How many of you believe in God?

College Confidential Community
1281

<p>Amievil: We should all be aloud to criticize everything and anything. However, I take issue with the misconception that Christianity killed three-fourths of the indigenous peoples of Latin America. We have to keep in mind that it was the Spanish colonizers who began slavery and the encomienda system in Latin American and not Roman Catholic officials. RC officials oversought the conversion of the indigenous peoples and actually fought against slavery and torture and cared for the ailing in pre-Latin American society. That is one of the reasons that politicians and large plantations owners are regarded so lowly in Latin American society whereas priests and nuns are regarded with such great esteem. </p>

<p>I find the argument that since the Spanish colonizers were Catholic and brought lethal European diseases to Latin America and indirectly caused the deaths of three-fourths of the indigenous population that some how the Catholic Church and all of Christianity must be held responsible. Diseases and there causes were hardly understoood during this period and it is pretty safe to say the the Spanish colonizers did not purposefully infect the indigenous population. You guys make it sound as if the germs that caused these diseases were Christian and were out to exterminate the indigenous people. That leads me to another question. If the Spanish colonizers were so interested in converting and enslaving the Aztecs/Mayas/Incas then why did they purposefully infect them with lethal diseases? Wouldn't the deaths of three-fourths of the population kind of make it take longer to mine natural resources and provide fewer converts to the Catholic Church?</p>

1282

<p>Everkingly:
Then I wonder why Martin Luther perpetuated the Protestant Reformation (yes, I know others were involved with the PR). His main disagreement with the church was the teaching of salvation by works, thus the manifestation of the 95 theses. I have studied RC doctrine and have friends who are Catholic. Remember the verse: For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that none of yourselves, it is the gift of god, not of WORKS lest any man should boast. The Bible says NOTHING about doing good works to obtain eternal life in heaven. You are correct in saying, however, that we should emulate Jesus Christ in his good actions, but good actions will not save you from eternal condemnation.</p>

1283

<p>trancestorm,</p>

<p>Most of the American natives were killed by smallpox and other communicable diseases to which they had no immunity. This is not me defending the Spaniards, this is me defending the truth.</p>

1284

<p>Justinian I: Yes, the Protest Reformation led by Martin Luther corrected the erroneous interpretation that only good works will attain salvation. The PR also occured about 500 years ago. Times have changed, my friend and the Church now believes that good works and faith attain salvation. You probably have studies RC doctrine of the 1600's or earlier. You might want to do a bit more research so that you do not make such a narrow assumption. Frankly, I don't care that you have Catholic friends just like you probably don't care that I have Protestant friends. The Catholic Church believes that Jesus Christ stands as the greatest example of salvation since He is the only known example of salvation. Thus, we should always emulate Him in terms of His actions and His faith. Now here may be where we disagree. You believe that only faith will attain slavation and I believe that good works and faith will attain salvation. We could debate this for years as have Protestant and Catholic scholars have debated for centuries. This debate would lead nowhere since frankly there are verses and examples from the Bible that justify both claims. So, let's leave that debate to more experienced Biblical scholars. Bottom line: you should correct the statement that Catholics believe that only good actions will allow a person to attain eternal salvation.</p>

1285

<p>UCLAri: I quite agree and I think my statement proves just how weak their argument is: "I find the argument that since the Spanish colonizers were Catholic and brought lethal European diseases to Latin America and indirectly caused the deaths of three-fourths of the indigenous population that some how the Catholic Church and all of Christianity must be held responsible. Diseases and there causes were hardly understoood during this period and it is pretty safe to say the the Spanish colonizers did not purposefully infect the indigenous population. You guys make it sound as if the germs that caused these diseases were Christian and were out to exterminate the indigenous people. That leads me to another question. If the Spanish colonizers were so interested in converting and enslaving the Aztecs/Mayas/Incas then why did they purposefully infect them with lethal diseases? Wouldn't the deaths of three-fourths of the population kind of make it take longer to mine natural resources and provide fewer converts to the Catholic Church?"</p>

1286

<p>First off, a disclaimer: If you know me, you know I'm no friend of blind-faith religion.</p>

<p>That said, I think that there were MANY reasons that the Europeans went over to the New World, and only one of them was evangelism.</p>

1287

<p>UCLAri: When Justinian I and I (everkingly) refer to faith as a requirement of salvation we mean that we have faith that Jesus Christ is our Lord and the son of God. It does not mean that we advocate blind-faith.</p>

<p>I agree and my posts prove that the Spanish conquistadors were trying to expand their empire and increase its wealth and power before they were trying to convert the masses in Latin America.</p>

1288

<p>religion has been exploited throughout history as an reason for war, famine, murder, and ignorance.
examples:
-6 million Jews systematically slaughtered during the Holocaust.
-The Crusades, resulting in the slaughter of 30,000 residents of -Jersusalem at the hands of the Christians, then the Muslims.
-South American takeover, aforementioned.
-Present-day Muslim terrorists, whose intentions are in public decidedly -religious, but also stem from frustration at the Western World.</p>

<p>i think the point those discussing the eradication of the Americas by christianity are trying to make is that religion was an excuse for their greed, and this resulted in the death of the Amerindians. However, many other things have also been rationalized throughout history as a justification for the same aims. It's important to keep in mind that religion is not the source of this problem, but more a contributor.</p>

1289

<p>


</p>

<p>I've been off of this thread for a while, but I have to respond to this because it's so full of crap. If you do some research, you'll realize that everything on that site is an absolute lie made by taking verses from the Quran out of context. So, armed with the power of Google and a copy of the Quran (with translation and commentary by A. Yusuf Ali) I'm going to refute some of the "facts" stated on that silly website.</p>

<hr>

<p>*2)The Rose Nepular as viewed by the Hubble Telescope (It's actually called "The Cat's Eye Nebula") <a href="http://www.bensys.mcmail.com/red_rose_nepular.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.bensys.mcmail.com/red_rose_nepular.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The verse in the link is talking about judgement day, and it's a common belief among muslims, christians, and jews that it will be red and fiery and stuff. There's no need to link it to nebulae.
Either way, that nebulae isn't even red, it's green. The picture on that site is a false color composite. Here's what the nebula actually looks like: <a href="http://www.astro.washington.edu/balick/WFPC2/catseye.jpeg%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.astro.washington.edu/balick/WFPC2/catseye.jpeg&lt;/a>
It doesn't really resemble a rose or ointment does it?
Furthermore, this star didn't explode, it ejected matter into space. And, every nebula has a different shape, so the Sun probanly wouldn't look like this.</p>

<hr>

<p>*3) The Reduction of matter from the Earth's outer layers <a href="http://members.tripod.com/%7EbensG/islam1.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://members.tripod.com/~bensG/islam1.htm&lt;/a>
Here's what the page posted by guguru says:

[quote]
See they not how we visit the land, reducing it of its outlaying parts?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Here's what is actually written in the Quran:

[quote]
See they not that we gradually reduce the land (In their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>These verses aren't talking about the loss of matter as the earth rotates, they're talking about non-muslims losing their land during the prophet's time. You can tell because the pevious verses are also talking about non-muslims.</p>

<hr>

<p>*4) The Rounded shape of the Earth <a href="http://members.tripod.com/%7EbensG/islam2.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://members.tripod.com/~bensG/islam2.htm&lt;/a>

[quote]
And after that he spread the earth.

[/quote]

What the heck is this supposed to be? Their proof is that the word dahaha has two meanings in arabic, "spread" and 'egg-shaped". I've never heard of that meaning, dahaha is very obviously a verb (if you read the verse in Arabic) but egg-shaped is an adjective. But even if dahaha really means egg-shaped, the earth isn't egg-shaped.</p>

<p>Here is what's really in the Quran:

[quote]
And the earth moreover, hath He spread (To a wide expanse)

[/quote]
</p>

<hr>

<p>*5)The development of baby's growth in a mother's womb

[quote]
O mankind! If ye are in doubt concerning the resurection, the lo! We have created you from dust, then from a drop of seed, then from a clot, then from a bite of flesh shapely and shapeless, that We make it clear for you.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Humans don't come from dust, and embryos never resemble a clot. Like I said earlier in this thread, this is just repeating the works of the Greek physician Galen who lived a few hundred years before Muhammed.</p>

<hr>

<p>*6)The Big Bang theory

[quote]
Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then we parted them, and we made every living thing of water.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I really don't see how this relates to the big bang. If we accept that it does describe the big bang, then we have to discard all of the other suras describing the creation of the universe becaue the Quran simply does not coincide with modern cosmology.</p>

<hr>

<p>That stupid site just takes advantage of the vagueness of so many suras. If you read the verses preceding those which state supposed scientific facts, you'll see that they're not talking about science at all. To accept that these suras are presenting scientific facts requires (as I think trancestorm says a lot) feats of mental acrobatics. Apparently muslims are excellent mental gymnasts.</p>

1290

<p>Xe<em>Ln</em>Ag_A,
How can you say that the holocaust was caused by exploitation of a religion. Quite frankly, I find that statement offensive. Adolph Hitler preached that the Jews should be eradicated because they were quite wealthy and owned a majority of the businesses is Germany. Also, Hitler believed that the Jews were the main reason for the Treaty of Versailles which was unfair to the Germans. Once again, religion is the scapecoat of all evil and wrongdoing in society. I am very sorry sir, however you are quite wrong with that blatant assumption!</p>

1291

<p>" The picture on that site is a false color composite. Here's what the nebula actually looks like: <a href="http://www.astro.washington.edu/bal...C2/catseye.jpeg%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.astro.washington.edu/bal...C2/catseye.jpeg&lt;/a>
It doesn't really resemble a rose or ointment does it?
Furthermore, this star didn't explode, it ejected matter into space. And, every nebula has a different shape, so the Sun probanly wouldn't look like this."</p>

<p>The picture they have came from a NASA website because they have the link, which is this <a href="http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap991031.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap991031.html&lt;/a>, and they cannot fake that picture.</p>

<p>"Humans don't come from dust, and embryos never resemble a clot"</p>

<p>It isnt meant to be take word by word.</p>

<p>"Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then we parted them, and we made every living thing of water. "
"I really don't see how this relates to the big bang"</p>

<p>It does make sense, everything was contained in an hydrogen atom, and then it exploded and parted, and every living thing, such as humans, are mainly composed of water.</p>

<p>"What the heck is this supposed to be? Their proof is that the word dahaha has two meanings in arabic, "spread" and 'egg-shaped". I've never heard of that meaning, dahaha is very obviously a verb (if you read the verse in Arabic) but egg-shaped is an adjective. But even if dahaha really means egg-shaped, the earth isn't egg-shaped."</p>

<p>I don't know bout ur argument here, I don't speak arabic. </p>

<p>There were like 15 other verses that you just skipped, and thier interpretations seem very valid.</p>

1292

<p>
[quote]
It isnt meant to be take word by word.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Why is it that when it's convenient, theists ask that scripture be 100% accurate and literal, but when it's inconvenient, interpretation is okay?</p>

<p>
[quote]
It does make sense, everything was contained in an hydrogen atom, and then it exploded and parted, and every living thing, such as humans, are mainly composed of water.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, everything was not contained in a hydrogen atom. It was contained in a gravitational singularity.</p>

1293

<p>I dont get this:</p>

<p>Under Newton's first law, there must have been a force that facilitated the big bang, especially at space, where there are no external forces prevalent. So what caused this force to promote the motion?</p>

1294

<p>First: I don't believe in God; never have, and never will
Second: I really don't care for who ever disagrees
Third: Its pointless having a religion vs reason argument. I have yet to see any person change their stance, so save your breath...
have a nice day :)</p>

1295

<p>
[quote]
I find the argument that since the Spanish colonizers were Catholic and brought lethal European diseases to Latin America and indirectly caused the deaths of three-fourths of the indigenous population that some how the Catholic Church and all of Christianity must be held responsible.

[/quote]
IT was not only the disease factor. Most of the Aztecs/Mayans who died died on the slave labor camps set up by the Europeans...many more died because they failed to convert to christianity (if you read the sources that I presented rather than ignoring them, perhaps you wouldhave seen this). </p>

<p>do not make the mistake of assuming that expansion was only motivated by money. As they said in those times, " For God, Glory, and Gold." Religion was a huge motivating factor. Keep in mind that this was a time when RC was fighting Protestantism and each was trying to impose its way. This is clear motivation. </p>

<p>Consider an ambassador who represents a country. They convey and fight for the interests and views of that country in foreign nations. Similarly, the conquistadors were representatives of christianity to the west. They were commissioned by christian kings to spread the word of god (read columbus' letters to king ferdinand and you can see how religion was one of teh strongest motivations. IT is simply stupid to try and extricate the representatives from the ideal. THe expansion was undoubtedly a christian movement and its reprecussions were due to christian influence.</p>

<p>Furthermore, I find it funny that you attribute the actions of the colonizers to christianity only selectively. When it comes to "spreading morality", then the conquistadores were good representatives of christianity, but when it comes to the consequences of their actions, they no longer represent the christian ideals. This is inconsistent.</p>

<p>Read how many died from forced conversions and slave camps meant to benefit the "christian bringers of morality". How can you say that 20 million dead aztecs was worth the inculcation of morality to the remaining minority. How can you say the christian influence was then beneficial?</p>

1296

<p>In german concentration camps (during world war 2), millions of jews died because of the Nazi concept of the aryan uberman...armed with a superiority complex, nazis sought to exterminate the cultures that were "weaker and less deserving to exist" . This resembles what the christians have done throughout history...christians have destroyed countless numbers of other cultures which they found as savage (as Everkingly himself deemed the Aztecs), immoral, and less deserving to exist. Like the NAzis, Christians throughout history have imposed moral standards and their own cultural standards (forcefully) on groups who were sovereign.</p>

<p>How is the imposition of christian culture on the Aztecs any more justified than the Nazi imposition of culture upon the jews? Did not both the NAzis and Christians hold their counterparts in slave camps and brutally kill millions?</p>

1297

<p>
[quote]
How can you say that the holocaust was caused by exploitation of a religion. Quite frankly, I find that statement offensive

[/quote]

This can be attributed to religious conflict because it was not a crusade against teh merely the rich...it was a crusade against jews, whether rich or poor. If this is not an exploitation of religion, then what is?</p>

1298

<p>
[quote]
It does not mean that we advocate blind-faith.

[/quote]
Speak for yourself everkingly. Justinian has already admitted that his belief in christianity ultimately boils down to an inherent faith.</p>

1299

<p>Religion = faith. How hard is that to understand? You cant prove a faith.</p>

1300

<p>Justinian I, you are an idiot. How on earth can you say that the Holocaust was not religiously motivated? Are you saying that all the rich German's were killed? This is clearly not the case. The Holocaust was an attempt at racial and religious extermination. I also don't see how this could offend you unless you yourself believe in his preaching. If that is the case you have many more problems than the inability to read.</p>