Anti-Bible

Mr.Shroom · Post by **Mr.Shroom** » Sun May 11, 2003 11:53 pm

No. Now knock it off.

Does it really matter if you belive every damn word of the bible? Does the color of his skin invalidate any good points he made? Just because you don't adhere to the faith doesn't mean you can't give props to some of the good ideas in ANY religion, really.

And lets be honest, many of the artistic renditions are due to centuries of lost work, iconoclastic raids, internal turmoil within various sects, and government uphevals. But even if the image changes, the basic concept of not being a jerk and stopping to maybe be a bit nicer to someone else doesn't change. Seriously.

And if you want evidence of religious censorship and internal change, visit Ravenna sometime, and take a good look at the mosaics. Or crack open a freakin' book sometime...some of you could use it.

Imperator Severn · Post by **Imperator Severn** » Mon May 12, 2003 12:22 am

No. Now knock it off.

Phong and I were discussing Jesus from a historical perspective. We aren't insinuating that his appearance changes the relevancy of his teachings, but the search for historical fact is not sacrilege.

Nekra · Post by **Nekra** » Mon May 12, 2003 11:33 am

if you want sacrilidge ask your self why the bible's "Meaning" changes ona regular basis and why the bibles sins only apply to whos in control of the religion wants.

i beleive the bibles says killing is bad, i cant be bothered to find the correct quote

strange how the same religion organised somethign called the crusades where they invaded another country and slaughtered thousands.

as far as i am concerened you can take your dumbassed religions and shove em up your arse.

Mr.Shroom · Post by **Mr.Shroom** » Mon May 12, 2003 12:59 pm

I was being snide, Severn, to a question with no real answer due to lack of historical evidence and would only send us into an endless loop of happenstance and half-truths. And while you may not have been heading that way with the relevancy, a few are. Keep pluggin' for the truth, but mind you don't get bogged down in emotion.

Nekra, you'll find that almost ALL forms of holy teachings can change and become interpreted in different ways. We've been lucky enough where a majority of the current religions are allowed to contain their own forms of interpretation and sects.

The only real issue with the religion being controled would be the nation of Islam. I made a post about that awhile ago, in the Political and Current Events section you might want to check out, since thats more due to their social structure and the ridged formation of their teachings that isn't actually found in most other surviving religious faiths.

As for that comment on the Crusades, I'd like to point out that the only non-violent religion I've EVER found were the Buddist faith. The ONLY ONE. We could point fingers all day about who did what, but thats the only one that would be invalid. I think that has more to due with the concept of religon as it has become. Its due to the idea that a religion is such a deep and important concept, when in reality it should be more of an idea. Yes, I'm almost quoting the movie 'Dogma', but it made a goddamn good point. People kill for religion, but a religion is really just a collection of ideas. Are ideas worth dying for?

Back then it was, espcially for my own people in the young nation state of Portugal. The government my ancestors were once part of ordered a state religon and massacred thousands of Jewish and Moorish over a period of a hundred years. Why? Because they thought the religion was false and unhealthy? NO. Because what every great leader of any nation knows is that a unified religion means a unified people. America is one of the oddball nations, where the concept of 'uniqueness' and 'tolerance' are the actual forms of our nations 'religion'.

My point? I'd gladly shove my religion up my ass...but its not that important to do so. Its just a good idea, and I sure as hell ain't going to put you on the rack for it.

However, your rather intolerant and angry tone is EXACTLY why such acts as my own ancestors 'Inquistiton' and the crusades of the southern nations were so damn easy to make happen. Might want to think about that.

Fixer · Post by **Fixer** » Mon May 12, 2003 1:22 pm

[quote="Nekra";p="72337"]strange how the same religion organised somethign called the crusades where they invaded another country and slaughtered thousands. [/quote]
I thought it was the King of England that declared these wars in the name of Christianity. The Church agreed to it, seeing an opportunity for gaining influence and glory for The Church, as well as removing the believers of a 'rival faith'. The King decided it was a good idea for the potential spoils of war. Neither Christianity, nor the Bible itself, said "Thou shalt go over and kick their Muslum asses". It was those in power that took a good book, its teachings, and perverted them for their own ends.

I am an agnostic so I really do not care about religion. What I see as dangerous is when ANYONE does something 'in the name of <insert religion here>'. This is dangerous when an individual or small group does so, but even more dangerous when a country does so. The reason WHY this is dangerous is because it puts the religion up as an attacker which cannot be the case. An idea cannot attack, only the believers of an idea. People who might agree with the idea may disagree with the actions of the individuals and boycott the religion that teaches the idea. It is not like the religion itself can stand up and say "Hey! Don't do that!" This is the reason I believe the seperation of church and state, as described in the US Constitution, should be very carefully (but not strictly) enforced.

daemon princess · Post by **daemon princess** » Mon May 12, 2003 1:36 pm

Jesus may have never existed, he may have been some joe schmoe who got written about in metaphoric form or he may have been the son of God who performed miracles. You can argue over that and you may or may not be correct, but I don't think it's important. I think the message is the important thing. It's been mentioned already that many religions say the same thing and I'd like to share this e-mail I got with you guys:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Jesus, Christianity

"An ye harm none, do what thou wilt."
Aleister Crowley, Wiccan

"Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself."
Bahaullah, Baha'i

"Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful."
Udana-Varga, Buddhism

"Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you."
Confucius, Confucianism (not exactly a religion, but that just shows that it extends to mindsets)

"This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you."
Mahabharata, Hinduism

"No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself."
Sunnab, Islam

"In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self."
Lord Mahavir 24th Tirthankara, Jainism

radicaledward · Post by **radicaledward** » Mon May 12, 2003 1:42 pm

this is what i said

i didn't mean black and i admit i should've mad it more clear.

this is what you said

So would that make American indians "Black?" They are not "white" if what you mean by white is Caucasians, and more specifically people of Tuetonic extraction. What is generally meant by black is people whose ancestors came from subsaharan africa.

stay with me buddy

Mr.Shroom · Post by **Mr.Shroom** » Mon May 12, 2003 5:11 pm

...

...What? Huh? Don't make me come over there.

This is the reason I believe the seperation of church and state, as described in the US Constitution, should be very carefully (but not strictly) enforced.

No offense, thats more due to the fact that the founding fathers were a pretty damn crafty bunch of consperitors. They knew that by attempting to have religious tolerance, not only would they protect themselves, but it would also allow for a new religion concept to grow.

Think about it. Its been proven by history that a state-based religion strengthens the power of the state. However, this also leads to conflict between states that have different religions.

By creating a nation that would (eventually) treat ALL religions as balanced and fair, not only did they prevent much religious conflicts (internationally, mind you, it wasn't till about a good 75 years ago the true system began to kick in nationally) but they also formed a form of state 'religion' as well: The idea that all people should be free to determine their own faith. And of course, the various other admissions under the American Constitution. In this way, America both followed and improved upon the 'state religion' concept.

Fixer · Post by **Fixer** » Mon May 12, 2003 5:23 pm

[quote="Mr.Shroom";p="72572"]

This is the reason I believe the seperation of church and state, as described in the US Constitution, should be very carefully (but not strictly) enforced.

By creating a nation that would (eventually) treat ALL religions as balanced and fair, not only did they prevent much religious conflicts (internationally, mind you, it wasn't till about a good 75 years ago the true system began to kick in nationally) but they also formed a form of state 'religion' as well: The idea that all people should be free to determine their own faith. And of course, the various other admissions under the American Constitution. In this way, America both followed and improved upon the 'state religion' concept.[/quote]
So.... our 'state religion' of the United States is to be tolerant of other religions, countries, and points of view. (Albiet, there are some more dedicated to this particular religion than others.)

I like it. Since this religion does not have a real name it cannot truly be 'attacked' either. Them was some pretty crafty people that invented our country. Have to shake their hand when I am dead or something.

Mr.Shroom · Post by **Mr.Shroom** » Mon May 12, 2003 7:24 pm

Exactly. To be fair, I doubt this was so much the original intent, but I wouldn't put it past some of those old Illuminatist. Like I said, its not untill more recent years that the concept has become more obvious.

However, the NEW issue they DIDN'T expect is what if you meet a nation that doesn't like the idea of core concepts being questioned? Thats the issue modern Islam and modern Muslims will have to figure out.

Imperator Severn · Post by **Imperator Severn** » Mon May 12, 2003 9:52 pm

i beleive the bibles says killing is bad, i cant be bothered to find the correct quote

Hmmm... would that be Thou shalt not kill, goofus? More seriously, there is debate on whether that means any killing or just murder.

esus may have never existed, he may have been some joe schmoe who got written about in metaphoric form or he may have been the son of God who performed miracles.

As for that comment on the Crusades, I'd like to point out that the only non-violent religion I've EVER found were the Buddist faith. The ONLY ONE.
Buddhists have been killing eachother for millennia. Why do you think the chinese used to be so advanced in the art of war? YOu could say that these were either hypocrites or people who misuderstood the religion, but the same would go for Christianity, judaism, and islam. Very few religions think war is something to aspire to.

Jesus may have never existed, he may have been some joe schmoe who got written about in metaphoric form or he may have been the son of God who performed miracles.

When I say that Jesus existed, I mean that there was a man who preached and on whose teachings a new sect of judaism formed, which eventually branced out into the many forms of christianity. Whether or not he was the son of god is questionable, but whether he existed is not.

radicaledward · Post by **radicaledward** » Tue May 13, 2003 4:41 pm

Buddhists have been killing eachother for millennia. Why do you think the chinese used to be so advanced in the art of war? YOu could say that these were either hypocrites or people who misuderstood the religion, but the same would go for Christianity, judaism, and islam

Every religion kills its a part of life. The buddhist don't kill in hatred they kill in protest or for a good damn reason(and i don't care what you say there can be a good reason to kill). It was wrong to kill but the Buddha himself made wrong sinful decisions. and the buddhist faith was created in India! the chinese have many religions including christianity and the indians havn't been a very horabbly violent country.

SothThe69th · Post by **SothThe69th** » Tue May 13, 2003 5:30 pm

Ed- Tone down the sig, its about as big as Severns entire last post for chrissakes!

ChronoSword · Post by **ChronoSword** » Wed May 14, 2003 5:46 am

Hmmm... would that be Thou shalt not kill, goofus? More seriously, there is debate on whether that means any killing or just murder.

Jesus may have never existed, he may have been some joe schmoe who got written about in metaphoric form or he may have been the son of God who performed miracles.
As for the translation, the real translation is murder (so killing in war is alirght)
About Jesus' existance, there have been several non-Christian sources that talk about Jesus, such authors as Tacitus and Suetonius (Roman historians) and Josephus (Jewish historian but sided w/ Romans). As for all the laws, they come from the law of Good Morality. This is an internal law that all humans have. It is the only law (when I say law, I mean like the law of gravity) that can be broken. Everyone has a common sense of what is right and what is wrong. (For more info on morality, see C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity which goes through and proves Christinity using very simple arguements (simple as in simple to understand).
It's been mentioned already that many religions say the same thing

The reason that is because as I said above morals are universal. As for the Crusade, the people behind it, in my opinion are not true Christians. As for the argument on what Jesus was. He was Galiean, he was born in Bethlaham becuase his father had to register for the census. he was from the tribe of Judah, so that is why he went to that particular city. And as for the negativeness on religions, true Christianity is more a personal relationship with Jesus than a religion. Well that's my opinions and God bless everyone.

radicaledward · Post by **radicaledward** » Wed May 14, 2003 12:55 pm

Ed- Tone down the sig, its about as big as Severns entire last post for chrissakes!

whatever you say

Real Life Forums

Anti-Bible

Re: Anti-Bible

Who is online