'Christianity' vs 'Islam'

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

'Christianity' vs 'Islam'

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 13 of 31 < 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 >

reborn 01 Jul 17 7.10pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger So you have to be indoctrinated by religious clap trap to have an opinion on it? Of course not, but so many 'experts' on here with minimal knowledge/experience, means the thread might as well be about Paedophilia v Necrophelia.(unless Cucking is involved ) BTW I'm not indoctrinated by religious clap trap, I came to faith initially by a logical examination of it and science, and then that was deepened massively by a spiritual awakening. But that doesn't fit your narrow view point does it? I think you vastly underestimate people in this, but that seems to be something you do of anyone with a different point of view and/ore experience. Its ironic that you exhibit so much of what you claim religion perpetuates, close mindedness, sweeping judgements, lack of tolerance. Frankly anyone looking across these boards and assessing those character traits, might place you at the top of any list. Something to think about? Hmmmm, I doubt it. BTW, I'm not here to debate the issue with you, to my knowledge no one ever made their way to Jesus on a football message board for one. For another I have no desire to do so. I merely request/suggest that you consider, just for a second, that many Christians have not been brainwashed as you seem to think. My username has nothing to do with my religious beliefs
Alert a moderator to this post

reborn 01 Jul 17 7.10pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

So you have to be indoctrinated by religious clap trap to have an opinion on it?

Of course not, but so many 'experts' on here with minimal knowledge/experience, means the thread might as well be about Paedophilia v Necrophelia.(unless Cucking is involved )

BTW I'm not indoctrinated by religious clap trap, I came to faith initially by a logical examination of it and science, and then that was deepened massively by a spiritual awakening.

But that doesn't fit your narrow view point does it? I think you vastly underestimate people in this, but that seems to be something you do of anyone with a different point of view and/ore experience.

Its ironic that you exhibit so much of what you claim religion perpetuates, close mindedness, sweeping judgements, lack of tolerance.

Frankly anyone looking across these boards and assessing those character traits, might place you at the top of any list.

Something to think about?

Hmmmm, I doubt it.

BTW, I'm not here to debate the issue with you, to my knowledge no one ever made their way to Jesus on a football message board for one. For another I have no desire to do so.

I merely request/suggest that you consider, just for a second, that many Christians have not been brainwashed as you seem to think.

My username has nothing to do with my religious beliefs

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 01 Jul 17 7.28pm
Originally posted by reborn BTW I'm not indoctrinated by religious clap trap, I came to faith initially by a logical examination of it and science. I'm sorry...I wasn't going to comment on your posts because...you know faith and all that. But please don't claim that any rational person would accept Christianity's claims from an examination of logic and science. An understanding that a form of 'creator' is possible due to our lack of knowledge...yes..perhaps..But a 'personal god' religion? .....Na...that's emotion...that's faith. It's a massive leap from accepting that some form of creator could exist to singing about 'our lord' springing forth from a virgin....walking on water...raising the dead, the resurrection and so on. Faith is an expression of emotional need to explain what you can't know. I can disagree but accept people's need for that....Indoctrination, without choice, at an early age is responsible for a large chunk of it. But you have to be seriously one eyed to even suggest that logic and science and Christianity (or any other religion) can occupy the same rational space. Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Jul 2017 7.30pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

01 Jul 17 7.28pm

Originally posted by reborn

BTW I'm not indoctrinated by religious clap trap, I came to faith initially by a logical examination of it and science.

I'm sorry...I wasn't going to comment on your posts because...you know faith and all that.

But please don't claim that any rational person would accept Christianity's claims from an examination of logic and science. An understanding that a form of 'creator' is possible due to our lack of knowledge...yes..perhaps..But a 'personal god' religion? .....Na...that's emotion...that's faith.

It's a massive leap from accepting that some form of creator could exist to singing about 'our lord' springing forth from a virgin....walking on water...raising the dead, the resurrection and so on.

Faith is an expression of emotional need to explain what you can't know. I can disagree but accept people's need for that....Indoctrination, without choice, at an early age is responsible for a large chunk of it. But you have to be seriously one eyed to even suggest that logic and science and Christianity (or any other religion) can occupy the same rational space.

Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Jul 2017 7.30pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 01 Jul 17 7.58pm
I'm not particularly religious but think Christianity provides good guide as to how to lead a decent life. Also a belief in a god creating the universe is no more a leap of faith than believing that it spontaneously sprang into existence which is what we are now told. We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 01 Jul 17 7.58pm

I'm not particularly religious but think Christianity provides good guide as to how to lead a decent life. Also a belief in a god creating the universe is no more a leap of faith than believing that it spontaneously sprang into existence which is what we are now told.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 01 Jul 17 9.35pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 I'm not particularly religious but think Christianity provides good guide as to how to lead a decent life. Also a belief in a god creating the universe is no more a leap of faith than believing that it spontaneously sprang into existence which is what we are now told. Well....science has through best interpreted evidence brought us to the understanding that the universe had a start point.....Could that be wrong...it's unlikely but sure...I find inflation hard to accept as is presented....But that's what the evidence points to so far....It's there to be disproved or not. It isn't really fair to say that science is saying that the big bang had no cause...it's just that we don't know it.... yet....we have no definite evidence other than theories.....maybe it's impossible to know via our senses...as we probably aren't evolved to sense what we would need to sense....Just like we can't see what makes quarks and can't build machines to see that either.....yet. So Science is a bit more sophisticated than saying....Some 'creator' willed it and puff..... universe. Hey maybe they did....but we have no evidence for that....But we do have some indirect theories which are close to implying some sort of design....Simulation theory...mathematical universe....But still no real evidence for a creator per say.....No solid scientific foundation for believing it. On the other hand Science can show you what you have justification in believing...at this moment in time anyway....Because you could...if you had the desire and means check everything it's saying out for ourselves. This is best evidence so far...It isn't the same as citing one hundred percent proof..can we do that for anything?...That's for zealots....and those unethically selling you something. Science will change if you can provide enough verified evidence that one of its tenets is wrong.....Indeed you will be rewarded for doing so....Well, in the modern world you would be. It is the very definition of logic and reason and it's why religion shouldn't be included within its framework. That's not saying that someone intelligent can't be religious....It's just that they aren't using that intelligence to be skeptical. They aren't allying logic and reason with modern knowledge to a emotional attachment they have for whatever reason(s) Christianity has good aspects but also some iffy ones. Personally I'd regard humanism as better..as it's similar but without the religion..But don't take my word for it....I'm sure you've had a sniff at most of what's out there. Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Jul 2017 9.49pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

01 Jul 17 9.35pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

Well....science has through best interpreted evidence brought us to the understanding that the universe had a start point.....Could that be wrong...it's unlikely but sure...I find inflation hard to accept as is presented....But that's what the evidence points to so far....It's there to be disproved or not.

It isn't really fair to say that science is saying that the big bang had no cause...it's just that we don't know it.... yet....we have no definite evidence other than theories.....maybe it's impossible to know via our senses...as we probably aren't evolved to sense what we would need to sense....Just like we can't see what makes quarks and can't build machines to see that either.....yet.

So Science is a bit more sophisticated than saying....Some 'creator' willed it and puff..... universe.

Hey maybe they did....but we have no evidence for that....But we do have some indirect theories which are close to implying some sort of design....Simulation theory...mathematical universe....But still no real evidence for a creator per say.....No solid scientific foundation for believing it.

On the other hand Science can show you what you have justification in believing...at this moment in time anyway....Because you could...if you had the desire and means check everything it's saying out for ourselves. This is best evidence so far...It isn't the same as citing one hundred percent proof..can we do that for anything?...That's for zealots....and those unethically selling you something.

Science will change if you can provide enough verified evidence that one of its tenets is wrong.....Indeed you will be rewarded for doing so....Well, in the modern world you would be.

It is the very definition of logic and reason and it's why religion shouldn't be included within its framework.

That's not saying that someone intelligent can't be religious....It's just that they aren't using that intelligence to be skeptical. They aren't allying logic and reason with modern knowledge to a emotional attachment they have for whatever reason(s)

Christianity has good aspects but also some iffy ones. Personally I'd regard humanism as better..as it's similar but without the religion..But don't take my word for it....I'm sure you've had a sniff at most of what's out there.

Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Jul 2017 9.49pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 01 Jul 17 9.52pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Well....science has through best interpreted evidence brought us to the understanding that the universe had a start point.....Could that be wrong...it's unlikely but sure...I find inflation hard to accept as is presented....But that's what the evidence points to so far....It's there to be disproved or not. It isn't really fair to say that science is saying that the big bang had no cause...it's just that we don't know it.... yet....we have no definite evidence other than theories.....maybe it's impossible to know via our senses...as we probably aren't evolved to sense what we would need to sense....Just like we can't see what makes quarks and can't build machines to see that either.....yet. So Science is a bit more sophisticated than saying....Some 'creator' willed it and puff..... universe. Hey maybe they did....but we have no evidence for that....But we do have some indirect theories which are close to implying some sort of design....Simulation theory...mathematical universe....But still no real evidence for a creator per say.....No solid scientific foundation for believing it. On the other hand Science can show you what you have justification in believing...at this moment in time anyway....Because you could...if you had the desire and means check everything it's saying out for ourselves. This is best evidence so far...It isn't the same as citing one hundred percent proof..can we do that for anything?...That's for zealots....and those unethically selling you something. Science will change if you can provide enough verified evidence that one of its tenets is wrong.....Indeed you will be rewarded for doing so....Well, in the modern world you would be. It is the very definition of logic and reason and it's why religion shouldn't be included within its framework. That's not saying that someone intelligent can't be religious....It's just that they aren't using that intelligence to be skeptical. They aren't allying logic and reason with modern knowledge to a emotional attachment they have for whatever reason(s) Christianity has good aspects but also some iffy ones. Personally I'd regard humanism as better..as it's similar but without the religion..But don't take my word for it....I'm sure you've had a sniff at most of what's out there. Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Jul 2017 9.49pm) There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. - Hamlet (1.5.167-, Hamlet to Horatio We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 01 Jul 17 9.52pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

So Science is a bit more sophisticated than saying....Some 'creator' willed it and puff..... universe.

Science will change if you can provide enough verified evidence that one of its tenets is wrong.....Indeed you will be rewarded for doing so....Well, in the modern world you would be.

It is the very definition of logic and reason and it's why religion shouldn't be included within its framework.

Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Jul 2017 9.49pm)

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
- Hamlet (1.5.167-, Hamlet to Horatio

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 01 Jul 17 9.53pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. - Hamlet (1.5.167-, Hamlet to Horatio Ah an educated man. That's something you can shake a spear at. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

01 Jul 17 9.53pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
- Hamlet (1.5.167-, Hamlet to Horatio

Ah an educated man.

That's something you can shake a spear at.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Ouzo Dan Behind you 02 Jul 17 5.50am
Originally posted by hedgehog50 I'm not particularly religious but think Christianity provides good guide as to how to lead a decent life. Also a belief in a god creating the universe is no more a leap of faith than believing that it spontaneously sprang into existence which is what we are now told. And yet when you tune your TV and get the fuzzy screen between channels you're looking at the remnants of the big bang. The evidence is there right in front of you. The mountains are calling & I must go.
Alert a moderator to this post

Ouzo Dan

Behind you 02 Jul 17 5.50am

Originally posted by hedgehog50

And yet when you tune your TV and get the fuzzy screen between channels you're looking at the remnants of the big bang.

The evidence is there right in front of you.

The mountains are calling & I must go.

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 02 Jul 17 7.09am
Originally posted by Ouzo Dan And yet when you tune your TV and get the fuzzy screen between channels you're looking at the remnants of the big bang. The evidence is there right in front of you. I can accept that there may have been a 'big bang', but what caused it. We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 02 Jul 17 7.09am

Originally posted by Ouzo Dan

And yet when you tune your TV and get the fuzzy screen between channels you're looking at the remnants of the big bang.

The evidence is there right in front of you.

I can accept that there may have been a 'big bang', but what caused it.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 02 Jul 17 7.12am
Originally posted by Ouzo Dan And yet when you tune your TV and get the fuzzy screen between channels you're looking at the remnants of the big bang. The evidence is there right in front of you. It's amazing really...that we still get the 'first light' from a few hundred thousand years after the big bang. It's a tiny part of what you would 'see' on an analog TV...not a digital one for obvious reasons. Analog radio picks up the CMB as well. Mainly what you would see on your analog TV is just background radiation from other sources...Mostly noise from electronics. NASA don't state a figure percent for the CBM but it's known to be very weak....some state just one percent of that 'noise'....But there's no sources on how that's measured. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

02 Jul 17 7.12am

Originally posted by Ouzo Dan

And yet when you tune your TV and get the fuzzy screen between channels you're looking at the remnants of the big bang.

The evidence is there right in front of you.

It's amazing really...that we still get the 'first light' from a few hundred thousand years after the big bang.

It's a tiny part of what you would 'see' on an analog TV...not a digital one for obvious reasons.

Analog radio picks up the CMB as well.

Mainly what you would see on your analog TV is just background radiation from other sources...Mostly noise from electronics. NASA don't state a figure percent for the CBM but it's known to be very weak....some state just one percent of that 'noise'....But there's no sources on how that's measured.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 02 Jul 17 7.13am
Originally posted by hedgehog50 I can accept that there may have been a 'big bang', but what caused it. Jeremy Corbyn. Corbyn and Abbott in the seventies. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

02 Jul 17 7.13am

Originally posted by hedgehog50

I can accept that there may have been a 'big bang', but what caused it.

Jeremy Corbyn.

Corbyn and Abbott in the seventies.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 02 Jul 17 7.24am
Originally posted by hedgehog50 I can accept that there may have been a 'big bang', but what caused it. We don't have evidence for what caused it. Some ideas but....what we have very strong evidence for is that the universe was once a lot smaller and younger...the composition of stars for example...the older ones have less elements and younger ones more of them. Evidence for the big bang is strong though there are some interesting theories out there....but BB is our best reasoning by a long mark. I think it's important to say that just because we might not have 'evidence' for something that this means that a philosophy is a reasonable replacement. For most of human existence we didn't have much evidence for most things....We are lucky to live in an age of wonders...an enlightenment. Edited by Stirlingsays (02 Jul 2017 6.15pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

02 Jul 17 7.24am

Originally posted by hedgehog50

I can accept that there may have been a 'big bang', but what caused it.

We don't have evidence for what caused it. Some ideas but....what we have very strong evidence for is that the universe was once a lot smaller and younger...the composition of stars for example...the older ones have less elements and younger ones more of them.

Evidence for the big bang is strong though there are some interesting theories out there....but BB is our best reasoning by a long mark.

I think it's important to say that just because we might not have 'evidence' for something that this means that a philosophy is a reasonable replacement.

For most of human existence we didn't have much evidence for most things....We are lucky to live in an age of wonders...an enlightenment.

Edited by Stirlingsays (02 Jul 2017 6.15pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

reborn 02 Jul 17 8.11am
On the contrary Stirling, after forensically examining Darwins theory of Evolution, AND the Big Bang theory I can to an educated conclusion; That the most logical explanation for the Universe and everything in it, came from a Creator , who/which exists outside of the constraints of time, having in fact created those same constraints. This will be my final post on this thread , but you can be assured that it was first logic that brought me to faith. My username has nothing to do with my religious beliefs
Alert a moderator to this post

reborn 02 Jul 17 8.11am

On the contrary Stirling, after forensically examining Darwins theory of Evolution, AND the Big Bang theory I can to an educated conclusion;

That the most logical explanation for the Universe and everything in it, came from a Creator , who/which exists outside of the constraints of time, having in fact created those same constraints.

This will be my final post on this thread , but you can be assured that it was first logic that brought me to faith.

My username has nothing to do with my religious beliefs

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 13 of 31 < 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

'Christianity' vs 'Islam'

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors