DVDizzy Forum

Of course helping other people is a good thing and I donate a certain percentage of my income to charitable causes every month. But in my previous post I wasn't talking about the issue of charity one way or the other. And I wasn't talking about I Love Lucy either. People shouldn't be having pre-marital or extra-marital sex but that doesn't mean once they are married that they should sleep in separate beds. In fact, apart from extenuating circumstances, they shouldn't.

Maerj wrote:All right, I think everyone needs to go here:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/76/story_7665_1.html

It's Beliefnet's Belief-O-Matic. 20 questions and it tells you what your religious affiliation is, if any. Give it a try!

Strangely enough, Maerj, I took that test a while back, and saved the results (according to my computer January 2002!).

Here they are:

1. Neo-Paganism (100%)
2. Mahayana Buddhism (94%)
3. New Age (94%)
4. Unitarian Universalism (93%)
5. Theravada Buddhism (87%)
6. Liberal Quaker (80%)
7. Taoism (68%)
8. Liberal Protestant (68%)
9. Secular Humanism (67%)
10. New Thought (62%)
11. Jainism (58%)
12. Hinduism (57%)
13. Scientology (57%)
14. Sikhism (53%)
15. Reform Judaism (53%)
16. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (50%)
17. Atheism and Agnosticism (44%)
18. Orthodox Quaker (43%)
19. Bahá'í (41%)
20. Orthodox Judaism (26%)
21. Latter-day Saint (Mormon) (25%)
22. Conservative Protestant (24%)
23. Seventh Day Adventist (20%)
24. Jehovah's Witness (16%)
25. Islam (14%)
26. Eastern Orthodox (10%)
27. Roman Catholic (10%)

Now, I'm not sure what Neo Paganism is, but it looks like I have heavy Buddhist leanings too.

Maybe that explains where I come from

And Aaron, just to save me the trouble of quoting - yes, we are getting into semantics now. But I did do both degrees in political science and law, so you have to expect me to chase my own tail and try to explain it for a while.

To defend Prince Ali (at least partially) for a moment - I think the fundamentalist remark was simply meant to refer to the following of one's faith blindly without reference to, or even acknowledging the possibility, or other faiths. That is the root of fundamentalism, or at least extreme fundamentalist behaviouor - a belief that you are right in everything you do because your book (and I don't mean you specifically Aaron) makes you right with god. But this could also turn into an argument of semantics over the meaning of the word fundamentalism, so I will say no more. Just simply trying to relate what he said back to what I have said.

Which brings me nack to MY point - you have read ABOUT the Koran and other faiths, but that is not the same as reading their text. As a Christian you have decided to take the Bible at its literal meaning, and use that as your sole text of faith. However, you would also argue that if you wanted to understand your strand of Christianity you wouldn't simply read ABOUT it, you'd go to the good book for all you need to know. I argue that you can't truly understand another religion - and therefore cannot reject it - without giving their source text the same literal meaning you give your own. I'm sure there are people who follow the Koran who believe it is the only path too. Such is the way with any religion.

But you are right, I think we are starting to go in circles now, and I don't know how much more I actually have to say on this subject. We seem to agree on one point - that of organized religion. As far as churches go, yours sounds pretty cool. However, I think my point is, and will always be, if you are going to invest all your stock in one book, surely you could at least acknowledge that the same literal interpretation should be given to all major sacred texts before you reject the others as possibilities.

It's perfectly probable that somebody can say that their "path" is the right one while not being arrogant about it and also being well informed on other religions and respectful towards them as well. Just because everyone says they are right doesn't mean everybody's wrong. If you had the truth it would be more arrogant to keep it to yourself than to tell others about it.

I'm working on those same degrees, lol, so I know where you are coming from.

Like I said, I do plan on readin the Koran. I certainly don't claim to know every facet of the religion, though I do have a good understanding of the basics, and a little beyond that. I don't reject the religion based on an understanding (or lack thereof), though. I reject their religion by virtue of the fact that I'm devoted to a jealous God that doesn't allow for any other gods or religions. But then that brings us back to faith. Which brings me to agreeing with you, in that we are rounding laps on the track now, it would seem. A good deal of what can be said has already been said, and a good deal of it more than once. There are probably a few stones left unturn, but hidden amongst those we keep flipping over and kicking around.

We do agree on organized religion, and thanks on behalf of my church for the props, lol. We're agreed on pushing the semantics out of the way too. I could type "closing thoughts," but I have a feeling PrinceAli will still have something coming, and maybe some others. In the meantime, I'll go take that test of Maerj's.

-Aaron

You know what guys. This has gone far enough. I mean this is a good discussion but why can't you just take what people say. And live with it.

I suggest that you all watch the movie The Bible-In The Beginning.

Here is a Brief Description:

The Bible was intended by producer Dino De Laurentiis as the first in a series of films which would eventually cover the Old and New Testament in their entireties. The many directors engaged for this project dropped out one by one, leaving only the adventurous John Huston. As a result, this film was the first and last in the series; its subtitle In the Beginning refers to the fact that only the first 22 chapters of Genesis ended up on film. After creation, we are introduced to the buff-naked Adam and Eve (Michael Parks and Ulla Bergyd), whose fall from grace segues into the Cain and Abel story. Next on the docket is the story of Noah, played by director Huston, who'd originally wanted Charlie Chaplin for the role. Abraham's sacrifice is then dramatized, with George C. Scott as the beleaguered protagonist. In quick succession, we are offered the Tower of Babel, the defiance of Nimrod and Sodom and Gomorroh. Tying together these Old Testament episodes is Peter O'Toole as three angels; Ava Gardner also shows up in the role of Sarah. — Hal Erickson

Of course, I take this test (and most online tests) lightly. For a lot of the questions, I only sort of agreed, or couldn't find one clear option, or disputed the wording. I would assume that's probably the case with most folks, though. Anyways, here're my results...

1. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (100%)
2. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (79%)
3. Jehovah's Witness (71%)
4. Orthodox Quaker (68%)
5. Seventh Day Adventist (66%)
6. Eastern Orthodox (64%)
7. Roman Catholic (64%)
8. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (61%)
9. Bahá'í Faith (54%)
10. Islam (53%)
11. Orthodox Judaism (53%)
12. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (47%)
13. Jainism (33%)
14. Liberal Quakers (33%)
15. Hinduism (29%)
16. Mahayana Buddhism (28%)
17. Theravada Buddhism (28%)
18. New Thought (27%)
19. Nontheist (25%)
20. Unitarian Universalism (25%)
21. Sikhism (23%)
22. Reform Judaism (20%)
23. Scientology (18%)
24. New Age (16%)
25. Neo-Pagan (15%)
26. Taoism (11%)
27. Secular Humanism (10%)

-Aaron

Charlie Chaplin as Noah? I would like to have seen that.

Of course, I take this test (and most online tests) lightly. For a lot of the questions, I only sort of agreed, or couldn't find one clear option, or disputed the wording. I would assume that's probably the case with most folks, though.

That was very true for me but it still pegged me pretty good.

I'd really like to see some Charlie Chaplin stuff. Yeah, as you know I'm not into the whole religious labeling thing, but my top pick is probably accurate. But then, I don't know what all the possible results are.

-Aaron

Disney Guru wrote:You know what guys. This has gone far enough. I mean this is a good discussion but why can't you just take what people say. And live with it.

Only in as much as that we have no new points to discuss.
I think Aaron and I have agreed that it is both fun and healthy to discuss our differences. You can't learn and grow unless you have your own points of view challenged constantly (as I said a few pages back...). So again, I'm repeating myself on another point
I think the only two people who think we aren't fighting are the two people involved in the bulk of the conversation

I suggest that you all watch the movie The Bible-In The Beginning.

Yeah, why read the book when you can see the film!

Discussing differences is not the ultimate priority. Finding out the truth is. If there is a God then nothing anybody says for it or against it we'll change the fact and if there isn't then nothing anybody says for or against God's existence will make God come into existence. The truth doesn't change whenever somebody presents an impressive argument for their beliefs.

Christian wrote:Discussing differences is not the ultimate priority. Finding out the truth is. If there is a God then nothing anybody says for it or against it we'll change the fact and if there isn't then nothing anybody says for or against God's existence will make God come into existence. The truth doesn't change whenever somebody presents an impressive argument for their beliefs.

But the point is - all we have is beliefs, and a book (or books) which are given special meaning by those beliefs.

We aren't arguing the existence of god, but rather that there is special way of achieving congress with god. Christians would argue theirs is the only path, and I'm really saying I don't know one way or the other. I just don't think Christians have got it right by a long shot.

Thus, as I don't thnk any of us will ever know the truth without dying, the ultimate priority has to be discussing differences of belief, as that is pretty much all religion is - a system of beliefs.

It begs the question - what came first god or religion? (And that is rhetorical - I already know what Christians will say). God creates humans in his/her image, humans reject god, humans create god in their own image (i.e. religion). I would probably go so far as to say that the first step never existed, and there is no god, but that is not the issue here at all. The issue is whether you can take one book and use it as your entire basis for belief without reference to any other. And THAT is point worth arguing.

I think there's a world of room for discussion. And that's about all I can say on a board devoted to Disney DVDs.

The issue is whether you can take one book and use it as your entire basis for belief without reference to any other.

Personally speaking, I don't.

And now I'm off to a wedding reception . . .

awallaceunc wrote:Yes, those are good things, though the women's "rights" movement has been pushed too far in recent years, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms. There are many other facets of morality that have contributed to an overall decline.

Oh boy, I don't think I want to get into women's rights with you...It would also make the thread split I think.

awallaceunc wrote:I'm referring to the recent Supreme Court decision to allow virtually simulated child pornography, not pornography itself.

I think you will have to tell me what you mean by "allow" in this issue. Allow people to have it? To buy it? To sell it? Allow what? I'm sure if they even made that decision, it wouldn't be taken so lightly as to having no restriction or anything.

On another note though, I don't think it is much different than the way children were treated back then...

awallaceunc wrote:Excuse me? Who are you to say that I am filled with hate? That's a pretty hefty charge, buddy. You don't know me. I reject, for example, Islam. I don't reject the people who follow it, I don't hate them. Hate is the antithesis of Christianity. I would hate to see what has otherwise been a mature debate now get tangled up in being negative and personal.

Besides, didn't you get the memo that I'm the Friendliest/Kindest Member of the Year?

Who am I? Who are you to say that the Bible is correct, is God's Word, and Jesus is the only way? It is all a matter of opinion, and how much faith we put into our opinions. I never said you are filled with hate. I said I think it is hateful to disrespect other religions just because you think your's is correct. If that is the point of holding your own faith, then I think that too is wrong.
No, I never got a memo claiming you are the friendliest/kindest member of the year.

awallaceunc wrote:What am I interpreting to get that? The Bible, read literally, is quite clear about that.

Nope. If it was that clear, there wouldn't be a lot of Christians who believe that you can get to Heaven for being a good person. Nothing is ever that clear in the Bible, that is why there are so many denominations and interpretations of it. You can't literally read a Bible and believe every word when it had to be translated into Hebrew, and then English. Just translating it is interpretation.

awallaceunc wrote:PrinceAli wrote:
awallaceunc wrote:

Aside from the "leaning not unto our own understaning" bit, I don't believe miracles are at all implausible. Again, if God is all-powerful, why would something like Noah's ark be beyond His ability? Besides, few scientists/archeologists/historians dispute that a great global flood occured. They've even found remains of what many archeologists believe may have been Noah's ark. It's the destruction and repopulation of the world that they have a little harder of a time grasping.



If God is all-powerful? Sounds as if you don't even know. So many ifs and buts are involved with your way of thinking.


Yes, He is all-powerful. Please show me in that paragraph you quoted where any ifs and buts were cited.

There, it is bolded.

awallaceunc wrote:First, I'm not an archeologist or scientist or historian, so I can't speak to you as a historian. I do know that most believe that prior to the global flood, the earth's landmass existed as a "pangea," one giant continent. Travel wouldn't have been as difficult for animals. The exact dimensions of Noahs' ark are given in Genesis, which calculates to a 30:8:3 ratio, which is said to be nearly impossible to be turned over and capable of holding a tremendous amount of weight.

That's all scientific stuff, which is interesting, but I don't really need it. It is simply enough to say that God provided. The Bible says that the animals came to Noah. God brought them to him, and God told Noah what food to bring in Genesis. He provided. God is bigger than a boat on the water.

I am really into science... and yes, even if the Earth was Pangea, there would be competition between species that would have driven most of them to extinctionwhen they met. And on the ark they are all living in the same climate. There is a reason why Gila monsters, yaks, and quetzals don't all live together in a temperate climate. They can't survive there, at least not for long without special care. Organisms have preferred environments outside of which they are at a deadly disadvantage. Most extinctions are caused by destroying the organisms' preferred environments. The people who propose all the species living together in a uniform climate are effectively proposing the destruction of all environments but one. Not many species could have survived that.

Wood is not the best material for shipbuilding. It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together... it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the ark would have encountered. The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The Bible states that the ark was 450 feet long. Could an ark that size be made seaworthy with only 8 passengers?

And you are going to then say that God just provided the whole dang thing, right? Well if God is omnipotent, why not kill what He wanted killed directly? Why resort to a roundabout method that requires innumerable additional miracles? The whole idea was to rid the wicked people from the world. Did it work?

And let me just tell you something about all this "interpretation" business... To interpret something is to explain the meaning of something. You can either interpret something the way you see fit, or you can interpret something literally. If you interpret something literally, you aren't interfering with what you personally think...It's just the literal thing persay. When leaders talk with other leaders, they use an interpreter. I am pretty sure the interpreter is a guy whol will interpret literally what is being said. Not all the time though, since some languages don't freely translate into others, but sometimes the interpreter will say the literal translation. So there is such thing as interpreting something literally. I really can't make it any easier. Now then, next point...

awallaceunc wrote:Well if you take away anything from this thread, please realize that though you may disagree, the perception that everyone believes it is nothing more than a children's story is very much incorrect.

Hmmm, no...I guess not everyone. I meant everyone in a sense like most people. Even many Christians won't accept it as truth, but I guess they will be "dealt with" individually...*shudders*

awallaceunc wrote:On the contrary, a good many things in the Bible have been proven, and none of them have been concretely disproven. I don't need to prove them, though, and have no interest in trying.

Let me start by saying anything that comes close to disproving the Bible will be probably answered with a swift "GOD MADE IT SO....CAUSE HE CAN...ummm..YEA!" So you have proof, but you don't need to prove them? Hmmm, I guess you don't have proof.

awallaceunc wrote:God doesn't hate anyone.

Read below...

awallaceunc wrote:Well you have to remember that I also said that science can't and will never be able to disprove God or the Bible. At best, it may some day appear to. No point in retyping my last post, though. No, God won't suddenly hate science, He hates the deception of the enemy and the motives of some men who seek to disprove the Bible.

Enemy? They wouldn't be an enemy if you didn't hate them, right?

awallaceunc wrote:I'm not. God has told us exactly what He thinks in the Bible. I do believe that Christians can share the mind of God, which is taught in the New Testament, but that's an entirely different subject.

Cool. So have you personally ever shared the mind of God? Just wondering...and if so, how was it?

awallaceunc wrote:The Bible doesn't teach anything bad. You may think the belief that homosexuality is sinful is "dangerous," but it doesn't make it any less valid of a point of view. I don't disrespect other's right to believe it is not a sin. *Sighs at the likelihood of this now becoming a debate on homosexuality*

Pinch me if I'm wrong, but isn't sinful and bad the same thing essentially?

awallaceunc wrote:When did I mention a specific race? It seems you are the one who assumed. And no, that is not at all taught in the Bible. So can you please explain how you are relating good deeds to slavery, because I apparently didn't make that mental leap with you.

You didn't mention a specific race, but where did the race card come from? I didn't mention a race at all. I mentioned slavery. Does slavery belong to a race? No. So why is there even a race card? I am relating good deeds with the abolishment of slavery (in most parts of the world at least), I'm sorry you couldn't make the mental leap.

awallceunc wrote:And that's the 2nd insinuation you've made that my beliefs and arguments are somehow childish or beneath you. Again, I hope that this is not a tone that will now take this otherwise mature and respectful thread hostage.

LOL, you insinuate wrong. I never said your beliefs and arguments are childish, I thought it was childish how you mentioned the race card when it wasn't needed. I agree though, that this has been mature.

awallaceunc wrote:The Christian life doesn't get worse at all. It's the overall state of the souls of the world. The decline is the fault of Satan, not God, and it is the demise that eventually brings on Jesus' return.

Ohhhh, just the overal state of the souls of the world...Wait a minute, that sounds worse! And do you have some sort of meter reader that tells you what the current state of the world is each second? Because I don't know how else you can withhold such desired information...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following was posted as I was typing all of this up...

Loomis wrote:I'm sure there are people who follow the Koran who believe it is the only path too. Such is the way with any religion.

Yes, I thought you said you never read the Koran. How could you be sure that their text says that what they believe in is the ONLY path as well? Same with any other religious text that you haven't yet read.

i am catholic, I shoulñd read the bible, but i don't.
i only read it when there is an essay on my school.

PrinceAli wrote:

awallaceunc wrote:God doesn't hate anyone.

Read below...

awallaceunc wrote:Well you have to remember that I also said that science can't and will never be able to disprove God or the Bible. At best, it may some day appear to. No point in retyping my last post, though. No, God won't suddenly hate science, He hates the deception of the enemy and the motives of some men who seek to disprove the Bible.

Enemy? They wouldn't be an enemy if you didn't hate them, right?

I know that this was primarily address to Aaron, but as is clearly bolded in the quote, God hates the deception and motives, not the actual person who does it.

Disney Guru wrote:You know what guys. This has gone far enough. I mean this is a good discussion but why can't you just take what people say. And live with it.

Because this thread isn't a flame war.

Thank you for joining us in the 2nd annual religion debate here on Ultimatedisney.com! Aaron and Loomis are on the lead. Who will win this debate? Does God really exist or is he a idea that has been passed from generation to generation. before we get back to our discussion here's a word from our sponsors!


Bible o matic

Can't find a scripture? Is a loomis kicking your bum on a debate? Jesuslovesyou interprises has the solution. A voice activated bible! no more wondering, no more flipping pages! are the small letters making you lose your sight? Bible o matic comes with a built in light and magnifier! if that's not enough bible o matic connects to your computer bia USB port! download new ideologies, story and even new verses each month!


you can enjoy the bible 0 matic with just 3 easy payment of $49.99 plus S&H plus wait! if you call within the next 15 min you can get the carrying case absolutely free! call 1-800-jess4all.


Now back to our debate!

I haven't read the bible, I'm not a very religious person, I don't think anyone in my family has read it. I tried reading it when I was younger, but I couldn't understand it Oh well

Here are my results from that test. Though on some of the questions none of the answers exactly said what I would say. But anyways....

1. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (100%)
2. Orthodox Quaker (93%)
3. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (89%)
4. Bahá'í Faith (86%)
5. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (86%)
6. Jehovah's Witness (70%)
7. Islam (69%)
8. Orthodox Judaism (69%)
9. Seventh Day Adventist (67%)
10. Eastern Orthodox (65%)
11. Roman Catholic (65%)
12. Liberal Quakers (61%)
13. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (60%)
14. Unitarian Universalism (53%)
15. Jainism (52%)
16. Sikhism (50%)
17. Mahayana Buddhism (47%)
18. Theravada Buddhism (46%)
19. Reform Judaism (45%)
20. Neo-Pagan (40%)
21. New Age (39%)
22. Secular Humanism (36%)
23. Hinduism (34%)
24. Scientology (34%)
25. New Thought (34%)
26. Taoism (31%)
27. Nontheist (28%)

MickeyMouseboy wrote:Thank you for joining us in the 2nd annual religion debate here on Ultimatedisney.com! Aaron and Loomis are on the lead. Who will win this debate? Does God really exist or is he a idea that has been passed from generation to generation. before we get back to our discussion here's a word from our sponsors!

C'mon, MMb. Do we really need snarky asides in this thread? They're almost more annoying than the "stop fighting!" or "you shouldn't discuss these things here!" posts that come through every few pages. e_e

I got some interesting results with that "Belief-O-Matic" -

1. Unitarian Universalism (100%)
2. Liberal Quakers (89%)
3. Secular Humanism (87%)
4. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (82%)
5. Theravada Buddhism (80%)
6. Neo-Pagan (71%)
7. Nontheist (66%)
8. Bahá'í Faith (59%)
9. New Age (57%)
10. Taoism (57%)
11. Mahayana Buddhism (49%)
12. Reform Judaism (44%)
13. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (43%)
14. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (40%)
15. Orthodox Quaker (39%)
16. New Thought (38%)
17. Jainism (29%)
18. Sikhism (27%)
19. Scientology (26%)
20. Jehovah's Witness (26%)
21. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (26%)
22. Hinduism (15%)
23. Seventh Day Adventist (15%)
24. Orthodox Judaism (13%)
25. Eastern Orthodox (4%)
26. Islam (4%)
27. Roman Catholic (4%)

- Unitarian? WTF?! I must have mis-clicked something. O_o

But anyhoo, the top 10-ish results are just fancy dopplegangers for "non-religious," which is essentially what I am. And I don't have an agenda, either. I'm not militantly, stubbornly non-religious, I just am. I'm just gonna live my life without fear, without hate. Being a decent person, just to be one. And if I get condemned for that in the end... meh. Oh, well.

Dacp wrote:I know that this was primarily address to Aaron, but as is clearly bolded in the quote, God hates the deception and motives, not the actual person who does it.

Ok, that is fine what you said. But Aaron clearly said enemy there. Is that supposed to mean God has enemies, but he doesn't hate them? They wouldn't be considered enemies then...

MMB-The-Annoyance wrote:Thank you for joining us in the 2nd annual religion debate here on Ultimatedisney.com! Aaron and Loomis are on the lead. Who will win this debate? Does God really exist or is he a idea that has been passed from generation to generation. before we get back to our discussion here's a word from our sponsors!

When will you stop that? You didn't even read one page of this thread, because no where did the debate ever shift to "does God really exist?".

Sheesh, I've never met someone so incompetent in my life.