Religion

[The Geologist]

From what I'm hearing it's impossible to live a good life if you don't become Christian, which sounds like total nonsense.  There's a large different between what one thinks is good and a more objective definition of good.

[Keron Cyst]

Actually, Geo', the word difference you're really looking for is "good[/b]" vs. truly being "holy"...

EDIT @PopeJohnPaul_II: not all "Satanists" believe in the real Satanic Bible and in the devil himself so much as just self-glorification (which is, of course, the opposite of Christianity, which was meant to be humble and with no forcing of religion upon others, but alas...).



The commandment in the New Testament Gospels, wrapped up, is to deliver people to Christ. John wrote in the last book, Revelation, something along the lines of "Let him who is holy stay holy, and let him who is evil stay evil" (not word-for-word, sorry, just off the top o' my head). So basically, if you can save someone, go.* But if he absolutely does not want to pursue Christ, just let him go.

* - We believe hell is very real. We really do, and we truly want to save others from it. So you can imagine how pissed off we get when people just blow us off for our attempts It's all just about close-mindedness (or, possibly, if you can put it, arrogance), and ignorance, combined with impatience, really.


Oh, BTW... my opinion? I really don't think anyone can achieve a true conversion over the Internet These debates are more to me like just tests of your knowledge as the other debater seeps into cracks you overlooked. I've seen over a dozen religious debates online, and they all end up basically stabbing loopholes into each other and getting nowhere, except perhaps making the participants more open-minded.

[Dascoo]

I believe after death, our knowledge becomes part of the universe....

[PopeJohnPaul_II]

Not all "Satanists" believe in the real Satanic Bible and in the Devil himself so much as just self-glorification.

Keron, would you say that Christians who do not follow the Bible are questionable? There's no reason that this logic could not apply to Satanists following the Satanic Bible. The Church of Satan is very clear and united in it's understanding of a Satanist. After all, there's only one Church of Satan.

[To get into heaven] you need to do two simple things: Accept Jesus as your savior and live a good life according to the Bible

One of the major issues that non-Christians have with this argument is that the Bible has been used to justified many acts that our modern culture would consider inhumane. Even today, there is no consensus on how to live a good life according to the Bible. You would be more convincing (and credible) preaching the morals behind Aesop's Fables.

The commandment in the New Testament Gospels, wrapped up, is to deliver people to Christ. John wrote in the last book, Revelation, something along the lines of "Let him who is holy stay holy, and let him who is evil stay evil" (not word-for-word, sorry, just off the top o' my head). So basically, if you can save someone, go.* But if he absolutely does not want to pursue Christ, just let him go.

Understood. You're simply defending your faith, as any dedicated religious individual would. There is no reason to waste a day on a dishonest individual when you could convert five devout followers for half the effort.

That particular situation reminds me of The Scorpion and the Frog.

[Graham]

From what I'm hearing it's impossible to live a good life if you don't become Christian, which sounds like total nonsense.  There's a large different between what one thinks is good and a more objective definition of good.

Well I was justr trying to point out that Good and Evil kinda need a more structured guide then what society says.  Even if you don't believe in God the Bible is a good book for morals.

One of the major issues that non-Christians have with this argument is that the Bible has been used to justified many acts that our modern culture would consider inhumane.

Like I have said before, people that do harm in the name of a religious idea(Crusades, 911, even then Wako, Texas deal) would do it with or without the religious cause.  Basically they just grab onto religion cause it has the "punishing factor" which most religions believe its no in the hand of men to punish other men, but their supreme being.

[Dascoo]

Why do you need a religion or superstious belief just to be a good person? That is what seperates people.....the ones who need a religion to not do harm, and the ones who can think and are empathetic. Yes we do need religion.

[PopeJohnPaul_II]

[People do harm in the name of religion] because it has the "punishing factor". Most religions believe that it is not in the hand of men to punish others, but their supreme being.

The Bible boasts of wars that God demanded to happen. (cite) Are you saying that Christianity is unlike other religions in this sense? America would be slightly more infamous if we slaughtered our prisoners of war at the will of God.

[Graham]

Not everyone needs religion to base right and wrong, it does help when you are in a situation you really are having trouble choosing what to do.  I'm not saying without religion people are naturally horrible and should be executed guys.  Honestly I really am glad I have based my life off the principals of the Bible.  I don't mean to sound mean but alot of my friends that have walked away from their religions really aren't as happy as they should be, my brother started drinking and almost died and my best friend got hooked on drugs and at least moved back in with his parents and (I think) has stopped doing drugs but is now a huge douchebag.  I too have actually slipped from my religious beliefs to an extent, I ended up becoming very depressed and I know that I would not be alive today without my very basic religious beliefs and my parents transfering me to a christian school with very caring people.  Which are the reasons why I think even if you don't beleive in God it would always be beniful to read the Bible. After all it saved me.

Spam deleted by bja888

[Dascoo]

Ok the bible is good, has good morals, and stories BUT acknownledge that this book was written when the majority of people thought the earth was flat, and the earth was the center of the universe. Now we can see that it isn't flat, and that the galaxies are all moving outward.

†, would I go to hell IF I was a good person (I think I'm %89 good), but did not believe in god, and I don't believe in heaven and hell. Would a buddhist go to hell? What about the people before the bible was written? Did everyone go to hell in that time period before jesus?

[Graham]

The Bible wasn't written all at once man... anyway the old Testiment kinda goes over the beliefs of christianity before Jesus.  Sacrafices of lambs to for sins, cept priests got corrupt and the sacrafices lost the original meaning.  Hence Jesus coming.

[Dascoo]

The Bible wasn't written all at once man... anyway the old Testiment kinda goes over the beliefs of christianity before Jesus.  Sacrafices of lambs to for sins, cept priests got corrupt and the sacrafices lost the original meaning.  Hence Jesus coming.

When the bible was published, didn't it then become widespread? So then the jewish won't go to hell....they don't believe in hell.

[Avarax]

atheist

[Keron Cyst]

See, that's the thing I don't get. How are you not agnostic? I mean, even Newton's laws seemed totally solid, but had to eventually be modified when quantum mechanics came along. How are you so sure there's not even a 0.0001% chance that there could be a Being out there?


@PopeJohnPaul_II: The term "Satanist" is not as strict as you may think. Some Satanists use the tag to show their self-glorification and don't even believe in Satan whatsoever.

[VijchtiDoodah]

Right and wrong is in the eye of the beholder, some people thinks its not wrong to steal, maybe some think its not wrong to kill. If we could get into heaven by leading a "good" life then it would be open to the worst of the worst... long as they thought they were good.

Interesting idea -- that right and wrong is in the eye of the beholder, but not necessarily the one committing the act.  Therefore, a person may commit an act that is generally considered to be evil, but if the only witness to the crime thinks that the act is good, it must be good.  Conversely, a man may commit a good act, but be accused of evil by the only witness and would then go to Hell because of that sin.

Also interesting is that this contradicts the idea put forward by the Bible: that good and evil are a higher standard created by a god.  So how can you suddenly say that people decide what good and evil are when the Bible clearly points out otherwise?  The only possible explanation I can come up with is that the Bible was written by people and is subject to change as perceptions of good and evil change.

Or did you have something else in mind?

[Dascoo]

I'm agnostic.....everyone should be agnostic actually, and you're right.

[Smegma]

Also interesting is that this contradicts the idea put forward by the Bible: that good and evil are a higher standard created by a god.  So how can you suddenly say that people decide what good and evil are when the Bible clearly points out otherwise?

Its what they call free will. The bible says God exists, but some people don't believe that. Just because the bible states religious belief doesn't mean that no one else can contradict these things.

[Graham]

So how can you suddenly say that people decide what good and evil are when the Bible clearly points out otherwise?

Not saying that people deciding right and wrong is the right way.  Basically just explained my belief on the subject if it is true.

[VijchtiDoodah]

You both misunderstood.

Smegma, �  is saying that good and evil depend on how someone views an act -- that good and evil are subjective.  That can't occur if a god already has some set conception of what good and evil will be.  To clarify, if good and evil are subjective, then if you contradict the bible (as well as contradicting other people) you're essentially saying that it's possible for there to be an act that is both good and evil at the same time -- which is impossible.  It's either that there's some good and evil already set out there (god-dependent or not) or people decide what's good and evil, not both.

� , I'm not judging whether it's right or not nor did I think you were saying whether it was right.  I was pointing out that it's a logical impossibility to believe in a god that decides what is good and evil while also believing that people independently decide what is good and evil unless you also believe that what god is is decided by the people (which is not the way the Bible is usually interpreted).

[Milkman Dan]

@PopeJohnPaul_II: The term "Satanist" is not as strict as you may think. Some Satanists use the tag to show their self-glorification and don't even believe in Satan whatsoever.

That IS what about 98% of Satanists are. The only people that believe in 'satan' and consider themselves 'satanists' are devil worshippers and don't exactly adhere to the basic ideas of satanism. That being surrounding the left hand path which is the opposite of deity worship.

[Graham]

� , I'm not judging whether it's right or not nor did I think you were saying whether it was right.  I was pointing out that it's a logical impossibility to believe in a god that decides what is good and evil while also believing that people independently decide what is good and evil unless you also believe that what god is is decided by the people (which is not the way the Bible is usually interpreted).

Just because someone tells you something is wrong it doesn't mean you believe it is.  Christians believe God gave us free will to decide things for ourselves. So basically we believe God did say what is right and wrong but gave us the option to change our views on right and wrong if we wanted.