This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Catholics and Baptists.
Return to board index
Post by
109094
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
147929
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
227517
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
Any religious person could easily reverse that statement
They could try, but they'd be a massive idiot.
The dark ages. That has been the most significant decline in society EVER. Religion was a huge part of the dark ages. Therefore, religion was a huge part of one of the most significant declines in society EVER. I'm sorry, but you lose.
Post by
L33tsauce
Any religious person could easily reverse that statement
They could try, but they'd be a massive idiot.
The dark ages. That has been the most significant decline in society EVER. Religion was a huge part of the dark ages. Therefore, religion was a huge part of one of the most significant declines in society EVER. I'm sorry, but you lose.
Actually, I'm not sorry, you lose. Religion is the only real reason we didn't completely lose all our knowledge in the Dark Ages. During those times, the only freackin' place you could find any knowledge was in a monastery, where monks were diligently copying down manuscripts of books. If it wasn't for religion, it would have taken us a hell lot longer to get our brain cells back.
Post by
227517
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I am absolutely amazed by the amount of mud slinging and ignorance that happens toward religions. It is true that they have done terrible things, but so have many sects of society. If I were to take a specific example of a gay person who did something terrible, Jeffery Dahmer, for example, and use that as a reason why it should be illegal to be Gay, obviously that would be absurd. Why is it ok to make a clean broad negative sweep over all of christianity because of the crusades? Why is it ok to generalize anything? The only place it is socially acceptible is in the case of religions. That is bigotry.
Also, the OP was asking for advice on religion differences and what to do, and everyone in here so confused a serious topic with thier own opinions and biases that he is likely to be worse off than when he started. Most of the people that posted here have brought no facts, just biases.
You all suck, really really bad.
To the OP: If you want to know the 'right' thing to do, then study for yourself. Don't listen to your girlfriend, or Laihendi, or the President of the US. Listen to YOURSELF. Use common sense to filter through all the religions and read. Read read read read. Do not let your emotion play into your decision either. Use a clear and factual mind. You'll do fine.
Post by
227517
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
people learning how to effectively communicate their perpectives without dismissing or demeaning other's ideas is part of learning to function in society.
Excellent points, nock. This last sentence pesents a few problems, though. Society itself allows, and even encourages stereotypes, bigotry, and closedmindedness. In my opinion, if a person "learns how to effectively communicate thier perspecitives without dismissing or demeaning other's ideas", they will NOT be able to function in society as well as the people who conform to incorrect social normalities. This is a problem with society, not with the individual.
Post by
Ilovemuffins
Edit: please don't take offense to this statement. it is my understanding that religion has been used in the past for horrible things. some good has come from religion, but personally i feel that the bad outweighs the good. I only made this statement to help out my brothers and sisters in the human experience. If you didn't think that there was an after life would you have more fun?
then why post it? shenanigans that you were trying to help someone.
The idea of the afterlife that we hold is that it will be much better than anything we could do on earth.
On the flip side Physics and Mathematics have been use to create some of the most devastating weapons in the history of mankind. Should we abhor those schools of thought because they were used for evil?
i like this one. makes alot of sense.
I am not talking about a matter of opinion or perspective or one church is correct and the other isnt. I am just saying that your wrong as to what Catholics believe and are taught.
i'd rather you tell me that then being rude. I am not Catholic, but it is my understanding that being saved is something all denominations share; it is the reason we all are "connected" to some degree, otherwise it would be a completely different "religion" all together (quoted because we dont have a religion, we have a relationship)
also i love you mytie. I try to post like you every day :)
lets try to keep this to a healthy debate, lest it be locked by the forum gods.
Post by
259797
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
Perhaps you've never heard of the Cold War. If anything, nuclear weapons have prevented a lot more death than they've caused.
And to this -
If it wasn't for religion, it would have taken us a hell lot longer to get our brain cells back.
Putting a bandage on someone you just shot in the spine totally makes things alright.
Post by
L33tsauce
Perhaps you've never heard of the Cold War. If anything, nuclear weapons have prevented a lot more death than they've caused.
Haha you funny,
If it wasn't for religion, it would have taken us a hell lot longer to get our brain cells back.
Putting a bandage on someone you just shot in the spine totally makes things alright.
Your lack of knowledge regarding the Dark Ages is quite disturbing. Actually, not really disturbing, but more like pitiful.
Post by
Laihendi
Perhaps you've never heard of the Cold War. If anything, nuclear weapons have prevented a lot more death than they've caused.
The fact that nuclear war very easily could break out (and nearly did), it's not really worth it in Laihendi's opinion... mainly because that would pretty much be the end of human civilization.
Post by
227517
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Progress for the sake of progress is never a good goal. Sometime this is used as an excuse to increase government spending. Our schools need to progress, so the government is going to spend X Billion dollars on it... etc... I don't want to go to deep into this because it is a deep issue all on its own.
Socially, though, society should work toward more open mindedness, and less double standards.
Post by
159616
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
L33tsauce
Just another example of religion getting in the way of a perfectly beautiful relationship...
Do me a favour and ask your girlfriend this: does she really want to believe in a supposedly all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful God who then chooses to only allow a select chosen few (of maybe a few million out of 7 billion people) into heaven, even though plenty of perfectly nice, loving, kind-hearted people exist outside that "chosen" group? And what makes her so certain that her "chosen few" is the right one? So many groups exist that are utterly convinced that they are God's chosen ones - they can't all be right, so how are we supposed to know which to follow?
I beleive the answer is to simply ask yourself, '
Which one would Jesus follow?
'.
Post by
Ilovemuffins
Perhaps you've never heard of the Cold War. If anything, nuclear weapons have prevented a lot more death than they've caused.
someone watched Watchmen.
in all honesty, nuclear weapons are a byproduct of war and weapons research so that our stick is bigger than the other guys, which really doesnt save any lives if we had to kill so many to get to this point.
its hard to say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives (except maybe our own). Killed 220,000.
Post by
TheMediator
someone watched Watchmen.
I didn't, but that's interesting if they brought it up in it.
The whole modern weapons are more deadly than weapons in the past arguement is meh. Machine guns have greatly increased the number of combatants that can be killed in a single battle, but without science, hundreds of millions of people would have killed by diseases and infections anyways. I don't think that any modern weapon except the nuke is comparable to the brutality of pathogens.
its hard to say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives (except maybe our own). Killed 220,000.
Millions would have died if the allies had to invade mainland Japan instead of using the bomb.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.