no,no,no,no. atheism is where you don't believe in going to your own "personal paradise". it is where you believe you die and that's that.

Actually King, atheism can mean different things to do different people. For some it just means they choose not to wrap their lives around anything proofless, for others it boldly means that everything has a biological explanation.

Looking at the word, all that's required to be an atheist is to be without god, that could mean anything, expecially since every human being believes god is something slightly different.

Thanados, I was not suggesting there was something wrong with it. Everyone has their own faith. This, in fact, goes hand in hand with my last statement, to call oneself a christian, all that is required is they follow christ, or pledge loyalty to him, or anything along those lines. I personally find it odd that people think of the bible as a source of factual information. Biblical phrases are often pulled out during debates by certain people (I know JonaJosa did it some times) but if they use that as a source of factual information, as guide to how to live their lives, why don't they follow the entire thing. My point, I think, you will agree with. People who have interpreted the bible for other people throughout history have told them what to believe, saying it all came from the mystical book. But, it's sort of like the media today, they pick and choose what to emphasize and what to totally ignore. There could be some news about famine in Africa, but most media outlets (at least in the US) won't touch it, omitting it for personal, indiscolsed reason, and pressure from different areas, most readily a result of greed.

So, it seems to me, choosing some parts of the bible to believe in, and others to assume are long forgotten codes of conduct that no long apply (even if Jesus taught them himself, as many of the omitted beliefs in modern christianity are in fact his lessons) is boat well in good, if your knowledge spans the entire thing, not jsut what church has said is true.

Face it, someone who believes in the Bible is believing in something without logic, without proof, with omly their faith, and there's nothing wrong with that, but then why pick and choose what truth is? Why blind yourself with words from a text when not every word of the text is the same thing? To believe in some aprts, and not others, destroys the credibility of the book itself, because the book is supposed to be an absolute as much as logic or faith itself is an absolute. As the guys from southpark said, "Either it's all okay, or none of it is."

It's kind of funny. I consider myself a pretty likeable person. But I'll make a friend, we'll hang out, have fun. Then I tell him I'm christian, and that's it, all the sudden I'm branded as an intolerant bigot.

In the christian comunity I'm known as a good person, and wise, so it's not like I'm slacking on any of my morals. But most friends outside that "circle" like me anyway; but some people (alot of people) can't ever get over the part where I believe in God and Jesus.

I don't "condemn" anyone direcly; if someone tries to get me to justify something t hat goes against my faith, I won't, but I don't go looking for people to judge.

I am a very tolerant person, I just wish people would tolerate me.

i am thinking about changing to chiristianity because i've been going to youth group (for those who don't know it's like a religious gathering where we learn about god and play games). i really don't care about your religion. i have friends of amny different religions. i have friends who are jews,christian,roman catholic,sic,atheist and antagonist if your kool i don't kare what your religion is.

Yeah i agree with that point. I was on my part just pointing out the maybe once "good" reasons for following such a text, and the bad/unlogic/cruel and unnecessary consequences on the other hand.
In short the bible is one of the oldest works of propaganda; when you read it, some books wrote by the inquisition, mao's little red book, gadaffis green one, even hitler's, books written by lenin or the communist manifesto - all the same, no difference. It is also the same when you watch news today. I watch cnn sometimes and they don't cover by far, what's going on in the world. BBC is the same, all the european channels either. The whole tv thing is trying to manipulate people, a single book won't do anymore nowadays; but still nothing has changed.
The worst thing about all this is though, that people think they're so smart, no everytihng, are "developped, civilized, intelligent", whereas that simple isn't true. If every person on earth would care to build up some knowledge, all this propaganda, may it be capitalistic, socialistic (which is always getting misused), religious etc. would lose all it's effect.

I am a sad excuse for a Christian, as I've already mentioned, but hey, have a Tolerance FTW.

Thank you for the translation, milanius. Sorry for the confusion, on my part.

I'm not a very religious person. I think it's realy hard to believe in something I've never realy felt or seen before. I have a lot of religious friends but I just can't seem to get into it. Mabey it's not realy something for me.
Like I've been to these meetings for students and stuff but it just gives me the creeps. I don't mean that as a joke it realy does, I felt realy sucky when I got home.

There are so many things which I don't agree with that I think it's realy hard to get myself into it. I also think a lot of people are using their religion the wrong way. Not all ofcourse like some said in the topic before, it's more like which parts you use as guidlines. But I think it's wrong to use religion for negative things, like discriminating or scaring people.

I think religion is to much about fear and stuff, about going to hell. What you can do and can't. People say it's about love and peace but if you take a closer look in the bible you'll find very little about that. For example, I had a discussion about hell with a friend of mine who happens to be a christian. The question was who should go to hell and who wouldn't.
Many people believe that only people who believe and embrace God are allowed to goto heaven. If that's the way it is wouldn't it be stupid? Would that mean that for example a volunteer who helped a lot of people in third world countries, but who happened to be a muslim, would goto hell? But a christian who is descriminating others because of things they believe which are in the bible can goto heaven just because they are religious?

It's just so weird. That's basicly why I don't realy like religions because people focuss to much on the negative. Like things you can't do, or who's going to hell and who's not. Ofcourse not everything is about that but it's just weird I guess.

Tho I respect everybody, everybody has to make the decision for themselves. If you want to believe do so ^^.

If you look at what Jesus Christ actually said ... he was giving a guideline or blueprint for living well in His Father's world. This was the simple language that he chose to explain the really mysterious world around us .. confusing at times.

He used the term Father for God and Son for Himself .. Son of Man .. is used alot. He also said that all men were his brothers. So, in the simplest of terms, He was just saying that we all are the Creator's children ... we all are a part of God. We were made in God's image.

Some of us do take this talk more literally than others, but like the Sermon on the Mount, the simple way of healing, the kind words for everyone except for warnings against those going against the natural way of things, the turning the other cheek - The Christ was an example for following to a good, enjoyable life.

I have a bible in which Christ's words alone are written in red, all the rest is black. It gives a good perspective on what the man actually said and how much the rest of the book was from other sources. I know that the whole new testament is word or mouth from several generations after Jesus. I also was raised Catholic and that's why I can't stop using capital letters when referring to God.

But all this extra drummed up stuff that the churches have embelished and added for their own benefit and toll boxes is really what puts people off. The central message is crystal and clear for good living. As for all this discussion of who goes to heaven or hell .... the good thief sat with Jesus that day in Heaven, because at the end he believed and was sorry for the bad life he'd led. Simple.

This is a very good point, and I think the reason more people aren't calling themselves Christian and go to church etc., while they may still believe in God or other gods.

As a sidenote, I recently bought the CSI series on DVD, and in an episode I watched last night it ended with a Catholic priest inviting Gil Grissom to attend mass. Grissom politely declined, and explained that he believed in God, but not religion. He didn't like to be told what to believe and not. Gave me food for thought...

Ibis... a bible with red-highlighted jesus speech? ... I seriously doubt that the people around 200ad, let alone people nowadays know/knew what he actually said. It is impossible. See he had his scholars, and they spread his ideas, everyone after his interpretion because he didn't write anything down -> corruption 1.
Secondly around 200-300ad, and i don't know any exact dates i'M afraid, when Constantin allowed the christian religion in his state, they needed varification, they needed followers, they wanted power. So they hired some talented authors and let them write the new testament. So this book being written only because they had to convert people, wanted to seek power in the roman state, how much of it do you think is true?
The whole interpretation of it is individual bogus anyway, because each sentence can mean litterally everything, but to the point: I don't think jesus said, only remotely, what he does in the bible.

Well I gotta disagree with you on this ThanadoS, because the handing down of oral tradition is usually pretty tight and concise and ammounts to memorization and passing down of fact in an oral society ... which is what the persecuted Christian sect of first and second century Rome was.
They firmly believed and they knew they had a mission to spread the exact teachings, story and history of what their savior had done and said. It's hard for a society like ours which is bombarded constantly with media both spoken and written to understand how TRADITION can be passed down between the generations exactly.
If you've ever been around American Indian peoples, you might notice that although their creation stories and other religious teachings may make little sense to us - they know it by rote and can repeat the exact wording of the stories without referring to any books or scripts.

============

And I do know a bit about Emperor Constantine. His mother Empress Helene became converted to Christianity first, being swayed by the teachings of early Christian scholars who studied under the teachings of Paul, who was Saul persecuting Christians and was then struck by lightning and knocked off his horse and got up from the ground a believer.
Helene asked her son to convert. He did and freed the practice of Christanity from persecution. It was an age of a lot of Christian writing and yes, the Council of Trent was called to assemble the writing of the books of the new testament. Or choosing them, I think.
Constantine not only made Christianity a household word in his Eastern Empire but he also saved the "boat" (as Channler would say) of Rome from the Gothic hordes that had dessimatied it. The Eastern Roman Empire was temporarily established until Rome could right herself once more.
And of course, then came the Papal Corruption ... which vaguely leads us up to today... via a few Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, Henry's Revolt, etc.

Nevermind the fact that he deliberately changed christianity in nearly every way, shape and form in order to make sure its assimilation into Roman culture went "more smoothly" (IE most profitably). A lot of the oral traditions that were passed in, he omitted from the bible, and all the rest he subtly changed. (Example: Jesus' birthday, the date of his death, the date of his resurrection, just some easy, irrefutable examples I can give of things about the bible that changed after the oral tradition period)

But that's not the worst part, the worst part is when even those oral traditions that were perverted when written into the bible were taught to be ignored by the common people, these oral traditions lost so only the scribes even knew what was in the bible, only the highest class getting access to the religion in the purest form they had it in (which wasn't that pure, quite frankly). All the common people got were the trusting word of their priests, and we all know how trusting Catholic priests can be.

No offense to Christianity, as far as I know Jesus Christ was a great guy, a regular Gandhi, but you'd never guess that the way they manipulated his teachings.

Welp, I have to admit that now I am agreeing with you guys ... after reading the msn webpage article about Mary Magdelene, woman of mystery. It seems that the first written accounts of Jesus Christ occurred about 90 years after his death by the Gnostic sect, which was pretty powerful in the fledgeling persecuted church.
But apparently, there was always a rift or jealousy between Mary Magdalene and Peter and the Gnostic account stemmed from Mary Magdalene teaching as an apostle but the account that won and that got handed down to the world, stemmed from Peter - and so it is very patriarchal and Magdalene totally disappears after the resurrection scene.

So anyway, I can see from this account of the different sects that apparently there were at least a few very different accounts of things. Interestingly though, it was a group of women disciples who cared for Jesus's financial needs. He was supposed to be quite egalitarian when it came to equality for women.
Also, it was in the 900's that Mary Magdalene was tagged a prostitute by none other than Pope Gregory in a speech at the Vatican. Pope John Paul II proclaimed in the 1980's that she was not. So even to this day, religion remains murky in it's historical content...but for me the inner message of Christ is still clear.

As is Agent Mulder's. Honest.

To your first post Iibis, yeah i believe that oral tradition is important for people (and maybe even more accurate for them than for us), who don't have any telecommunication and the like. Though: There is always something that gets changed, even if it's not maliciously changed by order.
And: I don't care about all the conspiracy theories beginning in the bible itself, getting carried on over templers and all kinds of sects, culminating in dan browns stories... there is only one point i can say for sure. The erstwhile christian people where human beings just as we are. Which means they were new, had to wipe out the old tradition and use well known parts of it for their own purpose, then when people didn't join in the hordes they estimated, they had to lie something up, use jesus (may he be real-existent or not, king or slave, jew or raised in the roman tradition, again i don't care) as a protagonist. You know that would be as if... i don't know in fifty years, the republican party could point out that bush junior was a well needed messiahs, that will come back one day and kill the "boat(?)" of the islamic world or something...
Anyway getting away from the point again. Being so much wrong in facts and mystery in the bible, this thing loses all attraction to me. For ex: It is said (and in various commentaries) that mankind started off with adam some 3000 years before the arrival of jesus. Now what the hell? Seriously 3000bc we had already the great wonders of egypt, and maybe 5000bc and more, the chinese culture rose to magnificance, let alone all the paläolythic people, which are proven to have lived about 10 000years more or less cultured...
Finally, and that really is _my_ concern: Everyone should believe what he wants, but the institution of religion:
Moses and the burning bush = Pope = masskilling for money = king masskilling for money = 2 popes vs. 2 kings or whatever the hell combination = napoleon, fighting for money and power = hitler = stalin = mao' = in the end, every second american president = bush, the burning.

* Please do not flame me for this, I truly believe this *

I believe in vampirism...... Yes vampirism, there is no higher being such as a god. You are your own god, you create your own destiny. I believe in otherkin and that people I know are vampires, weres, ect......

NO, this is not like the movies where vampires are killed by sunlight and that crosses hold some "holy" thing over them or that the only way to kill a were is with silver..... They are still human and can feel pain and death just like any other. They just have tapped into their minds a little further than normal people and enjoy "activities" that may frighten some.

If you believe this than i have to tell you that vampirism is a legend based on a) the catholic church and Vlad III Dracula in walachia :/

People drinkin blood and thus being immortal, this story is old, ancient egypt, mesopotamia, india, they believed in it. The legend after dracula was, well formed by stroker on the one hand, oral tradition, and human buzz about super natural things.

Yeah, I agree that the immortal is ludacris and was made up by hollywood and the fact of Dracula being created by someone taking vampirism way out of context is also true ^^

I believe there are psy-vamps. And I believe that I want nothing to do with them. If you would associate yourself with psy-vamps, or worse are one...

No, i'll stop. I'll not flame you. I'm sure if you are what I think you are the Universe will flame you for me.

Well, Rainer is not as religious as he is spiritual.

And he would also say that Buddisim is more of a philiosophy than a religion.

It seems to be the clostest thing that Rainer is to being religious.


But Rainer once heard a very interesting quote:

"Religion is what the common see as true, the Wise see as false, and the Powerful see as useful."

Rainer found it very thought-provoking.

what the... is a psy-vamp?

And nice quote rainer, who said that?

I found that a good quote too, and I can understand if it is not only thought-provoking, but simply provoking to many.

Tis' a nice quote, and bloody true, too. There are a few instances when powerful people have happily used religion for their own ends. Constantine would be a good example of that. It's widely believed that he converted to Christianity not so much because he was christian, but because it was a politically shrewd move.

I've got no idea what a psy-vamp is (sounds like one of those LARP people), but I do believe in porphyria, which explains vampirism to an extent. And Haemophilia (which has nothing to do with vampirism, but does traslate to 'love of blood' or 'affinity for blood'). Both of which have screwed up the royal dynasties of europe, and both of which is why Vampirism is known in Oblivion as "Porphyric Haemophilia". So there we goes.

EDIT: Found out what a psy-vamp is on Wikipedia. Someone who drains the lifeforce of other people, like their chi. Apparently it's also used as someone who thrives off the pity and compassion of others. Sounds a bit crappy to me.

Lol... sounds like the prepies in High-school... suck my happiness away will you? *Hammer TIME!*

MC Hammer always did suck away my happiness too.

Source

Its good you don't know of it. That means chances are you aren't one of them miserable cretins.

Yeah, I have the satanic bible on my own bookshelf for reference, and if you read I believe it's the third post here, I did mention going through that phase. I'm not going to insult any particular religion, but Anton LeVay was a fraud. For instance, he shaved his hair on a dare, it wasn't part of some ritual pact as he claimed. His pet tiger? Beaten, and oftenly, and lived a miserable existence. That's to name just a couple things.

But, those aren't my main challenges of the religion. I jsut wholly disagree with the idea of self-worship, and with the way the whole religion sets itself apart of christian, almost offensively, even calling themselves satanists (and I know the intention behind it) to draw purposeful opposition ot christianity. Besides, only a fleeding number of last-generation catholics and orthodox jews still follow the ideas that everything natural is negative. Most christians today can follow their natural instincts, and have faith in an idol but not have it interrupt them (although many feel guilty).

Also, I chose not to be out for only my own gains. In order to help myself, I must help others, I don't recall that bit being in the satanic bible.

I have the satanic bible too, its so bad, I was just reading it out of curiousity and the non religious theme is sort of ok but uses great compassion examples and stupid explanations, most Atheists could come up with better developed arguements. And the only religion he put forward, that was just plain stupid. I think Anton LeVay just wanted to make his own religion but got lazy after the first page (or word).

Hope there is no Satanists here.

Just for being sure: The satanic church is a sect right? Ordinary satanists?
Strange enough those people, like every sect... in fact i often think how dumb one has to be to join a sect, give away all his possessions, and believe some ordinary dork's preachings...
And this psy vamp stuff... does that actually work?! I mean has anyone ever heard of ones "life force" being drained by some self proclaimed lunatic?

I believe in the "life force", "chi" in itself, though not in a way like hindu or buddhist people do, for me it's more like being conscious of you, your body, your mind and your deeds and your environment - more an intelligence thing to me.

Not a sect as much as just a general philosophy this one guy decided to turn into a religion.

There's also satanism that, as strange as it sounds, actually does worship satan, and funnily enough it's very similar to Levay's satanism, worship of what comes naturally, of inner desires, etcetera.

And on giving up possessions and stuff, I think you're thinking of a cult, not just a sect, a cult being in the eye of the beholder, as I think all organized religions are cults.

Finally, I've had interviews with people who claimed to be psi vamps, and my conclusion, after talking to at least ten, is "No." I tend to believe whatever is most sensible, with the variation of accepting nothing as absolute truth, or as base-truth. But, that doesn't leave me as one of those crazies that thinks Oswald actually killed Kennedy or anything, I think of it this way, "eliminate the impossible and you're left with the truth." I found, after many, many interviews that psi-vamps are impossible, and that if there was any truth to it it would be psychological. The body is capable of doing funny things if the mind finds it capable.

In my experience, its the ones who act all innocent that are the worst. And no, a person doesn't usually think of themselves as a psi vamp.

A psi vamp puts one in a position to emotionally, or otherwise assault them.

Ever had people you hung around that you felt drained around? Like the kind who loves to be depressed. You can offer advice for hours, and it doesn't get through. Repeate that for months on end, every single day, and soon enough, you'll come to realise that, yes, psi vamps exist.

And, if you think you need to "interview people" to find out things that aren't normally considered in the public domain, heh heh...

Its still trying to ignore things that are the truth.

We're talking about two competely different things, you're talking about LeVayist psychological vampires (one of many things in that book I agreed with).

They're not draining life-force, they're draining emotional energy, my mom is just like that, she always wants constant emotional support. it's a completely psychological thing, and if it were connected to life force they're not aware of it, and that I can agree with.

You agree with the people who drain others energies? Quite a confession there. And if thats the kind of thing you are, then we wouldn't be friends in real life.

Whether it is emotional energy alone is debatable. But whats not is the effect i've seen it have on others and myself, and for that reason, I can not support those who act like this. Whether they admit it or not.

So what about people who need constant support, are constantly depressed? Yeah i know such individuals too, but you can't blame them for it, most of the time. It's your choice wether or not you try to help them, but inventing a term like "psy vamp" for people with psychologycal difficulties, caused by immense stress many people have nowadays, for i don't know which reasons, is just cruel and unfair.
If they do it deliberately, that's something else, and i've also known such people, without knowing the modern term for them, and i agree that such could be dangerous or at least awkward, when you yourself have problems, are weakened by some distress or another. Actually i know of a hypochonder who was constantly moaning about his afflictions, and his wife had to go to a nuthouse, because she wasn't able to stand this.
So what is the matter with "psy vamps" and a sect/cult?

Obviously I can differentiate between people with depression. I mean, thats just one kind of symptom, but its not the be all and end all.

There is far more to consider when trying to size someone up. Its their way of approaching people in all matters of things.

I gave an example that I thought many people would be familar with. But its far more complex than someone seeking advice, because thats not necessarily definitive. Its not definitive at all.

Indeed, and thats where it takes time, and a lot of cop on to understand people. In realistic terms, the psyvamps are people who fight with psychological warfare. Thats what it is.

Some might think i'm overestimating it, and chances are they either
A) Never experienced it (yet)
Have experienced it and can't recognise it.
C) Never will (Though I think the likelihood of that being unlikely unless you live like a hermit, which I don't think is feasible either)

Well, its a form of manipulation, so if you are ok with manipulation of people, then you might say nothing.

Though if you were against it, you'd realise the lack of need to ask such a question

Ahh i get it already, a psy vamp is someone who fights with depression, moodiness etc, who wants to get you psychologicaly, instead of phisically down? - okay, nop that's bad, you're right.

I think we're getting off subject now, so I'll change topic. Has anyone had any experience with the Scientologists? I've been audited by one of their e-mitters. It was a pretty odd little experience. Then they tried to sell me three books.

not scientology, as they aren't that big here in austria.. but with the witnesses of jehova - trying to convert me and all... the strange thing is that they actually believe the nonsense they tell you Oo

Oh yeah, there are a lot of beliefs I consider strange. A lot of my family are Mormon, and if you read the book of mormon, there are some interesting things in there. The Aztec god Quixelquatil, for example, is apparently Jesus.

Wheren't Succubi and Incubi Psy Vamps? Albiet through a suggestive method...

What are they? Scientists?

They're followers of L.Ron Hubbard - they get a lot of publicity, mainly because of their high profile members: Tom Cruise, John Travolta, Kirsty Alley, Issac Hayes. Basically it's about 'tools' to help you improve your life. You give them money (that's an integral part) and eventually you'll be just like Tom Cruise (if he is a thetan): able to heal tuberculosis and such by touching people.

Huh... I didn't realize 85% of sweden is athiest... Wow.. Thats weird.. about (roughly) 15% of the USA is.

Seems odd that the bastions of faith are turning away from it, I guess their bored.

Scientology is just plain stupid, I don't say that about to many religions, but that one earns my "Channler Declares That This is Stupid Mark"

Ah, see, I think they're all cults, so it's hard for me to see Scientology as any worse than Christianity as much as it's just clearly outlined in the religion, "THIS IS A SCAM!"

No matter how much money you make, by the end of your life it always adds up to 110% of your avarage annual income.

I hear Christians claim Jehova's Witnesses and Mormons are weird and occultic and evil, but if you think about it, they're just about the same as Catholicism, Baptism, and all the little variations. Believe what we believe, or you will suffer for eternity. And, I think the only reason why Catholic beliefs don't strike us as crazy is because they've been around longer, we're used to them.

The reason that Christians say that Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses are weird (have yet to hear evil) is because their findamental beliefs differ greatly. That's like saying that Islam and Christianity are all the same.

Now the small divisions, such as Methodist, Baptist, etc. they just have different views on the small issues, such as the role of the holy spirit and stuff.

But it still breaks down to believe what we believe, or suffer for eternity, any religion that shares that rule is basically a cult in the truest sense.

Well, Jehova's were trying to convert me, and were trying to give me the book of mormon.

So either these Jehova's don't know what they're supposed to worship, or the book of mormon is an integral part to their faith.

Islam and Christianity are pretty much all the same.
10 rules here, 5 rules there
loving your next here, and there
care for others here, and there
believe in one god and none else here, and there
they even believe in the same (his)tory, just interpreted a little different.
The beliefs are the same, and as far as i got, torah, bible and koran tell pretty much the same thing.

*missle falls on Thanados from the sky, thankfully for everyone else it's a dud* The rules of the religon's may be the same but what they believe in isn't. The Islam believe that Jesus was a profet (sp...) while the Christians (obviously in the name) believe Jesus was the Son of God...= Christ.

Yeah, and that's exactly where i begin to think the whole set up, since day one of mankind, is stupid to the t.
We can, basicly say that all religion started with zarathustra the elder, good/bad duality, god for the good and for the bad, a moral-rules-set up , no difference whatsoever to our modern religions. All the religions and sects i know so far, may they be christian, islamic, hindu or far east philosophical: There are no important differences. Everyone hopes for a better situation after death, everyone wants to "govern" all men, so they don't kill themselves constantly, all of them want piece on earth.
So far the theory, what they did out of it was, pretty much the same either. (Now let's take islam and christianity)
From all the good ideas imerged a practice on how to gain power. The inquisition, as a money-making and fear provoking institution, goes along with todays holy-wars and islamic fundamentalism, money making for the powerful, gaining access to paradise (a paradise made by allah, the merciful(?!) ) for the poorer.

And all this quarrel about was jesus son of god or a prophet, had mohammed a beard or not: what the hell? What's so god-damn important about it, that would be worth to kill each other for it?

All the religions since 5000bc had about the same concept, an ideal, always been misused.