Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I don't think everyone should be Christian. It's like saying everyone should have blonde hair, only wear black clothing. The world would be a boring place if everyone thought the same.

Witches, and wizards, and demons are archaic terms. Through my research into the occult when I was younger, I believe that there is some kind of 'otherworldly' dimension/facet that exists, and that there are entities who exist in it, and people who are capable of invoking/using it through various methods, means, and philosophies, but it depends on what you would call those people and entities. The terms you give work, but I would disagree with the connotations they have.

Daemons are real!
Otherwise I wouldn't get chron jobs done.
(This is not the computer joke you're looking for. move along)

As for faiths - I can't advise trusting a self referential system of belief. Be it Dianetics or all of the other ones.

I believe in troll eating daemons.

G

JEB_Stuart wrote:Well there is an order of the Roman Catholic Church that deals with exorcisms, but I am not sure how much of their work is documented....

That's what I mean. We don't have empirical evidence that demons exist. We may eventually obtain some, but without that confirmation is impossible.

JEB_Stuart wrote:I don't think that you can say Christianity can be proven...

I never said that it could be.

dogma wrote:I never said that it could be.

I wasn't referring to your post. I was instead referring to Nacho's post....

frgsinwntr wrote:
I also know people who have no god and still got healed... aren't alcoholics anymore... and aren't still stripping...

I don't know of many programs for alcoholics that do not invoke the concept of a higher power in a way which renders the God distinction anything more than technical.

frgsinwntr wrote:
So... yea your story doesn't make any point... It says "look at these wonderful things!" only God can do that...

Its a story about the motivational power of belief.

frgsinwntr wrote:
Well no... if it is true and only god can do that then... if we find one person who is godless that fits that criteria... your entire argument and story fail...

If God exists, then the question of one's belief in him is largely irrelevant. Your comment is a bit like claiming that someone who believes they have no body would not be subject to the needs of their body.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

JEB_Stuart wrote:I wasn't referring to your post. I was instead referring to Nacho's post....

Ah, I was confused by the quoting.

dogma wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:
I also know people who have no god and still got healed... aren't alcoholics anymore... and aren't still stripping...

I don't know of many programs for alcoholics that do not invoke the concept of a higher power in a way which renders the God distinction anything more than technical.

frgsinwntr wrote:
So... yea your story doesn't make any point... It says "look at these wonderful things!" only God can do that...

Its a story about the motivational power of belief.

frgsinwntr wrote:
Well no... if it is true and only god can do that then... if we find one person who is godless that fits that criteria... your entire argument and story fail...

If God exists, then the question of one's belief in him is largely irrelevant. Your comment is a bit like claiming that someone who believes they have no body would not be subject to the needs of their body.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

JEB_Stuart wrote:I wasn't referring to your post. I was instead referring to Nacho's post....

Ah, I was confused by the quoting.

EDITED. Wrex is correct

Yes I agree that Belief can be a motivating factor, the story is skewed in such a way that it suggests these things can only be accomplished with God.

As far as programs for alcoholism that don't appeal to a higher power? Who said anything about those people using a program? In fact... many studies have shown that these programs that rely on god have a high failure rate. (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html for example)

There is a logical assumption that organized support is more effective than dispersed ideals. It is fantastic to talk about relatively rare occurrences, such as a person able to support themselves; this does raise the question about whether or not anyone can actually accomplish the same goals without support. What about the people that cannot find support through any means available? Do they just fall? Of course they do, and that is probably a function of their psyche more than their environment.

When I look at groups like AA, I do have to have some respect for the solid support that they can provide to many types of people. Using faith, is not based entirely on God, but on the ability to stand up and accept your circumstances while assessing the best way to receive your support when available; as well as taking what steps you can on your own.

It is also funny that you would say that to Dogma, as he has not even mentioned the need for a god in anyway. Assuming you are young sith.

You are correct Wrex :p Dogma never mentioned if he needs a god or not. My post has been adjusted.

As for the support... it appears that the success rate is still the same with or with out support.

and I guess I am a young sith... but that would mean I have a religion : p

reds8n wrote:

Norwulf wrote:
, I too believe everyone should be christian, the world would be a lot gentler, friendlier place. We'd have a lot less to argue about.

Hmm.. huge swathes of history would suggest otherwise...

..but that could just be us violent Euro trash.

Are you referring to the crusades? If you are I should point out that it was two different religious groups in conflict. What I was talking about was a hypothetical situation where everyone shared the same religious views, in this case christianity. I do realize how impossible that is though.

note: my descendants were violent euro-trash, so I'm not gonna judge.

dogma wrote:Ah, I was confused by the quoting.

My fault. Sorry 'bout that...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Norwulf wrote:Are you referring to the crusades? If you are I should point out that it was two different religious groups in conflict. What I was talking about was a hypothetical situation where everyone shared the same religious views, in this case christianity. I do realize how impossible that is though.

There are numerous instances of violence associated with Christianity in European history. The Crusades being one of them, even though they were blatantly for political reasons, just draped in the sheepskin of religion. I don't believe that just calling yourself a Christian or professing belief in it makes you a peaceful person. Its a change that has to come from within, but you are right in your assertion that Christ calls for peace, and as his followers so should we.

Norwulf wrote:note: my ancestors were violent euro-trash, so I'm not gonna judge.

fixed it for you

frgsinwntr wrote:
Yes I agree that Belief can be a motivating factor, the story is skewed in such a way that it suggests these things can only be accomplished with God.

I didn't get that from it. To me it read as an objection to the debate via functionalist criteria. Basically, the veracity of a statement with respect to God's existence is less important than the practical benefits of religious belief.

frgsinwntr wrote:
As far as programs for alcoholism that don't appeal to a higher power? Who said anything about those people using a program?

You don't necessarily have to employ a program in order to be considered as acting in accordance with its methodology. A scientist is a scientist even if he doesn't know what the word scientist means.

frgsinwntr wrote:
In fact... many studies have shown that these programs that rely on god have a high failure rate. (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html for example)

AA doesn't rely on a God. That's a categorical misnomer. A higher power does not have to be a God in the literal sense. If it did, then anyone who believes in something more powerful than themselves would be a Theist. Believe in the United States? Its your God, and you're now a Theist. Believe in that cat sitting on your desk (its a very big, powerful cat)? Its your God, and you're now a Theist. Ad nauseum.

I've read some of the orange papers stuff. Its interesting, but I think he slips up in a couple areas. Namely, he looks at AA without first looking alcoholism itself (accepting that its a disease in anything approaching a clinical sense seems mistaken to me), and considers remission as tantamount to failure (AA doesn't present itself as a cure).

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

dogma wrote:

JEB_Stuart wrote:It isn't a tenet at all...

Nope. Its actually blasphemy.

Yes, yes it is. But not for the reasons you'd be told today by modern Muslims.

Explain...

When Muhammed originally wrote the tenets of Islam, he was writing to create a new sect of Christianity and believed Jesus was the Messiah. Hence, belief in Muhammed to be the son of God would be blasphemy as you were saying that Muhammed was Jesus.

(Bit of background: my wife has a Middle Eastern/Islamic Studies degree)

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Norwulf wrote:note: my ancestors were violent euro-trash, so I'm not gonna judge.

fixed it for you

lmao! How did I do that? Oh well I'm gonna leave it so my ego will stay in check, and everyone on dakka can know what a dumbass I am sometimes. Piers=peers lolz.


BTW I had a friend who was in AA and they made him choose a higher power. He went with captain cucumber, a mystical being that looks suspiciously like the warden from superjail. He ended up with quite a following tbh.

dogma wrote:

AA doesn't rely on a God. That's a categorical misnomer. A higher power does not have to be a God in the literal sense. If it did, then anyone who believes in something more powerful than themselves would be a Theist. Believe in the United States? Its your God, and you're now a Theist. Believe in that cat sitting on your desk (its a very big, powerful cat)? Its your God, and you're now a Theist. Ad nauseum.

I've read some of the orange papers stuff. Its interesting, but I think he slips up in a couple areas. Namely, he looks at AA without first looking alcoholism itself (accepting that its a disease in anything approaching a clinical sense seems mistaken to me), and considers remission as tantamount to failure (AA doesn't present itself as a cure).

Agreed about the slippage but...

Since 1996, courts across the United States, in a number of different cases, have ruled that inmates, parolees, and probationers cannot be ordered to attend AA. Though AA itself was not deemed to be a religion, it was found to contain enough religious components to make such coercion a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the constitution.[56] In September 2007, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that a parole office can be sued for ordering a parolee to attend Alcoholics Anonymous.[57][58] (thanks wikipedia!)

so it is enough of a religion according to the US govt

I'm not sure of your definition of belief and believe. can you define them for me and what they mean in your post?

frgsinwntr wrote:


Found this, thought it was worth a watch. All depends on How serious you take your literature.

But seriously... What are your thoughts about his argument?

Ok. Lets go back to the orignal video. Here are the videos claims in order:


1. In order to be a Christian you need to beleive that Jesus was the Son of God.
This is correct, more specifically you need to beleive that Jesus the Son of God died for your sins and was risen from the dead (Romans 10:9-10). the word Christ in itself means Messach - in this context the Son of God.

2. Do you beleive in witches, wizards and demons?
Ok, for the first two most people do. Witchcraft exists because there are people who claim to be witches and perform witchcraft. Whether witchcraft has the effects they claim is not relevant and open to further discussion. This works on the traditional concept that a wizard is a male witch (which is not actually true but see below).
As for demons, I certainly do. I have seen at least one.
I see no reason to be tricked into thinking a 'no' answer, neither should anyone else, at least for the first two concepts.

3. The Father God instructs us to kill witches and stone wizards.
The Old Testament does condemn witchcraft, but IIRC the word wizard does not appear at all. The video is slanting the story to make out Biblical witchcraft to be a Harry Potteresque fantasy. This is not necessary, witchcraft appears today, just without flying on broomsticks and turning people into toads.

4. Jesus casts out demons to prove his spiritual manhood.
Either a cheap shot or an ignorant misunderstanding, actually Jesus did not show off when performing ministry. In fact when He healed and delivered He requested that the person helped go home quietly, Jesus did not want specific attention to the miraculous but to the message he preached. Any brief read of the four Gospels will point out this over numerous examples.

5. Exodus 29 and Leviticus 4 blood rituals.
Pre Christian worship of the Hebrew God required sacrfiice to atone for sin. This is his rule, get over it. Go must punish sin, so the only way to escape judgement is on a legal technicality, covering oneself literally with the blood of a sacrifice as sin requires atonement by blood. Again God makes the rules. The idea of the cross sacrifice is that it once and for all time negated this ritual, but because God had up til then accepted that as an excuse for forgiveness it meant that God could legally accept faith in Jesus as a sign of forgiveness.
This might and does sound wierd, but the basic principle is that a God who beleives in justice must address peoples misgivings as a just God, thus because we are not just and deserve punishment to one extent or another He must create a legal technicality that 'gets us off'. This, the Bible argues, is God's solution.

6. Why would a divine super-being be interested in 'the fat around the kidneye of a dead bull'?
Its a two part question. Partly he is because it is something you can do without any access to high technology and rerquires obedience. Thus it was azn achievable sacrifice by the peoples of the time. However he wasnt truly interested either; as quoted in Psalm 51:16-17 "You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise."
'Broken' in this case means surrendered to Gods will, not destroyed as per a jilted lover.

7. How can I tell if Harry Potter is real or not?
As described above there are major differences between 'wizardry' as in the ancient or contemporary occult and the 'wizardry' ass found in D&D and modern fantasy. Is there anyone recorded who actually beleives in Harry Potter, as opposed to fans of ther books or films?
You could at this point raise Jedi 'worship' as an exambple of pop cuklture religion but that is little more than cosplay and/or a fun way to mess up an official census form. People might follow the Jedi ethic - which is in fact a mish mash of pre-existing Oriental religious techniques and artistic apprentice conventions, but any benefit is therefore coincidental and just applies to isolated concepts drawn from Buddhism and Shinto reiterated in the film background for a fantasy setting. Its also telling that the inventor/IP owner of the Jedi story concept does not think it a religion.

8. The ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is an important one.
Yes and it can be/should be learned from a very early age.

9. Welcome us to the ranks who can identify describing witches wizards and demons as fantasy.
Well you can most certainly distinguish fact from fantasy and still beleive in ther Bible, those concepts are not mutually exclusive. Secondly the concepts of witches/wizards and demons may exist in seperation to the role as depicted in modern fantasy literature, art, films or games.

Someone should do a list for the peanut butter one.

frgsinwntr wrote:
Since 1996, courts across the United States, in a number of different cases, have ruled that inmates, parolees, and probationers cannot be ordered to attend AA. Though AA itself was not deemed to be a religion, it was found to contain enough religious components to make such coercion a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the constitution.[56] In September 2007, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that a parole office can be sued for ordering a parolee to attend Alcoholics Anonymous.[57][58] (thanks wikipedia!)

so it is enough of a religion according to the US govt

Sort of. The bold component is very important. In essence the prevalence of religion in association with the program is considered to sufficiently 'taint' the program such that a requirement of AA attendance would be very likely to translate into the required attendance of a church.

frgsinwntr wrote:
I'm not sure of your definition of belief and believe. can you define them for me and what they mean in your post?

Any valid definition will work. I'm not making a specific comment. Only a categorical one.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Someone should do a list for the peanut butter one.

I havent got round to looking at that yet, I might have heard of the story if it is what I think it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Just in case you haven't seen this one:

1. Evolution vs Creationism.
The point so often missed is that there is no 'versus'. You can beleive in one ther other or both within certain paradigms, the concepts are not mutually exclusive. That which is commonly now known as 'Intelligent Design' is in effect a very early form of Creationism, not a revisal. I have problems with the Intelligent Design movement for this reason, it need not exist, it is merely Creationism. The problem from the Creationist side comes from Biblical literalism, a very dangeous thing and spoken against by such persons as Jesus himself. After all the peoples of the time expected the Messach to be a great warrior and conqueror because the Bible said so, however this was a literalist teranslation, and missed out on the fact that much of the bible is written in a prophetic and parallel method that requires indirect interpretation. That is wgy people exptected Jesuis to kick Roman arse, not preaxch peace and forgiveness. It is easy to see both interpretations in the Old Testament in hindsight. Now if the principle concept of the Old Testament was misinterpreted, the coming of the Messach, then what else is misinterpreted? The whole of the early chapters of Genesis come into the completely, after all if Genesis 1 is about life before man, from who's perspective is it written, or relayed? Not mans, but perportably from God's, as God is a non corporeal and timeless being for whome "a thousand years is as a day, and a day like a thousand years" , a literal seven day advent from the point of view of God need not be incompatible with hundred of millions of years of evolutionary progress, even if the seven days themselves are not in literal order. A theist can argue that the seven days of creation are the 'cause', and the evolutionary process and for that matter the cosmological process is the 'effect'. The two do not clash.
The problem with the Evolutionary movement is that it has been hijacked by atheism, under their own form of Biblical literalism. atheism and Biblical literalism often go hand in hand, especially where atheists have a ham fisted interpretation of biblical verses - for a good example of that see the previous video. It is interesting to note that those who proposed the principles of evolution were not committed atheists, though Darwin had a healthy contempt for the church of his contemporary times, pretty much for the reasons listed above.

The real question lies with whether it is beleived the universe is accidental or co-ordinated. I beleive the latter, but my clever God hides his hand just enough to keep you with a valid choice. Remember noone has ever disproved God, but while miracles have been reported by many, empirical proof has also been tantalisingly ommitted.

2. Peanut butter.
The park of life emerged in the precambrian era, which was a very long time ago and lasted a very long time. The first steps of life on earth took place over a time period longer than all subsequent events. Thus for a jarr of peanut butter to be given a fair chance to encourage newly created/designed or randomly evolved life it will need to be left alone for a VERY long time, something in the region of a few hundred million years will do.

If you can imagine it, it exists. Even if only in your mind. This includes flying spaghetti monsters.

Only if you use the word differently from most of the population.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Only if you use the word differently from most of the population.

Your thoughts aren't real? They don't exist? They're abstract and not physical, true. But they exist. Most of the population also watches too much TV and eat garbage that they know is bad for them.

Khornholio wrote:Your thoughts aren't real? They don't exist?

A thought about an imaginary figure isn't that figure any more than a thought about a real object is that object. If there's a distinction between what exists in the reality and what exists only in your imagination, there is a difference between a thought and the subject matter of your thought.

At any rate, your definition of existence applies to absolutely everything, which makes it a meaningless word. Saying that something "exists in your mind" is different from saying that it "exists". The later is assumed to exist in reality, because the alternative is for for saying that "it exists" to be a meaingless statement.

Norwulf wrote:
Are you referring to the crusades?

No. I'm saying look at European history--like I said--, when the Xtian church was the dominant force and easily the "default" religion. Centuries of war, murder, death, assassination, pillaging etc etc.

What I was talking about was a hypothetical situation where everyone shared the same religious views, in this case christianity. I do realize how impossible that is though.

Because all Xtians are the same and see things exactly the same. Obviously. How often do those snakes bite you ? Use of contraception ? Being pacifistic working out well for you ?

reds8n wrote:

Norwulf wrote:
Are you referring to the crusades?

No. I'm saying look at European history--like I said--, when the Xtian church was the dominant force and easily the "default" religion. Centuries of war, murder, death, assassination, pillaging etc etc.

You are implying it was therefore different, in fact it was always the same. War murder death assassination and pillaging long predated Christianity of course.

reds8n wrote:

What I was talking about was a hypothetical situation where everyone shared the same religious views, in this case christianity. I do realize how impossible that is though.

Because all Xtians are the same and see things exactly the same. Obviously. How often do those snakes bite you ? Use of contraception ? Being pacifistic working out well for you ?

Not all Christians and Christian groups are the same, think the same or act the same.

..I don't see how you merely repeating the points I have made adds anything new here at all.

I was implying no difference or double standard, just pointing out the obvious flaw in this "world of peace scenario" that when we have had the scenario he's described it hasn't been like that at all. Equally if you look at any significant region dominated by pretty much any religion, or viewpoint or ideology you'll find the same thing, to greater and larger degress.

This topic is easily and immediately answered. I don't know about wizards, but anyone who has worked for a living knows demons and witches exist-you're constantly subject to their cruel onslaughts...

@All: The story is just a story. It also never said that aliens have grey skin instead of green, but did it ever try to or did I ever say it did? Please move on.

I think people get caught up not knowing the difference between a church, community, denomination, etc. We're all individual people. I don't care if we go moments where we feel united, but you'll never get a group of more than 5 people that feel the exact same way about everything. Does anyone really think that all the crusaders shared the exact same mindset? People do stuff for their own reasons. I'd rather someone pick what they believe, keeping an open mind and being willing to admit when it doesn't work. There's no point in arguing "groups," because that logic just fails. Some Christians are psycho and think they're "God-warrriiiioooorrrs!" and can scream at whoever they wish, while others you may not even notice being that different from you. The "All Christians are..." generalizations are tired.

As for the subjectivism, it's a waste of time. Either stuff is real or it ain't. Elsewise, you may not exist yourself. Nihilism tends to defeat itself in the sense that it's pointless to be a nihilist. That should be their slogan

Ooh, fun fact, the Inquisition had more recorded victims than the holocaust. The Vatican allegedly has even more records we'll never see.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Ooh, fun fact, the Inquisition had more recorded victims than the holocaust. The Vatican allegedly has even more records we'll never see.

And Dan Brown makes an appearance. What do you base such a claim on? Which Inquisition are you referring to? There were four, but only two of them were run by Catholic Church. The only two that were run by the Church itself were what historians call the "Medieval Inquisition" and the Roman Inquisition. After the French invaded the Italian peninsula in 1798, they sent back almost all of the Inquisition documents to France, they numbered around 100,000. Hardly seems to be close enough to compare it to the Holocaust, and even more unlikely that the Vatican has these documents...

We are really starting to skirt around a Monty Python reference. I can just feel it.