ParanoidAndroid

Thanks for the response, Shiloh. In keeping with my comments from my last post, I shall not be rehashing arguments that have already been given. It doesn't serve anyone to argue around in circles. Therefore I shall only be discussing here issues that have not yet been raised (or have not yet been adequately dealt with). Thanks to Shiloh for his participation in this debate

What disgusts me about all of this is how all the outrage here is being aimed at the church congregation for allowing such people to worship as members! It took 4 pages of responses before someone even mentioned the crimes of the anti-abortionist killer, and then it took only a page later (page 5) for someone to attempt a moral justification for the killing of an abortion doctor under the guise of "justifiable homicide" (in principle if not in action). And where the condemnation of the event did come, there was often more outrage about how this will affect the Gospel of Jesus rather than the act of murder. Someone earlier stated that "if this is Christianity, I'd rather be an atheist", and in light of what has been said in this thread, I am so close to agreement. Maybe I would not go so far as to claim atheism specifically, but I suspect that was an exaggeration to prove a point. I'm not sure the "Christian" label fits any longer - I certainly do not agree with the pro-choice movement, and indeed view abortion as akin to murder. But at the same time, the rabid fundamentalism I have seen from various Worthy-members since I became a member here has opened a door to something that I just don't recognise as Christ-like. No wonder all those atheists and non-religious people attack me because of my beliefs. They aren't attacking me, they are attacking what they think I represent - the views of bigots who are more outraged by the acceptance of a person at church than with a person who professes to be Christian who takes a gun and shoots someone in cold blood. I need a new title to identify myself to non-Christians that better represents the Faith that Jesus taught and led me to. Where's the Love, because I just can't see it anymore?

No rebuttal, MG. What's the point in responding when those who listen do not really listen? Thanks for the prayers though One can never get enough of the help of the upstairs variety.

I give up. Honestly, I don't even know why I try. Someone else can tell you how contradictory such a statement here is. I'll just leave it and shake my head - I have no time to argue with the wilfully ignorant. All the best,

Remember that 1900 years ago, Christianity was considered a cult also Today this view has obviously changed, but the earliest (1st century AD) prevailing view was that Christianity was simply a cultic offshoot of Judaism. Just a thought

Considering that one of the key definitions of a "cult" is the number of worshippers that is a little problematic. A cult can often be described as a set of beliefs that contradict the status quo. Therefore what constitutes a cult can often be dictated by the prevailing beliefs of the time. When 1/6'th of the world (approximately 1.1 billion people) follow Islam, it cannot be considered as part of a "cult" - the numbers do not permit such a definition. Defining anything as a "cult" is problematic, for more reasons than I have shared. It would be good to find a definition of "cult" that we can all agree on before making such statements. We already have a codified definition of "religion", and despite Islam fitting every one of the seven points in my dictionary some have dismissed it without any real alternative explanation.... ~ PA

So what part of the definitions of "religion" did you disagree with to say that Islam is not a religion? I do understand that you have a very personal dislike of Islamic beliefs, but simply stating that they are a cult does not in any way address the debate.

On what basis are you making such a statement, MG? I've just gone and checked the dictionary definitions of "religion" and every single one of them can be applied to religion in some form or other. However you bend it, Islam is a religion - you may not like it or agree with it, but it is still a religion by definition. Wow; I wrote that post two months ago! At first, I didn't know why you were even asking me such a question! But, now that I've refreshed my memory, islam is a cult. Yes. On what grounds do I say this? They keep adherents by threat of death, they worship a false god, they preach from a false 'Holy Book', they promise sexual favors to the 'faithful' (to the men, anyway), they set up a system of laws and demand complete submission and they teach that all who don't believe are evil and should be killed. Islam is not just a cult; it's the devil's very OWN cult. Sorry, didn't realise you wrote that so long ago. I haven't been around all that often the past few weeks. I misread "Mar 31" to be "May 31". In any case, here is what my Shorter Oxford English Dictionary says about "religion": 1- A state of life bound by monastic vows; the condition of one who is a member of a religious order; the religious life. 2- A particular monastic or religious order or rule; a religious house 3- Action or conduct indicating a belief in, reverence for, and desire to please, a divine ruling power; the exercise or practice of rites or observances implying this; religious rites. 4- A particular system of faith and worship 5 - Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship; the general mental and moral attitude resulting from this belief, with ref. to its effect upon the individual or the community; personal or general acceptance of this feeling as a standard of spiritual and practical life. 6 - Devotion to some principle; strict fidelity or faithfulness; conscientiousness; pious affection or attachment 7 - The religious sanction or obligation of an oath Now let's take these definitions one at a time and compare them to Islam. 1- There are indeed Imams and Sheiks in Islam that fulfil the condition of being a member of a religious order. 2- Sharia law is a form of religious rule, and they are ruled by clerics mentioned in point 1. 3- Muslims act in certain ways that define themselves as followers of a divine ruling power, the rites and practices they perform at Mosque and at home typify this. 4- Islam is most definitely a particular system of faith and worship based on submission to Allah. 5- Muslims believe a higher unseen power has control of their lives and is worthy of obedience, respect, reverence and worship. 6- They are devoted to several principles that strictly govern their way of life. 7- Finally, Muslims are obliged to complete several oaths in their lifetime (eg, pilgrimage to Mecca). By all seven definitions of "religion" in my Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Islam applies. You cannot dismiss it as a religion simply because you don't like what it teaches or how you think/feel it acts towards its followers and enemies. Regards,

People have said the same thing about Christianity - the amount of prisoners adopting Christianity is not inconsequential....

On what basis are you making such a statement, MG? I've just gone and checked the dictionary definitions of "religion" and every single one of them can be applied to religion in some form or other. However you bend it, Islam is a religion - you may not like it or agree with it, but it is still a religion by definition.

That's a fair enough statement, but it would help if you perhaps did both? Quote the material as you did here, and then sign off the material with the source link???? I would certainly like to see where you got the information from Regards, PA

Christianity is still the largest religion in the world, but it is decreasing in numbers slowly (denominations aside - some, such as the Pentecostals are increasing, but overall numbers are decreasing by approximately 1% per year - last time I checked, at least). Islam is the second-largest religion in the world and is growing rapidly. Whether it is the "fastest growing" in the world I think depends largely on where in the world you actually live. In America this is not the case - I don't live there but I have read statistics to show that it is not growing faster than any other belief. Europe, however, is a different story - in Europe, Islam really is the largest growing religion in the world. I don't know how this translates to worldwide statistics, I haven't really looked at specific numbers recently. However, this must be tempered by an understanding of statistics. Remember that "fastest growing" is based on a percentage of adherents. If someone starts a religion and has only one member to begin, if they recruit 4 members, they are increasing at 400%, which makes them probably the fastest growing religion in the world. They still only have 5 members, but would be considered the "fastest growing". Statistics are funny like that - they can change depending on how one uses numbers to their advances. For the question raised in the opening post, it is enough to know they are the second largest religion worldwide, with approximately 1 billion adherents (again, last time I checked).

I was thinking something along the same lines. It always helps to provide support for claims such as this. It must be remembered though that the ancient Hebrew language did not distinguish specific numbers of legs. By stating that they went on four legs, it simply was referring to their ability to walk in fullness of ability. It was never a specific discourse on the scientific minutia of the different animal species.

Whenever one tries to disprove God, it is confusing. I wasn't aware that asking how long the world existed constituted disproving God. It is true I have not read fully through this thread and there may be people specifically arguing that God could not have existed, simply questioning how long our world has existed (and how long humanity has existed within it) does not by itself question the validity of God.

First, I would like to apologise for the delay in this post. Since school has gone back I

Ahh, thanks. I did a search but couldn't find anything that directly addressed this issue. My apologies for quoting something that had already been discussed. Cheers

Under Rumsfeld, Pentagon published Bible verses on top-secret intel reports. In a lengthy article on Donald Rumsfeld

Just an overall observation on the recent two or three pages, but something that seems to stand out as I read it is that some people seem to be posting science that most Christians are unable to respond to, and therefore incapable of answering. The stated implication from several members is then that if these people posted on forums frequented by Scientists well-versed in Creation-theory they would all be hammered back down to size. But - does not the opposite also work? It is true that most here are not Creation Scientists that is also the biggest downfall as well. Since we are not Creation Scientists why do we put so much store in what they have to say? We are not scientists so just like we cannot argue against those who want to beat up on us poor unscientific folk, it also means that we are not qualified and not able to comment on evolutionary science, for the very same reason. Just a thought Regards, PA

Such as? That's the thing, I don't recall now, but I remember seeing them at the time. I think it would likely have been reference to Jesus being a man and not God. Secular biblical historians see the history of early Christianity very differently from what most Christians envisage today. Brown made a number of reference to those views. Just so you know, Brown's "first book" was Angels and Demons. That came out in 2000, followed by the Da Vinci code in 2003. It just so happened that the Da Vinci code was more controversial and thus got more headlines and so people think it came out first. My apologies then for my last post - I was answering on the basis of the historical points raised in the first book. the Da Vinci code is a lot deeper. There are several accuracies and inaccuracies (probably more inaccuracies than Angels and Demons, but since they are both fiction, Dan Brown was quite liberal in the way he twisted events and history to suit the story).

Such as? The details of CERN's research into the particle accelerator was relatively accurate. Remember that this book was written several years before the hullabaloo in the media about the "black hole doomsday device". That only came out close to the activation of the machine, relatively recently. Dan Brown's book, Angels and Demons, came out in 2000 (obviously quite a ways before the media storm). In general, his appraisal of several technologies being studied by CERN research labs is quite historically accurate. With the exception of the prevalence of anti-matter, which he addressed before the start of the book as being a fictitious addition, the major technologies discussed is sound. However, he did creatively subvert several artworks and Galileo's heliocentric model in order to add in his plotline about the importance of ellipses to the Illuminati and other Middle-Ages groups. Other historical elements naturally include the archaeology of modern Rome, the layout of the Vatican, and the heirarchy of the papacy. Though none of this affects theology, it simply is the historical context with which the fictional story was placed. The fate and burial of some of the Saints mentioned in Angels and Demons is something I am not certain of. I'm sure there are other historical accuracies and inaccuracies in that novel, but I'm not an expert in history and couldn't tell all, and of those issues I did notice, apart from those which I obviously pointed out here I don't really remember the text. All the best, nebula ~ PA

Dan Brown is a fiction author - he weaves real events and facts into a fictional story line, and where appropriate changes history to suit the outline of his book. That's not "bad research"! That's writing a fiction novel. The problem seems to have come across because of the controversial subject matter (particularly in the Da Vinci Code - there is no where near the controversy in Angels and Demons). People, particularly the more sceptical of minds, seems to have latched onto the book as if it portrayed actual history without any real engagement with the material. I enjoyed the books, but on a personal level could never get over the historical changes that were made to better fit a storyline. No one of note makes the claim that it's an accurate account of history. As has been mentioned in this thread, Dan Brown specifically points out at the beginning of his novel that the amount of anti-matter spoken of in the text is currently impossible - it seems the author of this particular article has not actually read the book and simply chose to discredit Dan Brown in this issue.

I see what you're saying, but to play Devil's Advocate I have never seen a Christian single out a heterosexual about their premarital sex life. To use an example, I was helping out with a Youth Group a few years back, and one of the issues in our young people there was that of premarital sex. While we were there to give the Bible's view on the issue, we knew most of them weren't Christian - it was a matter of sharing the gospel when and as we could, while drawing a line in the sand to sin (not just premarital sex, but other forms of sin that these young people were engaging in). I wonder whether the actions of the leadership team would have been the same had one or more of the members been having homosexual sex instead of simply heterosexual premarital sex. Since the issue never arose it's a matter of speculation, but going on observations since then I cannot help but feel the reactions would have been different - and much harsher than the response to the situation as it was (would we have spoken about other sins to them, or focused solely on homosexuality?). Just my observations, of course - whether intended or not, many Christians do seem to single out homosexuality as somehow different than other forms of sin and immorality

far be it from me to question your spiritual experiences, but I do not think it is possible to ever give a set of feelings that one should feel when being "filled with the holy spirit/holy ghost". There are many experiences we go through in life that cause us to become excited and filled with joy and gain great insight into - maybe it's the Holy Spirit, maybe it's just your own mind learning something new and exciting. While the Bible does promise us the Holy Spirit and I do believe that many of us do experience the Holy Spirit at one time or another (I can only really recall one event in my life where the Holy Spirit really did take hold), I think if we all looked rationally at what happens in our own lives, much of the time it might just be our own mind becoming excited at the material we are learning and engaging in. Just a thought ~ PA