Quote:
… Religion is a system of works. Since a philosophy is a “system of values adopted by an individual, group, etc.” (New International Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary of the English Language) or “the general laws that furnish the rational explanation of anything” (same Dictionary) Hinduism could be considered either one. Semantics.

Call it semantics, then let me call it faith-arrogance .
Why does Christianity qualify as a religion, whereas Hinduism doesn’t?
(And i don’t really get what you mean by “system of works”)

A “system of works” is the things people do to achieve something. In this case it is the things they do to reach either heaven or the highest spiritual state, like nirvana. So in a non-spiritual sense, you could compare it to a businessman doing things to reach the top of the ladder. I’m sorry if I implied that Hinduism doesn’t qualify, but frankly I don’t see how you inferred that from my statement. It is a religion.

At least the ones who do believe in God have the humbleness to admit that they can’t be sure he’s out there, but it’s safer to side with believing in a God than not.

Excuse me as I make myself an exception. I am ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that there is a God. This is where I differentiate between faith and science. Faith is where my convictions lead me to be sure that there is a God. Science also brings me to this conclusion, but I can’t scientifically prove it. I know that’s confusing. I’ll try to explain it better later if I can, but right now I can’t find a better way to put it. Science can just as easily be taken to point toward evolution, but there are infinite ways to explain away its discrepancies (did I spell that right?), and more keep coming up.
So call me prideful and arrogant, but I KNOW that there is a God.

I know I just opened up another whole can of worms, but oh well. I guess Janus and I could be called the “extremes” of both sides. :) Although maybe Janus won’t want to have anything in common with me. :wink:

“For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” (I Corinthians 1:18, King James Version)

“But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do engender strifes.” (II Timothy 2:23, KJV)

ok jazz, first, get it right. i am not arguing that there is no religion, that is absurd, there clearly is religion, look around. i am arguing against the existence of god, something related, but distinct.
second, my opening line was called a joke, maybe you didnt find it funny, but dont get bent out of shape about it.
third, if you find my thread annoying, dont read it. nobody forced you to read it, so dont.
finally, i am not looking for proof on the existence of god, one way or the other. like many other posters on this thread have said, proof is all but impossible to provide. i am simply challenging the existence of a diving being, in a forum for open discussion.

Oooh, are we getting just a little bit defensive here? :) :wink:

difernT said: Quote:
One could reverse the question and ask you: “How can anyone be so foolish as to not believe in a divine being?” To use what I consider a somewhat weak statement that i haven’t found a better way of saying: “If we’re wrong, we lose nothing. If you’re wrong, you lose everything.” If I’m wrong, I still have no afterlife. If you’re wrong, you spend eternity in Hell.

I dont think you should be arguing on the existence of God if you believe in God simply as a way of covering yourself on the chance he exists. unless you are just playing devil’s advocate. in which case, that argument is implying that i should believe in god just to cover my a**.

if you noticed i called it a “weak statement.” and that’s why i called it weak. God isn’t a way to just cover your behind. Generally speaking, people realize that the things they do wrong are the reason they are condemned to Hell. I think that it’s generally known that life is made up of opportunities and the choices/decisions that go with them. If someone goes to Hell it’s because they choose not to believe what Christ did. They choose to go to Hell.

dIfrenT wrote:
“If we’re wrong, we lose nothing. If you’re wrong, you lose everything.” If I’m wrong, I still have no afterlife. If you’re wrong, you spend eternity in Hell."

This is what i would call “religion for wimps” Even then: If you are wrong, you spend your next 15 lifes as some invertebrate, while i will be in Nirvana by then …

Really? I see it the opposite way. I don’t think that people who willingly die for their faith are wimps. It’s just the opposite. And, I realize that my knowledge is simplistic, but isn’t karma where good actions make good karma and vice versa? I haven’t grasped the more complicated side. In that case, if as a Christian, my focus is pleasing God by doing the right (or good) thing, I have good karma and move up in the cycle of samsara. However, as I said, Christianity shouldn’t be a way to cover your butt. I really believe that Christ died to pay for my sins.

Funny that you don’t even allow it the status of a religion.
Did all the people before JC, or before Abraham go to hell? Do all christians go to hell because they don’t follow the upgrade "Monotheism V3.1 “Islam” "?

Call it what you want. Religion is a system of works. Since a philosophy is a “system of values adopted by an individual, group, etc.” (New International Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary of the English Language) or “the general laws that furnish the rational explanation of anything” (same Dictionary) Hinduism could be considered either one. Semantics.

Abrahams works were “counted unto him for righteousness.” Before Christ’s death I’m sure you’ve figured out that the way to Heaven was based on works - following God’s mandates on sacrifices and stuff. After Christ, it’s based on faith in the fact the He died on the cross, was buried, and resurrected three days later. He ascended into Heaven to sit at the Father’s right hand.

You seriously believe 4 billion people are going to hell becuase they are simple misguided in you mind? Even if some of them have had religous experiences that surpass yours and have convinced them that their religion is true. I could not believe in a god that would do that, it seems cold and heartless. A cold and heartless god is not really something I’d want to believe in.

Yes. You can be convinced the earth is flat until you see satellite pictures. Even then you could call it a fabrication. And surely you don’t believe that you can always have it the way you want. Even I’m not naive enough to believe that.

As much as I would like to elaborate, I need to be on my way to work.

Excuse me, please, for what will probably become a long response post.

How can anyone belief in so foolish a concept as a divine being?

One could reverse the question and ask you: “How can anyone be so foolish as to not believe in a divine being?” To use what I consider a somewhat weak statement that i haven’t found a better way of saying: “If we’re wrong, we lose nothing. If you’re wrong, you lose everything.” If I’m wrong, I still have no afterlife. If you’re wrong, you spend eternity in Hell.

the Big Bang theory postulates a singulartity being present before existence as well

I’ve met people who would agree with you. Yet you admit (at least from what I gather b/c you may not be admitting anything) that both take faith/belief/opinion.

Many times, this is counterpointed by a statement something like “God is universal, we believe differently in the same being” or something like that. Now i have a problem with that. That is first of all, too easy.

I have a problem with that too. It is too easy, but IMO your explanation is too easy as well. I believe that there is only ONE way to the ONE true God. That’s through Jesus Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. That cannot be defined as easy because it offends too many people.

How could it be the same God, if christians believe in Heaven and Hell, and Hindus believe in reincarnation?

It’s not the same God. Jesus Christ is God, and reincarnation is a wrong philosophy.

For example, you have christianity. Within that, there is Catholocism, Orthodox, and Protestant. Under protestant, there are too many denominations to go into. All of these denominations of Christianity all believe in the divinity of Christ, but disagree on the finer points. Some are legitametly different denominations, but others, like Episcopalian to Catholic are basically identical.

That’s true, but you just said that they all agree on one point: “the divinity of Christ.” Funny that that’s the one thing the agree on, huh?

I believe in God for all the bad stuff.

An immature attitude. I mean no offense. If you want a scapegoat you can choose anything, obviously. You could choose your best friend, but at least with him/her you would know that you should acknowledge the good things they do.

Well, perhaps it seems absurd to you (which it obviously does) that there would be a God out there. However, I challenge you to disprove it.

From a scientific viewpoint, you can do neither. You can’t taste, touch, see, smell, or hear either the chemicals or God (these days anyway b/c that comes through the Bible).

Interesting argument CC, except for one thing, there is no god, and you are wrong.

I can’t resist, Janus. :wink: You have an interesting argument, except for one thing, there IS a God (only one, in fact) and you are wrong.

Does anyone else see the irony in his statement based on his previous quote?

Yes.

Fine, I’ll let you have a Hispanic history month…

…as soon as you let me have a white (or caucasian) history month.

Ooooh. Works for me. :roll: The way I see it, we wouldn’t have as many race problems if people would get over having a National-whatever-history-month. We can celebrate our cultures, fine. But these months only hinder a national unity.

Speaking of Hispanics (and don’t accuse me of being racist because I am one) I went to JCPenney today and I heard more people speaking Spanish than I heard speaking English. I’m so glad I’m in my fourth year of Spanish. It’s almost necessary to speak it now (at least to eavesdrop) :D I think that whites and Hispanics are going to be competing for majority in California in the near future.

Anyhow, race is overrated. Let’s get over ourselves and be AMERICANS. That is if you’re not ashamed of it. I’m 100% PROUD OF IT, BABY!!!

I know what you mean about the AP tests Yanny. I took two this week (the 5th and the 8th). English and Calculus AB. Fortunately, I will never have to take another one. :D

have fun cc.l i’m going to study to be a doctor too. hopefully i’ll get to travel for education. :)

I got William C. Westmoreland.

Leadership Attributes:

General Westmoreland was generally a careful strategist. In Vietnam, he followed a conservative strategy, advocating a war of attrition against the Viet Cong. Westmoreland normally allowed no operations by units smaller than the battalion, and he insisted on strong artillery support. Westmoreland was more a warrior than diplomat. He found it difficult to tread the fine line of public ambivalence to the Vietnam War. Personally, Westmoreland was brave in battle. During World War II, he often scouted ahead of the guns; while doing so in Sicily, his jeep was hit but he escaped injury.

Cool site.

Wow. This is interesting. BTW, I think you guys are crazy. You and your Canada jokes. :)

I don’t agree with cloning humans. Points about how genetics could be screwed up even more because of the clones being from old DNA are good. But another argument that could come up is that we could take these defects out. Fine on the surface, but removing these defects could make future generations of clones more vulnerable to disease because their bodies have not strengthened their immune systems. An entire race of clones could be destroyed by one rampant disease.
More importantly, one species produces offspring of the same species, correct? Therefore, the stemcells of humans would create more humans (clones or not, they are still homo sapiens). To rear a “clone” simply to “harvest” it is inhumane.
wrt overpopulation. i think it’s to hyped up. if it’s crowded where you are…move. And if you think forceful measures for de-population should be employed (as in systematically kill “extra” people) I have only one more thing to say.

You first.

France is entirely responsible for our very existance.

They are not entirely responsible. Saying this takes away from the courage and sacrifice of the men who fought for American independence. Also, many of British people themselves weren’t altogether for the war. It wasn’t exactly popular in England. True, the French did help - like Lafayette - but it wasn’t all from the goodness of their hearts. They didn’t like the way England had a huge empire, and a free America would open up new trade markets.

For example, at my school we have pep rally competitions between the grades. My class had never won a single one, and we’re seniors now. This year we got our act together and really worked for the spirit and motivation to win, and we did. But some people would say the staff rigged the competition. I resent it because it’s like saying we didn’t work our butts off to earn it :evil: The judges can’t mess up the point system, especially when the whole school is looking on.

That’s what attributing the existence of the USA to France is like to me. Those men who worked their butts off to make this country free don’t deserve to have their work entirely credited to someone else.

Thanks. And you weren’t bored?