• 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!

[W:843] How religious thinking works

You said there were no abortion doctors in Muslim countries.
It was then demonstrated to you that there were.
You then, afterwards, re-framed it to say abortion clinics. That's known as moving the goal posts.

Has nothing to do with me "pretending" about what you were talking about. My response was in direct relation to your statement. Had you said "clinics", I probably wouldn't have said a thing.

It's all good though.

OM

I explained that quite clearly. The term "abortion doctors", as I already said, is specific. It refers to doctors who offer that service to clients who seek it. The places they work are called clinics. Again, I thought that would be the bleedin obvious, but I failed to factor in those of you who like to play semantics. So tell you what, I'll take my lumps for not including the fact that the doctors I was speaking of work in clinics. I believe that covers it. If anyone wants to play another round of where-are-the-goalposts-now, they will have to play by themselves.
 
So by that score, the JW are not Christian as they deny Jesus is a god.

That is not what the Bible says, so yes, we are...
 
YouTube

This video, a bit long but interesting, is about post modernism. But all that is a sort of religious replacement of individual thinking, to give you an identity and to place all others in their place socially. To avoid being self responsible.

There certainly is danger in not having religion given how bad at thinking lots of people who consider themselves clever, and have been told that they are indeed clever, are.

This begs the eternal question: how did religion get started? If religious feeling stems from a need for social acceptance, why invoke a god at all? Why not just stick with, "do this or your society will cast you out."

IMO, religious feeling is its own thing, and it can be pressed into service for purposes of social control. The idea that religion got started from nasty priests hoaxing innocent dum-dums is naive in the extreme.
 
That is not what the Bible says, so yes, we are...

The New Testament was approved by the Council of Nicaea - the 27 books in the NT were determined by them so for what you read you can thank them.

The Council also determined that Jesus was divine. Jesus is a god. God from god as preached by the church for hundreds of years and even Martin Luther agreed with the Roman Catholic church on that point.
 
I am not sure they are less of a danger, just still the same danger really.

Those who think they have the answers are OK. Those who know they have the answers and need not bother to think any more are always the danger.

It's not them that are the danger. It's the ones that 'know' they have the answers, and want to impose those answers on others, through use of force, they are the ones that are the danger.
 
the new testament was approved by the council of nicaea - the 27 books in the nt were determined by them so for what you read you can thank them.

The council also determined that jesus was divine. Jesus is a god. God from god as preached by the church for hundreds of years and even martin luther agreed with the roman catholic church on that point.

bs...
 

Sorry Elvira, you can put your hands over your ears and scream la, la, la if you want but the Council of Nicaea is real and really did declare Jesus a god - to which millions of "true" Christians worshiped and do to this day.


That your heretical church (and the Mormons) belief otherwise is irrelevant.


Oh and those Christians who worship Jesus as a god read the same Bible as you do.
 
Sorry Elvira, you can put your hands over your ears and scream la, la, la if you want but the Council of Nicaea is real and really did declare Jesus a god - to which millions of "true" Christians worshiped and do to this day.


That your heretical church (and the Mormons) belief otherwise is irrelevant.


Oh and those Christians who worship Jesus as a god read the same Bible as you do.

What Is Babylon the Great? | Bible Questions
 
Is there a particular point I'm supposed to be picking up on here?


OM

Yes Jews get many more Nobel prizes than Muslims do despite having only a fraction of their population.

If you watched the YouTube documentary, you'll see the Muslim world easily out performed the Western world in the sciences..until a Muslim cleric determined that messing with numbers was the devil's work.

The Islamic world has been backward ever since.

Point is that religion is bad and retards us.
 
For the religious scientist, what happens when a scientific finding contradicts his/her religious beliefs?

Either they do more studying and investigation to see if there is really a contradiction. But, what happens for non-religious atheist scientists when a scientific finding is contradicted and gives the possibility that conventional science made mistakes? What happens when PhD scientists find error in the age of the earth or that carbon dating was wrong? Like I said, we don't have all the answers nor do we have all the questions as well. Neither do atheists. Like, what was before the Big Bang if the Big Bang happened at all? Where'd the spark come from? Where'd the material come from? All I'm saying is why have such a closed mind?
 
Is there a point to that cheap copy and paste - what does it say?

If you cannot take the time to read for yourself, then don't expect a response to you from me in the future...
 
Yes Jews get many more Nobel prizes than Muslims do despite having only a fraction of their population.

If you watched the YouTube documentary, you'll see the Muslim world easily out performed the Western world in the sciences..until a Muslim cleric determined that messing with numbers was the devil's work.

The Islamic world has been backward ever since.

Point is that religion is bad and retards us.

No, the point is that one person's take on a religion retarded some, but not all, of that religion. Same things happened in what we call the "Dark Ages" after the death of Christ. People were put to death for obscure things based on Catholic leaders. However, Martin Luther actually was worse as he proposed death to Jews as well as many others. Just saying.
 
Is there a point to that cheap copy and paste - what does it say?

In the Book of Revelation (and to inhabitants of the region during the 1st century of the Common Era), "Babylon the Great" represented Rome.


OM
 
In the Book of Revelation (and to inhabitants of the region during the 1st century of the Common Era), "Babylon the Great" represented Rome.


OM

Um no, that has nothing to do with the link so butt out...
 
I am not sure they are less of a danger, just still the same danger really.

Those who think they have the answers are OK. Those who know they have the answers and need not bother to think any more are always the danger.

And some religious and some non religious fit either category.
 
Correct, it does not. It would, however, forbid teaching any scientific findings that contradict the Qur'an (which would include just about any scientific finding).



Correct again, but what are saying that in response to?

No, it would not include your vague claim of "just about any" scientific finding.

You claim that Muslims follow strictly the word of god and that is not true.
 
Not true...true Christianity that adheres as closely to Bible teachings as possible does...

If you call something "true" you are defiling it rather than observing it.
 
Um no, that has nothing to do with the link so butt out...

"Butt out"? In an online discussion forum where ideas are exchanged, and each of us chooses to freely participate in public discussions? Anyhow, you can lie all you want, deny all you want, but the fact remains that denizens of the Near East during the 1st century customarily referred to Rome as "Babylon".


OM
 
"Butt out"? In an online discussion forum where ideas are exchanged, and each of us chooses to freely participate in public discussions? Anyhow, you can lie all you want, deny all you want, but the fact remains that denizens of the Near East during the 1st century customarily referred to Rome as "Babylon".


OM

Just to back it up .. From Whore of Babylon - Wikipedia

Rome and the Roman Empire
See also: Dea Roma

Many Biblical scholars[7][8] believe that "Babylon" is a metaphor for the pagan Roman Empire at the time it persecuted Christians, before the Edict of Milan in 313. Perhaps the phrase is specifically referencing some aspect of Rome's rule (brutality, greed, paganism). Some exegetes interpret the passage as a scathing critique of a servant people of Rome who do the Empire's bidding, interpreting that the author of Revelation was speaking of the Herodians—a party of Jews friendly to Rome and open to its influence, like the Hellenizers of centuries past—and later, corrupt Hasmoneans, where the ruler of Jerusalem or Roman Judea exercised his power at the pleasure of the Roman emperor, and was dependent on Roman influence, like Herod the Great in the Gospel of Luke.

In 4 Ezra,[9][10] 2 Baruch[11] and the Sibylline Oracles,[12] "Babylon" is a cryptic name for Rome.[13] Reinhard Feldmeier speculates that "Babylon" is used to refer to Rome in the First Epistle of Peter (1 Peter 5:13).[14] In Revelation 17:9 it is said that she sits on "seven mountains",[15] typically understood as the seven hills of Rome.[16][17][18][19][20] A Roman coin minted under the Emperor Vespasian (ca. 70 AD) depicts Rome as a woman sitting on seven hills.[21]

According to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, "The characteristics ascribed to this Babylon apply to Rome rather than to any other city of that age: (a) as ruling over the kings of the earth (Revelation 17:18); (b) as sitting on seven mountains (Revelation 17:9); (c) as the center of the world's merchandise (Revelation 18:3, 11–13); (d) as the corrupter of the nations (Revelation 17:2; 18:3; 19:2); (e) as the persecutor of the saints (Revelation 17:6)."[22]

According to Eusebius of Caesarea Babylon would be Rome or the Roman Empire:

"And Peter makes mention of Mark in his first epistle which they say that he wrote in Rome itself, as is indicated by him, when he calls the city, by a figure, Babylon, as he does in the following words: «The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, salutes you; and so does Marcus my son.»(1 Peter 5:13)" [23]

And, just to point out.. Eusebius of Caesarea was an early church father from the late 3rd early 4th centuries. He became a bishop in 314. So, no, it's not a new idea.
 
Last edited:
Just to back it up .. From Whore of Babylon - Wikipedia



And, just to point out.. Eusebius of Caesarea was an early church father from the late 3rd early 4th centuries. He became a bishop in 314. So, no, it's not a new idea.

Yep. There's one of your biggest clues, speaking to Romans about "the Church at Babylon", when there was no Christian church in Babylon.


OM
 
Back
Top Bottom