• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Science Advances to Improve Life - Religion Remains Frozen For Thousans of Years

Oh, I don't know. Arguably two of the greatest discoveries of the 20th century was Big Bang, discovered by a Belgian priest, and Quantum theory, discovered by Planck who came from a long line of rabbis. In the 19th century, English priests, someone bored with their limited responsibilities, made numerous discoveries. And every book on "wellness" seems to talk about the importance of a spiritual component to one's life. Religion also provides a social home for people and helps them fight feelings of alienation and isolation.
I have never been a believer in much of anything intangible but the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18, clearly supports to right of people to hold such beliefs.
 
CMPancake said:
Why are you so determined on pushing this lie that Christianity is not compulsory?

Any city that doesn't receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. (Mark 6:11)
Click to expand...



That's not exactly what was written. Here is a page with several different versions. Mark 6:11 And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, leave that place and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them."

The closest to whatever version yours is is this...

And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
Click to expand...

I'm no biblical scholar but this passage does not appear to take away choice. Sure, the choices are either turn to God or be damned to hell but it's still a choice.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
That's not exactly what was written. Here is a page with several different versions. Mark 6:11 And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, leave that place and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them."

The closest to whatever version yours is is this...



I'm no biblical scholar but this passage does not appear to take away choice. Sure, the choices are either turn to God or be damned to hell but it's still a choice.
Click to expand...

Either receive the word of god or die. How exactly is that a choice?
 
rhinefire said:
Every day science advances to aid and benefit mankind in every facet of out lives from birth to death. Meanwhile, religions remain frozen in the afterbirth of ignorance recruiting non believers to become believers of nothing more than stories of what may have been thousands of years ago. Which of the two courses would you encourage your children to pursue in the name of benefitting mankind?
Click to expand...

both.. simultaneously, of course.

but then again, I don't subscribe to the notion that they compete against each other or are somehow opposed to each other.....

science and religion do not share domains.. they occupy separate and distinct realms of the human experience.

it's illegitimate to ask to choose between the two when no choice is warranted or necessary.
 
CMPancake said:
Either receive the word of god or die. How exactly is that a choice?
Click to expand...
The quote of the passage didn't show up in my post. Here it is...

And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city
Click to expand...

It means that God will judge those who refuse to receive him on judgment day. It says nothing about death on the spot. It's talking about getting sent to hell.
 
What makes you think current day religions have it right with regards to spirituality?

I know because of The Enlightenment religion in general got a bad wrap. But I don't think either of the texts in today's religion accurately portrays God (in my belief) but I think thru science there can be countless things noted as evidence of a creator.

People refuse to see it that way, because they think of The Bible, or Islam, or whatever. But if people in those times came to our day and age, and say they are a prophet and that they hear God, they would be put on anti-psychotics and put in a psych ward. So why are these texts being held as credible? I could go on and on, but this isn't the place.

I think you can be spiritual and not follow a religion, and I think you can embrace spirituality with science too.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
The quote of the passage didn't show up in my post. Here it is...



It means that God will judge those who refuse to receive him on judgment day. It says nothing about death on the spot. It's talking about getting sent to hell.
Click to expand...

The verse says on Judgement day a city will burn worse than Sodom and Gomorrha for not accepting the word of god. How is that any less intolerant or a choice exactly?
 
CMPancake said:
Why are you so determined on pushing this lie that Christianity is not compulsory?

Any city that doesn't receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. (Mark 6:11)
Click to expand...

are you a Christian?
 
CMPancake said:
The verse says on Judgement day a city will burn worse than Sodom and Gomorrha for not accepting the word of god. How is that any less intolerant or a choice exactly?
Click to expand...
It is the choice to follow god or face eternal damnation. What it isn't, is a license for the followers of Christ to kill those who don't believe.

I'm not much of a Christian so others who are more devout would be able to explain this much better than me. I just happened to see where you offered this verse as some sort of proof that converting to Christianity is not a choice. That isn't a true statement. It is a choice and the choice is follow the teachings of Christ or face eternal damnation. Eternal damnation isn't death. Eternal damnation is what happens AFTER you die... at least that is the way I understand it.
 
science.jpg
 
Jack Fabulous said:
It is the choice to follow god or face eternal damnation. What it isn't, is a license for the followers of Christ to kill those who don't believe.
Click to expand...

And who speaks for god? Priests and Christians.

Jack Fabulous said:
I'm not much of a Christian so others who are more devout would be able to explain this much better than me. I just happened to see where you offered this verse as some sort of proof that converting to Christianity is not a choice. That isn't a true statement. It is a choice and the choice is follow the teachings of Christ or face eternal damnation. Eternal damnation isn't death. Eternal damnation is what happens AFTER you die... at least that is the way I understand it.
Click to expand...

God himself threatens that on a day of judgement he will smite those who didn't listen to the word of Christians. Just like God killed the citizens of Soddom, he promised to do the same in Mark 6:11. To me that sounds intolerant.
 
Thrilla said:
so .. umm.. about that "Christianity being compulsory" thing... :lol:
Click to expand...

Does my personal experience negate the fact the Bible clearly calls for the death of nonbelievers?
 
CMPancake said:
And who speaks for god? Priests and Christians.



God himself threatens that on a day of judgement he will smite those who didn't listen to the word of Christians. Just like God killed the citizens of Soddom, he promised to do the same in Mark 6:11. To me that sounds intolerant.
Click to expand...
Then I suggest you take that one up with God. Like I said before, I'm not much of a Christian and I don't spend a whole lot of time worrying about whether or not the way I am living my life conforms to the prerequisites set for getting into heaven.
 
Thrilla said:
well, according to currently popular wisdom, religion has nothing to do with flying into buildings.... it's the buildings fault ;)
Click to expand...

grayling.jpg
 
CMPancake said:
Does my personal experience negate the fact the Bible clearly calls for the death of nonbelievers?
Click to expand...

Not to mention the condemning of fig trees.
 
CMPancake said:
Does my personal experience negate the fact the Bible clearly calls for the death of nonbelievers?
Click to expand...

well, it sure puts the kibosh on the whole compulsory aspect.

In any event, let's compile a list of the top 5 that will kill non-believers

1: Radical Islamists
2: Radical Islamists
3: Radical Islamists
4: Radical Islamists
5: Radical Islamists

nobody else, not even mainstream Muslims are gonna kill you for not believing.... you're pretty safe, as long as you don't find yourself around radical Islamist.
 
beefheart said:
View attachment 67178973
Click to expand...

umm... not sure how that is supposed to be a response to what i said.. but ok.?


atheist rhetoric is really no different that radical religious rhetoric... it's generally hateful, it's generally bull****.. and the adherents believe it to their very core.

AC's statement is rather stupid....he hasn't been subject to being burned at the stake for a single second at any time in his life.. nor has any other atheist for hundreds of years... spare me the bull**** victimhood.
 
Thrilla said:
umm... not sure how that is supposed to be a response to what i said.. but ok.?


atheist rhetoric is really no different that radical religious rhetoric... it's generally hateful, it's generally bull****.. and the adherents believe it to their very core.

AC's statement is rather stupid....he hasn't been subject to being burned at the stake for a single second at any time in his life.. nor has any other atheist for hundreds of years... spare me the bull**** victimhood.
Click to expand...

Adding to the madness.

Atheists don't bomb buildings, start wars or shoot cartoonists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom