How many of you believe in God?

[everkingly]

<p>sydney_bristow87: Let me guess, you believe that that prophet (who is known as the Advocate (clear difference)) is Muhammed. LOL!</p>

<p>Jesus Christ also repeatedly stated that HE was the son of God. You can not read into too much from two lines and completely discredit the hundreds of references and direct statements Jesus made in order to prove that HE was the son of God. If Muhammed is indeed the Advocate, then he sacreligiously altered the meaning of Jesus Christ’s message.</p>

[everkingly]

<p>“But I tell you the truth, it is better for you that I go. For if I do not go, the Advocate will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes he will convict the world in regard to sin and righteousness and condemnation: sin, because they do not believe in me; righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will no longer see me; condemnation, because the ruler of this world has been condemned.” (John 16: 7-11)</p>

<p>Notice that the term Advocate can not possibly refer to Muhammed because the Advocate reveals himself shortly after Jesus Christ has been condemned and when the Jews do not believe in Him. Muhammed lived 600 years after Jesus Christ when there were plenty of believers of Jesus Christ. The term Advocate is used alsewhere in the Bible to refer to the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit appeared to the apostles shortly after Jesus Christ’s death which fits the meaning of these lines much more closely. Sorry, most Muslims have been trying to prove your case that Jesus prophesized the coming of Muhammed but their arguments have always failed.</p>

[311Griff]

<p>

@everkingly

311Griff: Only Mormons regard John Smith as a prophet. Jesus Christ also warned that he was the last prophet and only false prophets would follow him. That is why most Christians believe that Muhammed and Joseph Smith are false prophets.</p>

<hr>

<p>Last edited by everkingly : Today at 09:36 PM.

</p>

<p>Yes, everkingly, John Smith is what you wrote. And quite frankly, you need to chill… you’re posts are getting progressively huffier, and puffier over stuff you CAN’T prove.</p>

[everkingly]

<p>311Griff: Sorry, about my typo. It happens to the best of us. Did I ever correct that? I usually correct my mistakes.</p>

<p>And quite frankly, I think you need to chill. You’re the one that says I have no proof when you have never given any proof. If you’re able to criticize me for not providing adequate support, then I should have the same right.</p>

[everkingly]

<p>Trancestorm: You sure do talk a lot of game. Yesterday, you told me that you were going to prove me wrong and yet you have completely evaded my brilliant post about how the Church actually improved the plight of the Mayans and Aztecs. You’re a real disappointment.</p>

[amievil]

<p>Then please answer this:</p>

<p>

So if a person with good morals derived from a source other than religion had come in contact with the Aztecs and Mayas, it can be said that those said “uncivilized” civilizations would’ve gained all the benefits of morality without suffering the violence from those that came in the name of God, correct?

</p>

[311Griff]

<p>

And quite frankly, I think you need to chill. You’re the one that says I have no proof when you have never given any proof.

</p>

<p>Am I arguing with you? Am I trying to provide an argument where I need to back something up? I simply stated that religious arguments are lame, IMO, nothing more, nothing less. Oh, and a little tidbit of observation about an article, plus some facts about a particular religious sect. From that point on, what am I arguing, why do I need to provide proof? Nobody has proof of this stuff, it’s all just argument.</p>

[everkingly]

<p>Amievil: Yes, it is theoretically possible. Keep in mind that the Mayans and Aztecs were extremely religious and would probably never have left their religions for a simple set of moral values.</p>

[trancestorm]

<p>

I stand by my statement that the Church enlightened the Mayans and Aztecs. The Mayans and Aztecs were indeed blood-thirsty and practiced disgusting rituals that entailed human sacrifices.

Except that you have yet to define enlightened thought and why christian belief values are inherently more justified than those of the Mayans and Aztecs.</p>

<p>

I also base many of my beliefs in Christianity based upon logical reasoning and the scientific basis of miracles.

HAHAHA…scientific basis of miracles…thats a good one.</p>

<p>

Trancestorm: Did I stump you (no offense)?

no sir…do not mistake my silence for defeat; Like you, I have homework that is more important than this thread.</p>

<p>

I stand by my statement that the Church enlightened the Mayans and Aztecs. The Mayans and Aztecs were indeed blood-thirsty and practiced disgusting rituals that entailed human sacrifices.

</p>

<p>That is subjective and digressing from the point…the point is that you explicitly said that : </p>

<p>

Mayans and Aztec were blood-thirsty savages who sacrificed millions of individuals. Would you want such a religion to survive.

</p>

<p>Such is the inherent flaw of christian assumption. That, your beliefs are stronger. What you have said here is much more egocentric…you have not only said that your beliefs are better, but you advocate the imposition of your beliefs…violently. Since when were christians endowed with the right to discern which religions live and which religions die? Playing god in the name of god. What is your standard for determining which religion can live and which can die? Perhaps their customs seem brutal to the outsider, but that gives you no right to impose upon their sovereignty…it is not as if their citizens were crying out for help and it certainly cannot be said that Christianity helped the Aztec. That pretty much sums up the christian attitude right there…my way or no way. RESPOND TO THIS!!! DO NOT EVADE IT LIKE YOU COMMONLY DO TO MY POINTS. By the way, you still have not shown me how I was illogical.</p>

[amievil]

<p>

Yes, it is theoretically possible. Keep in mind that the Mayans and Aztecs were extremely religious and would probably never have left their religions for a simple set of moral values.

</p>

<p>So basically, this amazing feat was accomplished not because the religion was specifically Christianity, but because that’s what came, right?</p>

<p>Then this is not an argument in favor of Christianity. It just makes the fact arbitrary.</p>

[trancestorm]

<p>

Trancestorm, I strongly disagree with your accusation of Christianity as the extingusihing factor for the destruction the Mayas and Aztecs.

then you are at odds with most credible historians of modern time</p>

<p><a href=“http://muweb.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/scott-m.html[/url]”>http://muweb.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/scott-m.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

The encomienda system, no matter how it originated, became a monster with a voracious appetite for Indian lives. The system set a precedent for the treatment and esteem for the Indian population in the Americans, and the fight against it was an uphill battle that was never quite won. In fact, one could even argue that the encomienda system never died off, that it merely evolved and took on new forms, like that of American slavery.

</p>

<p>Sure…under christianity the aztecs had their morals covered, but under their tribal religions, at least they had their lives.</p>

<p>There is no doubt that slave labor by christian occupying forces drove the Aztecs/Mayans to near extinction (the rest were virtually acculturated). Everkingly states that slavery was outlawed by the kings in europe…true, but there is a difference from what the christians ordered happened and what the christian occupying forces carried out. Either way, it is a fault of christianity.</p>

<p>

Have you looked at my lengthy post that completely shreds trancestorm’s comments to bits?

Now that is just plain cocky…i could understand if you actually beat me, but a failure to reply within a day does not mean I concede.</p>

[Xe_Ln_Ag_A]

<p>the real reason for the demise of the Maya/Inca/Aztec states was the diseases that the Europeans brought with them, smallpox in particular.
within 25 years of their arrival the AMerindians had lost over 75% of their population to European diseases, thus making them too weak to fend off the conquistadores, the catholic church, and the encomienda system.</p>

<p>by extension the Catholic Conquistadores can be blamed for the destruction of those civilizations, and thus Christianity and the belief that it was their duty to moralize the “natives” was responsible for the death of over 15 million inhabitants of the Americas.</p>

[trancestorm]

<p>

So basically, this amazing feat was accomplished not because the religion was specifically Christianity, but because that’s what came, right?</p>

<p>Then this is not an argument in favor of Christianity. It just makes the fact arbitrary.

THe ambitions of the kings who funded the expeditions were to promote christianity throughout the new world (in addition to the economic, stategic factors). Therefore, Christianity has much to do with it.</p>

<p>

Trancestorm: You sure do talk a lot of game. Yesterday, you told me that you were going to prove me wrong and yet you have completely evaded my brilliant post

First off, never underestimate me. Second off, do not overestimate youself. </p>

<p>

about how the Church actually improved the plight of the Mayans and Aztecs. You’re a real disappointment.

</p>

<p>Perhaps you would like some sources…We can both agree that a loss of life of Aztecs is not beneficial to the Aztecs? Your statement also inherently implies that the colonization of the Aztec territory was a christian movement (with christian motives)…you definitely just said “the church improved…”. </p>

<p>let me list sources…take a second to read them before you go off claiming that the Aztecs were not decimated by europeans.</p>

<p><a href=“http://muweb.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/scott-m.html[/url]”>http://muweb.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/scott-m.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p><a href=“http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/latinamerica/topics/spanish_conquest.html...read[/url]”>http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/latinamerica/topics/spanish_conquest.html...read&lt;/a&gt; this passage

During the late 16th century, 200,000 Spaniards immigrated into South America. Quickly the landscape of South America began to change, with imported plants, large sugar plantations, vast estates, and imported animals over-taking the native landscape. Bureaucracy and government also took hold quickly in South America. The Spanish established the encomiendas, where the government granted conquerors the right to employ groups of Indians. The encomiendas, in truth were a form of legalized slavery. Relegated to practical slave labor within sugar cane plantations and mining caves, the native population of Peru declined from 1.3 million in 1570, to 600,000 in 1620. In Meso-America the circumstances were no different. The population of Indians went from 25.3 million in 1519, to a scant 1 million in 1605. Though forced labor played the largest part in the decimation of the Incan and Aztec, disease is by no means minor within this time frame. Widespread epidemics of small pox and other diseases were not uncommon, and claimed the lives of millions. On the psychological front, historians and psychologists have offered another reason for the decimation of the Incan and Aztec populations, namely the Indians had lost the will to survive. With the extreme and quick loss of culture, accompanied by the pressure of Christian missionaries and laws preventing the practice of any form of native religion (if they did there were strong repercussions even death), the Indians were, by all means, slaves to the Spaniard immigrants. 

</p>

<p>Perhaps you need a refresher on euro history?</p>

[amievil]

<p>I’m not even arguing with you; please do not respond to me, unless you would like to go through the ordeal of tracing my posts to see my actual point instead of taking one post out of context.</p>

[DRab]

<p>Everkingly, what kind of truly persuassive essay is going to post “only one side”?</p>

[neverborn]

<p>everkingly: I don’t have much respect for religion or see any obligation to respect religion. Why, exactly, should I?</p>

[pianoman]

<p>I am amused by the fact that people are forgetting the most damaging example of unrestrained Christianity: the middle ages.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>Pianoman? From the UCLA forums?</p>

[system]

<p>Pianoman: Although Christianity was at its low during the Middle Ages,
roman catholicism was the predominant from of Christianity during this time. The RC doctrine, in my opinion, is absolutely absurd in some of its teachings. For example, RC mandates salvation by works only;this facet completely goes against the Bible. This whole thread seems to prey on the deficiencies of Rc church and that is fine with me. Methodism and protestantism are completely different and correlate with Scripture. Please do not associate all Christianity with Roman Catholicism.</p>

[Biff]

<p>To all of you atheists out there, if you believe what you believe, then answer me this:</p>

<p>In a world with no God, what is the meaning of life, why are you alive, and what happens to you after you die?</p>