Tendo City

Okay i'm tired so i make quick type small words thought using 2% brain so yeah - just follow me

The Shroud of Turin. You know it, it's that big blanket that is said to have been used to cover the body of Jesus before his resurrection.

Now, before we get in to the actual debate, I want to know how people here feel about it. Is it important to you? does it further your belief?

I'm curious because of the recent news that has been uncovered about it and other things like it. There is another shroud of sorts that seems to show the face of Jesus and other cloths around the world that also fall in to the recent news. And of course, the countless images where Jesus in found in everything from coffee stains to window panes and birth marks or even tortillas. But the shroud of turin had a aire about it of authenticity and respect. It made 'sense'. Much more than Virgin Mary from the toaster or a deciple in the mashed potatoes yunno?

So... what does the shroud of turin mean to you?

It's most likely a medival painting and there is insufficient evidence to think otherwise. That is all it means to me.

Nothing more need be said.

It's very tough to prove the authenticity of artifacts from thousands of years ago. It's hard enough proving how old something is, but to prove it was actually in possession of a certain person back then is too much of a leap of faith for me.

It doesn't mean that much to me, just a piece of cloth as far as I'm concerned whether it's real or not. I mean, it's not like this shroud IS Jesus or something like that. It's just a THING.

*waits for LL to post*

You just post things about religion just to see what LL has to say don't you? I'm guessing you couldn't care less about what the rest of us had to say. :)

Christ lives, so why would we care about a sheet that may or may not have covered him when he was dead...the sheet isn't going to atone for my sins and has nothing to do with my eternal salvation.

-TheBiggah-

What does?

Quote:Christ lives, so why would we care about a sheet that may or may not have covered him when he was dead...the sheet isn't going to atone for my sins and has nothing to do with my eternal salvation.

That's pretty much the way I feel about it.

well, people believe whatever they want. Unfortunately what the church teaches and what actually happened are two totally different stories. Ever wonder why the bible states "the romans feared the crowds of thousands and did not arrest Jesus despite him being on the front steps of the temple" and then a few pages later "and the jewish people said "if you do not kill this man it would be a sin against God so the romans crusified Jesus"

Jews: omg we love u so much

Jesus: lol... i know

Jews: we hate you now

Jesus: o rly//?

The entire section of how the romans captured and killed jesus was re-written by the catholics to make the story of Jesus seem anti-semetic in the hopes of getting larger crowds at the church (read: money).

There's litteraly thousands of false statements, untruths and out right lies in the bible that were writen by governments and specific religous sects and sometimes just from kings and queens because 'the laws the bible teaches didn't match their lifestyles'.

But whatever, believe what you want to believe. History tells us Jesus was an upstart thorn in the roman's foot who tried to get people to stand up for themselves and find God on their own without the idea of 'Religion' and your idea of Jesus turns fish in to bread or wine in to gold or whatever it is the catholics wrote. But this is all besides the point.

The shroud of turin is a blanket that was used to cover the body of Jesus when he was taken down from the cross. This blanket was for many people a proof that he existed, but history tells us he existed he had a family even brothers and sisters and he was crusified along with thousands of other people (as crusifiction is the roman's choice of torture, why people want to wear a torture device is beyond me - it would be no different to wear an electric chair pendent).

This blanket has been around for hundreds of years in recorded history, in fact 'shrouds' that depict the image of fallen heroes and religious icons have been around for thousands of years. It's a big deal.

The reason I was waiting for LL is because you guys were just saying "It's no big deal" or "I could care less" without looking at the scope of the entire history and impact this blanket had on billions of people. To me, the shroud of turin was one of those unexplained artifacts, something that offered a glimpse in to the true history of human beings and our love for God, but of course as God said "No idols, no statues, no pieces of cloth with my son on it".

Here are the facts:

The person on the shroud is not Jesus. It's Leonardo DeVinci who loved to create new forms of art and add his face to it (huge, huge ego). In fact the image of Jesus that we often relate to is actually Leonardo DeVinci who would add his likeness to anyone he painted. Even the Mona Lisa is DeVinci's face; a smirking man in a woman's body. This was a statement about his sexuality as he was a homosexual in hiding. The golden mean that shows a human male with arms and legs outstretched and showing the design of man is also Leonardo DeVinci's self portrait and bears a striking resemblence to paintings of Jesus.

The shroud itself was carbon dated to have been made sometime before Jesus was born.

The burn marks that depict a man are actually burn marks. But paint was found in the fibers where the blood stains are. No actual blood was found.

It is theorized that after Leonardo Devinci made the shroud, someone else painted in the blood marks.

Leonardo has a detailed drawing of human hands open and displaying muscle tissues and underneath one saying "Christ would have been hung on the cross by a nail through his palm, not his wrist. The palm would hold his weight the wrist would not." However in the shroud of turin, you can clearly see that the wrists are bleeding. Today we know for a fact that if someone hung by their wrists they would quickly fall down. This shows that the blood paint was added by someone else, probably by someone in the catholic church.

The size of the man depicted in the shroud makes no sense. It shows a man nearly 7 feet tall with a head that is grotesquely larger than his body in comparison. This can be found in other art called 'Bas Reliefs' which was Leonardo Devinci's invention. A flat stone with a 3-D image of a man.

If you would wrap a shroud around a person the shroud would conform to the face and body. If the face left an imprint the image would be distorted when you straighten the shroud back out. Leaving a very wide and strange look of the person who was underneath it. In the shroud of turin, the face and body are shown to be completely in line and without this distortion.

The Bas Relief was done by using mirrors to display the image of the man (or object) on to the ground so that it can be carved. But in this process the mirrors distort the object as it gets to the edge and often elongate the image. To fix this, the head was done seperately and slightly larger to retain detail.

After the bas relief was finished, it is then put in an oven and baked. The hot relief is taken out and a wet cloth is put over it. The image of the bas relief is burned in to the cloth.

And there you have it, an object that has impacted the lives of billions over a period of hundreds of years a complete fraud, people have been worshipping the image of an atheist scientist.

lazyfatbum Wrote:well, people believe whatever they want. Unfortunately what the church teaches and what actually happened are two totally different stories.

Why are you assuming that I'm part of a church that teaches whatever benefits that church politically?

Quote:The entire section of how the romans captured and killed jesus was re-written by the catholics

I concur that there are many different versions of the bible, each translation claiming to be the most accurate. The Bible is not the only scripture man has available to him.

Quote:But whatever, believe what you want to believe. History tells us Jesus was an upstart thorn in the roman's foot who tried to get people to stand up for themselves and find God on their own without the idea of 'Religion'

Why would He have called Apostles to preach the Gospel and to strengthen the church after he died? Have you even read the New Testament? All of the epistles were written by apostles to the saints in various parts of the old world...sounds like a church to me.

Quote:and your idea of Jesus turns fish in to bread or wine in to gold or whatever it is the catholics wrote. But this is all besides the point.

You're a little disjointed here. Are you implying that simple miracles like feeding 5,000 people were made up by evil men, but the fact that Christ gave his life, then took it back up is true? It would seem to me that since he was able to master death, he certainly could have calmed the raging seas, healed the sick, and fed the multitudes. Either he was the Son of God or he wasn't. You can't believe that Christ could be resurrected and yet not turn water into wine, can you?

Quote:The shroud of turin is a blanket that was used to cover the body of Jesus when he was taken down from the cross. This blanket was for many people a proof that he existed

So what? Why focus on an emblem of His death when He lives to this day?

Quote: but history tells us he existed he had a family even brothers and sisters and he was crusified along with thousands of other people (as crusifiction is the roman's choice of torture, why people want to wear a torture device is beyond me - it would be no different to wear an electric chair pendent).

Again, why focus on an emblem of His death, when He lives to this day? Not everybody who believes in Christ wears or even focuses on a cross. The miracle was not that he was crucified, but that He lives!

Quote:This blanket has been around for hundreds of years in recorded history, in fact 'shrouds' that depict the image of fallen heroes and religious icons have been around for thousands of years. It's a big deal.

No, it's not really a big deal. It doesn't have anything to do with my eternal salvation. Nowhere in the Gospel of Jesus Christ does it say anything about reverencing (or worshiping) a piece of cloth. It's all about loving God and serving others.

Quote:There you have it, an object that has impacted the lives of billions over a period of hundreds of years a complete fraud, people have been worshipping the image of an atheist scientist.

Anyone who would worship an object as opposed to the True and Living God, is not someone I choose to follow, regardless of how many "billions" of people there are. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:"

If a thing is wrong, it doesn't matter how many people are doing it. I try each and every day to follow God's commandments, these and all others which God has revealed, does reveal, and will yet reveal to His children here on earth.

-TheBiggah-

Quote:people have been worshipping the image of an atheist scientist.

Worshipping an object is called idolatry, not exactly something God approves of.

Quote:well, people believe whatever they want. Unfortunately what the church teaches and what actually happened are two totally different stories.

The Church of Christ is an autonomous collective of independent churches held together by somewhat similar teachings. Politics has absolutly nothing to do with what's taught.

Quote: The entire section of how the romans captured and killed jesus was re-written by the catholics

It's my understanding that most ordinary Catholics don't even read the Bible, but that aside there are many translations available today that have nothing to do with the Catholic Church. You might could argue that the Catholics altered the source though, but I don't know how many people would agree with that.

Quote:It's a big deal.

I'm sure it is to some people, but not to me really.

This is where the lack of education really shines, where people believe what a church tells them and never questions it. You guys know absolutely knothing about the books of the bible, its history, how it was writen, who wrote it and why it was writen. You guys have absolutely no clue what you're talking about and yet you state it all as fact.

What's even more amazing is that the real story of Christ is something we should all treasure, how one man and his ideas can change the world. The word resurrection that is used in the bible before it was altered had nothing to do with bringing the dead back to life, it was the resurrection of old ideals in to a perverted society that was quickly destroying itself. The virgin Mary has been perverted in to this image of anti sexuality, that not having sex brings you closer to God (an ideal created by the catholics) when the word virgin that is translated from the hebrew actually simply meant 'beautiful'. A woman who doesn't look like a begger on the streets, a woman who looks like a queen who will give birth to the new King.

The power of God is not to transform or recreate, it is not the power to live beyond death, death is life. God even says there are no Gods before me and yet people make Jesus in to a God - saying that his powers are equal, a living God. Destroying the second rule from the words of God. We defile the teachings of God, creating a trinity of the father, son and holy ghost, saying that God, living Jesus and the spirit of Jesus are all of the same. But there is only ONE God. No different versions, no earthly forms, no idols, no transformations. Jesus himself even said the money that is passed on the steps of the temple potray an eagle on one side and the face of Hercules on the other - Roman money that shows the face of a living God and he says to the people who buy and sell their lambs for passover "there is no God but God himself".

These ideals of breaking God's words were created by Christianity, a view that was brought up by the very evil the Bible speaks of. The Romans, who's entire lifestyle is againt God. With roots forming from paganism and perverse teachings of power and greed the Roman Catholics forge Christianity - a tribute to fear; a sect that was created if only to exist as an anti-semetic vehicle to perpetuate hate and horror, that no longer was Jesus our view in to God's plan, but now an image of purity that we are measured against and if we dont follow rules and guidelines created by these "Christians" you are forced to live a life in hell. A place without the love of God where your soul is ripped from your heart.

It's an ancient horror movie created to scare people in to submission, to convert and repent... but mostly to pay money to these churches, churches that grew in to governments. Governments that brought us in to our darkest days of human history.

You guys have no idea what you're talking about. The facts are all there, history has been recorded and the knowledge is available. You wish to believe in a God who produces magic tricks to frighten people, a God that will care for individuals if they pay the right amount of respect either in sacrifice or in a monitary amount of currency. You believe what you were taught, and what you were taught breaks every rule that God himself forged for us to live by.

This is why I was waiting for LL, so I could atleast have a real opinion formulated from facts and not a regurgitation of rediculous pagan thinking from the minds of perverted empires built on the weakness of man's hope to live closer to God.

Alright, this is getting hairy. Time to change this forum to some benign topic everyone can agree on ALL the details of!

You and your ten dollar words, lazy! I'll get you next time!! *runs off to plot next scheme to influence world's children with scary magic tricks*

Edit: Okay, I said I wasn't going to do it, but I am. *comes back to argue stuff*

Quote: churches that grew in to governments. Governments that brought us in to our darkest days of human history.

The Catholic Church. The took the teachings of Jesus and the apostles and twisted it to their own benefit, much like radical Islamists do today to justify killing people. You'll get no arguement from me on this point. But, you'd be hard pressed to say the same of a small church in southern Oklahoma with only loose ties to other Churches of Christ that uses most of its money to pay the preacher and for upkeep on the building, the little bit that's left goes to various aid organizations or directly to those in dire need in the community. Hardly a threat to the American goverment, or even the town government [or what there is of it].

Quote:The power of God is not to transform or recreate, it is not the power to live beyond death, death is life. God even says there are no Gods before me and yet people make Jesus in to a God - saying that his powers are equal, a living God. Destroying the second rule from the words of God. We defile the teachings of God, creating a trinity of the father, son and holy ghost, saying that God, living Jesus and the spirit of Jesus are all of the same. But there is only ONE God. No different versions, no earthly forms, no idols, no transformations. Jesus himself even said the money that is passed on the steps of the temple potray an eagle on one side and the face of Hercules on the other - Roman money that shows the face of a living God and he says to the people who buy and sell their lambs for passover "there is no God but God himself".

I have an arm and leg, they're both part of my body. Same thing here really.

Quote:These ideals of breaking God's words were created by Christianity, a view that was brought up by the very evil the Bible speaks of. The Romans, who's entire lifestyle is againt God. With roots forming from paganism and perverse teachings of power and greed the Roman Catholics forge Christianity - a tribute to fear; a sect that was created if only to exist as an anti-semetic vehicle to perpetuate hate and horror, that no longer was Jesus our view in to God's plan, but now an image of purity that we are measured against and if we dont follow rules and guidelines created by these "Christians" you are forced to live a life in hell. A place without the love of God where your soul is ripped from your heart.

A lot what you're talking about is more Anti-Catholicism than anything else, which isn't something I'll really argue aginst too much. But, I think you're off base a bit by taking the painting Churches that have absolutely nothing to do with the Catholic Church with the same brush. I certainly don't see my religious views as a vehicle to mistreat Jews and I don't think any one else in my congregation do either. Our preachers teach from the the Bible, as translated by people who have nothing to do with the Catholic church, and not from rules and regulations sent down from some corporate headquarters.

Quote:You guys have absolutely no clue what you're talking about and yet you state it all as fact.

As does nearly every other single person ever to roam the Internet since it was first created. That's just the way it works.

Quote:The virgin Mary has been perverted in to this image of anti sexuality, that not having sex brings you closer to God (an ideal created by the catholics)

Key word: CATHOLICS i.e. nothing to do with the Church I attend.

By the way, how did we get from "What do you think of the Shroud of Turin?" to "Christianty is more evil than Suddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden combined"?

Lazy, do not be so blind as to believe that the Catholic church has anything to do with all of Christianity's beliefs. I believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth. I believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.

For you to say that Christ's resurrection wasn't literal shows just how little you understand scripture. Christ lives today! God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost form the Godhead of this universe, and as the scriptures tell us, "Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord."

Lazy, I'm an atheist and don't really give a damn which brand of heresy you're peddling today - Arianism, smells like - but some of your information seems a bit off. I don't know where you got that Da Vinci stuff, but I'd like to mention that the first known sighting of the Shroud of Turin is in the 14th century, a good while before ol' Leo trod this earth (Leonardo was born in 1452). A quick check in Wikipedia confirms it first belonged to a certain Geoffroi de Charny, a French knight, and that it was displayed by him in a church in the year 1357. There is apparently a tangible artifact confirming this in the shape of a pilgrim's medallion, which bears the same image as the Shroud (along with de Charny's coat of arms) and currently rests in the Museum Cluny of Paris.

You should also probably corroborate that statement about Jesus having brothers and sisters with some real historical data, because I'm 90% sure it's bull.

I guess as resident pseudo-Catholic I'll also officially take exception with all y'all's raving anti-Catholicism, but that's a whole other can of worms so I'll deal with it later (maybe).

Quote:I'll also officially take exception with all y'all's raving anti-Catholicism

:D

Catholics are the new Jews it seems.

And yeah, the DaVinci code? Fiction. If any of that is true it leads to one conclusion: a MASSIVE chunk of currently understood history is flat out wrong. As such, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

the Biggah/ I seriously hope you're joking. Regardless, it was funny.

The name change on the forum is also hi-larious.

Basically I fell in to a trap of my own design. I start a thread to talk about some new data that was uncovered regarding a religious artifact and I KNEW that people would instantly start to defend their own views and I (being the iconic boy at the stream poking the dead body with a stick) jump in to the argument to force radical seperatist views of logic and recorded history down the throats of people who just want to believe in something better than what they understand to be real.

So I apologize and I go back to my data compiling.

But in case anyone wants to learn more about the shroud (especially you N-Man you giant freaky Catholic, why dont you stop raping the life out of underage boys long enough to atleast CONSIDER the fact just because you wear a funny hat and speak latin doesn't mean you hold truth), here's some info. Oh but first:

Quote:the first known sighting of the Shroud of Turin is in the 14th century, a good while before ol' Leo trod this earth (Leonardo was born in 1452). A quick check in Wikipedia confirms it first belonged to a certain Geoffroi de Charny, a French knight, and that it was displayed by him in a church in the year 1357. There is apparently a tangible artifact confirming this in the shape of a pilgrim's medallion, which bears the same image as the Shroud (along with de Charny's coat of arms) and currently rests in the Museum Cluny of Paris.

Yeah and the 20 shrouds before that and the other 10 afterwards. The shroud of turin is IN Turin, Italy. Where evil catholics live and spread their sperm around to make more rancid babies who eat the souls of men. The shroud is also displayed next to a self portrait of leonardo. LOL. Mr. Charney who you brought up has a writen confession that he 'Bought it from a painter' (as well as a confession from the painter). The church liked how people from all over the world came to see the shroud, the church commisioned Leonardo to make a new shroud, one that clearly shows Jesus and replaces the fake with the fake before everyone starts talking about how frenchie bought it off a painter. Charney died a blastphemor.

The following facts have been established by various distinguished experts and scholars:

· The shroud contradicts the Gospel of John, which describes multiple cloths (including a separate “napkin” over the face), as well as “an hundred pound weight” of burial spices—not a trace of which appears on the cloth.

· No examples of the shroud linen’s complex herringbone twill weave date from the first century, when burial cloths tended to be of plain weave in any case.

· The shroud has no known history prior to the mid-fourteenth century, when it turned up in the possession of a man who never explained how he had obtained the most holy relic in Christendom.

· The earliest written record of the shroud is a bishop’s report to Pope Clement VII, dated 1389, stating that it originated as part of a faith-healing scheme, with “pretended miracles” being staged to defraud credulous pilgrims.

· The bishop’s report also stated that a predecessor had “discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested to by the artist who had painted it” (emphasis added).

· Although, as St. Augustine lamented in the fourth-century, Jesus’ appearance was completely unknown, the shroud image follows the conventional artistic likeness.

· The physique is unnaturally elongated (like figures in Gothic art), and there is a lack of wraparound distortions that would be expected if the cloth had enclosed an actual three-dimensional object like a human body. The hair hangs as for a standing, rather than reclining figure, and the imprint of a bloody foot is incompatible with the outstretched leg to which it belongs.

· The alleged blood stains are unnaturally picture-like. Instead of matting the hair, for instance, they run in rivulets on the outside of the locks. Also dried “blood” (as on the arms) has been implausibly transferred to the cloth. The blood remains bright red, unlike genuine blood that blackens with age.

· In 1973, internationally known forensic serologists subjected the “blood” to a battery of tests—for chemical properties, species, blood grouping, etc. The substance lacked the properties of blood, instead containing suspicious, reddish granules.

· Subsequently, the distinguished microanalyst Walter McCrone identified the “blood” as red ocher and vermilion tempera paint and concluded that the entire image had been painted.

· In 1988, the shroud cloth was radiocarbon dated by three different laboratories (at Zurich, Oxford, and the University of Arizona). The results were in close agreement and yield a date range of a.d. 1260–1390, about the time of the reported forger’s confession (ca. a.d. 1355).

If you're trying to keep track:

Over 40 known shrouds are found and all are proven hoaxes, including the one found by Frenchie. Pope asks Leonardo to make one in secret, new shroud is displayed and thought to be real (not proven otherwise) until 1988 where it was completely revealed to be a hoax and tied to a plethora of artists including Da Vinci, the world's smartest fag with his 'projection bas relief' method used to create it.

Quote:You should also probably corroborate that statement about Jesus having brothers and sisters with some real historical data, because I'm 90% sure it's bull.

The facts are out thre, I dont feel like trying to explain anything to people who instantly and blindly defend their own opinions in the hope of it containing some truth.

You know I love you N-Man. But Catholics suck. And if you want to call me an ass for saying so then by all means go to town. But seriously.... seriously, the shroud is a complete hoax and you shouldn't need an object or a tangible piece of evidence to know that God kicks ass and all his prophets who he worked through handled their own load of ass kicking.

People should think to themselves (FOR themselves) and ask "Why does my faith become unjustified or threatened with ideals of Jesus having a family or that he didn't glue ears back on with God Dust and make candles float above people's heads?" Why cant Jesus be a normal man who found God and taught the idea of God to us in one of our darkest times where we were basically at the mercy of the roman empire and almost completely lost our jewish heritage of the 'One God' ideal formed from a massive collection of important documents and stories from since the raw begining's of man?

Why is it that if he didn't float around and glow that he's no longer someone to be looked up to and praised for what he gave all of us? He died so that we can help ourselves and not rely on huge governments to control us in to a happy coma until we fall in to obscurity, tht tradition and the teaching's of the hebrew word of God is something to actually live by. Does he really need to have harry potter powers in order for you to recognize his achievments?

Fuck, we even praise Alexander the Great; a guy who stuck his dick in everything and went on a rampage in a big circle where he conquered every town he fell in to... after he fucked everybody. And we go around saying "it's so amazing that some normal dude could do such a thing" WTF?? bah

anyway, I also thought this was cool:
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/200...bible.html

Quote:the Biggah/ I seriously hope you're joking. Regardless, it was funny.

Nope, he's a Mormon all right...

I really want to weigh in on this, especially since I'm Catholic, but I'll do it later tonight after work. Not that I'm going to defend Catholicism or anything, but I do have some opinions on that whole religion thing.

Well said lazy, the thing is a forgery, at least as it is currently being used, just like that flask of saint "blood" they pull out once a year. You know, the red stuff that turns liquid and then solid as you move it? I MADE that stuff in chemistry back in frickin' high school.

As far as statements regarding Leo's personality, a lot of that is unsubstantiated from what I've heard, but then again I've only heard as much as that.

And I want to talk to you on MSN!

Newton was an odd duck wouldn't you say? After a rather disasterous relationship with his father, some of it likely to do with his desire to further his own education it seems, he basically secluded himself to his home for many years. Some speculate he was a homosexual. This may or may not be the case, but a simpler explanation may well be that he was completely and totally obsessed with defining formulas that accuratly described the world he observed, and that he did. He only got one basic "newtonian" thing wrong (later corrected by another intrepid scientist, as is the way of science) involving squaring inertia with double momentum.

His total obsession may have been the single reason he never saught a mate. However, he did have a major character flaw: the inability to take criticism well. He always took it as a personal attack when his contemporaries even made simple inquiries into his work. Towards his later years he even developed an unhealthy rivalry with another scientist working in... I'm thinking it was optics but I forget that detail at the moment. The other man may well have been none the wiser.

Anyway despite this personality trait he tended to have no objections to second guessing himself and, on top of it all, ended up being right. We do now know his models don't accuratly describe things in the world of the very fast, the very massive, or the very small, but newtonian physics is still as accurate as ever in describing what it was meant to, the "everyday experience" of Earth, and in fact any body when measured on it's own gravitational forces, as well as orbits, that you might think of, until you get to those extremes, where Einstein takes over.

A lot of the personality details are hard to nail down with any level of certainty with Newton, and as such is simply conjecture, but I believe I have listed what IS known of the man.

Um, kinda skimmed parts of that...

I don't care about the shroud. I didn't even know about it until my soph year in college. My physics prof actually was working on studying it and teaching was his side job. He was super into it, but I never really understood why. I wish he spent more time on teaching physics, cause I didn't get any of it! If it isn't the burial cloth, so what? If it is, so what? Is it supposed to have some power or something?

About the rest, I'm not really gonna debate this. Lazy, the only the I want to say is this: I do find it kinda ironic that you are convinced the things "religious" people believe are full of crap and have been changed to suit the weather, but you are certain that all that you have read and learned is 100% accurate.

You are talking about the most studied and most important historical document in the history of mankind (regardless of any spiritual value), but somehow you are the only one to have heard of these ideas. We live in a completely anti-Christian society these days- if what you said was true, why isn't it trumpeted from ever skyscraper in America. Less than 1/3 of this country even believes the Bible is true. If there was any real evidence for what you say, why don't I hear about it on the news or in college? But even the most anti-God profs I've had would kinda just hint that they thought that way. I guarantee if they had "proof" they would be all about screaming it every day.

Let's not get into Catholic-bashing. That's so lame, and I hear it a lot. I'm not into a lot of the religious ceremonies and I think there are some ideas that have been taken too far, but to label over 1 billion people as something is foolish to say the least. Just like every religion, there are Catholics (or Protestants or Budhists or Muslims) who simply follow religious rules without really believing it, and there are a bunch who do believe and who sincerely love Jesus and strive to live a righteous life through God's grace.

Quote:Why cant Jesus be a normal man who found God and taught the idea of God to us in one of our darkest times where we were basically at the mercy of the roman empire and almost completely lost our jewish heritage of the 'One God' ideal formed from a massive collection of important documents and stories from since the raw begining's of man?

Because Jesus called himself God. As CS Lewis says, there can be only 2 choices about him. He was right and he is the Son of God, or he was insane.

You cannot take bits and pieces of his teachings to make some Create-a-god. Even though that seems to be the thing to do these days.

*jumps in*

Quote:I don't care about the shroud. I didn't even know about it until my soph year in college. My physics prof actually was working on studying it and teaching was his side job. He was super into it, but I never really understood why. I wish he spent more time on teaching physics, cause I didn't get any of it! If it isn't the burial cloth, so what? If it is, so what? Is it supposed to have some power or something?

I dunno, why do you think of a torture device as holy? When you tell people who have miserable lives that there is a perfection where nothing is harmful and everything is good, people want to get as close to it as possible. If you tell them that a shroud, or a cup, or a piece of wood, or a toilet, touched some physical part of a bieng that is said to come from that God who controls the wonderful perfect ideal, you want to be as close to it as possible.

Quote:About the rest, I'm not really gonna debate this. Lazy, the only the I want to say is this: I do find it kinda ironic that you are convinced the things "religious" people believe are full of crap and have been changed to suit the weather, but you are certain that all that you have read and learned is 100% accurate.

I totally agree. How do i know that I what i read in book X is factual info? I can cross refference with other books to the point of being stupid but after finding the same info from different sources it can be applied as fact. It's why we record history, so that we know where we have been and what we did. And if most historical scholars agree on a particular subject, I am forced to except their findings as factual and try to learn more about it until it reaches a point of 'undeniable' where you have so much factual evidence from so many different sources, even indirect sources, it is formed as fact. So I have scholars, people of sciencees who have spent their lives over the past few hundred years trying to piece together the true history of how things went down, what cultures destroyed other cultures, who rose to greatness and who fell, what were the languages, what were the customs, etc etc And what they find is put to scrutiny and if it passes, it is labeled as fact. Religion cannot do these things, but the bible, a book, can be scrutinized and compared to what we know or understand to be fact.

Quote:somehow you are the only one to have heard of these ideas.

First you ask me how I can trust the information from the books I read and then tell me i'm the only one who who speaks of the problems with the bible? I dont understand... Of course i'm not the only one, there are billions of people trying to figure out their religion and what God is and the best way to do that is to get down to the gritty factual details. Unfortunately, any scholar who searches for truth in history that doesn't make sense when compared to the bible is shunned by every religious leader out there and even has to make do with the fact that billions of people like you will call him a devil for it.

Quote:We live in a completely anti-Christian society these days

Explain this in more detail please. Because what I see is a massive religion that can make any claim it wants without having to put forth in any effort in to proving its validity, a government-like entity that creates huge empires in every culture around the world and absorbs or destroys any previous culture that was there in order to replace it with its ideals on its terms.

Quote:if what you said was true, why isn't it trumpeted from ever skyscraper in America. Less than 1/3 of this country even believes the Bible is true. If there was any real evidence for what you say, why don't I hear about it on the news or in college? But even the most anti-God profs I've had would kinda just hint that they thought that way. I guarantee if they had "proof" they would be all about screaming it every day.

Mind you, I dont mean to put down your friends or college buddies. But they are hardly any credible source for factual info, they do what I did when I was young; ask questions. "Well what about such and such? or how about this?" because they dont understand why you follow something so blindy. And before you tell me you're not blind, remember that what you do is based on faith - the act of hope in something that is not proven. I have faith that my office chair wont break but I have no way to actually know it wont or will.

Even more, you ask why is not talked about more broadly. And the answer is simple, it is and you choose not to study it. The information will not come to you. Just as faith did not come to you, Christianity did not come to you, you had to be taught of it, as with all knowledge. If you are waiting for a news special it wont happen (unless it's on a cable channel), no producer in his right mind will broadcast the words "The bible is full of lies" onto a church-going public who imediately turn the channel making the station lose money. Instead what they do is not bring up the ideals of religion at all unless it creates a disturbance and even then is talked about in a third person, disattached from religion entirely because of the fear of offending anyone. All forms of entertainment do this which is what news is. Newspapers, news shows, etc are all forms of entertainment, we read or watch because it's interesting. If anything offensive is brought up while we're trying to be entertained it will be crushed and the people responsible for allowing the offensive remark to be aired will be punished.

Like I said, on the history channel, they even have to put up a warning that said something like: "The following claims do not reflect the History channel, this documentation has been arranged by producers who wish to learn of the real history behind religion, etc"

They put that warning up there so that people wont get offended when people who are being interviewed in the show scream, from atop a skyscraper; "the bible is full of lies". It's also full of many truths, but digging through it all is the task at hand.

Quote:Let's not get into Catholic-bashing. That's so lame, and I hear it a lot. I'm not into a lot of the religious ceremonies and I think there are some ideas that have been taken too far, but to label over 1 billion people as something is foolish to say the least. Just like every religion, there are Catholics (or Protestants or Budhists or Muslims) who simply follow religious rules without really believing it, and there are a bunch who do believe and who sincerely love Jesus and strive to live a righteous life through God's grace.

So the cultures that dont believe in jesus are just fucked? :) People bash catholics for the same reason they bash Nazis. It's easy. You see an organized group of people who do bad things and it's not hard to hate them in a easy to swallow generalization. But, just like the nazis, we can look at historical data and see a loooong history of very bad things such as genocide which was done by Catholics LONG before Hitler was even idealized in the space/time continuum and we cannot help but ask the question "Why is this religion allowed to do such horrible things?" when they dont even realize that all Christianity is based on their creatilon and ideals. So ultimately, no it is not foolish to have hate for 1 billion people, in fact it's rather unfoolish since it keeps us on our toes and keeps the catholics and Christianity in general from trying to rule the world through fear and greed which is what th entire religion is based on.

Quote:Jesus called himself God

He did? Jesus, the earthly man who DIED and BLED the son of the all knowing infinite power of God called himself a GOD? after God told Moses that there are no Gods before me? That there is only one God? Jesus would tell people that HE is a GOD? Gee, doesn't that sound like something a... Roman would say? In fact, it has been proven, that the Roman Catholics (the first Christians) loved to write things in to the bible of what they wanted Jesus to say. The Pope can write whatever he wants in to the bible, he's a god too, doncha know? So tell me, how does it make sense that the son of God would both preach of the one single infinite God and that he himself is also a God? Is it just my understanding or is it to believe in such a thing would be against God's teachings and send you straight to that firey place?

Quote:You cannot take bits and pieces of his teachings to make some Create-a-god. Even though that seems to be the thing to do these days.

Um... you are aware that the bible is a collection of stories from around the world and through history? And you are aware, that by your very faith, are a product of a religion that took bits and pieces of his teachings and made their own version? To say that you cannot take pieces of info and create your own religion, would mean that you are a Jew who follows the hebrew bible and that Jesus is a prophet... yet you say he's a God..... after God already explained that there is only one God.

If you want to spout bullshit, that's fine. You set them up, i'll knock them down. But please..... elaborate on your points if you wish to have a counter argument.

the most important thing: I do not question your love of God or how you live through his teachings. I do not question your judgement of what is moraly ethical and how you choose to live your life. What I do question is the bible and it's claims and it's amazing sorted history. So if you're going to argue the validity of the bible do so with factual information.

I'm going to kind of speak in generalities here since I don't have time to write a lengthy treatise and quote people, but everything thing we know about history in general, not just religious history, may not be what actually happened. More recent history is easier to verify since you can talk to people who were around when things happened, but as witnesses to major historical events die off all we have to go on are written records, which can be twisted by author bias as well as author ignorance. The further you go back in history the less written records you will find so we rely on a scant few sources to tell us what happened in ancient history. Since pretty much everything that has been written since the beginning of written language can be influenced by the author we really cannot verify the details of what happened a long time ago. This is one of the reasons I have gone from a kid who blindly went through a Catholic grammar school to someone who has at times questioned whether there is a God at all since we really have no evidence of it. Once I started asking questions about religion I realized that they call it faith since you are believing in something that cannot be proven. I don't have a problem with people who have a lot of faith, and it's great to be able to believe in something so strongly, but it is hard for me believe in something for which there is no proof.

There's a little bit of faith mixed in with everything we do since there's no [or very few] absolute certainties in life. There's the chance that our cars could catch fire or that the tires could fail and cause a wreck, but we still drive them anyway. Why? Partially because of our own arrogance [which causes us to believe that accidents won't happen to us], but also because we have faith in the ability of the manufacturers to do their jobs right and that they won't allow shoddy product to be sold to us. There's no evidence that says are cars will work today other than the fact the worked yesterday and our faith in the manufacturers.

Like I said there's faith present in nearly everything we do, it's not as big as the faith in a higher power, but it's faith none-the-less.

2 very valid points

But you have to realize that I do not question faith. Faith is trust, a trust in the ideal that following a group of rules and guidelines will give you life after death (for you and your loved ones) and bring you closer to the infinitely obscure knowledge of the universe.

Why this is taught confuses me, as we watched Eve take the apple, a key to all knowledge in the universe, God punished them both by taking them out of paradise.

You can ironically turn this story in to whatever you want (which is probably why it's so popular) but let's look at it literally: To gain knowledge is to destroy happiness - ignorance is bliss. Now at the same time, it is taught in the same book that God has all the knowledge in the universe and that by following him, you will become closer to God... so we were punished for learning yet we are told to gain infinite knowledge through God. I'm sensing a double standard.

We could get really deep: Adam and Eve had no soul, lives in nature like animals, a true paradise where the food was abundant and by trying to acquire knowledge, God gives them a soul. But they can’t stay in paradise with this knowledge, they have to suffer the new world of humanity and build something that has not been built before. But more than likely I’m projecting in to the story what isn't there and most scholars agree that the story is a kind of warning or threat: Human beings are always trying to acquire knowledge and understand the world around them which constantly gets us in to trouble. That's basically it.

Okay I rambled, sorry grumbler. I do not question faith, I question the bible. Period. Just as people worshipped and had faith in the shroud of Turin, people worship and have faith in the bible and since the bible is mostly true with some obscene lies (some of them changing the entire scope of the bible) means that people are being lied to, just as the Catholics lied to its people about the shroud.

Miller/ I agree, but there is a process of forensics and the ability to cross-reference. Just as the police will try to figure out a crime scene, people are putting together the puzzles of the ancient world based on mountains of written documents and physical locations. For example, in the bible it mentions King Solomon who was so fucking rich he had his entire palace made of gold, even the NAILS used to hold up the gold plating were made of gold. Now as the story goes, Solomon got most of his gold from a queen as a gift but he also had a mine, a huge gold mine. One would believe that it would be easy to find a giant gold mine but of course the earth heals all scars. Now we did find an Egyptian mine full of copper veins, it's in a place called King Solomon’s Mines :D There are no gold veins in these mines but the name always stuck because, well, wouldn't you want to have a place named after something in the bible?

But after some closer examination of the bible and cross referencing with actual history from around the world at that time we were able to deduce that the gold came from Africa. First we thought we found the ancient city of the queen who gave solo man his gold, but it turns out that's actually an ancient African temple built by Africans as a holy place (at the time it was hard for Europeans to understand that Negroes could build such a thing). But elsewhere in Africa (please forgive me I forget the actual name of the country) we found a culture of people who mine gold... and have done so for thousands of years. The land here is completely ripped up with mines as old as last year but the lay of the land shows us that mines have been dug all around its area, all of them full of gold. In fact, it's the one major source of all gold in the world.

When you take in to account the history and the factual info and cross reference what is in the bible you come to an ultimate conclusion to the point that there is only one way it could have been done. How Solomon would send his people east and they would return west and bring ships full of gold and the process took over a year. Well that puts them smack dab off the coast of Africa, traveling down it's shore line from the ports of the middle eastern waterways - in fact after all this time has passed, there are no gold mines anywhere else nor a record by any other country of a gold mine other than Africa.

Now obviously I didn’t put forth all the factual info in this post but it's out there and in much greater detail. In fact I believe that the studies of the bible and its scholars have all agreed that Solomon's mines are in Africa. But what do you do? Tell the country to stop calling a copper mine the mines of Solomon? That could possibly start a war. so instead the data is compiled and recorded and shelved away available to all. if you want, look up King Solomon online and you can see for yourself, I just wanted to show you that the ability to cross reference and study any and all recorded history and when none is available, literally dig up the earth and search for clues, we are able to find many truths to the bible and many lies.

As a society, we can only achieve a greater standard by learning of our past. That past has been tampered with and we must find clues to the truth. I forget who said it but: "You cannot know where you're going until you know where you have been." The bible produces many questions, things make no sense, and often times completely go against what other scholars, scientists, artisans, cultures etc of the time of the bible recorded in their history. If the bible is saying one thing, there are literally thousands of separate entities saying something different and yet all agreeing with each other. When 30 separate credible sources of data say something happened when the bible said it did not, investigation is the only recourse.

We must all agree on a history in order to move forward with confidence of where we've been, but to say that history is the bible (which most of it is) and taking it all without investigating its data and taking everything at face value (especially when the popes and kings can re-write whatever they want), would.... put us in a 600 year dark ages...... or something. :D

I have heard that faith is blind while trust is earned based on past verifiable experience. So in the case of a car, it's trust because past experience shows cars don't simply burst into flames.

It just depends are where you think your fortunes come from.

DMiller/ We cannot prove that God exists, but we also cant prove that he doesn't. To look at the natural order of the universe with its laws and infinite scope and say that there is no force which drives it would be very closed minded. When you think of God, you probably see a man giving out rules and punishing those who dont follow like a cosmic karma, the stories in the bible are people who feel guilty for their wrong doings and are eaten alive by their own guilt while people who try to live by the rules live a guilt free life in happiness. But God's description is never talked about in the bible.

When the hebrews wrote the bible, there was a massive enemy to all hebrews and their nation: The Roman Empire. In roman religion, their god's have names and there are detailed descriptions of them, even statues depicting them. The hebrews wrote that God would never want a statue of him, and that you do not worship anyone or anything but God. The Roman's had a God for everything, Hebrews wrote that there is only one God. This was done mostly to be anti-Roman, to create a thinking that would piss the roman's off to no end which is the entire story of Jesus.

but what we do know, is that the paintings from michaelangelo are pure BS, the paintings of DaVinci are pure BS and those are the only real sources that we've attached the image of Jesus and God too, so God, as told by God, has no form, he has no body, he is infinite, he is the universe.

....and he created us from his image.... woops...

So God, the infinite formless entity that contains all knowledge has paper thin skin, gets diarhea and can be killed by drinking bleach. This makes no sense and is obviously a bad translation. When God says 'I created man in my image' he is reffering directly to our ability to percieve God. no other animal does this, no other animal cares about learning or recieving knowledge that has nothing to do with its existence. All animals learn about their existence, how to live, where the best sources of food are, how to best raise their children, hiow to survive any given situation which man does as well, but they dont care about why the trees are here or how the atmosphere works. God, as told by God, is an infinite source of knowledge and he created us in that image, a being that seeks infinite knowledge - a completely different type of thinking than any other living thing on Earth.

To say that religion is wrong can be proven and understood, to say that a particular sect or faith is questionable can be proven and understood, but to say that God, the guiding force of the universe (call it by a different name if it helps you) does not exist, then you must have a greater understanding of the universe than all of history's most profound thinkers combined. Obviously there is a guiding force, whether it is sentient or mechanical does not change the fact there is a higher power so infinite that we may never understand it, we can only respect it. You can attach any image you want to it but you would be wrong, you can attach any religion or way of percieving it and you would be wrong because to think or say such things would mean that you are infinite - which we will never, ever, ever have. Our brain's can only accept up to a 8th dimensional thinking (and you better have an IQ over 200 if you dont want to lose your marbles) and since the universe is infinite and is capable of all dimensions we will never reach that level of understanding other than knowing that it is there.

These design principals and proven workings (and theorized workings) can only exist with the possibility of some kind of force that drove them in to creation. (Call me a creationist and i'll kill you) in other words, something had to make it for a purpose. To exist is a purpose, why does the universe will to exist, why does it try to create, it acts like a living thing and on some level that we may never understand it probably is.

So as you can see, there is more to it than just does God exist or not, it's what that perception is. When the hebrews wrote the word of God, they did not have the education we are capable of now but they did have the ability to percieve the world around them and see that everything has a design to it as if made by a higher source, we name it evolution, we give it phrases like laws of nature and physics and we can lay all the details out we've learned thus far but we cannot answer the question of why it is there., the only answer possible is that there is a much deeper meaning to everything and an inner working that goes way beyond our current level of knowledge and perception just as when we learned of microscopic cells, tiny bits of life that create larger life forms, the same principal is applied to what is beyond the larger life forms, that we are the cells of a much larger thing.

And that thing does not care if you cheat on your wife, it does not care if you hate your neighbor, nor does it grant you passage to a cloudly place where everyone has bird wings. Those are hebrew ideals written at a time of great despair and a stab at understanding those incredible workings of the world around them. It, God, simply exists and we are a part of its existence and we yearn to learn more about it - we have done so since the first man, woman or child looked at something and wondered why it's there.

Is it so far fetched to theorize that the universe is a type of living thing that has spent time and energy in to creating something that has the capacity to understand it? Sure, it could have been a forum of random acts that lead to all creation, but to have that creation be a beautiful flawless design that works on an infinite scale?? That would be odds like 1 in Pi of it actually happening, and then every step afterwards (based on current theory and understanding) would again be 1 in Pi and there are litteraly billions of steps that lead us to where we are now. It simply makes more sense logically that something guided the creation of all things with the idea of a goal.

Just to play devil's advocate here, here's a little thing I'd just like to add, just to see what results.

When one says a watch is so obviously a designed impliment, one can't help but agree. By what means is it determined that the watch is designed? Well, one may note the watch is complicated and shows purpose, but of the first, complication doesn't mean all that much, indeed weather is complicated. As to the second, what means did you decide it shows purpose? Well, indeed what it all comes down to is that you compare it to the natural order of things and note that while volcanoes spew out igneous rock or warm waters produce hurricanes, no means in nature other than the skill of a watchmaker has been shown to produce a watch.

So hence my riddle: What is it we compare "the universe" to when we decide it must be designed? Relative to what exactly?

So are you saying that weather is not as complicated as a watch? Or that weather serves no purpose?

Since you decided to use a watch as an example, I have a much better comparison. Let's compare a man-made watch to the Earth's orbit around the sun.

A watch is a device that by the sum of its parts can move in a constant motion to which we assign numbers to let us know what time it is at each interval.

Time: A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future or an interval separating two points on this continuum; a duration

Because of the nature of time, that only 'now' exists, the 'past' is gone and what's done is irreversible, and the 'future' which allows us to plan in the 'now' for its arrival, giving the sense of always moving forward. The 'now' is often reflected upon in relation to it becoming the past: "I dont want to feel guilty about this tomorrow". It is a paradigm of invention that only exist out of need. Temporal measurements are used to quantify how far apart events occur out of a need to create structure so that, in a lifetime, you can make every day count towards goals.

The complete reverse of this is the universe. It dictates that time does not exist, only motion 9to an infinite scale). What we percieve as time is only an outcome. The universe creates a system that says motion forms spatial measurement to quantify how far apart objects are, and that time is not moving forward but in a circle and thus infinite (this totally does not apply to big bang theory which says that matter was created from anti-matter which cant happen based on all supported theory). It is witnessed that even a cycle must change to accomodate its own structure as the objects within spacetime are constantly phasing in and out of existence (life and death). Our sun will eventually die out like any star and destroy every planet in this solar system - but there are an infinite amount of stars and an infinite amount of solar systems being created every day of every hour of every second, so nothing actually ends, it only continues in a cycle. This is the universe's 24 hour continuous scale

As human beings, we want to quantify that cycle in to intervals and say that the single object has a begining and an end without witnessing the entire scope of the idea. Since the universe uses 'true time' it can dictate such things as smaller cycles within the cycles (think of this like hours) that allows a planet to circle the star and, because of different distances, cause change in the planet's eco-system, a phasing of infinite principals which helps the life sustaining planet to grow and heal and sustain that life but also and more importantly, create the same cycle of the universe with objects phasing in and out of existence just as the entire universe does on a smaller (and finite) scale. If the Earth did not orbit a star, there would be no seasons and it have a huge, HUGE impact on the life sustaining functions of the planet, without seasons and the effect of the sun's gravitational forces on the earth at different spacial intervals most of the functions of any of earth's cycles would simply be impossible to do, which means that if it didn't happen, life may have never evolved.

Now not only do the life sustaining planets revolve around the star to create this cycle but the planet itself rotates on its axis. Without this principal, life as we know it now could not exist on Earth or any planet. A planet with out rotation would have day on one side and night on the other and it would never change. Because the earth would be rotationless the moon would also be static (but to full grasp the principal the moon would be nonexistent) but let's assume that earth still orbited the sun, then we would still have weather patterns and seasons but one half of the planet would be completely void of any plant life (the first higher organism to evolve on earth using earth's evolutionary table as a standard) which means that there would be nothing to sustain itself from plant life which means that nothing would be able to sustain itself off the creatures who ate the plant life and so on inward. It would be a lifeless hemisphere. Also, since any life that could form on the 'day side' would have no ability to sustain itself in a sunless world it would never have the ability to travel there and, why would it? True, that some forms of high-depth aquatic animals or cave dwelling animals might travel there and eventually create a structure in order we're still basically talking about a lifeless void with 'travelers'.

On the 'day-side' we would see some things that are familiar, plant life for example but it would be vastly different from what we understand now. Constant sunlight means the possibility of overdosing. Animals would all be narrow-eyed and highly, HIGHLY aggresive. Animals would also be very similar, as the lack of day to night cycle would mean that there are no nocturnal creatures. Why highly aggresive? Imagine trying to sleep in the wild in broad day light; animals would create ways of trying to find a proper cycle for themselves where they can rest but not present themselves as a meal. This would mean alot of animals would sleep like marine life, taking ten minute power naps before you have to relocate to a different spot. We'd also see animals using heavy cover such as finding dangerous places to sleep to discourage predators (rocky outcropings, tree tops, etc). In this extremely dangerous world something weak like a chimp could have a very hard time especially when you consider that human beings are far weaker. But then again, chimps (an animal that chooses brain over braun) would not exist in a super aggresive world, nor would anything at all really, since it's because of the earth's moon (a protoplanet that collided with Earth during its infant stage) dictates tides and currents of the oceans and the flow of weather patterns. Without it, we would have an erratic behavior akin to Mars.

And the moon's collision is why we have the particular angle and rotational speed that allows us to have the tidal currents and weather patterns all within a range of comfort that no other planet has (out of the 9 we know. Or is it 10 now? Was it (313) classified as a planet yet? Not to mention the 150+ extrasolar planets that are probably gas giants)

dude......... wtf was I talking about again? Shit i'm tired. Well basically, your riddle (how is it a riddle?) falls very short of any real defining matter. It should be noted that everything in the universe exists for a purpose, nothing without purpose exists and everything has a meaning and use. Which is to say, a watch only has one use, to tell humans what 'time' it is - Other than that it's a collection of ores and man-made materials. It has purpose, but it only accomplishes one superficial goal as in, you can tell it was made an animal capable of ingenuity and important social catalysts but the universe did not make it (dont get hyper logic on me yes it made the ores and minerals and animals that situated the minerals and ores in to a design of functionality but man made the watch) because the universe has no purpose for such a thing. Though, on the other hand, we can find passed ideas and failed experiments (we think) such as dead planets or debris but those are of course outcomes of the methodology applied by the universe in its role as a factory to seemingly perpetuate and create life through infinite logical design and base minerals.

yunno what's funny? the motion of Earth, its moon and their axial rotations are all counterclockwise. :D Take that watchmakers!

imma ni ni now *jazz flute solo*

Perhaps, but again, is all this complicated stuff a sign of intelligence or merely the way it works? The only way to tell is to compare the cosmos to some OTHER thing, some OTHER method of operating that would not show intelligence in it's design.

It's how archeologists can determine if something is man-made, knowledge of what isn't man-made. So, here's the puzzle as I present it: what model of the universe showing a lack of intelligent design do you compare our universe to in order to judge that all the intricacies of our reality had to be designed?

Lazy, I never said that I think God doesn't exist. Just that it is hard to truly believe in God when I don't have the proof to say he exists. I also don't have proof to say he doesn't exist so the possibility is always open. DJ's explanation of the car is exactly what I would have said. I've had 8 years of experience driving cars, and the only time one has crashed was because of my own stupidity. I can generally tell when there is something wrong with the car I am driving because my own experience with cars helps me to know when something doesn't sound right. It's different with God since I can think good things that happen to me are because of a higher power, but that's a much larger leap in logic to take.

This is the problem with religion and the retardation of ideals over time.

Never did God say that he is 'good', he never made a claim that 'I will do good things for you'. What God did say is that he gave the first human beings a paradise and took it away from them because they looked for knowledge. That the people who take care of themselves will lead the better life, that the good of the many out weigh the good of the few, that to ask God for favors is wrong, that to look to God for answers is wrong.

The new testament and catholic ideals create a lifestyle that is very akin to that of the people and cities that were punished. Worshipping statues and idols, proclaiming more than one God etc. In the old testament God even tells people that even ancient tradition should be questioned; "You do not have to sacrifice for me - I never asked for such things."

To think that God will make your car run better or keep it from breaking down goes against everything taught in the bible (his own teachings as well). To think that God will do good things for you (for whatever reason you attach to it) is wrong and goes against the teachings of the bible and trhe very word of God. God is not 'good', he is not 'evil' he simply is. The only person to decide that you will have a good experience or bad one is you. It's your fault for being arrogant about the workings of a machine and placing hope in a mechanical device without learning how the device works.

It is a finite operation that can be taught and built upon to the point that you know everything about cars and even make your own. It is a human creation, like society, that does not concern God. he cares about the bottom line, not the individual.

Noah certainly didn't think that God was doing good things when he forced him to build a boat and carry his family and his farm animals during a great flood that will wipe out everything he knew and loved. Moses definitely didn't think of God being 'good' when he said he must return to Egypt and murder his family that raised him so tht he can free a bunch of slaves and then live for 40 years with no country or place to call home. God only thinks of the ultimate outcome of all life, not the individuals wants or desires such as hoping that 'good' things happen to you.

You are so wrong on so many different issues, it's sad.

lazyfatbum Wrote:Never did God say that he is 'good', he never made a claim that 'I will do good things for you'.

Moses tells us that God said: "For behold, this is my work and my glory--to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." Sounds like he wants what's in our best interest.

Quote:What God did say is that he gave the first human beings a paradise and took it away from them because they looked for knowledge.

Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden because they had partaken of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and had become able to sin...if they'd been allowed to stay and had partaken of the Tree of Life, they would have lived forever in their sin, and Christ would have have been able to redeem them by his resurrection/atonement.

Quote:That the people who take care of themselves will lead the better life,

Where exactly are you quoting from? We've been commanded to "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Christ also taught that we should lose ourselves in service to others, that "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these, my bretheren, ye have done it unto me."

Quote:that the good of the many out weigh the good of the few,

I agree. It is better than one man should perish, than that an entire nation should dwindle in unbelief.

Quote:that to ask God for favors is wrong, that to look to God for answers is wrong.

Again, where are you quoting? We're repeatedly told to "Ask and ye shall receive, Knock, and it shall be given you."

Quote:In the old testament God even tells people that even ancient tradition should be questioned; "You do not have to sacrifice for me - I never asked for such things."

I want a reference. The law of Moses required the sacrifice of firstlings of the flock.

Quote:To think that God will do good things for you (for whatever reason you attach to it) is wrong and goes against the teachings of the bible and trhe very word of God.

Why was Christ sent to redeem mankind? Why would Moses have been able to part the Red Sea, or been fed by mana? Why would Noah have been commanded to build a boat? If God wasn't trying to watch out for the righteous?

Quote:God is not 'good', he is not 'evil' he simply is.

Wrong. God's sole purpose is to help us gain eternal life. Satan is evil. If you sincerely believe this, Satan has a greater hold upon your heart than I thought.

Quote: The only person to decide that you will have a good experience or bad one is you.

God does allow us our agency to choose.

Quote:Noah certainly didn't think that God was doing good things when he forced him to build a boat and carry his family and his farm animals during a great flood that will wipe out everything he knew and loved.

God didn't force Noah to do anything, he simply warned him that the Earth had become so wicked, that he was going to baptise it with water and that if he would build a boat, God would protect he and his family. He commanded him to build a boat out of LOVE...Noah could have refused.

Quote:Moses definitely didn't think of God being 'good' when he said he must return to Egypt and murder his family that raised him so tht he can free a bunch of slaves and then live for 40 years with no country or place to call home.

Again, you show your lack of understanding of the scriptures. The people of Israel were being led out of captivity. God allowed Moses to part the Red Sea so they wouldn't be killed by the Egyptians. God fed the people with Mana so they wouldn't starve. God loved these people. It was because of their wickedness in making and worshiping the idols of the golden calves while Moses was receiving the Ten Commandments that God made them wander for 40 years. It was so that the entire generation would pass away before they entered the promise land.

Quote: God only thinks of the ultimate outcome of all life, not the individuals wants or desires such as hoping that 'good' things happen to you.

Why are we told that "the worth of souls is great in the sight of God"?

Lazy, you really should try reading the scriptures before you try to tell people what they say, and to try to comprehend what God thinks.... Isaiah 55 tells us: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

God LOVES each and every one of us. He knows our names. He wouldn't have sent his only begotten son, Jesus Christ, to redeem us if he didn't love us.

-TheBiggah-

<img src="http://www.badastronomy.com/pix/bablog/potential.jpg">

lmao

:D

I don't have much to say on Christianity, as, in my relatively-humble point-of-view, it's irrelevant. I will comment on this, though:

Quote:You cannot take bits and pieces of his teachings to make some Create-a-god. Even though that seems to be the thing to do these days.

Lazy refuted this one well. However, I just wanted to say that, in general, I think spirituality should be very personal and subjective. I don't like the idea of the church having power/influence in gubberment office (to legistlate morality, which often times doesn't work). I don't like it's not uncommon to be packaged and sold.

*Carnie interlude*
"Ladies and gentleman! Step right up, take your best shot, and if you've got good aim, you just might win! Walk away with a teddy bear, a digital watch, or even a big ol' crucifix that automatically cleanses the hands and tongue you use to hurt people every day! You're unworthy slobs without MY help!"
*end*

Missionaries attempt to influence the world positively, because deep down in their little black hearts they really DO believe they are spreading the word of Jesus (in this case) with an invariably positive effect. I have no qualms against free speech, but I think it's a little disturbing.

I've dabbled in Buddhism in the past couple of years. It's helped me realize that I believe people should all be encouraged to find their own paths in life, figure out their own morals and beliefs (aside, perhaps, from some basic common sense, as in "Thou shall not kill", or "do unto others", etc). Manufactured religion may have been a good survival technique, created by the people for the people, used to foster hope in otherwise dark times (or to foster darkness... can we say Spanish Inquisition?). However, I honestly hope that, in time, people learn to grow less reliant on this creature they call "God". Self-reliance (particularly, being free from an invisible, intangible higher being's very ambiguous rules) may be lonely and frightening, but at least it strengthens us. Puts some hair on our genitals and a little chlorine in our gene pool. I honestly believe that man has no need for god, though mainly in the social sense. Life after death, fear of one's own mortality, and having an invisible big brother to spiritually guide you are sufficiently seperate issues.

At the very least stop informing me that I'm going to burn for all eternity, sent by an entity that simultaneously "loves" me (spiteful little prick, isn't He?) because I don't follow his exact rules (interpretted by <b>mankind</b>!). That's a fucking mountaintop of foothills of loads of crocks of piles of anthills of morsels of dogshit, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to use fear as a primary argument for spiritual/moral redemption. It's a little like painting God out to be Hitler. As imperfect beings, who are we to say we genuinely know the word of a higher/supposedly perfect being?

Bill Hicks (imitating a person modifying the bible): "'...I think what god MEANT to say... uh...' ...I've never been that sure of myself."

I wish I had a sound byte of that.

hahaha very well said

I love it when people say that God is infinite and all powerful but their particular view is the correct one despite the fact that millions of religions have existed before the Hebrew faith and many of them for much longer periods of time.

It's like when people say "man is more successful than dinosaurs" when the reality is that dinosaurs reigned for about 160 million years (from the first catagorized 'dinosaur' to the last)... we're about 130 THOUSAND years old. Or that America is the most powerful nation on Earth and in hostory when we're celebrating our 200th birthday while Rome's last party was their 1,500th. We gotta little while before we can call ourselves successful by any stretch of the imagination. But people want to assume things that make themselves feel better. Like their football team is the best, the game console they have is the best, their religion is the best, their opinion is best, etc etc. When it all really comes down to what level of psychosis and/or education the person has. :D

There is no question that there is a higher creative force in the universe beyond our comprehension but is it definitely not a dog-headed gatekeeper or an old white man in a throne nor does it involve nude flying children or gold cities (which I never understood, copper was more valuable than Gold during biblical times, I guess this was another catholic re-write)

USA most succesful is still something that may need to be shown (though staying power is likely only one catagory). But power? Yes, in terms of raw physical might, the USA IS the most powerful nation that has ever been. In terms of raw physical might, ANY army that EVER existed would be laid utter waste to within moments without a chance of survival.

lazyfatbum Wrote:I love it when people say that God is infinite and all powerful but their particular view is the correct one despite the fact that millions of religions have existed before the Hebrew faith and many of them for much longer periods of time.

Why don't you list the names of just 20 of the "millions of religions" that existed before the Hebrew faith of the old Testament...You can't, because you're making things up again.

-TheBiggah-

"Millions" is definitely an exaggeration, but the Hebrew faith also was not the first religion ever. And as Judaism it never really went beyond being a tribal religion (for the Jewish people)...

Dark Jaguar Wrote:USA most succesful is still something that may need to be shown (though staying power is likely only one catagory). But power? Yes, in terms of raw physical might, the USA IS the most powerful nation that has ever been. In terms of raw physical might, ANY army that EVER existed would be laid utter waste to within moments without a chance of survival.

That's true, but mainly because of today's vastly superior technology. The Romans did rule all of Europe and many parts of Africa and Asia at their peak so that says to me they were pretty powerful.

Okay Biggs. I'll be your teacher for a minute.

Millions may not be such an exaggerated figure. We found tombs and burial sites of prehistoric man (starting with erectus) who would build shrines to the dead. large ornate carvings, jewelry, etc and even icons, such as statues depicting them. This shows a culture that believed that 'death' was a new form of life, that it continued beyond what we know or understand. It made grieving so much easier and it helped the loved ones left behind to cope with the idea of never seeing their family members or mates again. We know that burial grounds and special tombs existed before any recorded history because we found the sites, and we know that there are thousands upon hundreds of thousands of differences both subtle and extreme but we have no clue who those people were.. unless they wrote it down somewhere or left us enough clues.

If you look at a scale of about 500 thousand years back (the time at which we were able to identify the age of the shrines and placing the homo genus at erectus) we can see that every tribe had an idea of an afterlife and a supreme being - something more than them. It doesn't take any intelligence to notice that things have a cycle and work in a mysterious perfection (spiritual or mechanical, it is there). To see that by killing one life, you feed many others and therfore sacrifice would become the bounding of mortal suffering in the eyes of early man and a huge catalyst to all religion and belief.

If your wife or sibling is taken from you by an illness, perhaps if you would sacrifice the largest or most beautiful animal (or other human) you might be able to bring them back or give them a better after-life. Things like this create the flow of religion and looking for answers to unknown questions. The simple act of a lightning storm would have sent fear in to minds of all early people, seeing it would be proof of something larger than they are, and it's angry at them, destroying gathered materials, homes, families, anything it can. But instead of seeing it as the natural order of weather, it was seen as an angry fist from a greater power and generating litteraly as many religions and faiths as there are people on Earth through out our history (known or unknown).

Now taking in to account that we're currently looking at 300 thousand years and that we have a factual database of religions (from wikipedia, i'll cross search later)

Abrahamic religions:
* Bábísm
* Bahá'í
o Bahá'í Faith
o Orthodox Bahá'í Faith
* Islam
o Kharijites
o Nation of Islam
o Shiite
+ Alawites
+ Ismailis
+ Jafari
+ Zaiddiyah
o Ghulat including
+ Alevi / Bektashi
+ Ahl-e Haqq
+ Yazidi
+ Druze
+ Ahmadi
o Sunni
+ Berailvi
+ Deobandi
+ Hanafi
+ Hanbali
+ Maliki
+ Mu'tazili
+ Shafi'i
+ Wahhabi
o Sufism
+ Naqshbandi
+ Bektashi
+ Chishti
+ Mevlevi
o Zikri
* Judaism (see also: Jew; Hebrews)
o Contemporary divisions
+ Karaite Judaism
+ Rabbinic Judaism
# Orthodox Judaism
* Haredi Judaism
* Hassidic Judaism
* Modern Orthodox Judaism
+ Reform Judaism
+ Conservative Judaism (Masorti)
+ Reconstructionist Judaism (arguably not a religion)
+ Humanistic Judaism (arguably not a religion)
o Historical Sects
+ Hasmoneans
+ Essenes
+ Pharisees
+ Sadducees
+ Zealots
# Sicarii
o sects that believed Jesus was a prophet
+ Ebionites
+ Elkasites
+ Nazarenes
o Crypto-Jews
+ Marranos
+ Conversos
* Christianity (see List of Christian denominations)
o Eastern Orthodoxy
o Roman Catholicism
o Oriental Orthodoxy (Monophysitism)
o Nestorianism
o Protestantism
+ Anabaptists
+ Anglicans
+ Baptists
+ Lutherans
+ Methodists
+ Pentecostals
+ Reformed
# Calvinism
# Presbyterian
+ Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
+ Unitarians
+ Waldensians
o Latter-day Saints
+ Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
+ Community of Christ
+ Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
o Seventh-day Adventist
o Jehovah's Witnesses
o Messianic Judaism (not actually Judaism but rather Jewish-rite Christianity)
* Samaritans
* Mandaeanists
* Rastafarians
* Black Hebrews
* Hebrew Christians

[edit]

Dharmic religions

Religions with a concept of Dharma, also major religions of historical India

* Hinduism (see also Contemporary Hindu movements)
o Agama Hindu Dharma (Javanese Hinduism)
o Shaivism
o Shaktism
o Smartism
o Vaishnavism
+ Gaudiya Vaishnavism
# ISKCON (Hare Krishna)
# Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mission
o Six major schools and movements of Hindu philosophy
+ Samkhya
+ Nyaya
+ Vaisheshika
+ Purva mimamsa
+ Vedanta (Uttar Mimamsa)
# Advaita Vedanta
# Integral Yoga
+ Yoga
# Ashtanga Yoga
# Hatha yoga
# Siddha Yoga
# Tantric Yoga
* Ayyavazhi
* Shramana Religions
o Buddhism (see Schools of Buddhism)
+ Mahayana
+ Nikaya schools (which have historically been called Hinayana in the West)
# Theravada
+ Vajrayana (Tantric Buddhism)
o Jainism
+ Digambara
+ Shvetambara
* Panth Religions
o Sikhism
o Kabir Panth
o Dadu Panth

[edit]

Other revealed religions

Believers in one God, also called classical monotheism, who follow an Indo-European culture of belief, philosophy and angelology.

* Zoroastrianism
o Magus (see Three Wise Men)
* Gnosticism
o Basilidians
o Bogomils
o Borborites
o Cainites
o Carpocratians
o Cathars
o Marcionism (not entirely Gnostic)
o Ophites
o Valentinians (see Valentinius)
* Hinduism (Vaishnavism)

[edit]

Indigenous religions

The orally transmitted canon of indigenous peoples, many involving some variant of animism and many defunct

* African religions
o Akamba mythology
o Akan mythology
o Ashanti mythology
o Bushongo mythology
o Bwiti
o Dahomey mythology
o Dinka mythology
o Efik mythology
o Egyptian mythology
o Ibo mythology
o Isoko mythology
o Khoikhoi mythology
o Lotuko mythology
o Lugbara mythology
o Pygmy mythology
o Tumbuka mythology
o Yoruba mythology
o Zulu mythology
+ African religions in the New World
# Kumina
# Obeah
# Santería (Lukumi)
# Vodou
# Candomblé
# Macumba
# Umbanda and Quimbanda
# Xango

* European religions
o Anglo-Saxon mythology
o Basque mythology
o Druidry (Celtic Religion)
o Finnish mythology
o Germanic paganism
+ Norse mythology
o Greek religion
+ Greek mythology
+ Mystery religions
# Eleusinian Mysteries
# Mithraism
# Pythagoreanism
o Roman religion
+ Roman mythology
o Slavic mythology
* Asian religions
o Babylonian and Assyrian religion
+ Babylonian mythology
+ Chaldean mythology
+ Sumerian mythology
o Bön (Indigenous Tibetan belief)
o Chinese mythology
o Shinto
+ Oomoto
o Tengrism (Indigenous Mongol, Tartar & Kazakh belief)
o Yezidis (Modified indigenous Kurdish belief)
* Native American religions
o Abenaki mythology
o Aztec mythology
o Blackfoot mythology
o Chippewa mythology
o Creek mythology
o Crow mythology
o Guarani mythology
o Haida mythology
o Ho-Chunk mythology
o Huron mythology
o Inuit mythology
o Iroquois mythology
o Kwakiutl mythology
o Lakota mythology
o Lenape mythology
o Navaho mythology
o Nootka mythology
o Pawnee mythology
o Salish mythology
o Selk'nam religion
o Seneca mythology
o Tsimshian mythology
o Ute mythology
o Zuni mythology
* Oceanic religions
o Australian Aboriginal mythology
o Balinese mythology
o Maori mythology
o Modekngei (Republic of Palau)
o Nauruan indigenous religion
o Polynesian mythology

[edit]

Neopagan or revival religions

Modern religions seeking to recreate indigenous, usually pre-Christian, beliefs and practices

* Church of All Worlds
* Dievturiba
* Germanic Neopaganism also called Ásatrú or Odinism
* Hellenic polytheism (modern revivalist forms)
* Judeo-Paganism
* Maausk
* Neo-druidism
* Summum
* Taarausk
* Wicca
o Alexandrian Wicca
o Dianic Wicca (Feminist Wicca)
o Gardnerian Wicca
o Faery Wicca
o Feri Tradition

[edit]

Non-revealed religions

Philosophies not transmitted by a divine prophet

* Carvaka
* Confucianism
* Deism
* Fellowship of Reason
* Spiritual Humanism
* Mohism
* Taoism

[edit]

Left-Hand Path religions

Faiths teaching that the ultimate goal is separating consciousness from the universe, rather than being absorbed by it

* Dragon Rouge
* Satanism
o LaVeyan Satanism
+ Church of Satan
o Order of Nine Angles
* Setianism also spelled Sethianism
o Temple of Set
o The Storm
* Quimbanda

[edit]

Syncretic religions

Faiths created from blending earlier religions or that consider all or some religions to be essentially the same

* Arès Pilgrim Movement
* Cao Dai
* Falun Dafa (Falun Gong)
* Huna
* Konkokyo
* Law of One
* Manichaeism
* Unitarian Universalism
* Universal Life Church
* Tenrikyo
* Theosophy
* Seicho-No-Ie

[edit]

Entheogen religions

Religions based around divinely inspiring substances

* Ayahuasca-based beliefs
* Church of the Universe (marijuana sacrament)
* Peyotism
* THC Ministry

[edit]

New religious movements

See List of new religious movements for a list based on other sources

See hereunder for religions founded since 1850 with small followings

Monotheistic NRMs

* Direct Worship of the Actual God

Indigenous NRM's

* Burkhanism
* Cargo cults
* Ghost Dance
* Native American Church

African Diaspora / Latin American NRM's

* Rastafari movement
* Umbanda
* Candomble
* Kardecist Spiritism

Hindu-oriented NRM's

* Sai Baba/Sathya Sai Organisation
* Hare Krishna
* Transcendental Meditation
* Sant Mat
* Swaminarayan
* Vedanta Society
* Osho/Rajneeshism
* Meher Baba (actually a Zoroastrian)
* Oneness University
* Aum Shinrikyo (Aleph)
* Eckankar

NRM's with Islamic Roots

* Subud
* Ahmadi
* Dances of Universal Peace
* Nation of Islam (Black Muslims)

Christian-oriented NRM's

* Unification Church
* Jesus People
* Children of God
* People's Temple
* Pentecostalism
* Holiness movement
* Iglesia ni Cristo

Buddhist-oriented NRM's

* Soka Gakkai
* Won Buddhism
* Hoa Hao
* Friends of the Western Buddhist Order

Chinese-oriented NRM's

* Way of Former Heaven sects, including
o I-Kuan Tao ("Way of Unity"),
o T'ung-shan She ("Society of Goodness"),
o Tien-te Sheng-chiao ("Sacred Religion of Celestial Virtue"),
o Daoyuan ("Sanctuary of the Tao"),
o Tz'u-hui Tang ("Compassion Society").
* Falun Gong ("Dharma Wheel Work," a qigong meditation group)

Japanese-oriented NRM's

* Tenrikyo
* Seicho no Ie
* Johrei (Johrei Movement - Sekai Kyusei Kyo Izunome Kyodan)
* Reiki
* Oomoto
* Soka Gakkai
* Aum Shinrikyo (Aleph)

Korean-oriented NRM's

* Chondogyo
* Jeung San Do
* Juche (The personality cult of North Korean leaders)
* Unification Church

Vietnamese-oriented NRM's

* Caodaism
* Hoa Hao

Malaysian-Oriented NRM's

* Sky Kingdom

Western Magical / Esoteric Groups

* Kardecist Spiritism
* Theosophy
* Agni Yoga
* Anthroposophy
* Arcane School
* Association for Research and Enlightenment
* Church Universal and Triumphant
* Golden Dawn
* Gurdjieff Work
* AMORC
* Spiritualism
* Eckankar
* Thelema
o Argenteum Astrum
o Fraternitas Saturni
o Ordo Templi Orientis
o Typhonian Ordo Templi Orientis
* Process Church of the Final Judgement
* Order of the Solar Temple

White Supremacist Religions

* Church of Jesus Christ Christian
* World Church of the Creator (Creativity Movement)
* Church of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan [1]

Black Supremacist Religions

* Nuwaubianism

Alien-based religions

* The Aetherius Society [2]
* Raelism
* Scientology
o Church of Scientology
o Free Zone
* Urantia, Book of
* Universe people

Other NRM's

* Antoinism
* Breatharianism (Air cult)
* Brianism
* Elan Vital
* Faithists of Kosmon
* Virus, The Church of
* Tony Samara

[edit]

Parody or mock religions

Groups that poke fun at other religions or religion in general

* Discordianism
* Church of the SubGenius (The cult of Bob Dobbs)
* Church of Jesus Christ Elvis
* Fictional religions turned Parody
o Bokononism
o Jedi census movement
* Flying Spaghetti Monster (Pastafarianism)
* Invisible Pink Unicorn
* Kibology
* Landover Baptist Church
* Church of Emacs
* Balloonism

[edit]

Fictional religions

See List of fictional religions
[edit]

Forms of religion or alternative beliefs

* Agnosticism
* Animism
* Atheism
* Ditheism (Dualism)
* Henotheism
o Monolatrism
* Humanism
o Secular Humanism
* Kathenotheism
* Maltheism
* Monism
* Monotheism
* Panentheism
* Pantheism
o Cosmotheism
* Polytheism
* Shamanism
* Suitheism

[edit]

Nonsectarian and trans-sectarian religious movements and practices
[edit]

Esotericism

* Alchemy
* Anthroposophy
* Esoteric Christianity
* Freemasonry
* Gnosticism
* Kabbalah
* Occultism
* Rosicrucian
o Ancient Mystical Order Rosae Crucis
o Confraternity of the Rose Cross
o Rosicrucian Fellowship
* Surat Shabda Yoga

[edit]

Mysticism

* Christian mysticism
o Gnosticism
* Hindu mysticism
o Tantra
+ Ananda Marga Tantra-Yoga
o Yoga
o Bhakti
o Vedanta
* Kabbalah (also part of Judaism)
o Kabbalah Centre
* Martinism
* Merkabah (also part of Judaism)
* Meditation
* Spirituality
* Sufism
* Theosophy

[edit]

Magic (religion)

* Astrology
* Divination
o Prophecy
* Exorcism
* Faith healing
* Feng Shui
* Hoodoo (Rootwork)
o New Orleans Voodoo
* Magick
o Chaos magick
o Enochian Magic
o Grimoire magick
o Goetic magick
* Miracles
* Pow-wow
* Seid (shamanic magic)
* Vaastu Shastra (Hinduism)
* Witchcraft

No, I didnt count them. But it looks like more than 20 to me, not counting the dozens upon dozens of other branches within each one. But let's get more to the point, of these known religions (let's assume wiki has list them all including my favorite, the spaghetti God) let's see what religions were here before the Hebrew faith in the single God (let's keep in mind that the Hebrew faith is about 3000 years old but really, it wasn't an official religion until 1025 BC where it was unified).

Yangshao
Dawenkou
Majiayao
Longshan culture
Indus Valley civilization
Mesopotamian culture (Lunar calendar created - this became the Hebrew calendar)
Xia Dynasty
Old Babylonian Empire
Epic of Gilgamesh
Shang Dynasty (360-day calendar created)
Ideographic script
Vedic society
Vedas in India
Moses leads future Hebrews to Canaan

Now, i'm leaving out this little continent that we call Africa, you might have heard of it. In it was little group of people that we call Egyptians, might have heard of them too. Egyptian mytholgy ***alone*** has hundreds of thousands if not millions of spinoffs which lead to its inception (which is argued) but has been factually placed at some point around 8 thousand years ago as a starting point. Now if I typed out every single religion and off-shoot from Africa that has appeared and disappeared through history (that we know of or have theories of) I would probably crash this thread.

All of them, (yes, all) are older than the Hebrew faith. The ones I mentioned above are the asian and middle eastern cultures which are hundreds to thousands of years before the hebrew faith and dont even get me started on Hindu teachings. You'll give me an anurism - it too is older than the hebrew faith and has many, many sects, catagories and peoples. Again, all older than hebrew faith. Not that you care, you probably stopped reading after the first sentence or two because you want to remain ignorant and hear only what you want to hear. i dont blame you, but I do find it funny that you blindly ask for correction and answers when all is available to you... people who want to have knowledge delivered to them in a packaged easy to digest form are called 'morons' and are usually a very angry bunch who dont go very far in life, atleast not the educated sense. But to live that lifestyle and then tell people that your ideals are factual 'just because'? and then beg them to prove you wrong? And when you do you just evolve your original ideal until it fits a new catagory that you HOPE cant be answered yet?? I can show you that Hindusim is the first religion on earth. Does that mean it's the most correct? I could show that the hebrew faith and judaism is the one single faith that founded the entire ideal of one omnipotent God that YOU celebrate and still denounce in your own manufactured ignorance, i's amazing. It's the first, oldest, most prolific religion on Earth to bring forth God... and you choose not to be a part of it. In your reach towards God and his word, you spit on his teachings. You might as well worship a statue... oh wait, you do. Several of them in fact, all of them denouncing God and commiting sin. Boy, I wonder if you actually kept on reading. I can imagine your post; quoting me here and there, asking more questions, telling me to prove myself when all the information is at your fingertips and only requires the person to willingly seek the knowledge. people like you will quickly put down any ancient teachings, such as lightning forming from the hand's of a man on a mountain but fail to realize that your ideals are just as rediculous and that their ideals were just as treasured and important as yours. Simply amazing, I wonder how people like you think and live. It must be easy to follow a single narrow path blindly without question, so easy one might say it's act of cowardice when confronted with the idea of existence or life in general. One thing is for sure; I pity your children.

I dunno, maybe i'm not a good teacher. Maybe it's because i think all human beings should strive to carry all known knowledge and factual information because of that whole, yunno 'recorded and documented' thing. I can see why you would need a teacher to learn how to read, but after that it's all you. Just remember 3 simple rules:

1.) It is true that everything is not a lie 50% of the time unless your wife tells you otherwise.

2.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_moon_base

3.) You're just going to die anyway so go ahead, sell that kidney.

4.) There is no such thing as rules. (See rule #1)

DJ/ Yunno how people say "100 dollars was worth 100,000 in such and such time period"?

well if you could apply what Rome understood about tactical warfare and what they were able to accomplish in the time period and gave them the same amount of technological firepower that is available today they would enslave all of modern Earth and man-kind in less than 4 hours. if rome wouldn't have fallen victim to its in-fighting, they would completely rule the world today. In contrast, if we were currently living inside a bronze age our knowledge of warfare would be no match against Rome.

Just remember... their tactics revolved around the ideal of killing every single thing that moved. If the wounded survived, you enslave them, if there were women or children that survived you publically rape them in a free for all to the point that either they bleed to death or die of dehydration and feed their bodies to animals. You burn the crops and salt the fields so nothing can grow again and poison the water sources and seal them, take what works but destroy every piece of art, architecture, designing principals, idealogy, religion, and you make that entire culture vanish off the face of the Earth and then put their leaders or people of importance in a public circus where they are tortured to death in unusual, painful ways as entertainment and mention your victory over them in a blurb of recorded history where you mock their pitiful attempt to exist in a world clearly owned in favor of Rome so that for all eternity, the only recorded history of that place and those people is a stale, rediculed joke.

Unless their city happens to be in a prime location, then you do all the above except the salted fields or poisoned water.

The major difference between the two empires is that America with all it's firepower doesn't try to take over the world or stake claim (we're the only country to ever have that mind frame). We just stick our noses in to other countries and aire other people's laundry for fun because we're bored policing our own people in to a submissive goo that explodes at the drop of a hat.

Quite a list there... I'd list Platanism (or neo-Platanism) as seperate from Greek mythology, though. It's different, and quite important... both for religion and philosophy...

Quote:Not that you care, you probably stopped reading after the first sentence or two because you want to remain ignorant and hear only what you want to hear. i dont blame you, but I do find it funny that you blindly ask for correction and answers when all is available to you... people who want to have knowledge delivered to them in a packaged easy to digest form are called 'morons' and are usually a very angry bunch who dont go very far in life, atleast not the educated sense.

I read your post.

Quote:I can show you that Hindusim is the first religion on earth.

God didn't teach Adam and Eve to worship cows, sorry.

Quote:Does that mean it's the most correct? I could show that the hebrew faith and judaism is the one single faith that founded the entire ideal of one omnipotent God that YOU celebrate and still denounce in your own manufactured ignorance, i's amazing.

There is only one God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The God of the whole Universe.

Quote:It's the first, oldest, most prolific religion on Earth to bring forth God... and you choose not to be a part of it. In your reach towards God and his word, you spit on his teachings.

Trying to live the values that the son of God taught in his mortal ministry, is hardly spitting on His teachings.

Quote:You might as well worship a statue... oh wait, you do. Several of them in fact, all of them denouncing God and commiting sin.

If you only respond to one thing I say, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell me which statue you think I worship. Graven images are of the devil. If you truly believe that statement, you must have no idea what religion I practice.

Quote:Boy, I wonder if you actually kept on reading. I can imagine your post; quoting me here and there, asking more questions, telling me to prove myself when all the information is at your fingertips and only requires the person to willingly seek the knowledge.

Still reading. Are you willing to seek the knowledge that I'm offering you, or are you resistant to my point of view?

Quote: people like you will quickly put down any ancient teachings, such as lightning forming from the hand's of a man on a mountain but fail to realize that your ideals are just as rediculous and that their ideals were just as treasured and important as yours. Simply amazing, I wonder how people like you think and live. It must be easy to follow a single narrow path blindly without question, so easy one might say it's act of cowardice when confronted with the idea of existence or life in general.

I'm the one who actually reads the Bible and other scriptures, remember???

Quote:One thing is for sure; I pity your children

You're free to feel how you like.

Lazy, if you want to know the truth, I'll show you where you can find it...all you have to do is have an open mind, and ask.

-TheBiggah-