Pages:
Author

Topic: Health and Religion - page 17. (Read 211012 times)

hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
September 19, 2018, 10:07:42 AM

Let me give you a really cool example that Ricky Gervais once told someone. If we take any book of fiction, or any holy book and destroyed it, that in 1000 years wouldn't come back as it was but if we took every science book and every fact and destroyed it, in 1000 years it would come back because all the same tests would be the same results. I don't need religion or faith and you don't either.

Let me give you some very important facts. There are ancient, almost 2,000-year-old copies, or fragments of copies, of the New Testament, that show that there were at about 25,000 copies of the N.T. back then. Today there are billions of copies of the N.T.

If there had been no development of a printing press, or other print-making media, there would still be 25,000+ (and probably in excess of 100,000) hand copies of the N.T., but there would be only (at best) a handful of copies of any particular, scientific writing.

Even today, the Bible is probably the book that has been published the most... 5 or 6 billion copies.

So, why? If the Bible came only to, say, 1 billion, it might be in the range of other, major writings. But the fact that it is way ahead of other writings, shows that there is something compelling about the Bible.

The idea that in 1,000 years religion wouldn't come back is something that is irrelevant. Why? You aren't going to destroy the Bible no matter how you try. So, the whole question is fictional.



As for faith, you need it because you don't know what will happen in the next minute. You have faith in whatever... call it fate, or the design of the universe, or happenstance, or God... faith that things will go on as well in the future as they have in the past. And you hope that they will. So as Saint Paul says, "These three remain, faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

Cool

Of course it's fictional. The idea is that if we forgot everything we know right now and everything was destroyed, we would simply re discover all the science again, however all the science fiction books, religious books, etc etc would not appear again, at least not exactly the same.
legendary
Activity: 3990
Merit: 1385
September 19, 2018, 09:43:27 AM

Let me give you a really cool example that Ricky Gervais once told someone. If we take any book of fiction, or any holy book and destroyed it, that in 1000 years wouldn't come back as it was but if we took every science book and every fact and destroyed it, in 1000 years it would come back because all the same tests would be the same results. I don't need religion or faith and you don't either.

Let me give you some very important facts. There are ancient, almost 2,000-year-old copies, or fragments of copies, of the New Testament, that show that there were at about 25,000 copies of the N.T. back then. Today there are billions of copies of the N.T.

If there had been no development of a printing press, or other print-making media, there would still be 25,000+ (and probably in excess of 100,000) hand copies of the N.T., but there would be only (at best) a handful of copies of any particular, scientific writing.

Even today, the Bible is probably the book that has been published the most... 5 or 6 billion copies.

So, why? If the Bible came only to, say, 1 billion, it might be in the range of other, major writings. But the fact that it is way ahead of other writings, shows that there is something compelling about the Bible.

The idea that in 1,000 years religion wouldn't come back is something that is irrelevant. Why? You aren't going to destroy the Bible no matter how you try. So, the whole question is fictional.



As for faith, you need it because you don't know what will happen in the next minute. You have faith in whatever... call it fate, or the design of the universe, or happenstance, or God... faith that things will go on as well in the future as they have in the past. And you hope that they will. So as Saint Paul says, "These three remain, faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

Cool
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
September 19, 2018, 09:37:06 AM

Let me give you a really cool example that Ricky Gervais once told someone. If we take any book of fiction, or any holy book and destroyed it, that in 1000 years wouldn't come back as it was but if we took every science book and every fact and destroyed it, in 1000 years it would come back because all the same tests would be the same results. I don't need religion or faith and you don't either.

Science when property done describes objective immutable physical reality or at least our best understanding of it. Destroy all of science and you would have a technological dark age. If we avoided extinction yes we would eventually rediscover those truths as objective reality is not gone but patiently waits to be redescribed.

The moral universe is just as real and objective as the physical universe destroy our understanding of it and you would again have another more horrifying type of dark age. In the unlikely event we survived such a scenario fundamental truth and reality would again eventually reemerge as objective truth does not change just because we have forgotten it.
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
September 19, 2018, 06:26:57 AM

I'm sure they are happy, however humanity wouldn't have advanced if it wasn't for science. Not to say that there aren't scientists who believe in god, there are, quite a lot but certainly way less than the average population. Religion individually can be good because you think god will always help you and even if you die, you go to heaven, so it's a win/win. However as a society, religion isn't good, you don't need religion to be morally good. We wouldn't go to mars if everyone was religious because why would we? Why would we do anything at all, who cares, we are all going to heaven.

We simply disagree about religion and science.

While there have certainly been conflicts between organized religion and science over the years the belief that religion is fundamentally in conflict with science is untrue.

Over the long run scientific progress ultimately depends on a culture that both acknowledges the existence of truth and sustaines a value structure that treasures it.

Progress also requires a social structure that promotes cooperation over exploration enabling discovered truth to be harnessed for good. The foundation that facilitates these things in a human society is the shared first principles of said society.

For the west that foundation is a belief in God though this is not widely understood or acknowledged. Reject God and you gut both the basis for a belief in non subjective truth as well as the framework that promotes cooperation over exploitation.

Let me give you a really cool example that Ricky Gervais once told someone. If we take any book of fiction, or any holy book and destroyed it, that in 1000 years wouldn't come back as it was but if we took every science book and every fact and destroyed it, in 1000 years it would come back because all the same tests would be the same results. I don't need religion or faith and you don't either.
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
September 18, 2018, 11:41:37 PM
you don't need religion to be morally good.

I disagree. Here is a short little video that eloquently describes the problem of defining good and evil without God.

I linked to it a few months ago during a debate on objective morality so you may have seen it already.

Can You Be Good Without God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU

legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
September 18, 2018, 11:06:22 PM

I'm sure they are happy, however humanity wouldn't have advanced if it wasn't for science. Not to say that there aren't scientists who believe in god, there are, quite a lot but certainly way less than the average population. Religion individually can be good because you think god will always help you and even if you die, you go to heaven, so it's a win/win. However as a society, religion isn't good, you don't need religion to be morally good. We wouldn't go to mars if everyone was religious because why would we? Why would we do anything at all, who cares, we are all going to heaven.

We simply disagree about religion and science.

While there have certainly been conflicts between organized religion and science over the years the belief that religion is fundamentally in conflict with science is untrue.

Over the long run scientific progress ultimately depends on a culture that both acknowledges the existence of truth and sustaines a value structure that treasures it.

Progress also requires a social structure that promotes cooperation over exploration enabling discovered truth to be harnessed for good. The foundation that facilitates these things in a human society is the shared first principles of said society.

For the west that foundation is a belief in God though this is not widely understood or acknowledged. Reject God and you gut both the basis for a belief in non subjective truth as well as the framework that promotes cooperation over exploitation.
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
September 18, 2018, 08:06:44 PM
Lying to kids about certain things can be good, however it doesn't mean it's true.

Yes well I think we agree to disagree on whether the existence of God is truth or not.
That was not the focus of this particular study just the health effects of such a belief on one's children.

There have been posters in this thread who have argued that teaching of Christianity or Judiasm to ones children is child abuse.

The data in this study shows that children raised in a religious environment are (on average) happier into adulthood less likely to do drugs, report more life satisfaction, are less likely to have sex at an early age, and less likely to have a sexually transmitted infection.

I enrolled my children in a private Christian school this year Seventh Day Adventists. So far I am happy with this choice.

I'm sure they are happy, however humanity wouldn't have advanced if it wasn't for science. Not to say that there aren't scientists who believe in god, there are, quite a lot but certainly way less than the average population. Religion individually can be good because you think god will always help you and even if you die, you go to heaven, so it's a win/win. However as a society, religion isn't good, you don't need religion to be morally good. We wouldn't go to mars if everyone was religious because why would we? Why would we do anything at all, who cares, we are all going to heaven.
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
September 18, 2018, 06:16:17 PM
Lying to kids about certain things can be good, however it doesn't mean it's true.

Yes well I think we agree to disagree on whether the existence of God is truth or not.
That was not the focus of this particular study just the health effects of such a belief on one's children.

There have been posters in this thread who have argued that teaching of Christianity or Judiasm to ones children is child abuse.

The data in this study shows that children raised in a religious environment are (on average) happier into adulthood less likely to do drugs, report more life satisfaction, are less likely to have sex at an early age, and less likely to have a sexually transmitted infection.

I enrolled my children in a private Christian school this year Seventh Day Adventists. So far I am happy with this choice.
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
September 18, 2018, 05:29:16 PM
Religious upbringing may be protective factor for health, well-being in early adulthood
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2018/09/17/raising-kids-with-religion-or-spirituality-may-protect-their-mental-health-study/#68c6ba2c3287
Quote from: Alice G. Walton

A new study from Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health finds that kids and teens who are raised with religious or spiritual practices tend to have better health and mental health as they age. But not to worry if you’re not a service-attender. The research, published last week in the American Journal of Epidemiology, finds that people who prayed or meditated on their own time also reaped similar benefits, including lower risk of substance abuse and depression later on.

The team looked at data from 5,000 people taking part in the long-term Nurses' Health Study II and its next generation Growing Up Today Study (GUTS). They were interested in whether the frequency with which a child/teen attended religious services with their parents or prayed/meditated on their own was correlated with their health and mental health as they grew into their 20s. The young people were followed for anywhere from eight to 14 years.

It turned out that those who attended religious services at least once a week as children or teens were about 18% more likely to report being happier in their 20s than those who never attended services. They were also almost 30% more likely to do volunteer work and 33% less likely to use drugs in their 20s as well.

But what was interesting was that it wasn’t just about how much a person went to services, but it was at least as much about how much they prayed or meditated in their own time. Those who prayed or meditated every day also had more life satisfaction, were better able to process emotions, and were more forgiving compared to those who never prayed/meditated. They were also less likely to have sex at an earlier age and to have a sexually transmitted infection.

"These findings are important for both our understanding of health and our understanding of parenting practices," said study author Ying Chen. "Many children are raised religiously, and our study shows that this can powerfully affect their health behaviors, mental health, and overall happiness and well-being."


Lying to kids about certain things can be good, however it doesn't mean it's true.
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
September 18, 2018, 04:49:04 PM
Religious upbringing may be protective factor for health, well-being in early adulthood
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2018/09/17/raising-kids-with-religion-or-spirituality-may-protect-their-mental-health-study/#68c6ba2c3287
Quote from: Alice G. Walton

A new study from Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health finds that kids and teens who are raised with religious or spiritual practices tend to have better health and mental health as they age. But not to worry if you’re not a service-attender. The research, published last week in the American Journal of Epidemiology, finds that people who prayed or meditated on their own time also reaped similar benefits, including lower risk of substance abuse and depression later on.

The team looked at data from 5,000 people taking part in the long-term Nurses' Health Study II and its next generation Growing Up Today Study (GUTS). They were interested in whether the frequency with which a child/teen attended religious services with their parents or prayed/meditated on their own was correlated with their health and mental health as they grew into their 20s. The young people were followed for anywhere from eight to 14 years.

It turned out that those who attended religious services at least once a week as children or teens were about 18% more likely to report being happier in their 20s than those who never attended services. They were also almost 30% more likely to do volunteer work and 33% less likely to use drugs in their 20s as well.

But what was interesting was that it wasn’t just about how much a person went to services, but it was at least as much about how much they prayed or meditated in their own time. Those who prayed or meditated every day also had more life satisfaction, were better able to process emotions, and were more forgiving compared to those who never prayed/meditated. They were also less likely to have sex at an earlier age and to have a sexually transmitted infection.

"These findings are important for both our understanding of health and our understanding of parenting practices," said study author Ying Chen. "Many children are raised religiously, and our study shows that this can powerfully affect their health behaviors, mental health, and overall happiness and well-being."

hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
July 03, 2018, 03:01:36 AM

Dude, the dictionary has definitions of all the gods too, does that mean they exist?

Did you miss the part in the definitions that talks about them being mythology?

Cool

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/zeus?s=t

I did yea because it doesn't say anything about that, the supreme deity of the ancient Greeks, a son of Cronus and Rhea, brother of Demeter, Hades, Hera, Hestia, and Poseidon, and father of a number of gods, demigods, and mortals; the god of the heavens, identified by the Romans with Jupiter. So now Zeus has to be real because it's in the dictionary, right?
legendary
Activity: 3990
Merit: 1385
July 02, 2018, 08:16:12 PM

Dude, the dictionary has definitions of all the gods too, does that mean they exist?

Did you miss the part in the definitions that talks about them being mythology?

Cool
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
July 02, 2018, 04:19:04 PM

Yeah, I guess you won't admit you lost, oh well. I guess badecker is just more intelligent that everyone else, he knows the proof for a soul but doesn't share it, he also knows god exists but never shares the evidence either. Maybe you are a god yourself badecker. The fact that you are aware of your awareness does not show you have a soul, it shows you have a brain, dummy.

From Dictionary.com:
soul
[sohl]

noun

1.    the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.
2.    the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come: arguing the immortality of the soul.
3.    the disembodied spirit of a deceased person: He feared the soul of the deceased would haunt him.
4.    the emotional part of human nature; the seat of the feelings or sentiments.
5.    a human being; person.
6.    high-mindedness; noble warmth of feeling, spirit or courage, etc.
7.    the animating principle; the essential element or part of something.
8.    the inspirer or moving spirit of some action, movement, etc.
9.    the embodiment of some quality: He was the very soul of tact.
10.    (initial capital letter) Christian Science. God; the divine source of all identity and individuality.
11.    shared ethnic awareness and pride among black people, especially black Americans.
12.    deeply felt emotion, as conveyed or expressed by a performer or artist.
13.     soul music.

[/i]adjective

14.    of, characteristic of, or for black Americans or their culture: soul newspapers.

If notbatman's idea of density as gravity were correct, you would be approaching the gravity of a black hole.

Cool

Dude, the dictionary has definitions of all the gods too, does that mean they exist?
legendary
Activity: 3990
Merit: 1385
July 02, 2018, 08:02:22 AM

Yeah, I guess you won't admit you lost, oh well. I guess badecker is just more intelligent that everyone else, he knows the proof for a soul but doesn't share it, he also knows god exists but never shares the evidence either. Maybe you are a god yourself badecker. The fact that you are aware of your awareness does not show you have a soul, it shows you have a brain, dummy.

From Dictionary.com:
soul
[sohl]

noun

1.    the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.
2.    the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come: arguing the immortality of the soul.
3.    the disembodied spirit of a deceased person: He feared the soul of the deceased would haunt him.
4.    the emotional part of human nature; the seat of the feelings or sentiments.
5.    a human being; person.
6.    high-mindedness; noble warmth of feeling, spirit or courage, etc.
7.    the animating principle; the essential element or part of something.
8.    the inspirer or moving spirit of some action, movement, etc.
9.    the embodiment of some quality: He was the very soul of tact.
10.    (initial capital letter) Christian Science. God; the divine source of all identity and individuality.
11.    shared ethnic awareness and pride among black people, especially black Americans.
12.    deeply felt emotion, as conveyed or expressed by a performer or artist.
13.     soul music.

[/i]adjective

14.    of, characteristic of, or for black Americans or their culture: soul newspapers.

If notbatman's idea of density as gravity were correct, you would be approaching the gravity of a black hole.

Cool
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
July 02, 2018, 05:04:19 AM

Ok, first of all stop making shit up. ''but were Christians before conception'' Nothing in the bible says anything about you knowing about god before being born.

If you are just going to fabricate everything, there is no point in arguing with you about anything.

I think that you can find with a tad of research, that I haven't made it up. But even if I had, so what? I mean, you talk about the evolution fiction. So why can't I talk about the soul fact, even though you might call it a fiction? You simply like to be in control. Why not start by controlling your own soul a little?

As for the Bible not saying this stuff, I don't know that such is true, that it doesn't. But when you bring Bible into it, are you talking religion? Or are you simply picking on the Bible as much as you can? Or am I the one you are picking on? I mean, since you don't really have answers, you seem to like to pick on people. That's the trademark of a troll.

Science has proven that God exists, and operates all things via cause and effect. So, the soul was put in place via C&E just like everything else. The question is when. Since the soul is very complex as shown by the fact that it outmaneuvers the brain and mind at times, it is logical to say that God put it in place before the brain and mind. Use your head for something besides a hair rack a little, and see that if I am talking erroneously, at least there is way more to what I say than just fabrication.

Religion is simply the mind trying to get back to the position of the things that the soul understood before conception.

Cool

What's the evidence for a ''soul''? I have a ton of evidence for evolution and so do 99.99% of scientists and most religious people actually accept evolution as a fact. What do you have?

You are the one saying someone who wasn't even born has knowledge of god, I ask you where is the evidence, you give me this paragraph of horseshit, give me the evidence or admit you lost the argument.

As I have shown in the evolution hoax thread, all your evolution evidence is just talk. It has nothing to back up that what is seen is evolution and not something else. And, a simple Google of "impossible evolution" shows why evolution is just dream talk.

As for the soul and spirit, the proof is the fact that you are aware of your awareness. All you need do is check the definitions in dictionaries and encyclopedias.

The fact that you are using higher reasoning to determine that what I say is horse****, shows that you are attempting to talk away your very soul and spirit which are directing your mind to make such a judgment.

Cool

Yeah, I guess you won't admit you lost, oh well. I guess badecker is just more intelligent that everyone else, he knows the proof for a soul but doesn't share it, he also knows god exists but never shares the evidence either. Maybe you are a god yourself badecker. The fact that you are aware of your awareness does not show you have a soul, it shows you have a brain, dummy.
legendary
Activity: 3990
Merit: 1385
July 01, 2018, 03:22:42 PM

Ok, first of all stop making shit up. ''but were Christians before conception'' Nothing in the bible says anything about you knowing about god before being born.

If you are just going to fabricate everything, there is no point in arguing with you about anything.

I think that you can find with a tad of research, that I haven't made it up. But even if I had, so what? I mean, you talk about the evolution fiction. So why can't I talk about the soul fact, even though you might call it a fiction? You simply like to be in control. Why not start by controlling your own soul a little?

As for the Bible not saying this stuff, I don't know that such is true, that it doesn't. But when you bring Bible into it, are you talking religion? Or are you simply picking on the Bible as much as you can? Or am I the one you are picking on? I mean, since you don't really have answers, you seem to like to pick on people. That's the trademark of a troll.

Science has proven that God exists, and operates all things via cause and effect. So, the soul was put in place via C&E just like everything else. The question is when. Since the soul is very complex as shown by the fact that it outmaneuvers the brain and mind at times, it is logical to say that God put it in place before the brain and mind. Use your head for something besides a hair rack a little, and see that if I am talking erroneously, at least there is way more to what I say than just fabrication.

Religion is simply the mind trying to get back to the position of the things that the soul understood before conception.

Cool

What's the evidence for a ''soul''? I have a ton of evidence for evolution and so do 99.99% of scientists and most religious people actually accept evolution as a fact. What do you have?

You are the one saying someone who wasn't even born has knowledge of god, I ask you where is the evidence, you give me this paragraph of horseshit, give me the evidence or admit you lost the argument.

As I have shown in the evolution hoax thread, all your evolution evidence is just talk. It has nothing to back up that what is seen is evolution and not something else. And, a simple Google of "impossible evolution" shows why evolution is just dream talk.

As for the soul and spirit, the proof is the fact that you are aware of your awareness. All you need do is check the definitions in dictionaries and encyclopedias.

The fact that you are using higher reasoning to determine that what I say is horse****, shows that you are attempting to talk away your very soul and spirit which are directing your mind to make such a judgment.

Cool
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
July 01, 2018, 03:50:24 AM

Ok, first of all stop making shit up. ''but were Christians before conception'' Nothing in the bible says anything about you knowing about god before being born.

If you are just going to fabricate everything, there is no point in arguing with you about anything.

I think that you can find with a tad of research, that I haven't made it up. But even if I had, so what? I mean, you talk about the evolution fiction. So why can't I talk about the soul fact, even though you might call it a fiction? You simply like to be in control. Why not start by controlling your own soul a little?

As for the Bible not saying this stuff, I don't know that such is true, that it doesn't. But when you bring Bible into it, are you talking religion? Or are you simply picking on the Bible as much as you can? Or am I the one you are picking on? I mean, since you don't really have answers, you seem to like to pick on people. That's the trademark of a troll.

Science has proven that God exists, and operates all things via cause and effect. So, the soul was put in place via C&E just like everything else. The question is when. Since the soul is very complex as shown by the fact that it outmaneuvers the brain and mind at times, it is logical to say that God put it in place before the brain and mind. Use your head for something besides a hair rack a little, and see that if I am talking erroneously, at least there is way more to what I say than just fabrication.

Religion is simply the mind trying to get back to the position of the things that the soul understood before conception.

Cool

What's the evidence for a ''soul''? I have a ton of evidence for evolution and so do 99.99% of scientists and most religious people actually accept evolution as a fact. What do you have?

You are the one saying someone who wasn't even born has knowledge of god, I ask you where is the evidence, you give me this paragraph of horseshit, give me the evidence or admit you lost the argument.
legendary
Activity: 3990
Merit: 1385
June 30, 2018, 10:27:48 AM

Ok, first of all stop making shit up. ''but were Christians before conception'' Nothing in the bible says anything about you knowing about god before being born.

If you are just going to fabricate everything, there is no point in arguing with you about anything.

I think that you can find with a tad of research, that I haven't made it up. But even if I had, so what? I mean, you talk about the evolution fiction. So why can't I talk about the soul fact, even though you might call it a fiction? You simply like to be in control. Why not start by controlling your own soul a little?

As for the Bible not saying this stuff, I don't know that such is true, that it doesn't. But when you bring Bible into it, are you talking religion? Or are you simply picking on the Bible as much as you can? Or am I the one you are picking on? I mean, since you don't really have answers, you seem to like to pick on people. That's the trademark of a troll.

Science has proven that God exists, and operates all things via cause and effect. So, the soul was put in place via C&E just like everything else. The question is when. Since the soul is very complex as shown by the fact that it outmaneuvers the brain and mind at times, it is logical to say that God put it in place before the brain and mind. Use your head for something besides a hair rack a little, and see that if I am talking erroneously, at least there is way more to what I say than just fabrication.

Religion is simply the mind trying to get back to the position of the things that the soul understood before conception.

Cool
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
June 30, 2018, 03:48:46 AM

Still makes no sense, I don't think you really understand my argument. Me and af_newbie are totally different, sure we both don't believe in god but our reasons are different and we experienced life differently. Sure someone from Islam might become a christian but how often does that happen? once a year? THE POINT IS THAT IT IS MUCH HARDER TO CONVERT TO CHRISTIANITY IF YOU ARE BORN A MUSLIM AND IT IS NOT FAIR FOR THE KIDS WHO ARE BORN MUSLIMS. How hard is it to understand the argument?

Makes perfect sense. The Christian religion isn't trying to simply convert Muslims for the first time. Rather it is trying to convert Muslims who were not Muslims, but were Christians before conception, and who threw it away by listening to Muslim parents... back to Christianity again. This is the deeper meaning of the shepherd who left the 99 sheep on the hill, and went off to find the lost one. The lost one was Christian before, but became Muslim (or some other religion).

Christian development is before conception and during the 9 months in Mommy's tummy. However, since you are so blind that you can't even realize that it is your soul or spirit - the "I am" part of you - that is allowing you to carry on a reasoning discussion, how are you ever going to understand faith before conception. No wonder it is beyond your scope of thinking.

Look into dictionary and encyclopedia descriptions of soul and spirit to see that the deep kind of reasoning done by people, is not done outside of the soul or spirit.

Cool

Ok, first of all stop making shit up. ''but were Christians before conception'' Nothing in the bible says anything about you knowing about god before being born.

If you are just going to fabricate everything, there is no point in arguing with you about anything.
legendary
Activity: 3990
Merit: 1385
June 29, 2018, 08:58:29 PM

Still makes no sense, I don't think you really understand my argument. Me and af_newbie are totally different, sure we both don't believe in god but our reasons are different and we experienced life differently. Sure someone from Islam might become a christian but how often does that happen? once a year? THE POINT IS THAT IT IS MUCH HARDER TO CONVERT TO CHRISTIANITY IF YOU ARE BORN A MUSLIM AND IT IS NOT FAIR FOR THE KIDS WHO ARE BORN MUSLIMS. How hard is it to understand the argument?

Makes perfect sense. The Christian religion isn't trying to simply convert Muslims for the first time. Rather it is trying to convert Muslims who were not Muslims, but were Christians before conception, and who threw it away by listening to Muslim parents... back to Christianity again. This is the deeper meaning of the shepherd who left the 99 sheep on the hill, and went off to find the lost one. The lost one was Christian before, but became Muslim (or some other religion).

Christian development is before conception and during the 9 months in Mommy's tummy. However, since you are so blind that you can't even realize that it is your soul or spirit - the "I am" part of you - that is allowing you to carry on a reasoning discussion, how are you ever going to understand faith before conception. No wonder it is beyond your scope of thinking.

Look into dictionary and encyclopedia descriptions of soul and spirit to see that the deep kind of reasoning done by people, is not done outside of the soul or spirit.

Cool
Pages:
Jump to: