|
|
General religion discussion.
|
Posts:
272
Registered:
8/30/08
|
|
(1684 of 4594)
Oct 1, 2008 10:54 PM
|
|
As I assumed, you can't come up with anything better.
|
|
|
Posts:
42
Registered:
10/1/08
|
|
(1683 of 4594)
Oct 1, 2008 10:48 PM
|
Is this it?
yes..This IS it.
What is?
THIS.
Ok, then what is... THIS?
IT!
Therfore....
THIS IS IT!
Oh...
Ok.
--
Vote 4 me and I will set you free!
Join The Beach Party today!
--
Edited by PresidentReid at 10/01/2008 7:49 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
272
Registered:
8/30/08
|
|
(1682 of 4594)
Oct 1, 2008 10:41 PM
|
Come on people, come up with a better universal reality than what we already live in. Is this the best we can do. Let's mix it up a little. I've had to conform to the world's version of "reality," and it's tedious, repetitive, and boring.
All the worlds a stage, and I'm a little peon in this play.
|
|
|
Posts:
42
Registered:
10/1/08
|
|
(1681 of 4594)
Oct 1, 2008 10:36 PM
|
In referance of Life after death being proven.
I said this as to not to offend ANY type of specific faith as they all believe in some form of LAD.
If I refered to a specifc God head, creator, etc, then this would go on and on debating specific faiths and not the underlying belief of the majority of faiths, i.e, LAD.
But I agree fully with you about not letting it be like this life...Heaven sounds nice to me.
Besides, what have you got to lose whileon your death bed you repent and love "God" anyway?
That is why I feel the whole debate about this is moot, from a bottom line point of view anyway.
--
Vote 4 me and I will set you free!
Join The Beach Party today!
|
|
|
Posts:
272
Registered:
8/30/08
|
|
(1680 of 4594)
Oct 1, 2008 10:25 PM
|
Even if there is life after death, how would that prove the existence of "God"?
If there is another life after death, it better not be the same boring drudgery of a reality that I live in now.
|
|
|
Posts:
42
Registered:
10/1/08
|
|
(1679 of 4594)
Oct 1, 2008 10:16 PM
|
"RELIGION" is "BUSINESS" pure an simple.
True "FAITH" is personal and inarguable.
Debating "science" and "faith" is not a new concept and until their is so called scientific proof of life after death, it will continue to be debated, but only among the ignorant.
If life after death was ever proven, could you imagine the chaos the world would be in? Think abou it.
There is a good reason its called "faith".
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
--
Vote 4 me and I will set you free!
Join The Beach Party today!
|
|
|
Posts:
1
Registered:
10/1/08
|
|
(1678 of 4594)
Oct 1, 2008 9:33 PM
|
|
I would like to know why Bill believes in woo woo like homeopathy and is anti vaccination. He said you are ether a rationalist are you are not, so whats up?
|
|
|
Posts:
714
Registered:
4/14/07
|
|
(1677 of 4594)
Oct 1, 2008 1:24 PM
|
Don't forget Muslims tax christians too.
they do it in Egypt today...
It's civil but those not of the faith of Islam pay higher taxes.
|
|
|
Posts:
714
Registered:
4/14/07
|
|
(1676 of 4594)
Oct 1, 2008 1:18 PM
|
Joe your 9/30 post 10:01am
Liking it...
And jdski---- I see there are quite a few teens like you...they may be far between yet you will find good company. It is good to seeing you waking up...
What do you study/practice in your free time(if you don't mind my asking)
--
Edited by ToriW at 10/01/2008 10:20 AM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
3
Registered:
10/1/08
|
|
(1675 of 4594)
Oct 1, 2008 11:33 AM
|
1 October 2008
Wednesday
Dear Mr. Bill Maher,
My name is Jacob Weil (pronounced 'Why-ul'), and I am a 17 year old boy from Huntington Station, NY. After hearing about your new film "Religulous" I was so relieved to discover that I was not the only "wacko" who thought about religion in such a manner. Just by watching the previews for the film, your show, and your recent spot on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, I can see that both of us are in the same mindset. It baffles me that people can believe in such things as the immaculate conception of Jesus Christ and the rapture as presented by the story of Noah's Ark.
I myself live in a Jewish household, and because so everyone of my peers assumes that I am Jewish. Today is the second day of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year. As I choose not to be a believer of the Jewish faith, my community looks down upon me as though I am a bad person. Although I know this is untrue, it still bothers me that I cannot go against the social norm of believing in religion without being somewhat criticized. I would like to make it clear that I do respect people's beliefs in religious faiths, but I respectfully disagree with those beliefs.
On an irrelevant note, I would just like to mention that I am a big fan of Real Time (true story!) and I respect your blend of comedy with real life. Sincerely, I look up to people like you and Jon Stewart because you are both educated men with witty senses of humor who can realize what is going on in life but not destroy all meaning with comedy. I truthfully hope to be like you guys some day, because I love comedy but I also like to think about everything that is going on in the world. I believe that it is important that everyone understands what events are happening and what effects those events have on our lives. Your profession is a respectable one, because you deliver real news to a broader audience that is somewhat too lazy to watch real news broadcasts.
Anyway, I cannot wait for this Friday to see your new film "Religulous" and really open my mind more to the objective view of the concept of religion. I leave you on this note; (pertaining to the concept of Judaism), if God loves all people, why did he choose the Jews only to be saved? That's the biggest oxymoron if I've ever seen one.
Your fan and friend,
Jacob Weil
E-mail: jdski53@gmail.com
PS- I hope this gets to you (Bill Maher). If anyone sees this, please move it onto Bill himself. I would really appreciate it if he read this, so he at least knows that at least one youth of America is enlightened in his ideals.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,689
Registered:
7/9/08
|
|
(1674 of 4594)
Oct 1, 2008 8:58 AM
|
"We are just going to have to agree to disagree."
That's a little difficult, if we aren't disagreeing.
You're stating your beliefs as absolute truths:
"It doesn't matter what you or I believe, natural law exists whether you want to believe God or not. That truth is irrefutable."
While I'm asking questions:
What are these irrefutable truths?
Why is there a Hell?
|
|
|
Posts:
1,301
Registered:
4/16/07
|
|
(1673 of 4594)
Oct 1, 2008 12:49 AM
|
|
Right. So the unpeacefulness was not predicated on violence, and he had no desire to see the swords used. Seems pretty clear to me, Jesus was filling out the corners of prophecy, not raising an army. He was a pacifist, not the Messiah, what do you expect?
|
|
|
Posts:
2,987
Registered:
10/22/06
|
|
(1672 of 4594)
Oct 1, 2008 12:41 AM
|
>
> Sooo, you're saying the two swords were clearly not
> meant for a show of violence. That's consistent to
> even your narrow view of Jesus, isn't it?
I'm not saying there's anything clear about it at all.
I'm saying that they would be defending themselves, if at all, against either a cadre of Roman legionnaires, or an angry mob... and two swords is hardly adequate for either.
But if they're deliberately fulfilling a prophecy that only refers to having or bringing"swords" in the plural... then two is enough.
--
America is facing the worst financial crisis at least since the Great Depression! Ask yourself who you'd rather have in charge: A man with a 20-year history of helping the very rich become much richer?
Or a man with a 20-year history of helping those who are not rich avoid becoming poor?
|
|
|
Posts:
2,987
Registered:
10/22/06
|
|
(1671 of 4594)
Oct 1, 2008 12:32 AM
|
> Don
>
> My apologies, I came in late here and didn't read all
> the preceding posts. I thought you were talking about
> Iraq. I would agree with much of your take on the
> Palestinian issues.
>
> In addition, it is my understanding that while the
> muslims accepted the jews and did have peace with
> them, isn't it also true that the jews had less than
> full citizen rights, since they were not muslim?
I believe that is true, but the ones who were there, were only there to await the coming of the Messiah, whose arrival they felt was imminent. And they didn't care about having full citizenship. It may help you to understand....
They had come from other lands, mostly eastern Europe as it was closest, including Czarist Russia, Germany under the Kaiser (and influenced by rabidly anti-Semitic Martin Luther, who never forgave the Jews for refusing to convert to non-Catholic Christianity) and they didn't have full equality anywhere else, either. But in the Ottoman lands, they weren't subject to the kind of anti-Semitism they experienced elsewhere... they were at least respected enough that if they paid the tributes Islam demanded of non-Muslims, they were left alone.
PS. There was no democracy to share in, and they kept within their own communities, anyway.
--
America is facing the worst financial crisis at least since the Great Depression! Ask yourself who you'd rather have in charge: A man with a 20-year history of helping the very rich become much richer?
Or a man with a 20-year history of helping those who are not rich avoid becoming poor?
|
|
|
Posts:
1,301
Registered:
4/16/07
|
|
(1670 of 4594)
Oct 1, 2008 12:31 AM
|
> >
> Why bring a symbolic sword? Why not a symbolic olive
> branch, for a man of peace? Isn't it Satan who is
> normally viewed as the one who comes to sow discord
> and turn families against each other?
>
>
Ummm, no. Jeez, everyone thinks they know what view is normal to a Christian. The discord is optional, just don't kill someone for having a different set of beliefs. Why people believe Christians get killed less often for their beliefs than non-Christians I will never know. The Inquisition is long gone, but Communists were mass-murdering Catholics as recently as the 70's.
> >
> That doesn't fly, I'm afraid. Jesus wouldn't tell
> them to defend him with a sword, now would he? He
> exhorted his followers not to resist an evil person.
> He said to turn the other cheek, that if you're
> e forced to go one mile, go two miles. This is not
> consistent with a sword for protection, is it?
>
> Yet he told them to buy swords. There is only one
> Messianic prophecy regarding swords, and that's
> that they are to be beaten into ploughshares. Odd,
> he never did that, nor told his disciples to do that,
> nor even taught them how to. And with all the
> prophecies he mentioned in talking of peace... he
> skipped that one.
>
> They showed them they got two swords, and he said
> that was enough. I have read that this was to
> fulfill a prophecy, which makes sense, because two
> swords isn't enough to defend against a contingent of
> Roman guards, and would probably wouldn't disperse an
> angry mob, either. But if a prophecy called for
> swords... then he only needed two.
>
Sooo, you're saying the two swords were clearly not meant for a show of violence. That's consistent to even your narrow view of Jesus, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
