|
Post by uz on Jun 20, 2011 19:16:16 GMT -5
Having a beleif in "God" and beleiving in the "system" is the same thing.
It is a higher power, that controls and manages us.
|
|
|
Post by mystery on Jun 20, 2011 20:11:12 GMT -5
this thread is retarded. Are you debating who has the most gangster kids?
Also, sadly that gangster culture you talk about is becoming dominant in youths in the US. All teens think it's cool to wear baggy clothes, wear hats sidewats, listen to rap, etc..
|
|
|
Post by uz on Jun 20, 2011 20:24:24 GMT -5
This is an overstatement. This lifestyle your talking about is dying.
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Jun 20, 2011 21:03:47 GMT -5
mystery although you are retarded you're right about how retarded this thread has become, cheers mate
|
|
|
Post by odel on Jun 21, 2011 11:08:26 GMT -5
Having a beleif in "God" and beleiving in the "system" is the same thing. It is a higher power, that controls and manages us. It's not the same. Believing in god is believing in a monotheistic deity, believing in the system is believing in a system. Also, you don't believe in a system neither do you worship it. Another pseudo-intellectual statement from you
|
|
|
Post by Croatian Vanguard on Jun 21, 2011 13:04:58 GMT -5
Having a beleif in "God" and beleiving in the "system" is the same thing. It is a higher power, that controls and manages us. It's not the same. Believing in god is believing in a monotheistic deity, believing in the system is believing in a system. Also, you don't believe in a system neither do you worship it. Another pseudo-intellectual statement from you I get what Uz is saying and I sort of agree with him. I think he's pointing out that both 'the system' and religion are based on faith. They are both also forms of social organization. Also about believing in god , it makes sense if we accept god as a concept just like systems of government are such as 'Democracy.' Having faith in 'the system' can be quite similar to having faith in god when you look at it from a certain perspective. Both are concepts to institute control. I agree with him totally on that.
|
|
|
Post by uz on Jun 21, 2011 16:23:00 GMT -5
It's not the same. Believing in god is believing in a monotheistic deity, believing in the system is believing in a system. Also, you don't believe in a system neither do you worship it. Another pseudo-intellectual statement from you I get what Uz is saying and I sort of agree with him. I think he's pointing out that both 'the system' and religion are based on faith. They are both also forms of social organization. Also about believing in god , it makes sense if we accept god as a concept just like systems of government are such as 'Democracy.' Having faith in 'the system' can be quite similar to having faith in god when you look at it from a certain perspective. Both are concepts to institute control. I agree with him totally on that. ^ I'm glad we can agree. To Odel; your argument on worship is flawed. We worship the system everyday as long as we get up for work everyday, make the payments on bills, exchange money, and go to bed and rest to do it all over again the next day. We work to live - has become- we live to work. I understand this concept doesn't apply to every individual (many have found their way to peace and prosperity), but as long as we speak of RELIGION and the SYSTEM and how it effects society, we have to be general and speak on behalf of the masses.
|
|
|
Post by odel on Jun 21, 2011 17:27:05 GMT -5
It's not the same. Believing in god is believing in a monotheistic deity, believing in the system is believing in a system. Also, you don't believe in a system neither do you worship it. Another pseudo-intellectual statement from you I get what Uz is saying and I sort of agree with him. I think he's pointing out that both 'the system' and religion are based on faith. They are both also forms of social organization. Also about believing in god , it makes sense if we accept god as a concept just like systems of government are such as 'Democracy.' Having faith in 'the system' can be quite similar to having faith in god when you look at it from a certain perspective. Both are concepts to institute control. I agree with him totally on that. I don't believe there's many worshippers of "the system". Also, god is a supernatural/deity and is based on something completely different than a system or "the system". Comparing believing in god to believing in "the system" because both include that you have to believe is wrong as you believe in them for totally different reasons, also, while god is something that is completely abstract in nature, a system isn't which is one of the things that make those two so very different.
|
|
|
Post by uz on Jun 21, 2011 17:30:47 GMT -5
Religion and the System both function on; worship, dedication, law, control and manipulation.
You have yet to to declare a difference between the two. Your only argument so far is that one is physical and the other is metaphysical - this is not substantial enough to prove my point wrong.
|
|
|
Post by emer on Jun 21, 2011 17:45:27 GMT -5
I get what Uz is saying and I sort of agree with him. I think he's pointing out that both 'the system' and religion are based on faith. They are both also forms of social organization. Also about believing in god , it makes sense if we accept god as a concept just like systems of government are such as 'Democracy.' Having faith in 'the system' can be quite similar to having faith in god when you look at it from a certain perspective. Both are concepts to institute control. I agree with him totally on that. I don't believe there's many worshippers of "the system". Also, god is a supernatural/deity and is based on something completely different than a system or "the system". Comparing believing in god to believing in "the system" because both include that you have to believe is wrong as you believe in them for totally different reasons, also, while god is something that is completely abstract in nature, a system isn't which is one of the things that make those two so very different. No one has to justify their belief in God to you just like you don't have to justify your non-belief. Also, systems are often corrupt but even if they aren't the morals they instill have a basis in religion in God, mostly in Christianity. We can't just ignore or overlook some things because they fit our personal agenda.
|
|
|
Post by uz on Jun 21, 2011 17:50:34 GMT -5
Whatever the justifications may be for either or, are the same for each.
This is what we're debating.
|
|
|
Post by Croatian Vanguard on Jun 22, 2011 14:07:41 GMT -5
I don't believe there's many worshippers of "the system". Also, god is a supernatural/deity and is based on something completely different than a system or "the system". Comparing believing in god to believing in "the system" because both include that you have to believe is wrong as you believe in them for totally different reasons, also, while god is something that is completely abstract in nature, a system isn't which is one of the things that make those two so very different. No one has to justify their belief in God to you just like you don't have to justify your non-belief. Also, systems are often corrupt but even if they aren't the morals they instill have a basis in religion in God, mostly in Christianity. We can't just ignore or overlook some things because they fit our personal agenda. More like some religious values have a basis in humanism.
|
|
|
Post by Croatian Vanguard on Jun 22, 2011 14:09:02 GMT -5
I see nothing wrong with challenging a believer. Why cower away or somehow feel you're immune when asked to present some real evidence? I don't see why anything should be off limits when it comes to skepticism.
|
|
|
Post by odel on Jun 22, 2011 15:54:29 GMT -5
Religion and the System both function on; worship, dedication, law, control and manipulation. Lol. You're wrong, "the system" doesn't function on worship. (Btw, could you define what "the system" truly is for me?) You sound like the average conspiracy theorist on the Internet. Both require dedication, sure, there's a lot of other things that require dedication like: Parenting, Work, Studying and etc. There's laws sure, most things in life has some form of law. Religion wasn't created by someone just to control, trying to explain the questions of life and a belief that some form of supernatural power controls life is something that has always followed man. For example the belief of the Aborigines in Australia about "the dream" in which the world was created, the lizard man and etc isn't some scheme put there to control the Aborigines, it's there because thats how they try to explain and understand the universe. These beliefs aren't there to manipulate either although it of course can be used to manipulate. It is substantial enough. Belief in god is based on superstition, meaning that it's faith in something abstract/hard to define that is supernatural. The system isn't supernatural, abstract/hard to define or anything like that. As said, believing in god and "the system" aren't the same. My point is that you can find similarities to two different things and only put the similarities forwards making those two different things appear as similar. Which is what you're doing.
|
|
|
Post by uz on Jun 22, 2011 15:57:47 GMT -5
What exactly is our personal agenda? To evolve?
Religion and this system play together a role of limiting our evolution. Why do we have to force our nature to adapt to something someone else wrote? When things of "worship" such as the system, and religion should be adpating to us, and evolving with us.
|
|
|
Post by emer on Jun 22, 2011 16:55:16 GMT -5
No one has to justify their belief in God to you just like you don't have to justify your non-belief. Also, systems are often corrupt but even if they aren't the morals they instill have a basis in religion in God, mostly in Christianity. We can't just ignore or overlook some things because they fit our personal agenda. More like some religious values have a basis in humanism. Well before Christianity infanticide and adultery where all too common so I don't know about that. This last part can still be common I guess but it's viewed as (morally) wrong because of religion...not because men have any personal morals or ethics that can't be challenged at certain situations.
|
|
|
Post by Croatian Vanguard on Jun 22, 2011 17:46:42 GMT -5
What do you mean by infanticide? Abortion? And adultry is still common among multi-religious suspects including Christians. As I stated there already was a sense of morality among humans before the advent of Christianity or the Ten Commandments. Afterall , these texts were written by men. We don't derive our morality from any particular religion but rather the reaonable moral edicts of religions are derived from our already existing 'humanism.'
And your moral absolutism cannot be so if you are a reasonable human being. Some acts we consider immoral are not always immoral if applied in certain situations. Picture this scenario , I hold a gun to some innocent child's head, I tell you ' I will kill this child if you do not sleep with a married woman.' What would you do? Is there any way for you to be moral with your dogmatic absolutism?
|
|
|
Post by emer on Jun 22, 2011 18:11:28 GMT -5
Google infanticide moron if I meant abortion I would have said that not infanticide. Go get a dictionary before responding again.
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Sept 14, 2011 1:29:24 GMT -5
I'm reading the 'Highland Lute' by Gjergj Fishta and it's clearly a copy of Serbian Njegos' 'Mountain Wreath', in name, style, etc.
Though I must say this is a bit more fast paced & action-oriented
|
|
|
Post by darkness on Sept 14, 2011 10:42:46 GMT -5
I'm reading the 'Highland Lute' by Gjergj Fishta and it's clearly a copy of Serbian Njegos' 'Mountain Wreath', in name, style, etc. Though I must say this is a bit more fast paced & action-oriented if it is then don't read the danm book and stop barking. you really are a pain in the a$$
|
|