shen Posted 24 July 2009 Posted 24 July 2009 Yes I do see how the church has used it's power for control. True Christians don't need church. There is a guy, I think he is called Christopher Story (he is a Christian) and he explains it better than I ever could, but he says in a nutshell "the church is impediment to the truth".I'm saying that if we didn't have all the polutions and poisons we've got today then, yes, we could live alot longer. And in old times when food was pure, when water was pure and there was no industry or pollution, yes I believe folk could live longer. Long time ago though. But the water and food wasn't necessarily good or healthy just because it was 'pure' (which by the way is utter nonsense, as probably more people died of poisoned water and contaminated foods back then, than they do now - I can even refer you to a well-known story about ten certain plagues). The fact is humans were much more vulnerable to various hazards, be they health hazards like dangerous animals, diseases or sanitation issues, or natural hazards like drought, failing crops, FLOODS, erosion etc. There's no way people were able to live longer than we do today. 200 years of age is already an age that would only be able in isolated, sterile circumstances (e.g. not realistic at this point in time), so to even suggest that people could live for 700 years is ...well... stupid. As for 'true Christians' not needing church, I don't necessarily disagree with you there. But the point I'm making is that the Church has used and still uses its religious position as a means of control over its constituency.
BoneDog Posted 24 July 2009 Posted 24 July 2009 1. See you say this but there is no facts that there is heaven and hell. Youve been brainwashed in your own right that after you die you will go to another world. 2. You need to broaden your horizons empty and not just accept what your told and look at the bigger picture. 3. I think we will reach our plateau of understanding but at present we are far from that. 1. I haven't been brainwashed! I've only started looking into all this in the last 8 or so years. Before that I was a normal lad who used to go out ALL the time partying, chasing ladies and alot of other shit that lads do! I have researched loads of religion and politics in the last 8 years and have not been brainwashed by anyone cos I've studied it all by myself. I used to lie on my back for hours in the middle of the night looking up at the stars thinking about everything, trust me I have a mind of my own. 2. I honestly don't think my horizons could get much broader, and I'm not being big-headed, but I have been through loads of stuff, studied all-sorts of theories, beliefs and spent a great majority of the last 8 years of my life thinking about it all. No-one has told me to believe anything (I've never been to church apart from funeral/wedding) and what I've learnt from my take on faith, is that you shouldn't let anyone control you. Everyone is equal and no-one should say they are better than me, and I am also not better than anyone else. 3. I don't think we will reach much further in understanding I really think we are nearly coming to the end of this world (100 years or so). Yes, technology is moving on magnificently but I don't think it will save us from what our tyrants will do to the earth this century. I could elaborate but won't as we would move into more conspiracy territory
BoneDog Posted 25 July 2009 Posted 25 July 2009 That wasn't religion that was people using religion like modern day world leaders and anti religious people, real religious people wouldn't do those things, well I'm sure that's the sort of response we can expect from El Empty PS is that name telling us something, I wouldn't have thought El Empty would believe that Hell was that empty! Damn right that's the kind of response you can expect from me! They weren't religious, they were monsters who did not believe what they told the masses they believed And yes, Hell will probably have more inhabitants than heaven, although there will be 7 different heavens. Each one getting more beautiful. First level will do me, although I'm aiming for level 7
BoneDog Posted 25 July 2009 Posted 25 July 2009 But the water and food wasn't necessarily good or healthy just because it was 'pure' (which by the way is utter nonsense, as probably more people died of poisoned water and contaminated foods back then, than they do now - I can even refer you to a well-known story about ten certain plagues). The fact is humans were much more vulnerable to various hazards, be they health hazards like dangerous animals, diseases or sanitation issues, or natural hazards like drought, failing crops, FLOODS, erosion etc. There's no way people were able to live longer than we do today. 200 years of age is already an age that would only be able in isolated, sterile circumstances (e.g. not realistic at this point in time), so to even suggest that people could live for 700 years is ...well... stupid.As for 'true Christians' not needing church, I don't necessarily disagree with you there. But the point I'm making is that the Church has used and still uses its religious position as a means of control over its constituency. I'm not just talking about England (for the water thing) and I also don't know the time it happened, could of been 4000 years ago for all I know. Long time ago definately. In these crowded citiies we had problems yes, but when I talk about purity, there were plenty of places all around the world that were not touched by disease. There's a place in remote Asia somewhere today where they don't get any disease (was on tele the other night documentary). I agree about the church and modern Christianity yes. But the true original teachings never mentioned anyone needing a church, so they are not needed. Been hijacked though
BoneDog Posted 25 July 2009 Posted 25 July 2009 in all honesty i think it has actually done more harm than good, for instance these so called "honour" killings, some terrorism, wars, persecutions of others (E.g. Northern Ireland), oppresion of opinions (more middle of last millenium than now but still), murder, insest the list goes on. Do you know how many honour killings there are a year? Neither do I but it has nothing to do with religion. No religion says kill your family if they want to run off with someone else. And many white English or American men who aren't religious murder their wives/girlfriends/family all the time. There are more murders in America than anywhere and most of them have nothing to do with religion. Insest what has that got to do with religion? That's just practised by perverts. And how can a pervert be religious? They can pretend to be yes. But if religion didn't exist, there would still be as many perverts in the world. There would also be just as many murderers, wars oppression and everything else that people blame on religion. It's people that are the problem, not religion
shen Posted 25 July 2009 Posted 25 July 2009 I'm not just talking about England (for the water thing) and I also don't know the time it happened, could of been 4000 years ago for all I know. Long time ago definately. In these crowded citiies we had problems yes, but when I talk about purity, there were plenty of places all around the world that were not touched by disease. There's a place in remote Asia somewhere today where they don't get any disease (was on tele the other night documentary).I agree about the church and modern Christianity yes. But the true original teachings never mentioned anyone needing a church, so they are not needed. Been hijacked though But those remote areas are namely remote because no-one lives there! And I'm not even talking crowded cities, I'm talking everyone back then. Places with no so-called diseases are hazardous and hostile in their own right. While I won't claim there haven't been small peculiar 'oases' in history, there's is still no chance that people would've lived that long. Not even the most remote chance! I don't know how you got it into your head that pollution stops people getting old by the way. The oldest person alive today lives in California, which I'd say is quite a polluted place. Nor do I know where you got that romantic picture of an ancient world from And religion's core message is almost always a beautiful or sensible one, but it's obviously a potent weapon in the wrong hands. History is proof of that. There can be absolutely no question that humans have done atrocious things through the guise of 'religion'
BoneDog Posted 25 July 2009 Posted 25 July 2009 Thats only touching the surface, there have ben millions killed in the name of religion but I mostly agree with what you are saying. Maybe, but there have been billions killed not in the name of religion. Do you believe that the leaders of these 'religious' wars actually go home at night and pray to God? None of them are or were religious. Spanish Inquisition, not religious. Fakers. George W, not religious. Faker. Bin Laden, not religious. Faker. Vlair, not religious. Big faker Some of their followers might be religious, but the figureheads who start conflict and destruction are all fakers.
haraven Posted 25 July 2009 Posted 25 July 2009 Maneuvering your life and existence after texts several centuries old with little or no way to scientifically prove anything, seems so passé and "80s".
BoneDog Posted 25 July 2009 Posted 25 July 2009 Yes, that would be a frightening through wouldn't it? If there was no greater meaning with the existence of life, if there wasn't some form of intelligence that created life... If in fact, we were just a result of coincidences, mutations and unpredictable evolution. A product of chance!It's funny how we humans have to make sense of it all It would be a bloody miracle in my opinion! If the balance of gases etc. in the universe were a degree different from what they are then there would be no life at all. But out of the infinite combinations possible, all these elements are perfectly balanced to hold life. So if it was chance, then I would call it a mircale that out of nowhere everything had just 'appeared'.
BoneDog Posted 25 July 2009 Posted 25 July 2009 Anti-Semitism was rife among Germans before the Nazis even came to power largely because of Christian schools teaching children that the Jews killed Christ. Hitler's own Catholic upbringing may well have contributed to his own personal hatred of Jews, ironic when many cite him as an example of 'atheists gone bad.' Hatred of the Jews was a timebomb waiting to go off and Hitler duly detonated it. Adolf couldn't of been that anti-semetic though, cos he did alot of business with Jews and was associates with some of the zionists who later stormed into Palestine and took over villages there. I've always wondered why, if he hated them so much, that he would be associates with some I think there was alot more to WW deuce than we know
BoneDog Posted 25 July 2009 Posted 25 July 2009 Don't know why y'all are wasting your time. I am God because Pete Doherty says I am. who is this Bilo, is it Borats brother?
Edmund Posted 25 July 2009 Posted 25 July 2009 I'm saying that if we didn't have all the polutions and poisons we've got today then, yes, we could live alot longer. And in old times when food was pure, when water was pure and there was no industry or pollution, yes I believe folk could live longer. Long time ago though. How come tribes who live in remote areas who only drink natural water and eat pure food don't live to 200 years?
BoneDog Posted 25 July 2009 Posted 25 July 2009 I don't know how you got it into your head that pollution stops people getting old by the way. The oldest person alive today lives in California, which I'd say is quite a polluted place. Nor do I know where you got that romantic picture of an ancient world from And religion's core message is almost always a beautiful or sensible one, but it's obviously a potent weapon in the wrong hands. History is proof of that. There can be absolutely no question that humans have done atrocious things through the guise of 'religion' But if this person was living in California before any industry or pollution I bet you they would of lived 50 years more. I'm not saying people could live to 700 by the way, cos I don't know about that. I'm just saying it is possible to live at least 80 years on top of what people reach if we had no pollution in water, food, atmosphere etc.
BoneDog Posted 25 July 2009 Posted 25 July 2009 How come tribes who live in remote areas who only drink natural water and eat pure food don't live to 200 years? Chemtrails Only joking. Probably cos most of em now smoke alot of trippy shit ! This weakens the lungs, we are not designed to inhale smoke. Green was put here yes, but meant to be ingested by drink or eating. I'm not preaching cos I smoke green since '91 Plus, alot of these jungle tribes are affected by pollution nowadays. They might live a few hundred miles from any forest work but the pollution spreads through the air. Plus the rivers are polluted in these areas, from logging.
BoneDog Posted 25 July 2009 Posted 25 July 2009 Jesus was a paedo and a pikey. Discuss. woah, woah, woah! You'll go to hell for slandering the Prophets yout. I'm trying to help you here Respect Jesus, he is one of the greatest men to walk our planet I know you only pissin about
shen Posted 25 July 2009 Posted 25 July 2009 It would be a bloody miracle in my opinion! If the balance of gases etc. in the universe were a degree different from what they are then there would be no life at all. But out of the infinite combinations possible, all these elements are perfectly balanced to hold life. So if it was chance, then I would call it a mircale that out of nowhere everything had just 'appeared'. Well no, as a miracle would imply some sort of divine intervention (divine in this sense should read pre-meditated intelligence). It could be a coincidence that life just popped up here in our galaxy. In fact, if you take into consideration the total number of planets and galaxies and the time it took for life to 'appear', the chances that it happened are maybe improbable, but not as minute as you'd think. It just happened to pop up here on our Earth (and maybe elsewhere too), but it could just as well have been any other place.
shen Posted 25 July 2009 Posted 25 July 2009 But if this person was living in California before any industry or pollution I bet you they would of lived 50 years more. I'm not saying people could live to 700 by the way, cos I don't know about that. I'm just saying it is possible to live at least 80 years on top of what people reach if we had no pollution in water, food, atmosphere etc. I'd love to see a source on that by the way. But what you forget is that people would not reach that kind of age without the help of modern health care, sanitation and medicine, hence your point is void.
BoneDog Posted 25 July 2009 Posted 25 July 2009 I'd love to see a source on that by the way.But what you forget is that people would not reach that kind of age without the help of modern health care, sanitation and medicine, hence your point is void. I think they would. Without the pollutions etc. (alot of which we do to oursleves) we would not need healthcare. We might need a surgeon if we had an accident or got a limb chopped off in a fight, but when the world was pure thousands of years ago there was no need for pharmacys. As for the source, I have seen lots of videos by doctors on this stuff. I can find some links tomorrow if you want
shen Posted 25 July 2009 Posted 25 July 2009 I think they would. Without the pollutions etc. (alot of which we do to oursleves) we would not need healthcare. We might need a surgeon if we had an accident or got a limb chopped off in a fight, but when the world was pure thousands of years ago there was no need for pharmacys. As for the source, I have seen lots of videos by doctors on this stuff. I can find some links tomorrow if you want You need to get away from the idea that the world was 'pure'. It wasn't. In fact there have been periods in history with more severe pollution than we see today. And yet again you assume that the ancient man had the knowledge we have today re: cleanliness and sanitation, diets, cures and natural hazards. I'm not saying they were ignorant of these things, but when it comes to sanitation and medicine in particular, things didn't start moving seriously until the 19th century. People died of diarrhea, simple infections or a bad cold! The people had to live off something and there's a reason we treat crops and meat the way we do today: to eliminate or at least minimize health risks caused by the food we consume. Again, the story about the Ten Plagues is actually quite illustrative of the hazards the people faced then.
l444ry Posted 25 July 2009 Posted 25 July 2009 Wars caused by atheists aren't in the name of atheism, there's a world of difference there being conveniently ignored. I never suggested that there have been any wars in the name of atheism. That's just a red herring in this matter. What I am saying is that only 7% of recorded wars have been in the name of religion. Consequently, therefore, the other 93% must have been in the name of all and sundry other reasons.
Guest Bilo Posted 25 July 2009 Posted 25 July 2009 Adolf couldn't of been that anti-semetic though, cos he did alot of business with Jews and was associates with some of the zionists who later stormed into Palestine and took over villages there.I've always wondered why, if he hated them so much, that he would be associates with some I think there was alot more to WW deuce than we know Hitler was virulently anti-Semitic, and any business deals he did with Jews were a means to an end so far as Germany was concerned. He certainly didn't do them to make Jews richer anyway, his ultimate aim was to wipe them off the face of the planet altogether. He may well have some had ties with Zionists but let's not forget that Zionism and Judaism are separate entities and, more importantly, his links with Hajj Amin Al-Husayni were far better documented and far closer than any he may have had with Zionists, an organisation that wished to empower Jews.
Guest Bilo Posted 25 July 2009 Posted 25 July 2009 who is this Bilo, is it Borats brother? That's the idea behind my user name, I've no idea what this T-shirt is all about though. Maybe Pete Doherty reads FoxesTalk and likes my posts.
coale39 Posted 25 July 2009 Posted 25 July 2009 I think they would. Without the pollutions etc. (alot of which we do to oursleves) we would not need healthcare. We might need a surgeon if we had an accident or got a limb chopped off in a fight, but when the world was pure thousands of years ago there was no need for pharmacys. As for the source, I have seen lots of videos by doctors on this stuff. I can find some links tomorrow if you want :laugh:
davieG Posted 25 July 2009 Posted 25 July 2009 Perhaps a more appropriate thread title would be Was Jesus Born! Immaculate conception is hardly related to a normal birth if you are a believer, if you're not the question is still relevant.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.