Good Job halflife2.net

Maybe oftopic but...i just love how Homer Simpsons tryes to aviod going to church on sundays :D

Btw, im was born and baptised to be christian, something that i didnt choose, something other ppl did to me without my permission. Therefore, i see myself as human, not christian, i do not have any belives, im not generalized to a specific religion that someone forced me into when i was just a babie unable to reason or defend myself.

Oh, and being circumfiest because of religion when ur a baby is sick...seriously, how can someone have the right to cut of the skin of a babies penis because he was assigned to a specific religion he didnt not choose but was chosen by his parents, a choice that he had no power over. If this is allowed then why dont all of us go out on the streets and start cutting babies penises...just because their a specific religon! "hey you cant do that! its a babie!" "well yes, but hes jewish, so i have permission" *slit, slash*

If i were circumfiest i would seriously sue my parents, i would probably loose but no one has any right of deformating my body in any way, specialy not when im a babie who cant defend oneself.

And dont come with that bullshit about your dick getting clear of infections etc...if u have foreskin, it will protect ur dick against any bacteria or whatever your dick tuches, if you cut of the skin, ur dick is fully exposed to whatever it tuches. Just keep the penis clean and ur allright...why cut the damn skin of? Let the body be what it is, why modify it?


Sick i tell ya...sick
 
Mechagodzilla said:
Exactly. "Judge not lest ye be judged."
You can only call yourself a christian if you submit yourself to the laws and accept that, if you break them, you deserve to be killed.

Also, Jesus says that "getting angry" and "insulting people" are punishable by eternity in hell.

He equates getting angry with commiting murder, so there is a good chance that you can be sentenced to death for experiencing that emotion.
Click to expand...
Ironicaly Jesus went ape-shit in the temple when people where selling animals in it.
 
Ravioli said:
And dont come with that bullshit about your dick getting clear of infections etc...if u have foreskin, it will protect ur dick against any bacteria or whatever your dick tuches, if you cut of the skin, ur dick is fully exposed to whatever it tuches. Just keep the penis clean and ur allright...why cut the damn skin of? Let the body be what it is, why modify it?


Sick i tell ya...sick
Click to expand...

Umm, do you really wanna know what forms inside the skin? It's pretty gross :|
 
DeusExMachina said:
Umm, do you really wanna know what forms inside the skin? It's pretty gross :|
Click to expand...

You mean inside the skin, or between the skin and the rest of it all? Cause my answer if the latter, is going to be the equivilent of belly button lint. :LOL:
 
I'm circumcised. I definitely think it looks better than uncircumcised.

I enjoy the fact that my penis doesn't look like the product of an ungodly union between an anus and an anteater.
 
Stigmata said:
I'm circumcised. I definitely think it looks better than uncircumcised.

I enjoy the fact that my penis doesn't look like the product of an ungodly union between an anus and an anteater.
Click to expand...

If you look on the wikipedia article for penis, one of the uncircumcised penises there looks exactly like a sea cucumber.
 
I am a strong (grrr) atheist. I would say I'm an opponent of religion and would love to see it wiped off the face of the earth, but I'm too nice to be vocal about it.
 
You could always mobilize a plan to systematically eradicate religious people. It could unlock your inner desire for killing.
 
im open about my atheism to others, my friend wants to convert me to christianity but i think ill convert him to atheism.
 
Krynn72 said:
Heres how I see the whole religion thing.

In a nutshell....

People long ago wanted answers to big questions, just like we still do today. We want to know why the Sun is there... why people died, what happens when we do die etc.

Long ago however, there wasn't as large a scientific community and the field was in its infancy. Now that science has come such a long way... religion is falling out. Thats not to say that everyone or even a majority of people are completely nonreligious... just that its diminishing in comparison to a couple thousand years ago. The reason for this is that science is still not capable of answering all of our questions. Indeed, we dont even know where to begin to answer some of the tough questions. As such, people still need the comfort of having answers. So here again we come to religion which can provide answers to these questions using faith.

I believe religions were created by men for two reasons. To provide answers to their societies who felt lost since they knew so little about life. And to provide guidance on how to live their lives well. The latter part has since been abused in my opinion (its hard to think of one war in our history that wasnt at least partially due to religious conflicts between people) and is what has given religion a bad rep.

As science improves and logic and reason become more prominent, faith will continue to diminish.
Click to expand...


I agree completly. Religion started as a way to explain the world and as guidence.

Science has replaced the former, and laws have replaced the latter. However, I would like to say that religious books still have many good lessons ingrained in them if you look at them in a metaphorical sense.
 
Hundred Years War.

Hey! They're not catholic enough! Kill em!


Oh, you say we're not catholic enough hmm? The same goes for you! Kill them!




Had no basis in religion.


In fact, I don't even think either of the great wars were based on religion either. Nor Korean War, or Vietnam War. Hmm... just goes to show you!


Religion actually had a benefit during the American Civil War. It was a huge factor in the formation of abolitionists to end slavery. Well... before the civil war actually.


Fact of the matter is... people will kill and conquer despite religion. If religion was completely abolished, and nobody anywhere practiced it... the world would still be riddled with problems. maybe fewer, maybe the same. Who knows. Humanity has a habit of screwing each other and the planet over for their own petty and trivial reasons. Blaming everything on religion is just an easy way of looking at things, and you'd fool yourself to think there was any basis of fact in thinking all bad things people do involves religious purposes.
 
Yeah, Raziaar, it's true religion isn't the cause of wars etc, but it's a fantastic way to label people. Richard Dawkins describes it nicely in a Devil's Chaplain:

My point is not that religion itself is the motivation for wars, murders
and terrorist attacks, but that religion is the principal label, and the most
dangerous one, by which a 'they' as opposed to a 'we' can be identified
at all. I am not even claiming that religion is the only label by which we
identify the victims of our prejudice. There's also skin colour, language
and social class. But often, as in Northern Ireland, these don't apply and
religion is the only divisive label around. Even when it is not alone,
religion is nearly always an incendiary ingredient in the mix as well.
And please don't trot out Hitler as a counter-example. Hitler's sub-
Wagnerian ravings constituted a religion of his own foundation, and his
anti-Semitism owed a lot to his never-renounced Roman Catholicism.

It is not an exaggeration to say that religion is the most inflammatory
enemy-labelling device in history. Who killed your father? Not the
individuals you are about to kill in 'revenge'. The culprits themselves
have vanished over the border. The people who stole your great
grandfather's land have died of old age. You aim your vendetta at those
who belong to the same religion as the original perpetrators. It wasn't
Seamus who killed your brother, but it was Catholics, so Seamus
deserves to die 'in return'. Next, it was Protestants who killed Seamus so
let's go out and kill some Protestants 'in revenge'. It was Muslims who
destroyed the World Trade Center, so let's set upon the turbaned driver
of a London taxi and leave him paralysed from the neck down.
Click to expand...

For a current example, look at Iraq where there is a virtual civil war going on between two groups of Islam. Even if that ridiculously small difference between religions isn't the ONLY cause of it, perhaps there's politics as well, it's sure as hell a nice way for leaders to justify 'their' religion's actions agains the 'others'. But in a world without religion, there would be far less 'thems' and 'others', less 'we's' and 'theys'. Religion is the most powerful discriminatory device every invented.
 
The bible actually causes racism, and homophobia.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is about god's punishment for general inhospitality. Homosexuality is never directly established as the reason for destroying it, yet christians today act insanely inhospitable to gays, based on this poor interpretation.

Also, Christian Identity Theology claims that the bible detemines which races are good and which races are evil.
Poor interpretation of genesis leads people to believe a white Adam is the master race, while Cain is "marked" like the every other race supposedly is.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that it is okay to lie all the time, even in court, because some people lie in the bible.

What a jolly world we live in!
 
It is alright to lie all the time though.

I don't need the Bible to tell me that.
 
GiaOmerta said:
Mecha, how is your relationship with the Father?
Click to expand...
I think Mecha shut him up good for a few years during a debate. I'm pretty sure his side of the converation went like this:

"Right.... right.... okay.... Yeah, but - right, right... But what about... Not even if I - no - no - that's not what he MEANT, I - I don't CARE that you're not supposed to - well if THAT's true, then what about - oh... well I do see your point, but if you read verses 3 through 18 you see that - but that's not the POINT! He's trying to - no, he's - you're not -

YOU KNOW WHAT? FINE, MECHA. FINE. YOU WIN. God damnit. Look, just... I'm gonna go do... I'm gonna go. I'll call you."
 
some people can't think on their own and that's what hl2.net is here for, to teach them
 
As far as my own religion goes, I'll say this -

Dawn is breaking.
 
Mechagodzilla said:
If it's not science, then it can't be trusted.
Click to expand...

1. According to these words, the scientific methods are the only way to compile knowlege that can be trusted. I disagree with that because the problem of science is that it's power of explanation has it's limits too, as any other system of explaining things around us has, be it religious or common sense or whatever.

2. The same reasoning was used in religion until science took over the wheel of the common knowledge. For example - scientists proved that the Earth is round, but you haven't checked it, did you? You believe it, because you believe the scientists (the authority of knowledge) are right. But as a scientist you should question it. Common people like you and me have the same attitude to science like have towards religion. Unless you are not a scientist/clergy you do not have the competence to question the knowledge you are given.

3. Geoaddi, if you were convinced that God doesn't exist, this doesn't mean you don't have to question it anymore. Maybe even more important to question yourself is, what role does or is God supposed to have. Do you believe it, because mom and dad told you to? Do you believe because you fear of going to hell? Do you believe it because you think there must be more to this life and you can't explain it? What use could you make out of believing or not beliving?
 
Well, personally, I did question that the earth was round. But then I saw the evidence (eg horizons) and also saw the curvature of the Earth, and decided those science-fellers were probably correct on this one.
 
Arg, it's just an example :rolleyes: What about things you cannot check yourself?
 
You do your best to challenge it.
 
Mechagodzilla said:
Christianity is the belief that everything we do on Earth is worthless - everything except for paying Christianity.

Jesus says:

'In truth I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even the smallest stroke of a letter will pass away from The Law. So anyone who breaks the least of these commandments or teaches others to do so will be called "least" in the kingdom of heaven. But whoevever practices these commandments and teaches them will be called "great" in the kingdom of heaven. I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses the experts in The Law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.'
(Matthew 5:18-20)

God says:

'The Law is permanent for all future generations. You must add nothing to what I command you, nor subtract anything from it, but keep the commandments of Yahweh your God just as I lay them down for you.'
(Numbers 15:15, Deuteronomy 4:2)

"The Law" and "The Commandments" refer to the laws of Moses and/or the ten commandments, respectively.
In this passage, Jesus is telling the people that it does not suffice to simply follow the laws of Moses.
You must follow the moses and have faith in Jesus to reach heaven.
Click to expand...

Not so sure about that.

36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it //*note: equal to the first commandment - this translation of Bible is very poor*//: 'Love your neighbor, as yourself.'[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Matthew 22
Click to expand...

All that stuff you argue is therefore non-relevant. Actually you seem to ignore all the positive things JC spoke about. Not as much scientific as it is biased. More like of a devils advocate, seeking logical loopholes which you then generalize onto whole religion as such. Bible could be called contradictory at best, but not utterly wrong. I believe we are smart enough to discern which ideas in the Bible are worth of consideration and which are simply out of space and time.
 
A.I. said:
2. The same reasoning was used in religion until science took over the wheel of the common knowledge. For example - scientists proved that the Earth is round, but you haven't checked it, did you? You believe it, because you believe the scientists (the authority of knowledge) are right. But as a scientist you should question it. Common people like you and me have the same attitude to science like have towards religion. Unless you are not a scientist/clergy you do not have the competence to question the knowledge you are given.
Click to expand...


Yes, but science actually has merit, evidence and reasoning. It understands the difference between what has, hasn't and can't be proven and treats each accordingly

Wheras religion is merely stating speculation(at best) for fact. None of which can be tested or proven. And, when it's all but disproven......well....that's where faith comes in.
 
brink's said:
Yes, but science actually has merit, evidence and reasoning. It understands the difference between what has, hasn't and can't be proven and treats each accordingly.
Click to expand...

Among the scientists, the knowledge creators and posessors. But what about the common people who are not scientists? How can they question the knowledge of the scientists if they not become one of them? They are forced to believe what the scientists tell them until some other scientists within their expertise prove them wrong.

Take research on global warming, for example. As an individual you don't have the knowledge nor the assets to investigate whether one group or the other is right, but we have tons of contradictory results. Now, which side to believe - and for example many were (re)convinced by Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth who is not a scientist at all but claims that the data and he has are right. On the other hand we have scientists who argue that the current situation is just temporal and has to do nothing with the man's interference with nature.

I'm telling you, science is just another religion (to which I belong too :) ). To say religion is the filler of gaps left by the science is dumb. Science is good enough for explaining things. Religion lost it's prime role in explaining things after the Enlightenment came in. But Christ doesn't argue about the origin of the universe. How could origin of the universe affect attitude to others?
 
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it //*note: equal to the first commandment - this translation of Bible is very poor*//: 'Love your neighbor, as yourself.'[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Matthew 22
Click to expand...


I've already gone over this maybe a million times. Jesus is saying, even there, that the laws of the prophets must be followed. The only major additions he made to the original commandments given to moses (which god himself said were permanent for all future generations) were to specify that you must follow the laws of the prophets without anger, and with faith in Jesus.

Let me repeat that last sentence, with some bold tags:

Jesus said you must follow the laws of the prophets without anger, and with faith in Jesus.

Was or was not Moses a prophet of god?

NOWHERE does Jesus say anything that contradicts Moses.
Tell me, where does he say that those rituals (which both he and god declared permanent for all future generations) should not be followed?

Jesus says that you must follow the law and be nice, but those orders aren't mutually exclusive.
If you are a christian, the entire concept of "nice" is defined by biblical law.
It might be human decency to not kill people on a massive scale, but we aren't talking about human decency.
This is god's decency. A decency which it is your obligation to obey unfailingly.
Who are you to question God and Jesus when they both say that the laws are permanent?

Paul of Tarsus attempted to reconcile his human lust for peace with jesus's support of the old-testament, and look what we got: contradiction city!

I mean, just a second ago, you tried to say that Matthew 20 overrules Matthew 18. So is the jesus in Matthew 18 suddenly a liar?

Paul lied when he wrote that the laws of Moses had ended, because JESUS CHRIST and GOD IN HEAVEN both say that the laws must be followed, unchanged, until the apocalypse.

That is what jesus said. Do christians worship jesus or not?
Do christians worship jesus or do they worship Paul?
Which of those characters is the messiah?

This is an honest and straightforwards question.

Is Paul the messiah, or is it jesus christ?
 
This thread sucks. It has been my utter displeasure to read it.
 
A.I. said:
Among the scientists, the knowledge creators and posessors. But what about the common people who are not scientists? How can they question the knowledge of the scientists if they not become one of them? They are forced to believe what the scientists tell them until some other scientists within their expertise prove them wrong.

Take research on global warming, for example. As an individual you don't have the knowledge nor the assets to investigate whether one group or the other is right, but we have tons of contradictory results. Now, which side to believe - and for example many were (re)convinced by Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth who is not a scientist at all but claims that the data and he has are right. On the other hand we have scientists who argue that the current situation is just temporal and has to do nothing with the man's interference with nature.

I'm telling you, science is just another religion (to which I belong too :) ). To say religion is the filler of gaps left by the science is dumb. Science is good enough for explaining things. Religion lost it's prime role in explaining things after the Enlightenment came in. But Christ doesn't argue about the origin of the universe. How could origin of the universe affect attitude to others?
Click to expand...

I can actively question science. If I feel ive been lied to about a round earth, there are a number of ways i can comfirm or dimiss my suspicions. This is something you can't do in religion, you're literally(against all odds) taking someones else's word for it.
 
Mechagodzilla said:
I've already gone over this maybe a million times. Jesus is saying, even there, that the laws of the prophets must be followed. The only major additions he made to the original commandments given to moses (which god himself said were permanent for all future generations) were to specify that you must follow the laws of the prophets without anger, and with faith in Jesus.

Let me repeat that last sentence, with some bold tags:

Jesus said you must follow the laws of the prophets without anger, and with faith in Jesus. You don't have to, but it's definately better to. And dammit, I'm really angry because I mustn't kill people. Damn 5th commandment.

Was or was not Moses a prophet of god? Technically speaking actually not, he was just a leader of Israel.

NOWHERE does Jesus say anything that contradicts Moses. Not true.
Tell me, where does he say that those rituals (which both he and god declared permanent for all future generations) should not be followed? They should not be followed every time they contradict the first two.

Jesus says that you must follow the law and be nice, but those orders aren't mutually exclusive.
If you are a christian, the entire concept of "nice" is defined by biblical law.
It might be human decency to not kill people on a massive scale, but we aren't talking about human decency.
This is god's decency. A decency which it is your obligation to obey unfailingly. God's mercy is limitless. Jesus was human and had doubts too (e.g. Garden of Gethsemane)
Who are you to question God and Jesus when they both say that the laws are permanent? You're right. Sane people do not question whether to kill other people or not.

Paul of Tarsus attempted to reconcile his human lust for peace with jesus's support of the old-testament, and look what we got: contradiction city!

I mean, just a second ago, you tried to say that Matthew 20 overrules Matthew 18. So is the jesus in Matthew 18 suddenly a liar? I'm sorry which part of 18 should contradict 20? I must be blind.

Paul lied when he wrote that the laws of Moses had ended, because JESUS CHRIST and GOD IN HEAVEN both say that the laws must be followed, unchanged, until the apocalypse.

That is what jesus said. Do christians worship jesus or not?
Do christians worship jesus or do they worship Paul?
Which of those characters is the messiah?

This is an honest and straightforwards question.

Is Paul the messiah, or is it jesus christ?
Click to expand...

I don't remember of Paul claiming that he is the Messiah, and if I hadn't lost his telephone number, I think he would still anwser that Jesus is the Messiah. :naughty: But I would agree to a certain extent that Paul is the one who messed up a couple of Christs ideas. Have you read The Last Temptation of Christ from Nikos Kazantzakis (Zorba the Greek)? It's really an interesting read (and no wonder why was it banned and Kazantzakis excommunicated).
 
Religion: Having faith in some Invisible Sky God for no other reason than because someone told you so (or more likely: indoctrinated you with it since you were a kid) and with no way to dismiss or confirm those beliefs because they're based on hot air.

Science: (from a non-scientist perspective that is) accepting something because someone who went years to school for it and performed investigations on the subject told you that scenario X is the most likely one. You can either stop here, or investigate further, because the principle of science is that every proposition can be attacked and there's no dogmatic thinking. Which allows you to look for what other scientists tells you about that subject because there is no central authority that says X or Y is true/false. Propositions can be tested and subsequently shot down or accepted as the current best fitting theory to describe the facts.

If you're looking for absolute certainty in science, that is, 100% of the scientists in the field agreeing with every last bit of a proposition, then you're knocking on the wrong door, you should be at science's retarded brother: religion.

If science is a 'religion', then you're taking a very broad definition of the word. Which you're free to do of course, but the general consensus is that religion is not 'knowing' (science) but 'believing'. If science is a religion, it's not possible to be non-religious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bbson john
Hi everyone. I am new to this forum!
Replies
11
Views
6K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
V
I had a tour at the Valve HQ recently, this is what I found out.
Replies
8
Views
9K
UshankaCat
UshankaCat
-smash-
Steam Dev Days: day 1
Replies
0
Views
18K
-smash-
-smash-
B
Community Interviews: Tony Newton, co-creator of Redemption
Replies
0
Views
5K
Barnz
B
Back
Top