PDA

View Full Version : whats your thoughts on Psalms 82:6-


OTB
07-21-2007, 07:20 AM
open to any1 who wants to drop some science-

peace-

Visionz
08-14-2007, 08:06 PM
We all have the power to shape the world around us creating our own little(sometimes huge) universes. The power to do so comes from a single source.

Prophet Picasso
08-16-2007, 07:55 PM
We are created in the image of Jah the Creator. We are not all gods, but we are all created to be gods. Many seek to find their godship through empty sources, thus they become false gods to themselves and sometimes others. Most never find God, let alone their own godhood.
Also, I believe this scripture to be literal in that we are not meant to die physically. Although only a few have bypassed death, I believe it is a defeatable enemy of Jah that we can all overcome by the realization of that godpower from Him.

OTB
08-17-2007, 03:00 PM
^true indeed P-

props for your wize and genuine thoughts.

peace fam-

Ultimate Fist
08-17-2007, 10:15 PM
You are god because god can do anything anytime. He (or she) has infinite potential and you have every possible attribute a person can have. Don't get caught up in identities because you are everything on a smaller scale. Read up on Tantra.

OTB
08-17-2007, 10:19 PM
^nice fzafist-

peace and much respect.

Nickel
08-23-2007, 01:10 PM
I want to be Ms.
Rza and Ms. Ghostface and
Ms. Gza. I'm Mza

Cthulhu
08-23-2007, 10:02 PM
Oh please, don't be absurd.

How self-centered does one have to be to think a several thousand-year-old text translated and re-translated millions of times is speaking directly about him?

Prophet Picasso
08-23-2007, 11:28 PM
Oh please, don't be absurd.

How self-centered does one have to be to think a several thousand-year-old text translated and re-translated millions of times is speaking directly about him?

I respect your perspective, but I wasn't speaking of the verbatim text, but the truth behind the text. Translation bends and confuses facts, particularly in writings thought to be religious. Truth is eternal and unchanging. I feel that these truths not only speak directly about me, but about you as well.

Nickel
08-24-2007, 10:08 AM
What is so absurd
about being married to
members of Wu-Tang?

Urban_Journalz
09-04-2007, 05:36 PM
I think it's touching on not only the fact that God breathed into Adam of His Own Spirit, but also that mankind is capable of incredible feats of mental, physical and spiritual skill that only the ancients began to tap into and that most of us today would consider impossible or that "Star Wars/Matrix" shit you know?

Urban_Journalz
09-04-2007, 05:42 PM
Oh please, don't be absurd.

How self-centered does one have to be to think a several thousand-year-old text translated and re-translated millions of times is speaking directly about him?

A translation and a re-writing are two different things.

There are no contradictions in The Psalms or The Book of Proverbs or The Book of Enoch. Just because The Gospels and The Torah have been tampered with, don't assume that all of them are tainted until you check for yourself.

Cthulhu
09-13-2007, 11:22 PM
What makes you all so sure that

1.) A God exists

2.) The God you worship is the right one?

Leaving the first point alone for a minute, how can you be so sure the Abrahamic God and the scriptures of those religions are the correct ones when you could have easily been born a Buddhist, Mazdasist/Zoroastrian, Jainist, Hindu, or any other among thousands of world religions?


As for the god thing itself, why do you even WANT to believe some nasty gloating omniscient dictator controls every aspect of your life?


Answer the omnipotence paradox:

Could God create a rock that he cannot lift? Or could God kill himself?

If god could not do these things, it would be a compromise to his omnipotence. If he can accomplish these things, it still compromises his omnipotence. The concept of omnipotence defies basic logic itself. And don't come tell me that "God is above logic" as you try to defend your delusions with pseudo-logical hypotheses that you could never even prove with empirical evidence.

SG
09-14-2007, 12:47 PM
to each his own,

God lives in the minds of men, he is the center of right and wrong.
When man no longer receives judgment he then act off of feeling(flesh).
When man thinks he is great, when man acts he is below

yes(positive)right, no(negative)wrong, and unknown(infinite)God

negativity comes to those that act(the unjust, wicked, etc)
My words are regarding the context of this thread

Cthulhu
09-15-2007, 12:45 PM
to each his own,

God lives in the minds of men, he is the center of right and wrong.
When man no longer receives judgment he then act off of feeling(flesh).
When man thinks he is great, when man acts he is below

yes(positive)right, no(negative)wrong, and unknown(infinite)God

negativity comes to those that act(the unjust, wicked, etc)
My words are regarding the context of this thread

Why do religious people think morality HAD to be handed down by some higher being? Morals and values were assets that evolved in human sociology as civilization evolved. Most people act morally or compassionately because they realize that other humans are sentient beings like themselves who feel pain and emotion the same way they do. I don't need to believe in God to know that I should help a blind person cross the street or to know that rape and murder are dispicable.

On the other hand, there's all these so-called "moral" majority who do stupid, useless, oftentimes bigoted, and utterly delusional things, not out of compassion, but because they think it will please their God. I can't think of a more selfish motivation. Saving your own skin from eternal damnation by doing retarded things like standing outside a planned parenthood center with giant posters of mutilated fetuses. Not only is it a complete waste of time, but it's downright bizarre. Of course, what else can you expect from a religion that uses the image of a tortured and mutliated man as its emblem?

Cthulhu
09-15-2007, 12:54 PM
A translation and a re-writing are two different things.

There are no contradictions in The Psalms or The Book of Proverbs or The Book of Enoch. Just because The Gospels and The Torah have been tampered with, don't assume that all of them are tainted until you check for yourself.

Not entirely. While a pure re-write accomplishes a different goal than translation, translation itself requires a certain amount of re-writing in order to put the text in to something coherent in the new language. You can't just take Greek and Hebrew words and find their closest English counterparts and stick them in. Translators usually have some degree of poetic, lyrical, or literary skill in order to make the translated text true to the spirit of the original. Furthermore, etymologies change over time, meaning that some ancient words have counterparts in English with drastically differen connotations, so the author has to choose which word best represents what that scripture was trying to get across. That's why theologians are still arguing over whether Sodom and Gomorrah specifically refers to homosexuality itself, or rather to violent sexuality and rape (as the actions of the townspeople would imply).

I say it's pointless and absurd to base your life around an ancient text of mythological stories. By all means, research it. Read it. Take what values you may think useful from it. But the minute you think an all-controlling God created it and will punish you for not following it, you've let yourself be taken by delusion.

You talk about texts that aren't "tampered" with. Unless you are fluent in Hebrew and ancient Greek and have read the original scrolls, I am not inclined to believe you. Why bother cherry-picking what books are God's "REAL" words, when it's far more likely that all the books were written by men and should be viewed in the context of the clannish socieites they lived in.

Urban_Journalz
09-15-2007, 02:58 PM
Not entirely. While a pure re-write accomplishes a different goal than translation, translation itself requires a certain amount of re-writing in order to put the text in to something coherent in the new language. You can't just take Greek and Hebrew words and find their closest English counterparts and stick them in. Translators usually have some degree of poetic, lyrical, or literary skill in order to make the translated text true to the spirit of the original. Furthermore, etymologies change over time, meaning that some ancient words have counterparts in English with drastically differen connotations, so the author has to choose which word best represents what that scripture was trying to get across. That's why theologians are still arguing over whether Sodom and Gomorrah specifically refers to homosexuality itself, or rather to violent sexuality and rape (as the actions of the townspeople would imply).

I say it's pointless and absurd to base your life around an ancient text of mythological stories. By all means, research it. Read it. Take what values you may think useful from it. But the minute you think an all-controlling God created it and will punish you for not following it, you've let yourself be taken by delusion.

You talk about texts that aren't "tampered" with. Unless you are fluent in Hebrew and ancient Greek and have read the original scrolls, I am not inclined to believe you. Why bother cherry-picking what books are God's "REAL" words, when it's far more likely that all the books were written by men and should be viewed in the context of the clannish socieites they lived in.

First of all, what you're "inclined to believe" makes all of no difference to me and I couldn't care less about it.

You're trying to pass off your opinion as fact, just because you happen to be one of the many people that chooses to make sheer disbelief a matter of pseudo-philosophy.

This thread was made for people to speak upon what they thought this particular verse meant. One thing you disbelievers should remember is that you're not doing harm to anyone but yourself when you speak. Of course, you'll deny this and say you were just "expressing yourself", because admitting to the truth is further from your grasp than anything.

Being fluent in Hebrew or Greek has nothing to do with it, because even if I were, you'd still find a reason to label what was written false. Your whole point of entering this thread was to cause discord. Even if the original scrolls were right in front of you, you'd say something like, "Well, I don't know who wrote it." or "Unless I see God Himself write it, I'm not inclined to believe in it."

Trust me, I smell people like you coming a mile away.

You call them "ancient mythological stories", yet you have no proof of that. All you have to go on, is that since it was a time before you existed, then it must not be true. Or since you can't see, smell and touch it, then it must be myth. You're no different than an atheist, because if a rule or set of rules is given that goes against your habits, customs or inclinations, then it's automatically false because you're too weak to practice self-restraint for the good of your own soul.

You say translators "usually" have....and that may be so, but unlike you, I've actually gone through most of The Scriptures and considering the fact that they were delivered at different times, to different peoples, in different languages, and I still find traces of one in the other, I'm more inclined to believe my instincts because they evolved way before a sometimes over-evaluating brain.

You'd rather follow a theologian than Scripture. See, I'm not like you. You have more faith in man, A creation, than you have in God, The Creator. You put your faith in people who put their faith in science, all the while neglecting to answer the question, "Who do you think GAVE you science to begin with?" Man wasn't born knowing speech, thought and action. It was taught to him as it was taught to his ancestors for generations back.

You speak of all religious sects as groups who practice violence, murder and other atrocities. All you do with that is prove that you're not only ignorant, but another big fan of using sterotypes as a defense to prove your point. If you can even call it a point.

Etymologies change over time? That's just vague and a really poor defence. Some etymologies change over time, and until you can prove that the languages in question, thosee being Hebrew and Greek, have changed between the time that those Scriptures were written and now, save it for those more inclined to follow conjecture and guesses.

You'd rather play in shallow trifles than look at the big picture and connect the dots that are as clear as day. And if that's your fate, then so be it.

You want proof? Proof is all around you as well as inside of you. But mankind, above all else, is ungrateful and contentious. The kind of sign you want is on it's way. So wait for it. Believe me, I'm waiting for it along with you.

SG
09-16-2007, 12:21 PM
Why do religious people think morality HAD to be handed down by some higher being? Morals and values were assets that evolved in human sociology as civilization evolved. Most people act morally or compassionately because they realize that other humans are sentient beings like themselves who feel pain and emotion the same way they do. I don't need to believe in God to know that I should help a blind person cross the street or to know that rape and murder aren't dispicable.

On the other hand, there's all these so-called "moral" majority who do stupid, useless, oftentimes bigoted, and utterly delusional things, not out of compassion, but because they think it will please their God. I can't think of a more selfish motivation. Saving your own skin from eternal damnation by doing retarded things like standing outside a planned parenthood center with giant posters of mutilated fetuses. Not only is it a complete waste of time, but it's downright bizarre. Of course, what else can you expect from a religion that uses the image of a tortured and mutliated man as its emblem?

Why do religious people think morality HAD to be handed down by some higher being?Theology and Ethics....the rest of your comments are not related to the topic of the thread

Like I said "to each his own" if you feel different about the content of topic which is the objective, make your own thread and people can further discuss the matter

Cthulhu
09-16-2007, 05:07 PM
First of all, what you're "inclined to believe" makes all of no difference to me and I couldn't care less about it.

You're trying to pass off your opinion as fact, just because you happen to be one of the many people that chooses to make sheer disbelief a matter of pseudo-philosophy.

This thread was made for people to speak upon what they thought this particular verse meant. One thing you disbelievers should remember is that you're not doing harm to anyone but yourself when you speak. Of course, you'll deny this and say you were just "expressing yourself", because admitting to the truth is further from your grasp than anything.

Being fluent in Hebrew or Greek has nothing to do with it, because even if I were, you'd still find a reason to label what was written false. Your whole point of entering this thread was to cause discord. Even if the original scrolls were right in front of you, you'd say something like, "Well, I don't know who wrote it." or "Unless I see God Himself write it, I'm not inclined to believe in it."

Trust me, I smell people like you coming a mile away.

You call them "ancient mythological stories", yet you have no proof of that. All you have to go on, is that since it was a time before you existed, then it must not be true. Or since you can't see, smell and touch it, then it must be myth. You're no different than an atheist, because if a rule or set of rules is given that goes against your habits, customs or inclinations, then it's automatically false because you're too weak to practice self-restraint for the good of your own soul.

You say translators "usually" have....and that may be so, but unlike you, I've actually gone through most of The Scriptures and considering the fact that they were delivered at different times, to different peoples, in different languages, and I still find traces of one in the other, I'm more inclined to believe my instincts because they evolved way before a sometimes over-evaluating brain.

You'd rather follow a theologian than Scripture. See, I'm not like you. You have more faith in man, A creation, than you have in God, The Creator. You put your faith in people who put their faith in science, all the while neglecting to answer the question, "Who do you think GAVE you science to begin with?" Man wasn't born knowing speech, thought and action. It was taught to him as it was taught to his ancestors for generations back.

You speak of all religious sects as groups who practice violence, murder and other atrocities. All you do with that is prove that you're not only ignorant, but another big fan of using sterotypes as a defense to prove your point. If you can even call it a point.

Etymologies change over time? That's just vague and a really poor defence. Some etymologies change over time, and until you can prove that the languages in question, thosee being Hebrew and Greek, have changed between the time that those Scriptures were written and now, save it for those more inclined to follow conjecture and guesses.

You'd rather play in shallow trifles than look at the big picture and connect the dots that are as clear as day. And if that's your fate, then so be it.

You want proof? Proof is all around you as well as inside of you. But mankind, above all else, is ungrateful and contentious. The kind of sign you want is on it's way. So wait for it. Believe me, I'm waiting for it along with you.

I AM in fact an atheist. You're absolutely right. Even if I could read the original texts I would pass them off as myth as I do the translated ones. You know why? They are full of horrible ideas and horrible values that have led humankind into vicious wars and unspeakable atrocities. Some times people had bad intentions and used God to justify it. Other times people had good intentions, but because of their fucked up religious beliefs they still committed something horrible. Abrahamic religions have some good values, no doubt, but the effect is essentially negated because they want you to follow an invisible spook in the sky without question. Without rational thought people let every kind of irrational dicatator control their thoughts, that includes REAL priests and kings as well as their imaginary God.

PROVE to me through empricial evidence that:

1.) God exists
2.) The Abrahamic god is the correct one (as opposed to, say, Greek, Norse, Mesopotamian, Hindu, Shinto, or Aztec gods)

You can't.

And you're absolutely right to say that I cannot prove he doesn't exist. I also can't prove that Zeus doesn't exist. Or that the Iliad and the Odyssey are fiction. I mean, they claim to be true, just like the Bible or Quran, right? But I don't see you arguing to me that I should serve Almighty Zeus and his Olympian comrades. Instead you want me to believe in your omnipotent dictator who will throw me in hell for my questioning nature he supposedly granted me.

Why believe one unfounded story over the other?

Urban_Journalz
09-17-2007, 06:56 PM
I AM in fact an atheist. You're absolutely right. Even if I could read the original texts I would pass them off as myth as I do the translated ones. You know why? They are full of horrible ideas and horrible values that have led humankind into vicious wars and unspeakable atrocities. Some times people had bad intentions and used God to justify it. Other times people had good intentions, but because of their fucked up religious beliefs they still committed something horrible. Abrahamic religions have some good values, no doubt, but the effect is essentially negated because they want you to follow an invisible spook in the sky without question. Without rational thought people let every kind of irrational dicatator control their thoughts, that includes REAL priests and kings as well as their imaginary God.

PROVE to me through empricial evidence that:

1.) God exists
2.) The Abrahamic god is the correct one (as opposed to, say, Greek, Norse, Mesopotamian, Hindu, Shinto, or Aztec gods)

You can't.

And you're absolutely right to say that I cannot prove he doesn't exist. I also can't prove that Zeus doesn't exist. Or that the Iliad and the Odyssey are fiction. I mean, they claim to be true, just like the Bible or Quran, right? But I don't see you arguing to me that I should serve Almighty Zeus and his Olympian comrades. Instead you want me to believe in your omnipotent dictator who will throw me in hell for my questioning nature he supposedly granted me.

Why believe one unfounded story over the other?

That's no surpirise and if you're an atheist, you have no business in a thread like this.

I've said my piece.

Go rant your nonsense to someone who'll listen.

Visionz
09-17-2007, 08:36 PM
PROVE to me through empricial evidence that:

1.) God exists
2.) The Abrahamic god is the correct one (as opposed to, say, Greek, Norse, Mesopotamian, Hindu, Shinto, or Aztec gods)

You can't.
you're looking for 3rd dimension evidence when you most likely have read books that deal with the 10th dimension. (very arrogant no?) Those seeds of life hitting the atmosphere even today are just coincidence right? Scientist are good at facts but bad at looking at them with any sense of intuition (?or maybe it just the believers in science?), its a blanket statement that's not completely true, but then again I doubt that all scientist are atheist (einstein wasn't). There isn't but One Grand Creator, man has made all kinds of representations devouted either to the whole or the many different aspects. Either way there is but One Source for all live, love, knowledge and understanding. If you took the very highest aspects of all the ancient scrolls of the world, regardless of what they are labeled today, and put that into one body, you would have a very balanced, healthy, respectful individual.

God is beyond our wildest imagination. You wouldn't know what its like to exist in even the 5th demension, what's it like to be a master of the 10th?? how would I know , I'm human.

either way, this is the wrong thread for this discussion, if you feel the need to respond, copy & paste and respond in a new one

Cthulhu
09-17-2007, 08:47 PM
you're looking for 3rd dimension evidence when you most likely have read books that deal with the 10th dimension. (very arrogant no?) Those seeds of life hitting the atmosphere even today are just coincidence right? Scientist are good at facts but bad at looking at them with any sense of intuition (?or maybe it just the believers in science?), its a blanket statement that's not completely true, but then again I doubt that all scientist are atheist (einstein wasn't). There isn't but One Grand Creator, man has made all kinds of representations devouted either to the whole or the many different aspects. Either way there is but One Source for all live, love, knowledge and understanding. If you took the very highest aspects of all the ancient scrolls of the world, regardless of what they are labeled today, and put that into one body, you would have a very balanced, healthy, respectful individual.

God is beyond our wildest imagination. You wouldn't know what its like to exist in even the 5th demension, what's it like to be a master of the 10th?? how would I know , I'm human.

either way, this is the wrong thread for this discussion, if you feel the need to respond, copy & paste and respond in a new oneIf you believe God or whatever is an unknowable concept, then why bother trying to pinpoint what laws he cares for us to have on earth?

Science doesn't claim whether or not there is a supernatural or not. I know there are plenty of religious scientists. Science is simply a means of observing the natural world and drawing conclusions about it. We can't yet prove whether or not God exists through it, however, being that there is no empirical evidence to even SUGGEST his existence, why bother believing in the first place? That's the problem with theodicy: it's trying to rationalize a previously drawn conclusion. Science and formal logic do not work upon a preconcieved premise, but rather observe natural phenomena or acknowledge cognitive facts and work out a conclusion from there.

Cthulhu
09-17-2007, 09:00 PM
That's no surpirise and if you're an atheist, you have no business in a thread like this.

I've said my piece.

Go rant your nonsense to someone who'll listen.

How do I have no place? This is a public forum. The thread asked what you thought of a particular Bible passage, and I said what I felt. Do you feel that only religious people are allowed to comment on religion?

You talk to me of ranting nonsense, yet you suspend all formal logic and reasoning for your irrational faith in god, and you won't even engage me in a discussion. Could it be you have nothing valid to back up your religious conviction? Are you afraid I might test your faith to the point you'll have to acknowledge the inherent logical fallacies present in all religious faith?

Visionz
09-17-2007, 10:08 PM
If you believe God or whatever is an unknowable concept, then why bother trying to pinpoint what laws he cares for us to have on earth?

Science doesn't claim whether or not there is a supernatural or not. I know there are plenty of religious scientists. Science is simply a means of observing the natural world and drawing conclusions about it. We can't yet prove whether or not God exists through it, however, being that there is no empirical evidence to even SUGGEST his existence, why bother believing in the first place? That's the problem with theodicy: it's trying to rationalize a previously drawn conclusion. Science and formal logic do not work upon a preconcieved premise, but rather observe natural phenomena or acknowledge cognitive facts and work out a conclusion from there.I don't think God is somuch unknowable asmuch as unlimited, & limitless. There's plenty to Suggest but that requires both intuition and assumption both really outside of the realm of empirical evidence. For instance, (and referring back) carbon globules fall onto earth even to this day. My assumption is that these are the seeds of life that are floating all throughout the universe, and that any place that can sustain life WILL, atleast eventually. And all this life is interconnected because it has a Single Source. This isn't anything I can prove but it is what I believe to be true. Those carbon globs, atleast to me, are empirical evidence that Suggest the existence of God.


And people know instinctively between right or wrong, God is there without the religous text. Those that are without it are often phsyco lunatics, in effect, truely godless people.

Cthulhu
09-18-2007, 12:30 AM
I don't think God is somuch unknowable asmuch as unlimited, & limitless. There's plenty to Suggest but that requires both intuition and assumption both really outside of the realm of empirical evidence. For instance, (and referring back) carbon globules fall onto earth even to this day. My assumption is that these are the seeds of life that are floating all throughout the universe, and that any place that can sustain life WILL, atleast eventually. And all this life is interconnected because it has a Single Source. This isn't anything I can prove but it is what I believe to be true. Those carbon globs, atleast to me, are empirical evidence that Suggest the existence of God.


And people know instinctively between right or wrong, God is there without the religous text. Those that are without it are often phsyco lunatics, in effect, truely godless people.

Intuition and assumption outside empirical evidence are just fancies and imagination. Without something observable and testable, you have no premise from which to draw a conclusion, other than your mind's creative will, which unfortunately you are using to delude yourself.

The whole notion of God commanding morality is absurd.

You say lunatics and psychos are godless, but religious terrorists are not "godless" by definition, as they are doing dispicable acts in service of their god. Sure you can rationalize by saying that their beliefs are "tainted" or "misinterpreted", but that's precisely the problem with Western religions. Their texts contain both humanitarian and totalitarian ideas, and people cherry pick what they think is right based on their own inclinations.

You're obviously a rational religious person who realizes that violent acts are not a good protocol for a modern society. But God didn't give you that intuition. The human concept of good and evil can exist free of him. People have an instict as to what is good and evil based on the fact that they know other humans are sentient beings with a capacity for suffering and pain just as them.

I'm entirely godless, but I know that rape is wrong (in fact the Christian God never even condemns this in the Bible, he only says you should pay the father for damaged goods or marry her). I don't need God to tell me that helping a blind person cross the street is a good moral decision.

I think it was Christopher Hitchens who said "people are inclined to act good or evil, but it takes religion to make a normally good person do something wicked." Female suicide bombers are often abused and broken women who have been brainwashed by their clerics into believing that such a repugnant act will please Allah.

Visionz
09-18-2007, 03:02 AM
Intuition and assumption outside empirical evidence are just fancies and imagination. Without something observable and testable, you have no premise from which to draw a conclusion, other than your mind's creative will, which unfortunately you are using to delude yourself.
This is the thing here though, as one who relies on the scientific methodology of thought I know you realize that there are things beyond human comprehension. And not only are they beyond our comprehension but also our subjection. There where billions of years of DNA at work before we ever truly understood what it was. Woud I be delusional to say that there in intelligent life out there on other planets? No empirical evidence of that right? Where do delusions stop and probability and statistics begin?

The whole notion of God commanding morality is absurd.

You say lunatics and psychos are godless, but religious terrorists are not "godless" by definition, as they are doing dispicable acts in service of their god. Sure you can rationalize by saying that their beliefs are "tainted" or "misinterpreted", but that's precisely the problem with Western religions. Their texts contain both humanitarian and totalitarian ideas, and people cherry pick what they think is right based on their own inclinations.I'm not exactly what you would call religious.As such I don't see God as some Santa Claus in the sky meddiling with human affairs. We are wired the way we are for a reason, you don't actually have to believe in God to benefit from being one of God's creations, to me its just as simple as that. There's a inexhaustable amount of choices for people to make in life and we have free will. I don't confuse the atrocities committed in God's name to be of God. It's not like God votes Republican nor that Chaney or Rove are very religous people. It's not gonna stop 'em from trying to manipulate the masses they know are religous. People shouldn't be such suckers, but again, not God's fault.

You're obviously a rational religious person who realizes that violent acts are not a good protocol for a modern society. But God didn't give you that intuition
I would say that God did & very good one at that. Freakishly good at times . The human concept of good and evil can exist free of him. I say God exist beyond,before, and free of our own concept of good and evilPeople have an instict as to what is good and evil based on the fact that they know other humans are sentient beings with a capacity for suffering and pain just as them.in other words how they're wired. Our own morality was programmed into us by evolution itself but I have no doubt that it has always been intended that way

Ultimate Fist
09-21-2007, 05:22 AM
You're trying to pass off your opinion as fact

Irony

Cthulhu
09-22-2007, 01:40 AM
Irony

More like simple hypocrisy.

The real irony (and I mean this in the sense of literary tragedy) is how Urban Journalz fails to realize how threatening his beliefs are to freedom of thought and human rights. He himself may not ascribe to acts of violence, but he's already demonstrated his willingness to dehumanize others by viewing me as a "lesser" person for denying the existence of his god and wishing suffering upon me in a fictional "afterlife".

Ultimate Fist
09-22-2007, 03:21 AM
More like simple hypocrisy.

The real irony (and I mean this in the sense of literary tragedy) is how Urban Journalz fails to realize how threatening his beliefs are to freedom of thought and human rights.

I don't think he would care if he did or if he does. He's expressed that sentiment before.

Urban_Journalz
09-22-2007, 03:36 AM
lol

Faggots.

Let's see how much more time you two spend talking about me.

Cthulhu
09-22-2007, 10:29 AM
I don't think he would care if he did or if he does. He's expressed that sentiment before.

Indeed, and this is the very reason I feel so threatened by religious people. Most refuse to listen to any sort of reason that contradicts their faith. This is not conducive to rational decision making, especially when the stakes are so direly high in this age. Had we clung on to alchemy and astrology as viable ways to explain the world, we would have none of the understanding about chemicals and the universe that we do now. Religion has proven time and time again that it refuses to accept new ideas until it's been incontroveritbly proven wrong, and then it has to shamefully accept that it was mistaken. We live in a world where the situations are much too risky to await such reflection from these people. It took the Catholic Church til 1993 to apologize for the Inquisition and absolve Galileo of heresy. How many millions must die in developing countries from HIV and other diseases before it acknowledges that condemning condom use was a grievous mistake? Must we wait another 400 + years?

STYLE
09-24-2007, 05:58 PM
What makes you all so sure that

1.) A God exists

2.) The God you worship is the right one?

Leaving the first point alone for a minute, how can you be so sure the Abrahamic God and the scriptures of those religions are the correct ones when you could have easily been born a Buddhist, Mazdasist/Zoroastrian, Jainist, Hindu, or any other among thousands of world religions?


As for the god thing itself, why do you even WANT to believe some nasty gloating omniscient dictator controls every aspect of your life?


Answer the omnipotence paradox:

Could God create a rock that he cannot lift? Or could God kill himself?

If god could not do these things, it would be a compromise to his omnipotence. If he can accomplish these things, it still compromises his omnipotence. The concept of omnipotence defies basic logic itself. And don't come tell me that "God is above logic" as you try to defend your delusions with pseudo-logical hypotheses that you could never even prove with empirical evidence.
you "logic" is silly to put it nicely

there are major fallacies with this argument.

1. to assume that God can lift anything is absurd. God does not exist in that plane of existence. you are placing human characteristics (as alot of religious texts do) onto God, who is not human.

but to play along....
mass, weight and size are irrelevant to defining Gods power. since God is the creator of such dimensions it is impossible to create such a rock. just like its impossible to asphyxiate yourself by holding your breath. the mechanism, conscious thought, which restricts airflow, is also the mechanism you wish to destroy. so the moment you lose consciousness is also the moment you stop choking yourself.
you look for absolutes where it is impossible to find them.
the only absolute is existence. and contained within that existence is

God Energy Matter and Life .

God being the source of all things
Energy being the preferred mode of transportation of God
Matter being the Physical manifestation of Energy
Life being the sum of all these Parts.

2. It is irrelevant whether you believe in God or not or which God you worship, if you do believe. just like its irrelevant whether you think that rain is condensed moisture from the air or its Gods Tears. If you go outside you will get wet. Just like you can choose not believe in Gravity. but the evidence is all around you.

to believe in gravity is believe in an unseen force between matter. but on the quantum level, matter is nothing but an expression of foam vibration. but yet if that vibration is altered the foam manifests as energy which will not attract. and what is the source of the energy for this continuous vibration if energy itself is created through this vibration?

even stranger still is the phenomenon of an accelerating universe.
science has invented "dark matter", which we are supposed to believe in tho we have no evidence of such a thing, just to prove that the laws of gravity hold true outside of our earthly existence.
even our galaxy does not abide by the laws of gravity. on a galactic scale there is not enough mass to account for the "gravitational pull required to hold this galaxy together and not dissipate into nothingness.

so please mr all knowing self righteous science guy keep your bullshit to yourself. because you obviously have no fucking idea what you are talking about. stop watching videos and start reading books.

STYLE
09-24-2007, 06:08 PM
Had we clung on to alchemy and astrology as viable ways to explain the world, we would have none of the understanding about chemicals and the universe that we do now.

wrong!!! if we had stuck with these we would have a better understanding of the universe. and the relationship between thought reality matter and energy.

and its astronomy not astrology.

As a true practitioner of alchemy i can tell you that it is the true marriage between the mind, the spirit and matter.

you must realize that most modern physics experiments are conducted in the mind.

and to address your example of AIDS...if the religious tenants of abstinence and marital fidelity were practiced then AIDS would not be an issue.

I think your issue is more against the European Perversion of Christianity than against religion.

Ultimate Fist
09-25-2007, 01:11 AM
wrong!!! if we had stuck with these we would have a better understanding of the universe. and the relationship between thought reality matter and energy.

and its astronomy not astrology.

As a true practitioner of alchemy i can tell you that it is the true marriage between the mind, the spirit and matter.

you must realize that most modern physics experiments are conducted in the mind.

and to address your example of AIDS...if the religious tenants of abstinence and marital fidelity were practiced then AIDS would not be an issue.

I think your issue is more against the European Perversion of Christianity than against religion.

Tell that to someone who's getting stoned to death in Iran...

STYLE
09-25-2007, 02:37 AM
Tell that to someone who's getting stoned to death in Iran...

yall are really out of touch with humanity/reality.
its funny, how all yall look at all the horrible things that have been done in the name of God, but refuse to even recognize the overwhelmingly massive amounts of good things done in the name of God.
i guess i would tend to be more open to your comments if they weren't so blatantly biased. i guess yall don't realize that the majority of people need religion to regulate and guide themselves, even tho we may not need it.

i don't practice religion but at least i can see the value in it.

Ultimate Fist
09-25-2007, 03:13 AM
yall are really out of touch with humanity/reality.
its funny, how all yall look at all the horrible things that have been done in the name of God, but refuse to even recognize the overwhelmingly massive amounts of good things done in the name of God.
i guess i would tend to be more open to your comments if they weren't so blatantly biased. i guess yall don't realize that the majority of people need religion to regulate and guide themselves, even tho we may not need it.

i don't practice religion but at least i can see the value in it.

I proved that Western Christianity isn't the only religion that causes problems, deal with it. Don't make ignorant statements then accuse me of being out of touch when I show you how stupid something you said was. You can't deal with my points, so you try to change the subject and do personal attacks like saying I must hate religion and be blatantly biased, like you know me. Nigga, this is the first time I've seen you post here, you don't know me, be real!

EDIT: I went on your homepage and you quote Anton LaVey, the founder of the Church of Satan, in one of your blog entries. WTF? You're accusing me of being anti-religious, and you're quoting LaVey?

STYLE
09-25-2007, 04:21 PM
ok... 1st of all you need to back your claims up with proof. show me where i quoted lavey.
but even if i did quote lavey (which i didn't) how does that make me anti-religious when satanism itself is a religion. and like i said "religion is necessary for most people to to regulate and guide themselves." you need to work on your reading comprehension. try reading some short stories then quiz yourself on the plot and main characters then step it up to trying to remember the details

2nd like i said you charge religion for causing problems and in effect claim that the world would be better without it. right? or were you just trying to be contrary by posing a counterpoint that had no deeper implication to my argument ? my statements were in response to Cthulhu. All of his grievences were with catholicism and christian dogma.
i never claimed that other reigions were flawless. that was an assumption you made.
but...
my post to you encompassed a response to your claim and continued to delve further into topic. i was not avoiding or changing the subject, i merely was trying to kill 2 birds but if i moved too fast for you i'll slow down.
and i'll try to be more considerate of your feelings in the future. i didn't think my statements were personal in nature but i forget that humanity has a spectrum of sensitivity and some people don't see things as objectively as others do.
but i believe that you are biased because you didn't try to chastise Cthulhu for personal attacks. was it because you agreed with his position or was there another reason? just curious.

3rd so what i don't know you. i am able deduce some things about you by the posts you made. plus acquaintance isn't a prerequisite for debate. i don't have to be your friend before i can criticize your claims? lol. u get real.

FYI
and i'd prefer it if you didn't call me a nigga. you may identify with that term but i don't. i have elevated above the nigga mentality you should too.

Ultimate Fist
09-25-2007, 05:27 PM
ok... 1st of all you need to back your claims up with proof. show me where i quoted lavey.
but even if i did quote lavey (which i didn't) how does that make me anti-religious when satanism itself is a religion. and like i said "religion is necessary for most people to to regulate and guide themselves." you need to work on your reading comprehension. try reading some short stories then quiz yourself on the plot and main characters then step it up to trying to remember the details

***
From your blog, second to bottom entry:

"What is a psychic vampire?
In the words of Anton LaVey..."

And you clearly do not understand LaVeys's philosophy thoroughly. He formed the Church of Satan to mock religion and he advocated taxing churches to minimize their impact on society.
***


2nd like i said you charge religion for causing problems and in effect claim that the world would be better without it. right? or were you just trying to be contrary by posing a counterpoint that had no deeper implication to my argument ?
***

I was addressing your statement; it really didn't have any larger implications. If you consider that "just being contrary" than yes, I was because your comment was ignorant. And no I do not think we would be better off without religion, I think we would be better off with better thought out religious views. Are Osama Bin Laden's ideas and the Dalai Lama's equal because they're both religious?

***

my statements were in response to Cthulhu. All of his grievences were with catholicism and christian dogma.
i never claimed that other reigions were flawless. that was an assumption you made.

***
"I think your issue is more against the European Perversion of Christianity than against religion."

Ahem, that may not say other religions are flawless but it shows a limited comprehension of the problem.

***
but...
my post to you encompassed a response to your claim and continued to delve further into topic. i was not avoiding or changing the subject, i merely was trying to kill 2 birds but if i moved too fast for you i'll slow down.
and i'll try to be more considerate of your feelings in the future. i didn't think my statements were personal in nature but i forget that humanity has a spectrum of sensitivity and some people don't see things as objectively as others do.

***

You're the one that edited a post to "add sarcasm" Mr. Objective.

***
but i believe that you are biased because you didn't try to chastise Cthulhu for personal attacks. was it because you agreed with his position or was there another reason? just curious.

***
I didn't chastise him because he was talking about Urban who's friggin nuts. I don't know if you've followed his post but he does not believe in free speech if it does not fit inside Islamic law.

And if being without bias is required on this website, you've got about 900 other people to yell at.
***

3rd so what i don't know you. i am able deduce some things about you by the posts you made. plus acquaintance isn't a prerequisite for debate. i don't have to be your friend before i can criticize your claims? lol. u get real.

***
Uh huh. So I'm an anti-religious minister?

That's what I thought. You might want to do your research.

***
FYI
and i'd prefer it if you didn't call me a nigga. you may identify with that term but i don't. i have elevated above the nigga mentality you should too.

***
If you're looking for a business party, go to a business party. This is Wu Tang Corp. You think I've got a "nigga mentality" you better throw out your rap CDs before you become one of us again... one of them niggas that's not acting like they're shit don't stain.

.

STYLE
09-25-2007, 08:01 PM
i wear brown underwear so i never have stains.

Ultimate Fist
09-25-2007, 08:06 PM
i wear brown underwear so i never have stains.

Good idea.

Cthulhu
09-25-2007, 10:20 PM
My God, you're a gigantic idiot.

1.) People do not need religion to do good things. Any charity done in the name of whatever god can easily be done out of sheer kindness. It's much less selfish than thinking you get a reward in the afterlife for it.

2.) I KNOW VERY FUCKING WELL WHAT ASTRONOMY AND ASTROLOGY ARE. I was making a point about obolete "sciences." Religious is obsolete "morality" just as alchemy and astrology are obsolete ideas about matter and nature.

STYLE
09-25-2007, 11:48 PM
My God, you're a gigantic idiot.

1.) People do not need religion to do good things. Any charity done in the name of whatever god can easily be done out of sheer kindness. It's much less selfish than thinking you get a reward in the afterlife for it.

2.) I KNOW VERY FUCKING WELL WHAT ASTRONOMY AND ASTROLOGY ARE. I was making a point about obolete "sciences." Religious is obsolete "morality" just as alchemy and astrology are obsolete ideas about matter and nature.

wrong again!
1.) thats the point, very true on the selfishness point but how many people are not selfish in this day and time. even no-relig charities have to give something away like a discount on products, a ribbon, wristband, book, tshirt, even acknowledgment. its a rare soul thatt will give for the sake of giving. people DO need religion, they are not SUPPOSED to but they do. in a society there must be some consensus on what is law. all law has its roots in religious belief.

2.) i was not suggesting you didn't know the diff. i'm saying that astronomy and alchemy are good ways govern your life. do you even know what alchemy is? please explain. you'll find that science is headed right back into the direction of alchemy now. the prob is modern sci has removed conscious thought and will out of the equation. which will get you nowhere.

the human experience requires some science of life, some type of foundation. if not you are living like Aleister Crowley "do what you will".

Cthulhu
09-29-2007, 10:36 AM
wrong again!
1.) thats the point, very true on the selfishness point but how many people are not selfish in this day and time. even no-relig charities have to give something away like a discount on products, a ribbon, wristband, book, tshirt, even acknowledgment. its a rare soul thatt will give for the sake of giving. people DO need religion, they are not SUPPOSED to but they do. in a society there must be some consensus on what is law. all law has its roots in religious belief.

2.) i was not suggesting you didn't know the diff. i'm saying that astronomy and alchemy are good ways govern your life. do you even know what alchemy is? please explain. you'll find that science is headed right back into the direction of alchemy now. the prob is modern sci has removed conscious thought and will out of the equation. which will get you nowhere.

the human experience requires some science of life, some type of foundation. if not you are living like Aleister Crowley "do what you will".

You're saying that currenlty people WANT or FEEL THAT THEY NEED religion for charitible acts. In reality, though, causes like Darfur, Jena 6, Myanmar, etc. have little to do with people's relgious beliefs, and more to do with outrage over human rights violations. People know they wouldn't want to be treated that way, so they naturally have an outcry. Sure religious groups might attempt to apply their doctrines to support for a cause, and it's an excellent way to instill support from a congregations. And sure, non-religious groups use flags, logos, etc. but this is all about awareness. You can tell a religiously rooted cause from a humanism rooted cause. For instance: you'll never find a secular organization protesting against stem cell research.

You keep using astronomy and astrology interchangeably. They are not the same thing. Astrology was the ancient practice of observing celestial bodies and applying them to religious and philosophical beliefs. Astronomy evolved out of that, but it now no longer has any supernatural beliefs attached to it.

And please, entertain me on this notion that chemistry is somehow reverting to alchemy. I'd really love to see how you could get such a notion.

The human experience requires NOTHING. All you have to do is live. Even Aleister Crowley had the human experience. Furthermore, I'm not a person with no values. I'm no nihilist. There are many causes I profess a belief in. I just don't use ancient books and bullshit supernatural explanations to back up my beliefs.

Cthulhu
09-29-2007, 10:39 AM
Oh yeah, about laws. Laws may be rooted in religion, but values of communities were things that evolved through civilization. They weren't handed down by gods. They were only placed in a religious context because in those days religion and law were unseparated. Plus, items like the Ten Commandments have almost nothing to do with modern day law. The Code of Hammurabi actually has more weight today than that insipid list of desert morality.

CEITEDMOFO
10-01-2007, 03:27 AM
Muslims , Christians,catholics All Worship The Sun, Muslims Worship The Moon Also, But The Morning Light Who People Call Jesus, Are Actually Worshiping Lucifer

Cthulhu
10-02-2007, 09:03 PM
Muslims , Christians,catholics All Worship The Sun, Muslims Worship The Moon Also, But The Morning Light Who People Call Jesus, Are Actually Worshiping Lucifer

Actually, they're all worshipping bullshit.

CEITEDMOFO
10-04-2007, 08:54 AM
you worship the cock

Cthulhu
10-15-2007, 12:11 AM
you worship the cock

Good one, schoolboy.

ChristO
07-07-2008, 09:21 PM
What makes you all so sure that

1.) A God exists

2.) The God you worship is the right one?

Leaving the first point alone for a minute, how can you be so sure the Abrahamic God and the scriptures of those religions are the correct ones when you could have easily been born a Buddhist, Mazdasist/Zoroastrian, Jainist, Hindu, or any other among thousands of world religions?


As for the god thing itself, why do you even WANT to believe some nasty gloating omniscient dictator controls every aspect of your life?


Answer the omnipotence paradox:

Could God create a rock that he cannot lift? Or could God kill himself?

If god could not do these things, it would be a compromise to his omnipotence. If he can accomplish these things, it still compromises his omnipotence. The concept of omnipotence defies basic logic itself. And don't come tell me that "God is above logic" as you try to defend your delusions with pseudo-logical hypotheses that you could never even prove with empirical evidence.
too much time wasted on debate. point-blank.

ChristO
07-07-2008, 09:25 PM
Muslims , Christians,catholics All Worship The Sun, Muslims Worship The Moon Also, But The Morning Light Who People Call Jesus, Are Actually Worshiping Lucifer
I'm a' put it to you'z like this...in this day, simon peter had made the mistake of calling me lucifer...

ChristO
07-13-2008, 03:27 PM
Muslims , Christians,catholics All Worship The Sun, Muslims Worship The Moon Also, But The Morning Light Who People Call Jesus, Are Actually Worshiping Lucifer
...so, where is Nimrod...

biblebullet
02-05-2009, 08:25 AM
At Psalm 82:1, 6, ’elo·him´ is used of men, human judges in Israel. Jesus quoted from this Psalm at John 10:34, 35. They were gods in their capacity as representatives of and spokesmen for Jehovah. Similarly Moses was told that he was to serve as "God" to Aaron and to Pharaoh.—Ex 4:16

Support for the rendering "a god" is found principally in Jesus’ own answer, in which he quoted from Psalm 82:1-7. As can be seen, this text did not refer to persons as being called "God," but "gods" and "sons of the Most High."
According to the context, those whom Jehovah called "gods" and "sons of the Most High" in this psalm were Israelite judges who had been practicing injustice, requiring that Jehovah himself now judge ‘in the middle of such gods.’ (Ps 82:1-6, 8) Since Jehovah applied these terms to those men, Jesus was certainly guilty of no blasphemy in saying, "I am God’s Son." Whereas the works of those judicial "gods" belied their being "sons of the Most High," Jesus’ works consistently proved him to be in union, in harmonious accord and relationship, with his Father.—Joh 10:34-38.

TheBoarzHeadBoy
03-10-2009, 10:47 AM
Monotheism is idiocracy. There are none.

Early Judaism accepts other gods as being not only real, but simply that Elohim is superior because he is the head god (and thus the other gods are not as worthy of worship.

Christianity created a triad of a Physical Being, Metaphysical Consciousness, and Spiritual Force permeating everything.

Islam tried to eliminate the other gods, but they're a cheap knock off of judaism/christianity and don't deserve to be considered a separate religion.

The closest we truly come is in Zoroastrianism, however that religion has two gods Ahura Mazhda and Angra Mainyu who in some branches are a Ying Yang duality.

The rest of the worlds religions are totally polytheistic and have various entities linked to natural aspects though there is evidence of early humans interacting with non human forces which may have been linked to the concept of gods.

ChristO
03-20-2009, 08:52 AM
At Psalm 82:1, 6, ’elo·him´ is used of men, human judges in Israel. Jesus quoted from this Psalm at John 10:34, 35. They were gods in their capacity as representatives of and spokesmen for Jehovah. Similarly Moses was told that he was to serve as "God" to Aaron and to Pharaoh.—Ex 4:16

Support for the rendering "a god" is found principally in Jesus’ own answer, in which he quoted from Psalm 82:1-7. As can be seen, this text did not refer to persons as being called "God," but "gods" and "sons of the Most High."
According to the context, those whom Jehovah called "gods" and "sons of the Most High" in this psalm were Israelite judges who had been practicing injustice, requiring that Jehovah himself now judge ‘in the middle of such gods.’ (Ps 82:1-6, 8) Since Jehovah applied these terms to those men, Jesus was certainly guilty of no blasphemy in saying, "I am God’s Son." Whereas the works of those judicial "gods" belied their being "sons of the Most High," Jesus’ works consistently proved him to be in union, in harmonious accord and relationship, with his Father.—Joh 10:34-38.


...so, now know The Father thru The Sun/Son...

3rd3y3
12-06-2009, 11:13 PM
I would like to see the original version.

John Prewett
12-12-2010, 06:39 AM
I would like to see the original version.

Like the first draft written some 3500 years ago ?

On sheep skin or whatever they wrote on 3500 or so years ago ?

If you believed you had it in your hand, wouldn't you need a translator ?

Just curious.

Fatal Guillotine
03-04-2011, 07:38 PM
My take is that the psalm is referring to the judges of men (people in high authority) 2nd Chronicles 19:6 provides us with a nice example of what this psalm is all about. The psalm then goes on to warn these judges against judging unjustly, and then puts the judges in their places by reminding them that though they have been put in charge of men, ('gods' small 'g') they are still mere mortals who will answer to Gods judgment one day.