FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


What is considered to be a religious post?





Bluedoll
I think it is normal for topics to blend in to each other. A topic about geometry for example could merge with mathematics and very easily become a subject about computers. This is understandable. However, all to often I see a religious post being started and the a denial of it’s existence as a religious post occurring with in the thread. It seems that all the author needs to do is to state the post is something about science. Science becomes a mask for what the message is really broadcasting. Perhaps a discussion can explain clearly what is considered a religious topic and what is not a religious topic? To clarify this even more when does just talking about religion stop being a discussion and starts to become a pious post and why?

I would expect anyone posting to this topic is interested in religion and therefore wants to express their viewpoint on the religion of their choice. For this post however, my belief is that all beliefs that concern God (Forum for religious topics, like a (dis)belief in one or more gods) is a religion. In other words whether the belief is a belief in God or a belief in the non-existence of God, it still is a belief and therefore a religious belief.

This topic therefore applies to the doctrine or belief that there is no God or disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings or the belief in God.

I believe that earthly religions of the world can be represented individually as well as collectively. The topics discussion however is only concerned and centered around with as the title states, what is a religious post and why and not about who is what?
deanhills
I agree Bluedoll. Any person who is unenlightened as far as religion or anything else is concerned, and who looks at the Faith and Phil&Rel forums for the first time may come to the conclusion that it is all about science versus religion (and in most cases Christianity). I don't agree with that. I think you do find scientists who are religious, so the two don't necessarily have to be in conflict with one another.

I found a discussion below between Hitchens and an Catholic theologian Lorenzo Albacete on "Does science make belief in God obsolete?" I found it interesting as science seems to be a very important tool for non-theists to prove there is likely or definitely not a God. Monsignor Albacete seems to make a very honest case for having both in his life without any conflict.


Here are some essays that have been posted on the Templeton Foundation Website on the topic of "Does science make belief in God obsolete":
http://www.templeton.org/belief/essays/essays.pdf
ocalhoun
Well, I'd say that any post that talks -- even a little bit -- about any religion, including non-theistic ones, would be (at least to some degree) a religious post... And a religious topic would be one that starts with such a post and/or has a lot of such posts in it.

Bluedoll wrote:
To clarify this even more when does just talking about religion stop being a discussion and starts to become a pious post and why?

This is the first time I've ever heard of the phrase 'pious post'... Care to explain what it means?
(I'm quite aware of the meanings of the two words separately, but not sure what they mean when used together.)
Bluedoll
Deanhills wrote:
Any person who is unenlightened as far as religion or anything else is concerned, and who looks at the Faith and Phil&Rel forums for the first time may come to the conclusion that it is all about science versus religion (and in most cases Christianity).
    Well, it does seem like the general consensus is to introduce that predominate theme on purpose, indeed.



ocalhoun wrote:
This is the first time I've ever heard of the phrase 'pious post'... Care to explain what it means?
I would consider any publication (even if it is a small audience) a way to communicate, post or send out ideas, thoughts and information. Perhaps a post piously delivered might be considered a religious post that is serious and dedicated to some kind of crusading effort on the part of the writer to attempt to convince, persuade or try to introduce the reader into another way of thinking.

With most subjects we might call forceful writing, debating, but in connection with religion, because religion is more closely connected with the beliefs or non-beliefs of the writer, posts about religion often do by nature make a deliberate persuasion effort to convert the reader to another group classification. (i.e.: The writer is claiming to be right, will prove why they are right and if the reader can not effectively counter argument this by posting to or not, will change their thinking and understanding about religion.) I am really interested in understanding if posters recognize critical religious posts as an act of persuasion.
When does a ‘normal’ discussion about religion become preaching?
Ankhanu
a dictionary wrote:
religious |riˈlijəs|
adjective
believing in and worshiping a superhuman controlling power or powers, esp. a personal God or gods : both men were deeply religious, intelligent, and moralistic.
• (of a belief or practice) forming part of someone's thought about or worship of a divine being : he has strong religious convictions.
• of or relating to the worship of or a doctrine concerning a divine being or beings : religious music.
• belonging or relating to a monastic order or other group of people who are united by their practice of religion : religious houses were built on ancient pagan sites.
• treated or regarded with a devotion and scrupulousness appropriate to worship : I have a religious aversion to reading manuals.

noun ( pl. same)
a person bound by monastic vows


According to the dictionary definition of religious, there are two ways in which many posts about religion might be considered "religious": of or relating to the worship of or a doctrine concerning a divine being or beings; (of a belief or practice) forming part of someone's thought about or worship of a divine being. Both of these definitions don't actually require holding the belief, or even espousing the beliefs, rather, simply discussing the qualities of beliefs. I think most discussions on religion at least include these ideas, which leads into "religious".

Of course, the broader context of "religious" usually applies to "this is your religion", or proselytizing... which is somewhat different, I think, and from where moaning about "this is not religious" stem. In that sense, there is a bit of a distinction between talking about religion and being religious. In the end, I suppose it doesn't much matter, does it?

[/quote="Bluedoll"]I am really interested in understanding if posters recognize critical religious posts as an act of persuasion.[/quote]
Every post on just about any topic is about persuasion (with the exception of "that was funny" "I agree" or the like). Whether the goal of that persuasion is simply to pass along information or perspective, or an actual attempt to sway the reader to adopting your view is what differs. This is true whether it's about (ir)religious belief or whether or not Transformers 2 was a good movie.

Bluedoll wrote:
When does a ‘normal’ discussion about religion become preaching?

Probably somewhere around the point that the exchange of ideas ends and the repetition of previously presented points begins? Discussion (or debate, which is a subset of discussion, since a lot of people want to put hard lines between the two) ends when either side stops listening, considering the other's points, or refuses to answer questions, address new points or the like, and falls back on "just because" or "I don't want to answer that". We see all of these stumbling blocks pop up in topics of religion eventually... it's almost like Godwin's Law around here Razz
Bluedoll
I kind of frown at Godwin’s law (1990,s) not because of what is being stating but at establishment of his ideas as ‘a law’ , one might leave that designation to Newton or the Charter of Rights or something like that but anyway, point is taken. Although, I do not see how discussion, an exchange of ideas or repetition for that matter has much to do with preaching. I think there must be a line somewhere in the sand where persuasion seems to be the priority of the exercise?
Ankhanu wrote:
I think most discussions on religion at least include these ideas, which leads into "religious". Of course, the broader context of "religious" usually applies to "this is your religion", or proselytizing... which is somewhat different, I think, and from where moaning about "this is not religious" stem. In that sense, there is a bit of a distinction between talking about religion and being religious. In the end, I suppose it doesn't much matter, does it?
Well defined though I’m considering all beliefs, belief in God, pagan or even non-beliefs. The only distinction I make concerning religion is one is global that is organized religion (I am a ___) and private religious belief which is each individuals own personal beliefs not about everything but about specific things like the bible, God, spirtuality, etc.


Looking at the question, I am wondering how, say, if a person walks into a monastery, church, classroom, courtyard or where ever religion is being discussed and then goes with the ‘this is not religious” line. Now, I know that message boards are none of the previously mentioned places but they might as well be for people maintain beliefs including online.

The question of being involved with religion or not might be demonstrated by getting involved with all the practices of religious debate but then denying being there. I suppose it could also be compared to sleepy spouses only attending functions without actually taking part but then when there is debate there is a very definite role of “taking the lead” and declaring one’s fixed opinion (another name for religion?).
Ankhanu
I think that "line" comes from when persuasion is simply an element, and when conversion is the goal.
For example, when you and I discuss religion, I'm not looking to convert you away from your Christianity, my goal is to help you understand my perspective, and to get to understand yours. I'd be preaching if my goal more so resembled trying to convince you that your current mode of thought is wrong and you should come to my way of thinking.
Obviously, we each think our perspective is the stronger, more reasonable position; otherwise we wouldn't hold it as our position, would we! But, it is up to each of us to examine the information at hand and reach our conclusions.
.: If something I say causes a switch to flick in your brain and you to say "hmm, maybe there's something to this..." and change your perspective on religion... cool! If not, no harm done.
.: If it simply causes something in your brain to click and you understand my perspective, but maintain your own, hey, that's great too!
.: If I start to tell you you're simply wrong and you must move over to my way of thinking, or there will be consequences... then there's a problem

This isn't to be mixed up with getting facts wrong, or pointing out flaws in arguments, or methods of presenting information... they're very different sorts of points than "you're wrong and must come to my side"... it's entirely possible to have one (or both) of us incorrect on something relating to fact, or that we're presenting ourselves poorly, or otherwise stifling a discussion. Pointing out flaws is not always an attack on the person.



Re: declaring one’s fixed opinion (another name for religion?)
Nah, I don't think a fixed opinion is synonymous with religion... though it CAN be. There are many people for whom religion is somewhat plastic, able to bend and mold to new perspectives and information. Of course, there are those who are dead rigid in their beliefs too...
Bluedoll
@Ankhanu I think you deserve a compliment for a very well written article deserving of being called an article and just not ‘a post’ though I am not saying posts are any less. I particularly liked your closing comparing religious belief to plastic and how some can be dead rigid. So true, on both sides of the fence.

I hoping this does not take this thread off a tangent. This is not my intention but I need to understand something that is important for me to clarify. I see a very large flaw (not in a person) but in what I read sometimes. Can you or anyone explain to me why these two posts do better to demonstrate the subject being described in this topic than many more words can?

http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-126232.html

http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-126235.html

It is obvious that a bible study is something conducted with an affiliation to a particular religious belief, yet is there a denial of that fact? How can this not be a religious act? Notice, I have not said anything negative except to say that it would be denial to say these posts are not pious religious posts. A bible study is taking place that is supporting the study of the bible from a particular religious perspective. So how can bible study with fixed opinion not be considered preaching is all I am asking in this thread?
Bikerman
Actually I'm studying the bible from the perspective of itself - I'm simply taking it at face value and seeing what it says.
It isn't preaching because I'm not interpreting it, just commenting on the words it contains.
You are convinced in your own mind that I am religious. The fact that I'm an atheist and make no bones about my disbelief in God doesn't matter - I'm still religious in your head.

It is OK - if believing that I am religious will make you happy then fine - believe I'm religious. Now what?
Ankhanu
The first example you provide, well, I'll let you look into the source and see it for what it is Wink
The second example, is certainly a topic about religion... it's intended to discuss dogma, which falls squarely into the third definition of religious from the built in dictionary provided by MacOS that I copied and pasted in my above article. It is about religion, but is it preaching or proselytizing? I don't think so. I can't comment on the form of the discussion, as currently it's a single post and not a discussion. I don't see anything within it that would stifle discussion of the content of the passage, or limit possible interpretations. The author clearly demonstrates their stance on the content, but there's no reason why an opposing view could not be put forth.


PS -
Slight clarification, it has no impact on the point that had been made, but I want to clarify my use of language. When I said some beliefs were plastic, I was not referring to the material (noun), rather, I was using it as an adjective (man, my dictionary widget's been getting a work out the past couple days):
Dictionary widget wrote:

2 (of substances or materials) easily shaped or molded : rendering the material more plastic.
...
• (in science and technology) of or relating to the permanent deformation of a solid without fracture by the temporary application of force.
...
• Biology exhibiting adaptability to change or variety in the environment.

in other words, flexibility. Given that's a property of the material to greater or lesser degrees, the point came across, but, I felt the need to clarify anyway Smile
Bluedoll
A Recap:

I made specific reverence to some posts with an intent to keep things focused on what is a religious post and why? One question has been answered that religious posts are being conducted “actually studying the bible” but posting as such are not necessarily considered to be “preaching or proselytizing” as noted by Ankhanu. This is an important question for me as I want to understand in general religious activity. The first link is an article about a church conversion to atheism, yet, while reading the article I got the sense that the pastor was trying to persuade people that the church and the people in it were more focused on social activities than religion. The move to more social than study could actually be a good move, I think, except for the fact that while reading the article, I observed that there is a lot more going on than purely having social order. There was a definite subscription to continued preaching from the pastor. In plain words, I doubt very much that a Christian could enter and utter one word without being attacked by the conversion. In short this is a church for atheists, and any mention of anything else would most certainly be meant I almost sure with a word from that pulpit.

My point of using this article for an example is to fully clarify in my mind how some religions are very visible (we are a religion of _____) while other religions are more subtle in their approach, some not even professing to be religious. An example, of this could be missionary workers who befriend people then when the time is right slip over a little piece of paper that says...a message about God. It is like a little advertisement I suppose and I see even governments (though not a religious message) put in their plug by putting little flags on their charity parcels. I am not saying there is anything wrong with the practice by the way, only that I find it to be subtle though still proselytizing non the less. It is just hidden from view. The only question left is what religion and why?


It is very obvious to me in religious topics, bible study is being conducted while discussing religion at great length, activily aimed at convincing others that it is doing it right. An example like the church in the article, I would say that it is certainly practicing a religion with persuasion as clearly stated from the article.
Quote:
“So who are you gonna believe: Carl Sagan, and the pantheon of the world’s greatest scientific and intellectual minds, or some guy who measured wealth by how many goats he had?”

http://www.theonion.com/articles/church-cancelled-due-to-lack-of-god,20563/

"An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. - Carl Sagan’s


So then is religious activity an act of religion (the why not the what)?

Thoughts?
epi97
A religious post is one that deals with spirituality.
Religion is a word that describes that act of spirituality. May people have their own ideas, what that is.
But if all people followed one God,in one way, then there is no religion . It is a way of life.
Much religion is based on human study of nature
.


Quote:
re·li·gion
   [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA

–noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion


Bikerman
There are still many aread of confusion left here.
a) You incorrectly apply the subject of the posting to the writer of the posting as a characteristic. I know that your central thesis is that people who post on religion are themselves religious, but for the rest of us in the real world this is clearly nonsense. A post ON religion is NOT necessarily a religious post. For example, a post which says that all religion is rubbish is not a religious posting, but it could be said to be a posting on religion.
A religious person is, by definition, someone who follows a particular religion or belief system (which is, btw NOT the same thing as a spiritual person).

b) A religious post may or may not deal with spirituality. It might, for example, deal with the financial accounts of the Vatican from 2008-2009 - which whilst hardly being a spiritual matter is certainly a matter to do with religion.

c) The first posting is a satire, published in the Onion - the well known satirical publication.
epi97
Bikerman wrote:
There are still many aread of confusion left here.
a) You incorrectly apply the subject of the posting to the writer of the posting as a characteristic. I know that your central thesis is that people who post on religion are themselves religious, but for the rest of us in the real world this is clearly nonsense. A post ON religion is NOT necessarily a religious post. For example, a post which says that all religion is rubbish is not a religious posting, but it could be said to be a posting on religion.
A religious person is, by definition, someone who follows a particular religion or belief system (which is, btw NOT the same thing as a spiritual person).

b) A religious post may or may not deal with spirituality. It might, for example, deal with the financial accounts of the Vatican from 2008-2009 - which whilst hardly being a spiritual matter is certainly a matter to do with religion.

c) The first posting is a satire, published in the Onion - the well known satirical publication.


If you take the dictionaries version of what a religious discussion, is about:

1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe,

then this also applies to the scientists, and their religion. So you don't have to feel left out.
Bikerman
Oh deary me.
A quick lesson on using a dictionary :- it will only define the word entered. Current dictionaries do not have the added telepathy module.
So when you enter 'religion' you get the definition you refer to. That is not the same as 'religious discussion'.
epi97
Bikerman wrote:
Oh deary me.
A quick lesson on using a dictionary :- it will only define the word entered. Current dictionaries do not have the added telepathy module.
So when you enter 'religion' you get the definition you refer to. That is not the same as 'religious discussion'.



Religion is the study of nature, how we got here, why are we here, how do things work? Who created all of this. Through the evidence you can come to a conclusion. That is why there is a faith, in a God.

The scientists are studying the same things, and they come to their conclusion, and their faith is that some day the they will be correct.

What's the difference?
Ankhanu
epi97 wrote:
... Through the evidence you can come to a conclusion. That is why there is a faith, in a God.

Isn't that contradictory? Through evidence you can believe in God, that is why we have beliefs in God that aren't based on evidence??

epi97 wrote:
The scientists are studying the same things, and they come to their conclusion, and their faith is that some day the they will be correct.

What's the difference?


The difference is in the assumptions made, the method by which things are assessed and the level of intellectual honesty presented. One simply assumes it knows the answer, the other seeks to find the answer.
epi97
Ankhanu wrote:
epi97 wrote:
... Through the evidence you can come to a conclusion. That is why there is a faith, in a God.

Isn't that contradictory? Through evidence you can believe in God, that is why we have beliefs in God that aren't based on evidence??

epi97 wrote:
The scientists are studying the same things, and they come to their conclusion, and their faith is that some day the they will be correct.

What's the difference?


The difference is in the assumptions made, the method by which things are assessed and the level of intellectual honesty presented. One simply assumes it knows the answer, the other seeks to find the answer.


Actually a lot of the evidence from the bible was not known before. Even the though words in the bible have been since they were written. But the understanding of them would not be known until this time of the end the bible talks about.
And of course, just like the scientists, people do not always go with the evidence. They have other agendas.
epi97
Quote:
The difference is in the assumptions made, the method by which things are assessed and the level of intellectual honesty presented. One simply assumes it knows the answer, the other seeks to find the answer.


The difference between the scientists and the students of the bible. Is that the student of the bible , can count on the things learned. And build on that. Knowing , they are correct.
That idea is foreign to the scientists. Because their ideas can be overturned by later research, or no proof.
Bikerman
epi97 wrote:
Quote:
The difference is in the assumptions made, the method by which things are assessed and the level of intellectual honesty presented. One simply assumes it knows the answer, the other seeks to find the answer.


The difference between the scientists and the students of the bible. Is that the student of the bible , can count on the things learned. And build on that. Knowing , they are correct.
Yep they do that all the time. Which is why you get predictions of the end of the world with monotonous regularity. It is also noted that such predictions have, in every case, been wrong. It is also noted that nobody has EVER used this 'hidden knowledge' to make a useful or testable prediction. Plenty - like you - make POSTdictions (ie claim some prophecy was true but only AFTER the facts). That is not a very good record - 2000 years, countless predictions, no hits. If this were a proper scientific trial one would be forced to the conclusion that there IS something noteable about Bible predictions - they are less likely to be correct than a random guess plucked out of thin air. You would do better to flip a coin and call heads or tails.
epi97
Bikerman wrote:
epi97 wrote:
Quote:
The difference is in the assumptions made, the method by which things are assessed and the level of intellectual honesty presented. One simply assumes it knows the answer, the other seeks to find the answer.


The difference between the scientists and the students of the bible. Is that the student of the bible , can count on the things learned. And build on that. Knowing , they are correct.
Yep they do that all the time. Which is why you get predictions of the end of the world with monotonous regularity. It is also noted that such predictions have, in every case, been wrong. It is also noted that nobody has EVER used this 'hidden knowledge' to make a useful or testable prediction. Plenty - like you - make POSTdictions (ie claim some prophecy was true but only AFTER the facts). That is not a very good record - 2000 years, countless predictions, no hits. If this were a proper scientific trial one would be forced to the conclusion that there IS something noteable about Bible predictions - they are less likely to be correct than a random guess plucked out of thin air. You would do better to flip a coin and call heads or tails.

This shows many have fallen for the, show. There is going to be an end to this system. what the bible calls Armageddon. And we are warned to be ready for it.
But the point of the many predictions is that, it makes unbelievers ridicule the end because so many have failed in their attempt. This is the ' cry wolf' syndrome. It will come anyway, it's just that the ones that aren't in the know will ridicule it.
This is happened in the past. and will happen until the end comes.

Actually the bible says just before it comes, people will know it is going to happen.
That means people will know that the scientists, religions were not telling truth about, things.
I would not want to be a scientists at that time.
But of course many will not know until it is too late. But your correct you don't know if the prophecy is real, until it happens. The thing with the bible that many prophecies have been given all have been fulfilled in detail.
So why not trust it? it hasn't failed before.
Bikerman
The assertion that bible prophecies have never failed is too ridiculous to take seriously. The ammended assertion, that they have proven correct after the writing, is challenged in a more appropriate forum - since testing the assertion will require more than faith.
epi97
Bikerman wrote:
The assertion that bible prophecies have never failed is too ridiculous to take seriously. The ammended assertion, that they have proven correct after the writing, is challenged in a more appropriate forum - since testing the assertion will require more than faith.


They have never failed.
Bluedoll
My last post under this thread (peace)

This is certainly not the best example of a prediction out of the bible but one that has come true. It serves as an example of how the bible does mean business. Now it is easy to be a skeptic and consider this biblical passage as not much of a prediction or to simply state well it was going to happen regardless, but consider that when it was written the idea of a such a thing actually happening would be phenomenal in the eyes of men in that time period. There are many things written in the bible that are time locked and ready to emerge in a moments notice. Choosing to ignore the predictions is always the readers choice.

Out of the Amplified Bible, Genesis 1:28 “And God blessed them and said to them, Be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it [using all its vast resources in the service of God and man]; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and over every living creature that moves upon the earth.”
This has come true in our last century.


Another prediction . . . that is throughout the bible concerns the last days, Armageddon or end of world. Basically, it means that there will be a great crowd that will stop believing in God, be against Jesus Christ and convince others that they are right. Although one might guess that the greatest world population today are “devoted God lovers” by counting the number of people registered in many organized worldly religions, please, let me set that record straight. There are a large number of spouses that go to churches (or designated places for religious worship) to sleep or go along with a crowd socially and have little love for God, some even do not believe in God. Statistics sometimes mean little. These people are not atheists by declaration but atheism in their understanding and if not steadfast in this understanding, easily swayed to accept that role if it seems advantageous. What I do suggest is that atheism promotes change in the direction noted and the social trend has in the past and in the near future (prediction) will move away from religious devotion to God to a more worldly understanding of what is considered to be truth (non-belief/or against God). This is the real future and what the end of the world is about. Armageddon is a religious war. How that effects mankind in general we may all experience but the existence of that change in religious outlook for a very large percentage of the world population is the prediction. Why these things must take place is a wonderment for me but all I know for sure is biblical predictions do come true.

The questions for me in this thread were really about how people thought about their involvement in making these changes come about (even in a very small way) and if that role is considered to them to be religious. I will state I really think it is. The reason I think so is because if one considers these threads religious in nature which I think is what has been confirmed then to being about change in how we view religious subjects is paramount for our understanding that sometimes we can change how others think about these religious subjects and that only means we are actively involved. That make sense at least to me.

We do have in this post an interpretation of what the bible is telling us regarding prediction (mine). What you choose to believe is totally up to you but I can guarantee this is certainly not discussing the Vatican, it is discussing the bible and the bible is a round about message (written by men) from God. To post to this thread in my view is adding or subtracting.

The bible does indeed give us valuable information is my preach. For all the believers I hope you maintain your spirtuality in favour of Godly devotion. For all the atheists that do not believe in God, I really do wish you well and only make one suggestion that you keep an open ear, think of it like an insurance policy.

For those that promote and go out of their way to try to convince others that God does not exist and condemns the practice of belief in God, I can say that the prediction in the bible is that you will win the debate but only for a little while before God does give the world a really big present of love, peace and security.




















This was my thread and everyone posting to it was appreciated. I have learned some things from the people that posted and so happy about that. I am happy in the future that...{quote}“So if you post (in a new topic) that you are a devout Christian and believe in the bible, a reply saying that the bible is a fiction book, god doesn't exist and similar things won't be allowed. On the other hand, if someone creates a topic that states that he/she doesn't believe in god, a response that god does exist and you should pray and read the bible, is not allowed.” - Bondings{/quote}


Anyone will do themselves well to pray while reading the bible paying special attention to all the good things inside. – the end

Very Happy
Bikerman
Quote:
“And God blessed them and said to them, Be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it [using all its vast resources in the service of God and man]; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and over every living creature that moves upon the earth.”

So this is a prophecy? But if it only came true this century (which is highly contentious and arguably complete nonsense) then WHY did it only come true? Have the previous 6000 years - when presumably we did NOT have dominion - been a bit of an oversight? Did God revoke this dominion when Adam and Eve were banished from the garden? You could argue that (at least you could if you actually knew the bible well eough to be able to quote it without misquoting it as you did)*. The problem then becomes firstly why is this not explicit and secondly, presuming it WAS revoked then when did the bible say it should be restored?
Is that it? (Your second example is so vague and so mis-stated that it is even less valid than the above).
epi97
Quote:
Another prediction . . . that is throughout the bible concerns the last days, Armageddon or end of world. Basically, it means that there will be a great crowd that will stop believing in God, be against Jesus Christ and convince others that they are right.


Actually this is backwards.

Revelation 7:9-14
Good News Translation (GNT)
The Enormous Crowd

9 (A)After this I looked, and there was an enormous crowd—no one could count all the people! They were from every race, tribe, nation, and language, and they stood in front of the throne and of the Lamb, dressed in white robes and holding palm branches in their hands.10 They called out in a loud voice:
Salvation comes from our God, who sits on the throne, and from the Lamb!11 All the angels stood around the throne, the elders, and the four living creatures. Then they threw themselves face downward in front of the throne and worshiped God,12 saying,
Amen! Praise, glory, wisdom, thanksgiving, honor, power, and might belong to our God forever and ever! Amen!
13 One of the elders asked me,
Who are these people dressed in white robes, and where do they come from?

14 (B)
I don't know, sir. You do, I answered.

He said to me,
These are the people who have come safely through the terrible persecution. They have washed their robes and made them white with the blood of the Lamb.

So this great crowd will survive Armageddon.
Bikerman
(see...even the theists can agree about what their holy book says.....wonderful)
epi97
Bikerman wrote:
(see...even the theists can agree about what their holy book says.....wonderful)


Satan's only purpose is to mislead. And he is good at it.
When we read about Noah ( and his family ) and Abraham and Job and then Jesus, these people were the only ones in the world at their times that were doing Gods will. All the rest had their own religions and customs. So most people will be doing their own thing. That is what Satan uses to appeal to people.

When Dawkins talks about religions , he is right on, in allot of cases. He just doesn't get, he is in the stream swimming down stream, with them.
Bikerman
Again this illustrates a long tradition within religions - praising ignorance and damning learning and education as the work of Satan. In fact Christianity is built on ignorance. Many of the early Church leaders warned against the danger of study and knowledge - because they rightly observed that the learned-man was much more difficult to con and control than the uneducated man.
epi97
Bikerman wrote:
Again this illustrates a long tradition within religions - praising ignorance and damning learning and education as the work of Satan. In fact Christianity is built on ignorance. Many of the early Church leaders warned against the danger of study and knowledge - because they rightly observed that the learned-man was much more difficult to con and control than the uneducated man.

Well on one hand you have the scientists that have to go to school for along time, so that they get any idea of creation out of their heads. Then when the scientists do the same thing they praise themselves on how creative they are. That is the way of the world. That also happened in Jesus day . The Pharisees we not appointed , they set themselves up as the leaders of the people. So that they could lord it over the common man. After Jesus died, Christianity did the same thing. The scientists have done the same thing in their religion.
Acts 4:13
Wycliffe New Testament (WYC)
13 And they saw the steadfastness of Peter and of John, and when it was found that they were men unlettered, and lay men [that there were men without letters, and idiots], they wondered, and they knew them that they were with Jesus.

In this scripture it talks about the attitude of the school people to the unlettered ( Dr. , PHD, BA, etc).
This goes for clergy , scientists, and others. This does not mean everyone is like that . But that is a general attitude.
So schooling is an exercise of worldly thinking. And is used in mind control. And is very effective.
Bikerman
Exactly. I couldn't have put it better. As you say - idiots.
It is pretty easy to convince an idiot of any silly notion. An educated man cannot be so easily swayed by tall tales.

The theme is common in the bible. Jesus encourages people to be child-like in their approach to him. That doesn't mean 'innocent' as many people say - anyone who thinks children are 'innocent' has never had much dealing with children. It means 'naive' and 'suggestable'. All children are very suggestable - it is an evolutionary necessity, since children of humans are particularly helpless, they need to do as their parents say without question to survive.

The whole point is that learning leads to questioning and the bible has no answers for the hard questions. This is why generations of Christians have warned people that learning is evil - and is one reason why we call that period when the Church had pretty absolute rule 'the Dark Ages'.
epi97
Bikerman wrote:
Exactly. I couldn't have put it better. As you say - idiots.
It is pretty easy to convince an idiot of any silly notion. An educated man cannot be so easily swayed by tall tales.

The theme is common in the bible. Jesus encourages people to be child-like in their approach to him. That doesn't mean 'innocent' as many people say - anyone who thinks children are 'innocent' has never had much dealing with children. It means 'naive' and 'suggestable'. All children are very suggestable - it is an evolutionary necessity, since children of humans are particularly helpless, they need to do as their parents say without question to survive.

The whole point is that learning leads to questioning and the bible has no answers for the hard questions. This is why generations of Christians have warned people that learning is evil - and is one reason why we call that period when the Church had pretty absolute rule 'the Dark Ages'.


What about the start to life and 'evolution' are they not "tall tails"?
Actually you don't have to be genius to understand the bible, but you do have to be brain washed accept what the scientists preach. That is the purpose of the schools.

Not against learning, but against learning worthless things. There is a difference.

After all scientists have given man the ability to ruin the earth. And we can kill many times over the number of people on the earth. With direct intent. And who knows how many times more, from the mistakes from the scientists. There is a big push around here to not by processed foods any more. Not to use sprays, many of which are banned here now. There are plastics in the oceans, we are killing the reefs, many animals are just dying in numbers and no one knows why.

Anyone say 'Dark Ages'.
Bikerman
LOL...You are alive because of science and you reach out to the world using that science. You owe science your very existence and like a petulant child you smack-away the hand that feeds you and substitute some sky-fairy.
You hit the nail on the head when you say
Quote:
Not against learning, but against learning worthless things. There is a difference.
Oh there surely is a difference. To me no knowledge is worthless, to you only knowledge which supports your notions is actually worthwhile. Left to you and others of a similar belief then we would be still IN the dark ages. In fact you seem to think that would be preferrable. Maybe you enjoy being prey to any passing disease, having a life expectancy of about 20 - during which time you will often be in severe pain, and during which malnurishment is a given.
You are welcome to it.
epi97
Bikerman wrote:
LOL...You are alive because of science and you reach out to the world using that science. You owe science your very existence and like a petulant child you smack-away the hand that feeds you and substitute some sky-fairy.
You hit the nail on the head when you say
Quote:
Not against learning, but against learning worthless things. There is a difference.
Oh there surely is a difference. To me no knowledge is worthless, to you only knowledge which supports your notions is actually worthwhile. Left to you and others of a similar belief then we would be still IN the dark ages. In fact you seem to think that would be preferrable. Maybe you enjoy being prey to any passing disease, having a life expectancy of about 20 - during which time you will often be in severe pain, and during which malnurishment is a given.
You are welcome to it.


The scientists have found out allot of helpful and harmful things. But that not what I am talking about.

If you are in a survival mode, and what you do and learn means the difference for survival for you and your family. Do you waste time on things that don't matter?

If your on a ship that is sinking, do sit in your cabin, and start reading Readers Digests. Until the water is at your neck?
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Again this illustrates a long tradition within religions - praising ignorance and damning learning and education as the work of Satan. In fact Christianity is built on ignorance. Many of the early Church leaders warned against the danger of study and knowledge - because they rightly observed that the learned-man was much more difficult to con and control than the uneducated man.
Your emphasis on praising ignorance is very narrow in its interpretation. And I don't know where you get the damning of learning and education either. Ignorance is usually reserved for those who are slow in learning. None of the churches I attended have ever discouraged their congregations for being educated, in fact it is usually with pride that they would announce a member of the congregation's accomplishments in science or whatever. There are even bursaries available for studying further by members of the congregation. You must be referring to the dark ages or something?
Bikerman
No, just the bible.
Quote:
See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the principles of the world, and not according to Christ
Colossians 2:8
Quote:
If you were blind, you wouldn't be guilty," Jesus replied. "But you remain guilty because you claim you can see.
John 9:41
The whole 'setup' is profoundly pro-ignorance. What is the 'sin' that Adam commits? Eating an apple from the 'Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil'. Knowledge of ethics is bad? Only if you want to encourage a slave mentality where one believes what one is told. The metaphor of the 'sheep' is common throughout the bible - that is what the ideal Christian is - a sheep, mindlessly obeying the 'laws' of God.
epi97
Bikerman wrote:
No, just the bible.
Quote:
See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the principles of the world, and not according to Christ
Colossians 2:8
Quote:
If you were blind, you wouldn't be guilty," Jesus replied. "But you remain guilty because you claim you can see.
John 9:41
The whole 'setup' is profoundly pro-ignorance. What is the 'sin' that Adam commits? Eating an apple from the 'Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil'. Knowledge of ethics is bad? Only if you want to encourage a slave mentality where one believes what one is told. The metaphor of the 'sheep' is common throughout the bible - that is what the ideal Christian is - a sheep, mindlessly obeying the 'laws' of God.


Actually God wants you to check out the bible , he does not want blind followers.
That is what the scientists want.
Bikerman
Not true. Firstly the question of what God wants is moot since you haven't shown any reason to believe in any such thing. Secondly religions want you to ACCEPT the bible, not 'check it out'. Why do you think the Catholic Church was so resistant to letting people read the bible?
This tradition is alive and well, btw. The Amish, for example, still stick to what was once basic Church teaching. Amish women may not attend school beyond 8th grade and NO Amish (except the minister of course) is allowed to read the bible, on pain of excommunication.
epi97
Bikerman wrote:
Not true. Firstly the question of what God wants is moot since you haven't shown any reason to believe in any such thing. Secondly religions want you to ACCEPT the bible, not 'check it out'. Why do you think the Catholic Church was so resistant to letting people read the bible?
This tradition is alive and well, btw. The Amish, for example, still stick to what was once basic Church teaching. Amish women may not attend school beyond 8th grade and NO Amish (except the minister of course) is allowed to read the bible, on pain of excommunication.


Don't confuse false religions with the bible. Do you remember that prophecy I mentioned about the Man of Lawlessness, will be revealed, what you mentioned here comes under that prophecy.That is part of the fulfilment. Those religious leaders are condemned in the bible and get a greater punishment for what they have done.
Bikerman
LOL...the cry of the true zealot
It is always every other religion or interpretation that is wrong, never theirs. THEY have some special insight which is obviously denied to everyone who disagrees, despite having exactly the same data to work from.

Another word for it is delusion.
epi97
Bikerman wrote:
LOL...the cry of the true zealot
It is always every other religion or interpretation that is wrong, never theirs. THEY have some special insight which is obviously denied to everyone who disagrees, despite having exactly the same data to work from.

Another word for it is delusion.


And the scientists knows this, when they don't know anything else.
If the scientists had any evidence at all about their theories, that would be one thing. But not to have anything ?Who really is delusional?
Bikerman
Repeating the same lies won't make them true. Do you think your God will forgive you for breaking his commandments? I don't think the excuse 'they were scientists' will cut much ice.
epi97
Bikerman wrote:
Repeating the same lies won't make them true. Do you think your God will forgive you for breaking his commandments? I don't think the excuse 'they were scientists' will cut much ice.


What I have said is correct. But the scientists have lied to people for the last 150 years or so. But they have fulfilled prophecy.
Bikerman
Oh sure, the scientists are all liars. I think there is only one liar here...

(PS in any other forum I would have deleted this posting for contravention of the TOS. I don't moderate this forum so I've let it stand, but don't post this type of general libel in other forums).
epi97
Bikerman wrote:
Oh sure, the scientists are all liars. I think there is only one liar here...

(PS in any other forum I would have deleted this posting for contravention of the TOS. I don't moderate this forum so I've let it stand, but don't post this type of general libel in other forums).


Quote:
(Bikerman wrote)Repeating the same lies won't make them true. Do you think your God will forgive you for breaking his commandments? I don't think the excuse 'they were scientists' will cut much ice.


Did you not libel me in your post? So that would be deleted also, which means I never would have answered it.
Bikerman
No. The fact that you have written lies in your postings is a matter of record. If you think I have libelled you then it is open to you to take action (I'll be happy to give you the address of my lawyer).
epi97
Bikerman wrote:
No. The fact that you have written lies in your postings is a matter of record. If you think I have libelled you then it is open to you to take action (I'll be happy to give you the address of my lawyer).


Sounds like you need one allot. I don't have a lawyer. Cool
Bikerman
Post the sort of offensive nonsense you have posted here on some other sites and that will change.
epi97
Bikerman wrote:
Post the sort of offensive nonsense you have posted here on some other sites and that will change.

I do hope so, I'm really just interested in talking about the science or creation stuff.
So please, no more silly posts.
epi97
thanks for the talks everyone.
Were starting to get into just repeating and bickering post now. I'm really not interested in that.
So I won't bother you any more.

thanks epi.
Bikerman
ROFLAMO. When you were challenging the science, the bickering and repetition (of which there was a huge amount) didn't seem to trouble you. Now that I challenge you on your OWN turf you cut and run. Could that be because you have been shown to be unfamiliar with your precious bible and to have (deliberately or otherwise) tried the same selective quoting and switching sources with the bible that proved so disasterous in your 'science' postings?

If you want to take on science with creationism you should at least start by learning the creationism bit.
Bluedoll
Request to close thread since the op asked ...” The topics discussion however is only concerned and centered around with as the title states, what is a religious post and why..” - thanks
Related topics
hot guy
anyone like post-rock?
PANOSP
HOW does religion start wars?
Its offensive to me if you eat cow
Religion/Faith forum
God is Perfect
satanic atheism
A suggestion... take it as you will
What is trolling? What is fair? And what is foul?
God exists - and here's the proof
What do athiests believe?
List of all the common denominators across all religions
Bible texts shown to be of non-human origin ?
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Faith

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.