The Religion Thread.

Blacken the angel · Jan 13, 2007

paradoxile said:
s
I don't believe in the holy scriptures because I studied them and they didn't add up and contredicted themselves and because time and again science prooved religion wrong.

Does them include Quran as well?
I think that you did'nt even bother to read it.

paradoxile · Jan 13, 2007

schivmeister said:
It is proven that our galaxy will end to give way to a new system. The Andromeda Galaxy is on a collision course with ours, and in 20 billion years it'll be gone and another cycle of space matter begins.

Cosmology still exists because the Astrophycisists, Astronomers, and Cosmologists still do not know what was there and what will be there. Meeaning, where's the first and last?

Shape of the Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A good laymen read would be Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes". If you havn't read, in it he discusses the difficulty in defining space and infinity, and whether there is any infinity in Universe and the Celestial system. A start cannot be defined and neither is the Big Bang the start because nothing is known as to what was there before that. The universe as a sphere, or flat space cannot be a completely correct model.

I think the universe will continue. At least that's my field of research and am not even beginning my thesis The world and our solar system will be gone eventually, if not by asteroids or comets or Satan or some divine disaster, or even the Sun dying out like just another star (either the explosion or the black hole left would eat Earth, either way it goes), then it would be Andromeda.

Buddhism is great. It's a teaching and not entirely a religion. Anyone can practise the teachings of any Buddha (not Buddhist), as it is only a guideline to humanity. One thing disturbs me though, why do the monks get drunk when being in such a state alters the mind and it is definitely not a very good thing to do? Yes. Monks get drunk. I have seen it.

And sex is meant for reproduction. End

I read Hawking's book...fascinating stuff
what I did is simply propose a theory of my own based on simple newtonian mechanics and an energy mass tradeoff based on Einstein theory of relativity) without connection to what Stephen Hawking said in his books(with the exception of the whole universe is expanding within itself thing)...
I left time completely out of the formula because I couldn't define time which makes my theory lacking and also probably wrong since newtonian mechanics don't apply to objects moving faster than the speed of light...nor it has any reference to black holes, wormholes etc...
but hey I'm not astrophysicist...I'm not a physicist either.

as for the whole buddhism thing...that's kind of religion I'm trying to create
teachings for optimal life for yourself and others but based on different principals.
one difference is that I say there should be a certain ballance between spirituality and materialism and to much of either is unhealthy.
letting go of the material world make is somewhat like dying, because shutting off materialism is also shutting off people close to you and people who need help, materialistic help.

paradoxile · Jan 13, 2007

Blacken the angel said:
Does them include Quran as well?
I think that you did'nt even bother to read it.

I read parts of it and I didn't like what I saw

Blacken the angel · Jan 13, 2007

which parts? about lut and sodom :lol:

oh i forgot maybe you don't even consider the quran a holy scripture! :lol:

schivmeister · Jan 13, 2007

Ahh..but a theory itself may or not prove to be useful. Who knows yours may ultimately be the truth. But like the scientists have doubts about the String Theory, many theories may all go down the drain, first victims would be dark matter and energy.

one difference is that I say there should be a certain ballance between spirituality and materialism and to much of either is unhealthy.
letting go of the material world make is somewhat like dying, because shutting off materialism is also shutting off people close to you and people who need help, materialistic help.

Messiakh · Jan 13, 2007

Blacken the angel said:
I know it IS a sect in Islam.but I think that the majority of the population in Bahrain are shi3a.

True, the majority of bahrain are shia, and I come from a shia family too, and I could accept Shiasm as a belief however I don't agree with the "Self-hitting" thing because it is clearly forbidden according to the Quran itself.

paradoxile · Jan 13, 2007

the quiz is pretty funny...I scored 70 so I should be visited sometime...ehm ok
do you like tapioca? :lol:

but seriously alien visitors is no joke...aspecially by those with bad intentions.

about the relations between science and religion...I've read some of those links before but I'm a big critic of some of the thing that are written there.
A lot of the things that may seem as predictions of modern science were based on the sciences of the old times which were completely empirical in nature...it makes it more a discovry by coincidence.
as for cosmology...you didn't have to be smart to see that "the skies are moving" but when unable to explain certain phenomena it is immedietly related to god...now after a while when science developed and showed a scientific proof/explanation of that phenomenon...he'd be attacked by religious authorities for being blesphamous and what not...

Ahh..but a theory itself may or not prove to be useful. Who knows yours may ultimately be the truth. But like the scientists have doubts about the String Theory, many theories may all go down the drain, first victims would be dark matter and energy.

I'm well aware of that and I agree...but it's still kinda cool to have my own theory on the universe...it's mine...all mine! :lol:

schivmeister · Jan 13, 2007

LOL I supposedly have cousins with a score of 60+ but they will not visit me

But I sorta feel that aliens would visit us with good intentions :lol:

Tho I don't like the idea that they might be reptilian.

Hmm so are you a firm believer that scientific advances and knowledge have been gained only by the staircase rule? Which means: as Earth time matures, as people become more equipped with knowledge. In which case it would render people from the olden times much less capable of such knowledge along with the claims of religion being the source. But then again, those civilisations went kaput, leaving no trace. So maybe it's knowledge that couldn't be passed down and so everything had to start from scratch and hence we're on the same route to ultimate intelligence, at which point of time we will know what really is going on but then we will vanish mysteriously.

One theory of death says it is just existence in a different form. Our wordly existence in various chemical, physical, and biological sense is just one of the states of matter things can be in. Due to this, we only see this visible matter which is the world and everything in it. After we die, we just exist as different matter.

This theory stems from stories of near-death-experience victims, like coma and stroke survivors (where in some cases both the brain and heart stop functioning for a period of time), who claim they kept watching their body as if in a dream. Dreaming wasn't possible because these victims were constantly monitored for brain and heart activity, which would show dream processes in the brain. Nothing of such activity was derived from the results, so it's still a mystery as to how and why these people had that FPS kinda view when their brains were absolutely not in service.

paradoxile · Jan 13, 2007

Blacken the angel said:
which parts? about lut and sodom
oh i forgot maybe you don't even consider the quran a holy scripture!

to be clear...
I study the holy scriptures(torrah, bible and quran) which aren't so holy after contredictions, unexplained rules and stuff that don't make sence which I see in them.

The whole concept of believe or be punished is wrong from the root.
The whole use of fear is wrong...it projects insecurity and justfully increases doubt.
but most of all it's the "God controls everything"=>"If you don't believe, you'll be punished" but if god controlls everything, then god is the one that makes non believers not believe...and they should be punished for that because of what? because of something they have no control of?
so no...I don't consider the quran holy, nor the new testament or the torrah.

a testament would be holy if it came from god. and if it came from god it must be perfect and flawless and none of the 3 scriptures is.

paradoxile · Jan 13, 2007

Hmm so are you a firm believer that scientific advances and knowledge have been gained only by the staircase rule? Which means: as Earth time matures, as people become more equipped with knowledge. In which case it would render people from the olden times much less capable of such knowledge along with the claims of religion being the source. But then again, those civilisations went kaput, leaving no trace. So maybe it's knowledge that couldn't be passed down and so everything had to start from scratch and hence we're on the same route to ultimate intelligence, at which point of time we will know what really is going on but then we will vanish mysteriously.

you have an interesting point there but wouldn't those civilization which mysteriously disappeared leave any evidence behind them?evidence of their existance can be translated to knowledge...so it's never starting from square one which ultimately will result in a faster reach to even to knowledge that was lost.

My personal belief is as we are all part of the universe/god then we have a way to access the "Akashik Records"(which hold record everything that ever happened at any time including the future) so absolutely no knowledge is lost.

One theory of death says it is just existence in a different form. Our wordly existence in various chemical, physical, and biological sense is just one of the states of matter things can be in. Due to this, we only see this visible matter which is the world and everything in it. After we die, we just exist as different matter.

I call this different matter "a soul"...though it's also existant on this plaine, it is clouded by the limitation of the rules of this plaine(as well as the human body must obey those rules).
this also supports the no loss of knowledge I mentioned before.

This theory stems from stories of near-death-experience victims, like coma and stroke survivors (where in some cases both the brain and heart stop functioning for a period of time), who claim they kept watching their body as if in a dream. Dreaming wasn't possible because these victims were constantly monitored for brain and heart activity, which would show dream processes in the brain. Nothing of such activity was derived from the results, so it's still a mystery as to how and why these people had that FPS kinda view when their brains were absolutely not in service.

reading about these near death/clinical death experiences and the similarity between them played a key role when I formed exactly what I believe in(reincarnations, akashik records etc...)
There's a phenomenon called astral projection in which you knowingly leave the body during a lucid dream...
I read some of those near death cases have compared between the two experiences...as both of them are out of body experiences and in both you are fully aware that you're dreaming/dead.

But I sorta feel that aliens would visit us with good intentions Tho I don't like the idea that they might be reptilian.

I feel we will be visited by both good and bad intentions aliens
I can't help but think that having people that are peace loving and careing against people who take care of their own intersts no matter who or how many people they hurt being a microcosm to the ways of the universe(caring and not caring species of aliens).

Metal head87 · Jan 13, 2007

paradoxile said:
I'm well aware of everything you said...
still homosexuality is wrong only because the torrah said so, same goes for incest...
we as a society could have the same way grown with the knowledge that sex is an expression of love(because it's pleasurable) and accepted gay sex and incest as legitimate.
incest posts no health risks except for conception and the high risk of a retarded/genetically flawed child.
as a matter of fact most royal families practiced incest and it was very acceptable among them to marry and have sex within the family.
as I'm saying this...if sex was a legitimate way of love then pedophilia would be legitimate too(with consent off course)...in which case the kids are left scarred for life from the experience just because everyone says it's wrong...and the child feels violated instead of loved
but everything with sex must be with consent...otherwise it's rape
in that reality we'd be having sex with samesex friends too.

The reasons I gave are pretty legitimate reasons for homosexuality's ban in the bible.
Actually, certain forms of incest are permitted, despite how disgusting and repulsing it is. You're just not supposed to mate with your parents and children. But cousins are technically fine. Not that I am personally condoning it though.
I'll use the example again, Jacob was related to Leah and Rachel.
Incest does indeed cause all sorts of birth defects. Besides for being flat footed, web toed, with 12 fingers, every person has a genetical flaw. Incest increases those flaws. Someone with risks for cancer, heart disease, blood disease, eye problems, anything really, is more likely to suffer from it if they are inbred.
Royal families did that to keep their blood pure. Just because they did it, doesn't necessarily mean it was the wisest thing to do.

Pedophilia always will be rape, regardless if there was consent or not. A pre-pubescent child can not give consent, especially to something like sex.
Pedophilia also has a lot to do with sadism and control, so it has nothing to do with love anyway.

Verano · Jan 13, 2007

I really dislike reading torah's view on homosexuality.

Men can't choose one day to be gay and the next day to be straight, it's all biological.

paradoxile · Jan 13, 2007

contrary to what you may believe...not all pedophiles are sadists.
a pre pubescent child cannot give consent...that's just what the law says
a child may not understand all that may result from this but a child can give consent exactly as a child can say no. a responsible pedophile parent should understand all that results from sex with his child and should make it pleasurable to the child so it doesn't leave an emotional scar.
but even with all that pedophilia is problematic because even if it's allowed and is ok, when is the time when you can actually have sex with a child...because surely a 3 year old cannot give consent(if talk at all) nor enjoy a really big cock in one of his/her small holes...but a 7 year old or a 9 year old can give cosent and is anatomicly capable of having/enjoying sex

though pedophilia is problematic...incest isn't.
we grew up in a society that views incest as wrong and disgusting because of its ban in religion but it's the cases you don't hear about that are interesting...of normal people who have committed incest and everything is ok...a married woman that has sex with her husband and visits her parents on the weekend and has sex with her father as she always has since she was 14.her father never hurt her, her mother knows and the husband is ok with it there's no risk of std's since they keep it all in the family and the sex is just a way to express love and not to make a baby(so conterceptives are probably used or he simply cums outside)...so the risks are just the same
so here I don't really see the problem
I'm not saying off course that I will ever commit incest because I won't...the ickiness is rooted in me as much as it is rooted in you...same goes for gay sex...so basicly I approve of both but I'm not going to have either...
and yeah I know there are forms of incest that are allowed but why specificly those and not others like why having sex with your aunt is fobidden and sex with you uncle is allowed?
and yeah those royals were dumb...just like nazis(the whole keep the blood pure thing)

you know what...being just a little problematic makes pedophilia wrong altogether...that was a sufficing argument.
I understand the bible gave reasonable explanation for banning homosexuality as a waste of sperm so it's understandable but the whole spem murder thing is so unbelievebly stupid...a sperm is a potential human just like an egg is a potential chicken but vegitarians eat eggs and don't eat chicken. a single cell doesn't have a consciousness...it just has a job so wasting sperm is not murder and not potential murder and not anything of this sort.
not having sex is murder according to this stupid rule because when the sperm cells in your balls don't fullfill their destiny it's like you killed the child you were supposed to have...fuck that! it's absurd

please give me an argument against homosexuality and/or incest that will convince me
and no christian "everyone is a sinner" thing...that's hardly an argument

this open minded shit is pretty cool

Verano · Jan 13, 2007

paradoxile said:
though pedophilia is problematic...incest isn't.
we grew up in a society that views incest as wrong and disgusting because of its ban in religion but it's the cases you don't hear about that are interesting...of normal people who have committed incest and everything is ok...a married woman that has sex with her husband and visits her parents on the weekend and has sex with her father as she always has since she was 14.her father never hurt her, her mother knows and the husband is ok with it there's no risk of std's since they keep it all in the family and the sex is just a way to express love and not to make a baby(so conterceptives are probably used or he simply cums outside)...so the risks are just the same
so here I don't really see the problem

So you're rationalizing incest as an acceptable form of sexual desire than pedophilia, the lesser of 2 evils?
That's sick logic you got there and you're expressiing moral relativism, which I severely dislike.

"It's cool if they do it, it's their culture, so it's ok, you can't say no because you're being irrespectful to what they view is right"
where's the objection to that?

Incest leads to pedophilia, and pedophilia is linked to child molesters.

paradoxile · Jan 13, 2007

dude you totally twisted what i just said...or maybe I wasn't clear enough

first of all I'm rationalizing incest as an acceptible way of expressing love because within consent everyone enjoys and no one gets hurt, because you're in a safe environment of your family.so that's why it's ok.
rape within incest is not ok because rape is not ok under any circumstasnces.

after viewing again at my post I realize I made it seem like I connect the three cases(gay sex, pedophilia and incest) but that was not my intention. in fact my intention was to view each case seperately so when I say incest it means incest with someone who's not a pre pubescent child.

pedophilia on its own creates another problem which is pedophilia not within the family...within the family the pedophile parent has no intent of hurting his child and will take all percautions to prevent anything bad from happening with the child since he loves him and the child is his responsibility.
now if you take it outside the family you don't have the parent to make sure the child is safe and the child may not be aware of std's and also even with consent might get hurt by accident because the adult having sex with him wasn't careful enough.( when I say him/the child/ the perent I mean both sexes) another problem that might rize up is the child's lack of sexual orientation since he hasn't reach puberty yet.

but as I said pedophilia raises too many problems that cannot be solved because of a child's immaturity.

"Incest leads to pedophilia"
not true...it's pedophiles from the beginning that have sex with their children at pre pubescent age.
"and pedophilia is linked to child molesters"
molestation is harassment but let's regard it as rape
and I excluded rape from the formula since all forms of rape are not ok.
in order to have an objective view on something you have to remove the surrounding and look at the concept of pedophilia on its own and as I said
on it's own pedophilia creates unsolvable problems which makes it on its own not ok.

how's that for objective?

Verano · Jan 14, 2007

paradoxile said:
first of all I'm rationalizing incest as an acceptible way of expressing love because within consent everyone enjoys and no one gets hurt, because you're in a safe environment of your family.so that's why it's ok.
rape within incest is not ok because rape is not ok under any circumstasnces.

after viewing again at my post I realize I made it seem like I connect the three cases(gay sex, pedophilia and incest) but that was not my intention. in fact my intention was to view each case seperately so when I say incest it means incest with someone who's not a pre pubescent child.

pedophilia on its own creates another problem which is pedophilia not within the family...within the family the pedophile parent has no intent of hurting his child and will take all percautions to prevent anything bad from happening with the child since he loves him and the child is his responsibility.
now if you take it outside the family you don't have the parent to make sure the child is safe and the child may not be aware of std's and also even with consent might get hurt by accident because the adult having sex with him wasn't careful enough.( when I say him/the child/ the perent I mean both sexes) another problem that might rize up is the child's lack of sexual orientation since he hasn't reach puberty yet.

but as I said pedophilia raises too many problems that cannot be solved because of a child's immaturity.

"Incest leads to pedophilia"
not true...it's pedophiles from the beginning that have sex with their children at pre pubescent age.
"and pedophilia is linked to child molesters"
molestation is harassment but let's regard it as rape
and I excluded rape from the formula since all forms of rape are not ok.
in order to have an objective view on something you have to remove the surrounding and look at the concept of pedophilia on its own and as I said
on it's own pedophilia creates unsolvable problems which makes it on its own not ok.

how's that for objective?

Dude that's sick, I find that gross. How does that not hurt people, emotionally and mentally?
It hurts their psyche and their view of sex, and this incest thing is making them think it's ok to have sex with younger children (pedophilia) because of their upbringing from childhood that's how they themselves practice what their parents taught them. It's not safe as you think it is.
In most cases, rape does happen within incest relations, a dad might go to her daughters/sons room and have sex with him/her
then tell him/her "It's ok, everyone does it". Same logic applies to even if it's consentual between the two.

You have sick and twisted mind, sir.
See a psychologist, dude, for the better.

Im just really shocked reading your apologetic responses.

UnConscious · Jan 14, 2007

sex is not a way to express solely love. you mean you can have sex with your mother to express your love for her? that's extreme. there are other ways to express your love. sex is not related with just love. you must have lust, desire and you must find that body attractive. i love my mother, my father, my sister, my grandmother, all my relatives. if i had a dog i'd love it too. i also love my friends. but i don't need to fuck them to express my love. sex is a biological need and it results mainly from lust, not love. love is optional. therefore it cannot be a way to express your love.

Messiakh · Jan 14, 2007

Last thing I expect to be discussed in this thread is beastiality.

Blacken the angel · Jan 14, 2007

UnConscious said:
sex is not a way to express solely love. you mean you can have sex with your mother to express your love for her? that's extreme. there are other ways to express your love. sex is not related with just love. you must have lust, desire and you must find that body attractive. i love my mother, my father, my sister, my grandmother, all my relatives. if i had a dog i'd love it too. i also love my friends. but i don't need to fuck them to express my love. sex is a biological need and it results mainly from lust, not love. love is optional. therefore it cannot be a way to express your love.

+1

Messiakh said:
Last thing I expect to be discussed in this thread is beastiality.

I swear I was going to say that! :lol:

Metal head87 · Jan 14, 2007

Messiakh said:
Last thing I expect to be discussed in this thread is beastiality.

Jokes revolving beastiality, bodily functions or combinations of the aforementioned are my territory!

The Religion Thread.

GGG!

Den Sista Ljusbäraren

Den Sista Ljusbäraren

GGG!

#1QVFan

I smell like cheese

Den Sista Ljusbäraren

#1QVFan

Den Sista Ljusbäraren

Den Sista Ljusbäraren

Member

Member

Den Sista Ljusbäraren

Member

Den Sista Ljusbäraren

Member

Stream of Unconsciousness

I smell like cheese

GGG!

Member

Similar threads