Debate and Discussion

Christianity --- my perspective :D
Crimsonskystudio at 5:40AM, May 25, 2009
(offline)
posts: 81
joined: 8-25-2008
This is a tough topic. I will say, I am a Christian (Church of England), and I feel that too much is placed on the understanding of religion. The individual makes their own mind up on their beliefs. A lot of trouble is caused by religion, but it is not just Christianity. Judaism has been persecuted for over 2,000 years. and Islam has been given a bad title due to terrorism. Eastern Beliefs and Teachings have caused many problems and civil wars.
Ultimatley no one can truly understand religion, wether Theist, athiest, or agonostic, because it is written by men.
However, spiritual belief is part of the genetic code in humans. We all believe in something, even if its not religious.
At the end no one really knows what is going to happen, but thats where you're faith will aid you.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:49AM
PIT_FACE at 7:17PM, June 11, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,579
joined: 4-21-2007
i always have to think twice when someone just flat out says “religion” becuase there are the church ways, which are “the ways”, and then there are individuals who have their own beleifs and reasons and experiences for them. yes, it is unreasonable to just walk into a church or synagog or temple or whatever and say “yes, i bleive this and everything it says no questions asked” but some very rational people can be religious. i know in my own experience, i became religious of my own accord, and it can be very difficult at times, becuase there are things religion outlines, and things science presses and let's face it, a lot of the times,they dont match up, that's hard for me becuase there ARE certain spiritual things i have felt and witnessed that i can't dispute, while i'm by nature, VERY scientific, and thoughtful. i think what a lot of people take from religion who DO follow it with logic, is the morals and lessons TAUGHT by those outargous stories. yes, not all of them are agreable, but there are many things OUTSIDe of religion that people do that arent very keen either.

as for the questions you asked about heaven and god and the devil and what not, this is how i came to understand it:

heaven is where the soul becomes whole, therefore the “bliss” and “happiness” is absolute becuase without want and need, you dont GET bored, becuase that would indicate a need for something.i beleive it functions more along the lines of satisfaction.

satan wouldnt give two SHIT's about torchuring you becuase he feels superior to you. if i remember correctly, he didnt beleive we were worthy of eternal life,and that's part of his beef with god. so no, he wouldnt necisarily greet you with open arms. is it satan himself that torchures though? or is that just the mechanism of hell as a prison.

granted, i probably cant put all your questions to rest becuase it's been a really long time since i studied the bible, there's even a few things i find hard to accept, but that doesnt automatically mean everything about god and spirituality is bullshit to me, becuase i DID have my experiences and i feel just discarding those instances becuase i dont completely get something would be really foolish. on top of it, i felt i changed internally when i found religion. i felt more empathy and i felt bolder. i dont totally disregard practices of other religions though,i try to understand them as well as i can. i suppose i'm somewhat of a pluralist when it comes to religion, but my personal faith stemmed from christianity, i beleive god has a lot of names. i suppose i got into this personally a little more then i probably needed to, but i feel very clear headed right now and i wanted to get it out.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:44PM
PIT_FACE at 7:25PM, June 11, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,579
joined: 4-21-2007
El Cid
I've worried about the exact same thing with Star Trek, with those teleporter thingees. Like, how do you know the teleporter doesn't kill you when it breaks you up into atoms and then it just creates a clone with all your memories someplace else? You couldn't get me near one of those things!

shit man, my cousin lost his pinky finger that way, won a setlment for 12,000 bucks on it and free teleporter service for life.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:44PM
ozoneocean at 2:01AM, June 12, 2009
(online)
posts: 24,963
joined: 1-2-2004
El Cid
I've worried about the exact same thing with Star Trek, with those teleporter thingees. Like, how do you know the teleporter doesn't kill you when it breaks you up into atoms and then it just creates a clone with all your memories someplace else? You couldn't get me near one of those things!
PIT_FACE
shit man, my cousin lost his pinky finger that way, won a setlment for 12,000 bucks on it and free teleporter service for life.
lol!

I've thought about that silly teleporter theory stuff and the so called “scientific” explanation for them is more fantasy than the fuzzy original sci-fi one. The “science of Star Trek” type theory was that the machine scans all your atoms while it obliterates your body, beams the info about them somewhere else and then reconstructs a copy at the other end. That is of course basically magic. -_-

It seems sensible from what we know of our current tech, but if you actually think about the mechanics involved it's stupid.
A more plausible explanation, but not at face value, would be that it converts the existing atoms somehow into another form (energy?), transmits those and reverses the process at the other end. Like boiling water, and condensing it.
That would SEEM even sillier but there's less steps involved and lees potential for paradoxes.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:34PM
bravo1102 at 4:06AM, June 12, 2009
(online)
posts: 3,303
joined: 1-21-2008
I always liked Roddenberry's explanation. When shooting the pilot the network wouldn't spring for the expense of a shuttle craft. The script called for the characters to get down to the planet so violathe transporter.

Of course this didn't stop Roddenberry from sneaking a hanger deck into the Enterprise model. That's one reason I liked the Enterprise series as it portrayed a pre-transporter ship that in many ways was more in keeping with the original concept of Roddenberry from the pilot.

I don't really obsess about these things I find short-cuts and the reality of TV production more interesting than the minutae of ST's technology. Man, we're really off topic here.

To bring it back just a little: Gene Roddenberry was an atheist. As were Johnny Carson and Steve Allen.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
ozoneocean at 4:35AM, June 12, 2009
(online)
posts: 24,963
joined: 1-2-2004
bravo1102
I don't really obsess about these things I find short-cuts and the reality of TV production more interesting than the minutae of ST's technology. Man, we're really off topic here.
Neither do I, but I'm not talking about Star Trek, I'm just using that as an example of where people have used a bad explanation and why they have. The idea of teleportation has far broader cultural currency than Star Trek and development of technology like that could one day be possible.
Where it touches on the thread is the thought experiment of the soul, as you know and how that gets problematic in the “Star Trek Science” version of teleportation. However, with the matter conversion, re-conversion it's no longer such an issue. That doesn't mean anything for Christianity, but it does undermine that potential argument against it in the form of that one body one soul idea and where it fits with the body…
——-

But if you do what to talk about popular culture in this more trivial sense; I remember the episode of Star Trek I hated most as a child was where they went to another planet and found a new Jesus, with the whole “second coming” thing. I remember Bones saying ‘wouldn’t it be great to see it all happening again Jim?" (or something to that effect).
Gahhh! I disowned the show for a long time after that and it was years before I went back to it.
Again? AGAIN? How do they know it even happened the first time?

That's what I thought then. I was SO annoyed at that show for endorsing Christianity. I must have been about 9 at the time.
.. old Star Trek repeats…
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:34PM
El Cid at 5:31AM, June 12, 2009
(online)
posts: 971
joined: 5-4-2009
ozoneocean
The “science of Star Trek” type theory was that the machine scans all your atoms while it obliterates your body, beams the info about them somewhere else and then reconstructs a copy at the other end.

Yuck! So it really does frickin' kill you!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:20PM
PIT_FACE at 10:27PM, June 12, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,579
joined: 4-21-2007
maby that's why we havent heard of anyone going back in time yet.
"oh hey Martha! look! i found a way to go back in-ZAP!!"
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:44PM
Orin J Master at 4:10PM, June 13, 2009
(online)
posts: 437
joined: 12-16-2007
El Cid
ozoneocean
The “science of Star Trek” type theory was that the machine scans all your atoms while it obliterates your body, beams the info about them somewhere else and then reconstructs a copy at the other end.

Yuck! So it really does frickin' kill you!!!

to be fair, star trek never worked all that hard at making any sense. the “science” behind it was mostly bored fanboys with physics degrees trying to explain it better then “it just does in the show, okay?” to pretend they're not as embarassing as people that play D&D all the time.

*dons robe and wizard hat* which is to say, many trekkies have refused to play me unless it was a sci-fi game. at least we ADMIT a wizard did it.

either way, the odds are a teleporter just isn't actually possible, and the “fax machine” version they use there is the best they could think of.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:22PM
ozoneocean at 12:54AM, June 14, 2009
(online)
posts: 24,963
joined: 1-2-2004
Orin J Master
the “fax machine” version they use there is the best they could think of.
This is what I said… Hmm -_-
Perhaps people aren't all aware that the title I referred to “the science of Star Trek” was a book by people not affiliated with the show, however, as I also said- the idea itself and that theory of how it could be done isn't just associated with that show.
Not so great to trivialise and ghettoise specific points when not addressing the wider context and surrounding statements in which they were made.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:34PM
bravo1102 at 11:51AM, June 14, 2009
(online)
posts: 3,303
joined: 1-21-2008
I'm being far too subtle again aren't I?

There was a simple practical reason why the transporter was invented for Star Trek, just like there were simple practical reasons certain religious dogma came into being. However the logical gymnastics necessary to make it all believable and to satisfy philosophers and fanboys makes the original ideas so hard to discern while everyone debates their angels and pinheads when they are so simple.

Baffle with bullshit.

The Trinity? Transubstantiation? Fanboy stuff for philosophers and theologians to debate that was all imagined from the flimsiest of evidence. How much of Christianity is myth that doesn't appear in the Bible? How many know that the Apostles' Creed was a compromise worked out at a conference? Just like that plot device in the Star Trek pilot “The Cage”. We can't afford a shuttle miniature, okay “Poof” magical transporter device.

If the body's atoms are destroyed and then recreated exactly as before or they are dissassembled and then reassembled from the memory of the original form one thing is obvious: Within the memory of the original form will be the soul. You reassemble from the memory of the original exactly the way the original was; therefore the soul will be there in the memory. It is inherent to the original or copied form as it is copied atom for atom. This brings up the problem some have with cloning. Will the clone have a new soul or being a copy will it have an exact duplicate of the original? Just like the shared soul of identical twins?

BTW Bones' remark about “It happening all over again” was in keeping with his character. He believed in such things. A real yucky one was in “Bread and Circuses” when Uhura is talking about the “Sun” worshippers. It's not the sun up in the sky, but the Son of God. Kirk says, Caesar and Jesus they had them both. In context the “Happening all over again” makes sense as they have concrete evidence of the same influence in both cultures but not necessarily the existence of Jesus, only the results of his supposed existence. Just hope the second time around they could avoid Augustine's foolishness. Original sin indeed…

last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
DARKNES at 12:27PM, June 18, 2009
(offline)
posts: 80
joined: 7-22-2007
AnotherUchiha
hehe i love me new view on this.

Christianity is based off one book that was from a man who told us a person who claimed to be called ‘god’ told him to write it, if I'm not mistaken.
So for one we aren't sure it's real and lets be honest its kinda, well really really off track from common sence to think that there would be a heaven. I mean why would you want to exist in a concious state for eternity anyways?

I know it's supposed to be bliss and happiness and woo yay happy times but after a while you'd get BORED.
Plus for all I know the Devil hasn't come out with a book.
They could be up there fighting and for all we know the Devil is the bigger man and god's just up there talkin crap bout him. I mean really, can we deny that?
Plus I myself laugh slightly at the logic of this; the bible tells you, that you have to do some bad stuff to get into hell and then you're tortured for an eternity but why?? Wouldn't the Devil dig you?? I mean your his boy. It's not like he would say ‘oh you’ve been bad now your punished for doing exactly what I think it should be like.' so the logic of hell and all that is very easy to crack.

Christianity is filled with holes and I could point out waaaaaaaay more, and I know I'm not the best with knowing it but I used to be christian due to my family and then I decided on Wicca and now I'm thinking about aithism and what not because at least they have logic.


please debate this but dont get to picky or angry because it's my opinion im not out to offend anyone i just find it a great topic to debate :D!

Hey i´m wiccan also and i agree very much about what you say about christian heaven.
But wicca teaches us that we are always re incarnated until we live one perfect life with no mistakes and then we shall move on to the afterlife. So for all we know many of us could be hundreds or even thousands of years old!!
And don´t look at religions and say your wrong and we are right because in wicca we see the God and Goddes with many different names…… so why cant jesus be another name of a hire power we all worship? 0.o
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:08PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved