The Governor Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 One problem with religion is that they say “and these crackers are jesus’ body†and you say “orly?†and they say “!@#$ you eat the crackersâ€. Science says “we evolved from monkeys†and you say “orly?†and then science can show you the path of evidence and logical reasoning that lead to that conclusion. 2 Quote "You can lose a lot of soldiers but still win the game." – The Governor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lannan13 Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 One problem with religion is that they say “and these crackers are jesus’ body†and you say “orly?†and they say “!@#$ you eat the crackersâ€. Science says “we evolved from monkeys†and you say “orly?†and then science can show you the path of evidence and logical reasoning that lead to that conclusion. There's different sects of Christianity that don't believe in that. I believe the Calvinists and the Anti-Baptists are. The question Calvin raised was where is Jesus in this process. What if I want the arm or the leg kinda thing? Well Science says a great deal of things and Christianity agrees with some of it. The Pope stated that evolution and the big bang don't conflict with Catholicism. DIODIODIO He is one bad@$$ mother effer. Quote Tiocfaidh ár lá =Censored by Politics and War Moderation team= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Avalanche Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 One problem with religion is that they say “and these crackers are jesus’ body†and you say “orly?†and they say “!@#$ you eat the crackersâ€. Science says “we evolved from monkeys†and you say “orly?†and then science can show you the path of evidence and logical reasoning that lead to that conclusion. The process is called Transubstantiation and it suggest a transformation of the host element(the bread/wafer) and sacramental wine into the literal body and blood of the Son of God(Eucharist). The basis behind this belief stems from the Early Church's teaching from the Gospel of St. John's lesson found in Chapter 6:24-59 where Jesus told his followers and a crowd of Jews that they need to partake of Him to obtain eternal life. "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.†This becomes the foundation for the Last Supper as He repeated this lesson using the Paschal meal which is celebrated at Mass, Divine Liturgy and some Sunday services. There's different sects of Christianity that don't believe in that. I believe the Calvinists and the Anti-Baptists are. The question Calvin raised was where is Jesus in this process. What if I want the arm or the leg kinda thing? Well Science says a great deal of things and Christianity agrees with some of it. The Pope stated that evolution and the big bang don't conflict with Catholicism. Transubstantiation is the Roman Catholic Doctrine for the explanation of the Eucharist; The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christians believe in what is translated as a Great Mystery of the Church. The Anglicans and Lutherans accept a concept called Consubstantiation which believes that the Eucharistic Host becomes not the physical Blood and Body of the Son of God but instead is infused with the Essence of Jesus' body. Virtually every other Christian claiming sect simply believes it was a symbolic uttering. Quote Beer. Damn Good Beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Mcfloyd Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 One problem with religion is that they say “and these crackers are jesus’ body†and you say “orly?†and they say “!@#$ you eat the crackersâ€. Science says “we evolved from monkeys†and you say “orly?†and then science can show you the path of evidence and logical reasoning that lead to that conclusion. we didn't evole from monkeys, we evoled from a comon anstesor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lannan13 Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) =delete= Edited January 28, 2016 by Lannan13 Quote Tiocfaidh ár lá =Censored by Politics and War Moderation team= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwan UwUson Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 God is fake, we use him to get the money to fund Vatican parties Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quasar Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 I never read this thread until now, but the OP has no logic.I believe the Illuminati exist in today's society, but the logic in his post is face-palm worthy. He basically wants to get rid of religion and what, create a cult?That sounds like a good idea. Let's just say, I won't be drinking the fruit punch. Quote "what cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 still athiest need to explain how universe come from nothing Quantum fluctuations of vacuum gravity or a black hole multiverse paradox are probably the best explanations for what caused the Big Bang. god is eternal and doesnt need cause Correction: Existence is eternal and self justifying. Saying a God is required to create existence is just moving the goal post. You always end in a paradox of "what came first" when contemplating the meaning of existence. It's like asking what's north of the north pole. Perhaps nothing came first and there was never a beginning? Either way, the fact that you exist is completely illogical. If God doesn't need a cause, why does existence? Proving gods existence is impossible. The same the other way.since its impossible to do that we have to concentrate on what we currently have:old religions screwing humans brains and logic. Ban religion and establish philosophy. The post is about banning all religion in game.because its man made and lame as it goes. If there is god he is all that exists.So we are part of god.Being part of him doesn't let us conceive the absolute image of he's existence.So we can't grasp that understanding. So any "laws" bibles Torahs etc are total bull.burn them all. Burn all religion monuments. Destroy any sign of the abrahamic religions like they did to any humans trying to bring common sense: Jordano Bruno The inquisition The pope Jeasus Christ (who's REAL name nobody of you really knows) Hypatia And the thousands of years human kind couldn't evolve because of the creationists. Its time to fight back and bring the NWO! No nations,no religions,no capitalism.Sooner or later we will accomplish our goals(in game as well in real life-jyst to it up). Hmm... I don't think religion is the word you're looking for. Quote _________________________________________________________________ <Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line. --Foxburo Wiki-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
---- Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 (edited) The process is called Transubstantiation and it suggest a transformation of the host element(the bread/wafer) and sacramental wine into the literal body and blood of the Son of God(Eucharist). The basis behind this belief stems from the Early Church's teaching from the Gospel of St. John's lesson found in Chapter 6:24-59 where Jesus told his followers and a crowd of Jews that they need to partake of Him to obtain eternal life. "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.†This becomes the foundation for the Last Supper as He repeated this lesson using the Paschal meal which is celebrated at Mass, Divine Liturgy and some Sunday services. Transubstantiation is the Roman Catholic Doctrine for the explanation of the Eucharist; The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christians believe in what is translated as a Great Mystery of the Church. The Anglicans and Lutherans accept a concept called Consubstantiation which believes that the Eucharistic Host becomes not the physical Blood and Body of the Son of God but instead is infused with the Essence of Jesus' body. Virtually every other Christian claiming sect simply believes it was a symbolic uttering. I consider the Orthodox approach to be the best. We keep our core beliefs relatively simple and consistent, when compared to the various explanations developed by Scholastic theologians and the rationalists in the Latin church. This is not to say that faith need be irrational, but constant rationalisation somehow turns the divine into the banal. Sometimes the question really should be 'do we really need to know why?' Sure, such 'metaphysical' systems might entertain the skeptics and the philosophers. But, if a religious faith becomes too complicated, even if grounded in logic or reason, does not start to lose its general appeal? When the average believer needs to comprehend a rather complicated explanation of the mysterious simply to be considered a right believer, is there not a problem? Do you ever wonder why Islam has been so effective? Islam's beliefs are relatively simple. Obviously I am generalising, but just consider the difference between the Shahada and the Nicene Creed. Edited February 24, 2016 by Klemens Hawicki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Avalanche Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 I consider the Orthodox approach to be the best. We keep our core beliefs relatively simple and consistent, when compared to the various explanations developed by Scholastic theologians and the rationalists in the Latin church. This is not to say that faith need be irrational, but constant rationalisation somehow turns the divine into the banal. Sometimes the question really should be 'do we really need to know why?' Sure, such 'metaphysical' systems might entertain the skeptics and the philosophers. But, if a religious faith becomes too complicated, even if grounded in logic or reason, does not start to lose its general appeal? When the average believer needs to comprehend a rather complicated explanation of the mysterious simply to be considered a right believer, is there not a problem? Do you ever wonder why Islam has been so effective? Islam's beliefs are relatively simple. Obviously I am generalising, but just consider the difference between the Shahada and the Nicene Creed. Orthodox Christianity is awesome. Theosis; Hesychasm; Mysticism; it is the epitome of all things Evangelicals and Protestants fear and despise. That alone confirms there is something right about it. Quote Beer. Damn Good Beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Dyson Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) One of the greatest mistakes someone can make while interpreting history, is to assume that religion and science developed separately; when the reality is, both have their roots in natural philosophy. Theology, as interpreted from a non-literalist point of view, is an admiration or praise of nature and science. The two are not mutually exclusive. Edited February 25, 2016 by Miles Dyson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.