Religious Evolution

[Brandon]

So wait...you're saying that Max Burbank's grandchildren, or great grandchildren, or somewhere down the line murdered Christ...IN THE FUTURE???

What the FUCK are you smoking??

Now THAT'S funny.

[kellychaos]

Do not question my faith or I will kill you!

[The_voice_of_reason]

I am sorry to shed some light on the dark hole you live in, but this is the truth. If you believe mankind is the pinnacle of existance or at least the earth, then you can be on the side of druggie porno stars, scientist who haven't seen the sunlight in umpteen years, and frumpy second-rate comedians.

If there was a God, and humans and the earth were his creation, wouldn't that make humans the pinnacle of existance?

Many of you are neglecting parts of my argument. Let me see if i can clear it up, all i was saying is that if there was no religion, and people truly believed that human life was the most supreme gift ever. Then there would be much less violence and hate in the world. Take a look at Ireland, take a look at the Middle East, a lot of good religion has done there.



Also, why is it that people with faith think that those of us who don't have it are miserable? I am probaly one of the most happy people I know. If that makes any sense.

[Sethomas]

Northern Ireland is an issue of an imperial power beating down upon a less-than-lucky people. The Catholics hate the Protestants because they are a foreign invasion, simple as that. The Middle East situation is quite comparable. You make no point.

Vince, you don't come close to making a valid point against the starkly non-violent philosophy of Jesus. Jesus believed that judgment belongs to God, not us. You're a Un-Christian fool and complete piece of shit human being for trying to malign his words into something different.

[mburbank]

"Jesus didn't take no gruff."
-Vinth

Actually, Vinth, that's a mistranslation. The actual line is, Jesus didn't take no Mcgruff, meaning that he refused to break bread with Crime Dogs.

[ItalianStereotype]

c'mon vincetta, I'm waiting for an answer here. you can't Google your way out of this one.

[VinceZeb]

If you have to ask why you are a 3rd rate player, then there is no hope for you.

[FS]

When I was a couple of years younger and thought I had the whole world figured out, I too thought religion was the true root of evil in the world, but that is naive.

Most religions stimulate some excellent human qualities. Unconditional love for your fellow man. Helping those less fortunate in society.

The problem, as has been said (better) by others in this thread, is that human psychology and sociology abuses religion. Whether conscious or unconscious, people make it into a catalyst of their fears and hatred. They read into the religion the way they want to. Then there's politicians and religious leaders throughout history, who've exploited the unifying and compelling power of religion over people to serve their purposes.

A man alone can be very smart. A group of them is much sooner and much more often, very very dumb. That is why someone who sees religion as a personal issue is much more likely to have healthy contacts with people who don't believe or believe differently than someone who feels the need to convert others to his religion in order to prevent them from being damned in the end.

Frankly, it disgusts me when someone states their form of belief online and is abused for it, like it's some kind of weird weakness.

[ItalianStereotype]

I will assume then that it was all of the above...

so tell me vincey, if you consider yourself more of a politico or "1st-rate player" than me, why oh why do we see threads like:

http://www.i-mockery.net/viewtopic.php?t=3896
http://www.i-mockery.net/viewtopic.php?t=3898
http://www.i-mockery.net/viewtopic.php?t=2920
http://www.i-mockery.net/viewtopic.php?t=2104
http://www.i-mockery.net/viewtopic.php?t=2765
http://www.i-mockery.net/viewtopic.php?t=3618
http://www.i-mockery.net/viewtopic.php?t=3345

you take your political stance from "The O'Reilly Factor," Rush Limbaugh, and NewsMax without ever having an original thought in your fucking head. that is why you are never able to adequately defend yourself in half of the threads on this forum. do you really think your "I was bored" excuse actually fools anyone?

aside from all of this, you are 22 years old...a full college education ahead of me...and I am able to discuss and comprehend rational thought on a level that you could never even dream of.

don't fuck with me vince, it won't hurt me nearly as much as it will you.

[AChimp]

WTF! Vinth, quit jerking off and start responding to the points made in this thread rather than popping in like some virtual jack-in-the-box for a random insult.

[Immortal Goat]

Was it not Jesus who said "Judge not, lest ye be judged"? It always slays me when I see religious people insult people who have the nerve to have original thought. I go to a Catholic school, and I am in the religion class right now. In the book, it speaks of the "evils" of individuality and people thinking for themselves. That is nothing but bullshit. I believe in a higher power, but I also believe that I have the right to do, say, and think whatever the hell I please, even if it goes against the church.

[ItalianStereotype]

it is difficult to discern how a religious conversation will turn out, it can be quite a volatile topic.

it seems apparent to me now that both sides of the issue are too extreme. people like vox and immortal goat are quite clearly saying that, bottom line, religion is wrong. others, like myself, then do such things as threaten violence to defend religious sensibilities (which i later retracted). humans are simply obstinate, belligerent creatures when anything large, like religion, is involved.

so there, my epiphany.

[UnDeath]

Theres nothing wrong with religion as a whole. Sure, everything has its faults, since everyone isnt the same, and there seems to be no true one size fits all. Its not nesscessarily religion thats the problem, its people who warp it to their advantage to justify their actions and still wear their "Good Guy Badge". Take the previously said examples of the Crusades and the Inquisition. The true reasons were given in that post, but everyone seems to think that it was religion that caused it. Whose to blame there: religion, or people?

[Isaac]

Any doctrin that teachs good values, but can also be constued to violence and hate, is going to cause problems

[VinceZeb]

Think about this little bit of info for a while:

If there were no Crusades, there would have been no WTC attacks.

Reason: The Catholics would not have been able to push the Muslims out of Europe. Muslims would have taken over the world, and we sure as well wouldn't have this conversation right now.

[The_voice_of_reason]

I am truly soory to everyone in this thread who seems to think i am some extreme anti-religion nut. I have nothing against people having religion, and I know that it's people who twist religion that are the ones causing all the problems. My whole point is that without religion the oportunities for these demogouges would be fewer though I'm sure people would still find some cause to act insane for. Now I would like to apologize if I seemed offensive I wouldn't of even expressed my views on this point were that not the topic of the forum. I have many religious friends who don't know my stance on this subject because I never bring it up because i don't want to lose them as friends. Now I think it's ridiculous that they would cease to be my friends just because i happen to have different beliefs than them, but on the other hand as I said before people become too attached to their paticular diety or dieties.

Also I think it would be important to note that i am not truly an atheist I do not disbelieve in the exsitence of any form of a higher being i just don't think any traditional religions to this point have hit its true nature yet, or maybe I am so indoctrinated by the monotheistic dogma that I can't imagine a universe without some kind of god.

[Isaac]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Think about this little bit of info for a while:

If there were no Crusades, there would have been no WTC attacks.

Reason: The Catholics would not have been able to push the Muslims out of Europe. Muslims would have taken over the world, and we sure as well wouldn't have this conversation right now.

The failure to engage in offensive expansive imperilistic action, would of inhibited them from taking defensive action at a later date?...You do know that the Hindues also slowed or stopped Muslem advance. Do you really think that the Muslems would of succeded at taking over the world? Attila failed, Ghengas Khan failed and Adof Hitler failed, so why would they succeed?

[FS]

Because they're SO MUCH BETTER EQUIPPED than us.

[mburbank]

Yeah, Vinth, and what about this? Suppose, just suppose that the infant kal-el's rocket ship had landed in Germany and been found by a young Adolf Hitler instead of the Kents?!? Man, then things would sure be a mess, huh?

[AChimp]

Vinth, your stupidity know no bounds. You cannot accurately predict a relation between events 1000 years apart.

[Protoclown]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Think about this little bit of info for a while:

If there were no Crusades, there would have been no WTC attacks.

Reason: The Catholics would not have been able to push the Muslims out of Europe. Muslims would have taken over the world, and we sure as well wouldn't have this conversation right now.

Congratulations, Vince! That is the 4th dumbest thing you've ever said!

[UnDeath]

I just realised something, Vince is a funny man. I just dont know wether he knows it or not. Is he like the 3 stooges, or the actors who've played them?

[VinceZeb]

Nothing I said in that statement was ignorant. Are you that fucking stupid that you can't understand the fact that without the Catholics, the muslims would have controlled Europe, Africa, and much of Asia? That the anglo-saxon types would have been converted or killed. That someone else would have discovered the new world, and the events of the Mayflower, the colonies' revolts, and everything else would have not happened.

Can you all be any more fucking dumb?

[Isaac]

Cathlics did nothing to stop Muslims from taking over Africa, so I don't know why they didn't then, if Cathlics were the only ones pushing back the Muslim conquest, I belive the Saraha did more to stop the Muslims from moving south then anything else. Also many regions that the Muslims took over, where majority Muslim, before being invaded!

[Sethomas]

Vince, you're a complete idiot. The only time the Muslims even tried to invade central Europe was in the campaign against Charles Martel, which took place centuries before the Crusades. Unless you want to talk about the Ottoman siege of Vienna in the mid-1500s, in which case almost all credit should go to the Eastern Orthodox Church. At any rate, that was a full two centuries after the Crusades, and the Church was too wrapped up in the Counter-Reformation to give a shit, and the beligerent forces were too insignificant to pose any threat beyond the Southeastern Holy Roman Empire.

And history would have been better off if the Mayflower never did happen, since the Seperatists were a lot of assholes in the first place.