Christian nutters try to forcefully convert Haiti chidren

[SeVeR]

You're a theist, you don't have the mind-set of a religious person if you haven't accepted the thousands of assumptions (dogma) that come from a religious holy book and the associated Church.

[whalz]

'your this' and 'your that' and 'your not religious' .. you guys are funny..

 

one time i had sex in a church, i dont believe in god, i do have morals that you can say are on 'line' with the bible.. but i couldnt give a damn if i go to hell or heaven , or if i make the wrong desisions based on what the churches say r right and wrong.. as we all have our own ideas of what is right and wrong.

 

i seriously fcked in a church.. it was in the bottom half, and at night... was awesome

 

GOD plays no role in our lives, as we are ourselves the god that we are suposed to believe in

 

so to s tay on topic, the christian nutters you were talking about .. SERIOUSLY are nutters.

[NBVegita]

Utter rubbish NBV, if religious thoughts enter your brain whenever you are confronted with a choice then you are religious whether you act on them or not.

 

Can you please provide a source for this? Could you even provide one documented case of the above? In fact I dare you to try to think of one thing in concurrence with every thought you have for a day. I bet you don't last an hour before you slip and think of something without your tie in.

 

It is impossible for you to know that unless you were either psychic or it was reflected in every single one of their actions. Do you disagree? In fact even if it were reflected in all of their actions you would have no way to tell that they don't have nonreligious thoughts they don't act on.

 

Also ironic that in one breath you claim that you don't need actions to define you as religious but:

 

Christian missionaries (probably with their own fundamentalist brand of the religion) to convert Haitian's who probably don't even go to Church, and who have just been categorised as Catholic by some survey that cannot possibly be accurate anyway?

...

People are classified as Catholics or Christians in polls even if they don't attend Church, and we know that many of them just put Catholic/Christian on the poll because they don't know what else to put.The divide is much greater.

...

Someone who thinks long and hard about the God question before unenthusiastically answering "yea.... I believe in God", whilst not going to Church or disbelieving the majority of science, is not religious.

 

Not going to church is a supporting fact for people being nonreligious when you state it, but on the other hand when I state it, it's utter rubbish?

 

Regardless my assertion that you are referring to a vast minority still holds true.

[SeVeR]

From observing the range of actions pertaining to religious people in our society, it is clear that these thought patterns occur, and given that we can only determine this from the actions we witness, it is common sense to believe that the thoughts are prevalent in more religious people than the number who act on them. The thoughts would have to be 100% convincing otherwise.

 

Whether someone goes to Church is probably the one thought that is most acted upon by someone belonging to a religion. Therefore it is the best example, based on actions, of a religious person.

 

This is all fairly simple to grasp. If you believe in God you don't have to be religious. You are religious if you belong to a religion (duh). Belonging to a religion requires the acceptance of all the truths connected with that religion. If you don't accept these thousands of truths then you are not of that religion! Acceptance of all these truths provides alternatives to a number of choices that would not be present otherwise. The more truths, the more choices that are affected. The Bible has enough truths to affect all choices a person makes in my opinion. Thus, if a person believes in the Bible, they cannot make a decision without a religious thought linking back to God in some way.

 

One thing that affects every thought I make? My one belief that it is impossible to know whether we know anything. That uncertainty relates to every thought in my brain. Conversely a Christian has the certainty that God exists and the Bible is true, and with such ultimate reliable truth, it is ardently applied to every thought in a Christian's brain. I don't know this is a fact, but the range of applications that I have seen for religion, and the prevalence of religion in everyday trivial tasks, has led me to conclude that these thoughts exist in all Christians. Why can I make such a leap to say all Christians possess these thoughts? Because they all fit a mould, they have to because they all believe in the same truths.

[NBVegita]

Belonging to a religion requires the acceptance of all the truths connected with that religion.

 

No no no. This is your first mistake. The Catholic religion does not require this.

 

If you don't accept these thousands of truths then you are not of that religion! Acceptance of all these truths provides alternatives to a number of choices that would not be present otherwise. The more truths, the more choices that are affected. The Bible has enough truths to affect all choices a person makes in my opinion. Thus, if a person believes in the Bible, they cannot make a decision without a religious thought linking back to God in some way.

 

As I've stated before, Christianity (as it is the religion at the heart of this matter) does not require "unwavering faith" in their teachings, the bible or God. It is taught that questioning your faith is not wrong but natural. Also, even the bloody Pope doesn't take the literal meaning of the Bible and dictate it as law. The last 3 Popes have talked of the bible and that there are many interpretations and that there is not necessarily a supreme meaning as such. You are terribly misguided on your idea of religion. The only sects of religion that require the aforementioned are the radical ones.

 

Conversely a Christian has the certainty that God exists and the Bible is true, and with such ultimate reliable truth,...Because they all fit a mould, they have to because they all believe in the same truths.

 

Wrong again. Every Christian, like any other person has varying levels of beliefs. Simply the fact that I believe there are...11? recognized "sects" of Christianity, some with vastly differing ideas substantiates that. If you go further, even within those sects you will find vastly different ideals. I again state that it is impossible to have anything "infect your every thought" and that if it comes close you are actually clinically insane, as in have a serious mental disorder.

 

Ultimately I'm arguing with a brick wall. You have an extremely outlandish position that you can only solidify based on your own "personal experience" concerning people whom you have stated many times that you dislike, that is extraordinarily illogical. If anyone else had posted the same "argument" based on another topic, you would attack it until the topic died.

 

Honestly I can say that although I've disagreed with you on many things, you at least post a logical argument. I do have to say this is the most illogical argument you have ever posted.

 

As such, debating this issue is simply a waste of time.

[SeVeR]

Basically you've just said three times in three different ways that there is variation in what Christians believe. I accept that, but also think the variation is not big enough to change my conclusion. Whether some Christians believe 1000 of the Bible's truths and others believe 500, the conclusion is the same, that there is a saturation point for the influence of every thought that occurs below the number of truths that is required to be a Christian.

[Dr Brain]

Basically you've just said three times in three different ways that there is variation in what Christians believe. I accept that, but also think the variation is not big enough to change my conclusion. Whether some Christians believe 1000 of the Bible's truths and others believe 500, the conclusion is the same, that there is a saturation point for the influence of every thought that occurs below the number of truths that is required to be a Christian.

To be a radical Christian, perhaps (and I'd probably argue that one, too). Not to be a Christian. To be a Christian, you need to believe only a handful of truths: there is a God, humans are flawed, and you are responsible for the salvation of your soul. The last one isn't even required, but I included it because it's a fundamental belief of most branches of Christianity, and personally I find it the most important.

 

More interesting is the question, why do you believe what you do? I've spent the last few days wondering what kind of childhood trauma must have occurred for you to have the odd mix of beliefs that you do. Rebellious son of a pastor is the best I've come up with, and it's not especially good at covering all the bases. Care to enlighten us? After all, the debate is clearly dead.

[SeVeR]

... If you'd taken the other topic any more personally you would be flying to England to break my fingers so I couldn't type anymore.

[»Xog]

Hey guys

 

 

remember the topic?

 

 

oh yeah, HAITI.

[SeVeR]

Well they chose to ignore my original argument. What can I do?

[BDwinsAlt]

Well they chose to ignore my original argument. What can I do?

I agree with Brain, but I doubt you are the son of a pastor. But something significant must have driven you away. But that's probably personal. I have a lot of demons in my past (no pun intended). Just don't hate on Christians, it's a big world, lot of people, all we can do is try to get along.

[SeVeR]

Yes, I'm the son of a pastor. My father endeavored to inculcate me with the doctrine of our Lord and Savior from the tenderest of ages. In my teenage years I struggled to deal with the loss of my dearest friend and confidant Cassandra. My rebellious teenage years focused singularly on rejecting the web of doctrine that had once comforted me, shielded me from pain. A plethora of grief dismantled the religious stable and outed my pain in a paroxysm of betrayal for my tainted faith. I welcomed the cold touch of science and the empty words of heretic philosophers. A bitterness arose that formed a new comfort, a pride, built on a hostility of irreligious contempt for any vestigial faith.

 

Blah. Why the interest in me?

[BDwinsAlt]

Yes, I'm the son of a pastor. My father endeavored to inculcate me with the doctrine of our Lord and Savior from the tenderest of ages. In my teenage years I struggled to deal with the loss of my dearest friend and confidant Cassandra. My rebellious teenage years focused singularly on rejecting the web of doctrine that had once comforted me, shielded me from pain. A plethora of grief dismantled the religious stable and outed my pain in a paroxysm of betrayal for my tainted faith. I welcomed the cold touch of science and the empty words of heretic philosophers. A bitterness arose that formed a new comfort, a pride, built on a hostility of irreligious contempt for any vestigial faith.

 

Blah. Why the interest in me?

Wow. Dr Brain is either a physiologist, or psychic.

It's ok sever, I've been there before. I had a belief in a God though, but I didn't like him. I did a lot of things to show I didn't like him. But I finally came to my senses when things got really bad, and I found out he was there all along and really helped me. Maybe you do deep down believe in God, but just really don't want to pursue him because you don't see why he would let things happen like that. Maybe I should just let Dr brain explain, he seems to know these things :\

[Dr Brain]

psst, BD, he was joking.

 

Why the interest in you, Sever? Because you hold unusual views that cannot have formed in any situation I can imagine, and certainly no normal situation (by my standards, of course. By yours they're the definition of normal). I will never agree with your views, but that doesn't mean I can't seek to the knowledge that comes from understanding their source.

[BDwinsAlt]

psst, BD, he was joking.

 

Why the interest in you, Sever? Because you hold unusual views that cannot have formed in any situation I can imagine, and certainly no normal situation (by my standards, of course. By yours they're the definition of normal). I will never agree with your views, but that doesn't mean I can't seek to the knowledge that comes from understanding their source.

Bleh figures, im drunkn i give s on fuck, but sever we here for u

[»Xog]

i love drugs too

[»Xog]

If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people.

[AstroProdigy]

psst, BD, he was joking.

 

Why the interest in you, Sever? Because you hold unusual views that cannot have formed in any situation I can imagine, and certainly no normal situation (by my standards, of course. By yours they're the definition of normal). I will never agree with your views, but that doesn't mean I can't seek to the knowledge that comes from understanding their source.

 

Sever doesn't hold unusual views in my opinion. They just seem unusual to you due to your frame of reference.

[Dr Brain]

...and? Isn't that what I said in my post?