line is that people act according to their own set of moral values, and it's only where those internal values conflict negatively with the morals of the masses that they start being perceived as evil. I realise that this is basically just a repetition of your second paragraph, but I want to take it one step further. How do the masses decide what is morally right? And what happens when two (or more) groups of "the masses" have differing opinions of what is morally right?

The most obvious recent example of this kind of "differing opinions" is Al Qaeda. They believe it is morally right to send suicide bombers and suicide pilots to kill hundreds if not thousands of civilians. They have enough supporters to potentially be considered "the masses" in their local area, so by your argument of morals being defined by the masses, their idea of morals would be valid.

Please note at this point that I do NOT condone any Al Qaeda actions, nor am I suggesting that you do. I just think that your view that people are inherantly evil is depressingly pessimistic, and that your argument could be twisted in their favour. It would also seem to suggest that you consider yourself to be evil.

I agree that there are evil people in the world, I just don't agree that everyone is evil. In fact I'm optimistic (or naive) enough to assume the people I meet are "good" until they prove otherwise.

Feel free to disagree. Just remember that this can be an extremely sensitive subject, so lets keep it civil, okay? And, once again, I apologise if I've offended anyone.

Wraith

 

[Gopha]

I agree, all babies are born without sin, but they will sin, EVERYONE SINS ,innocent till proven guilty is on the same level as what wraith said Good until proven otherwise, or something similar, people could rightly say that they were born evil and then say that that it was their birthright to be evil, and it is the way we are brought up ,mostly which makes us , our surroundings affect us deeply!

Along the line of what wraith said sorry if I have annoyed you wraith but thats so true!

Gopha

 

[Fuzzy Bunny]

How do the masses decide what is morally right? And what happens when two (or more) groups of "the masses" have differing opinions of what is morally right?

The masses generally follow the morals of a strong or persuasive leader. A Biblical example could be Moses. He lead the Jews out of Egypt to the promised land and gave them the ten commandments, which are a set of morals upon which many modern laws are now loosely based. When two or more groups of "the masses" have conflicting morals or views of how the world should be, they will usually settle their differences by negotiating, fighting, or conversion.

I just think that your view that people are inherantly evil is depressingly pessimistic, and that your argument could be twisted in their favour. It would also seem to suggest that you consider yourself to be evil.

At times, I do consider myself evil, and I tend to remember the times that I've been evil, rather than the times that I've been good. I also admit that at times I do feel depressed and pessimistic. I just do my best to keep that from controlling my life. What's done is done. There isn't anything I can do to fix the past, so I should be worrying more about the future.

I agree that there are evil people in the world, I just don't agree that everyone is evil. In fact I'm optimistic (or naive) enough to assume the people I meet are "good" until they prove otherwise.

Everyone has the ability to choose whether they're going to act in a way that is good or evil. I also try my best to avoid judging people before I get a chance to meet them. I don't walk up to someone expecting them to pull out a gun and shoot me. I do keep that scenario in the back of my head however.





I just realized I'm having a serious discussion on the Internet.

 

[Fi$hy]

With the Al Q example, I am tempted to agree, but only if you apply Kant's ethical principles.

Kant's ethics depends on two things. Firstly the motive being in accordance with a universal maxim (i.e do not steal, do your duty etc.) and then importantly the action having a motive of good will for others.

You could justify a Al Q Suicide bombing (but not a terrorist attack) as the bomber is doing their duty according to the jihad. Secondly as the main motive behind a suicide bombing will either be to do their duty (duty for duty's sake) or perhaps that it will bring happiness and goodness for other muslims (e.g American's leaving the MiddleEast etc.)

Then mistaken as the idea's are, according to Kant not only are Suicide Bombings justified, and whilst this is a touchy subject, from one point of view you could almost see it as a good deed (self-sacrifice for others??) .

obviously I don't condone Terrorists, nor do I agree with their idea's, but from an ethical point of view, some of their actions are justified.

 

[Tetsuo_Shima]

The worship that takes place isn't hymns, or sitting for ages on pews ... We get comfy chairs (we've even got leather sofas ) and the worship we do rivals an AC/DC concert ... Also, it's not a traditional church in terms of the background of the people attending ... We're also packed with the latest technology

Sorry, but you have no idea how much I DESPISE this kind of total rubbish. In my opinion, that is not a church. Not nearly. The incentive for attending church should be your love for god and the unwavering belief you hold for your religion, not comfy seats and an open air concert!?! If youd rather be mincing about with amps and loud music then get yourself down to a club and quit taking apart a tradition, a way of life.

As for "Also, it's not a traditional church in terms of the background of the people attending", that holds no sway whatsoever. There's nothing stopping anyone coming into a church, in fact they are welcomed. People from all over come to church, its not as if the building stands for an elite sect or anything :/

Now, I dont go to church. Not anymore anyway. I most likely still would be going if my church hadnt been practically demolished by a rather large gale. The substitute church they had in place just wasnt traditional enough, and that kind of weeded me out of the system. Its a shame really, because I did enjoy church. As opposed to you, I did like the hymns and the sermons and the community. I really thought there was something special about going to church at easter, christmas etc, it kind of gave me an incentive for life if you like.

However, thats done with now, but I still have a lot of respect for the religion and the establishment. Nothing makes me sadder than to see young kids slandering the whole thing just because... well basically just because they want to be different. Or macho. Which is pretty much what lead me round to this argument in the first place.

So there you go. Opinionated as hell, but I stand for it.

 

[DeZmond]

Sorry, but you have no idea how much I DESPISE this kind of total rubbish. In my opinion, that is not a church. Not nearly. The incentive for attending church should be your love for god and the unwavering belief you hold for your religion, not comfy seats and an open air concert!?! If youd rather be mincing about with amps and loud music then get yourself down to a club and quit taking apart a tradition, a way of life.

I think you may be reading too much into what I said - I can assure you we're not dismantling anyone's religion, I was merely noting the fact that it's very different from the image most people get of an organ and a darkened church hall. We do some 'active' songs for the kids in the congregation before doing some more serious worship songs before and after the main sermon - that way we appeal to a larger audience.

As for "Also, it's not a traditional church in terms of the background of the people attending", that holds no sway whatsoever. There's nothing stopping anyone coming into a church, in fact they are welcomed. People from all over come to church, its not as if the building stands for an elite sect or anything :/

The church is the community (and indeed in the hearts and minds of the congregation), not the building.

As opposed to you, I did like the hymns and the sermons and the community. I really thought there was something special about going to church at easter, christmas etc, it kind of gave me an incentive for life if you like.

Let's get one thing clear: I'm not dissing that (or indeed, any other) form of worship. Each form of worship is equally valid as another. But to some, including myself, it sometimes appears a very "strict" method of worship. And the community spirit at our church is, as I have noted before, very strong and it's an environment I think people can feel very comfortable in.

Anyway, I think this is starting to move towards a denominational argument, which I think is both beyond the scope of this thread, and also inappropriate for the forum, since it usually ends up in tears. So unless there are any new points to be made it could be time to close this thread.

 

[Tetsuo_Shima]

Indeed 'church' does have more of a community sense to it, rather than a building in its own right, which is precisely what I am trying to point out. You say to us that you find the church (in a traditional sense) restricting and closed off, apart from to a selected group of people. I try to say that its a lot more wide open than you think and that, in fact, that is exactly what a church stood for in the first place.

I see about a hundred million semi-christian breakoff groups all over the place, and I ask myself, whats-a the big dealio?