# God and MMA



## acoldone (Oct 15, 2006)

Anyone notice how many Jesus/God mentions there were from the winners of UFC 68? I know this can be a touchy subject but man does that make me crack a smile. How bloody hypocritical to think God helped you pound the crap out of someone. Isn't the Christian motto to "Turn the other cheek?" I just wish they would keep it to themselves or if not, why not be fair and blame God when they lose? 

"I'd like to curse God, Jesus and the holy spirit for letting me down during one of the most important fights of my life! Petooowee [SPITS]" :dunno: 

Some of the biggest jackasses are "Christians". Almost like they use it as a "I can do no wrong" shield. Of course there are nice Christians as well, but these guys really look ridiculous when they go on about the stuff. Keep it to yourself you friggen bible-thumping, country breakfast eating hillbillies.  I don't watch UFC to be reminded of my evil ways and what a bad heathen I am.


----------



## Bonnar426 (Jul 18, 2006)

If fighters want to thank Jesus for helping them win a fight, I won't fault them for it. That's just thier believe! I will agree that some do come off as a little arrogant..ahem...ahem...Matt Hughes. But I think that comes from him winning so much that it went to his head. Nothing really do to with God he just got too arrogant for his own good.


----------



## SHIN2DADOME (Nov 20, 2006)

This is probably in the top three of the most stupid threads Ive ever read.


----------



## Damone (Oct 1, 2006)

Though I think it's a little strange, I have no problem with fighters thanking God after fights. Fighting is a mental game, and you have to supply food for your family. However, it's sort of creepy to see another guy destroy another, and then say "Thank you, Jesus!" afterwards.


----------



## Organik (Aug 28, 2006)

i dunno... i think they take it to far..

someone should thank satan for fueling them with the energy to hurt people


----------



## acoldone (Oct 15, 2006)

Damone said:


> Though I think it's a little strange, I have no problem with fighters thanking God after fights. Fighting is a mental game, and you have to supply food for your family. However, it's sort of creepy to see another guy destroy another, and then say "Thank you, Jesus!" afterwards.


He he. That was my point. I guess the thing is we had Franklin, Matt, Lambert, and Couture all plug God (maybe more?). Seemed more than I saw during any UFC. Quite the religious fest.


----------



## acoldone (Oct 15, 2006)

SHIN2DADOME said:


> This is probably in the top three of the most stupid threads Ive ever read.


And yet you felt compelled to contribute. You must be bored.


----------



## acoldone (Oct 15, 2006)

Organik said:


> i dunno... i think they take it to far..
> 
> someone should thank satan for fueling them with the energy to hurt people


There you go that's the spirit.  Why does God get all the credit?


----------



## e-thug (Jan 18, 2007)

Lambert went a lil over the top. If they throw it in at the beginning that is fine, but Lambert made multiple comments.


----------



## ZeroPRIDE (Apr 12, 2006)

Some people i know who are christians might have a problem with it. But its not like they watch MMA anyway. I too am a christian i have very little problem with it. If it puts food on there table who am i to judge. AS the bible says those without sin cast the first stone.


----------



## I.P.Freely (Dec 27, 2006)

The US is a very religious country. I think it has one of the highest levels of belief in god and churchgoing of any Western country. This probably isn't true of most of the people who post here, but there's also a certain U.S. style of religiousness... a lot of people are really serious about the literal existence of Good and Evil, and a lot of religious people tend to think that God has an active plan for everyone. Hence what you're getting from Hughes et. al.

I'm not a Dana-basher or Dana-conspiracy theorist- I think the guy is great- but it wouldn't surprise me at all if Dana has let it be known that he's very happy to hear Christians (or anyone) thanking God after a win. He's very concerned about mainstream acceptability. And why not? Rightish campaigners had nearly driven the UFC off TV entirely before Zuffa bought it.


----------



## notoriousviv (Sep 24, 2006)

What I don't understand is why anyone would care what another person believes, or how they express their beliefs, enough to come on a message board and make a topic about it. Whenever the issue of religion comes up, I hear people make the argument, "Well, most wars started over religion." No, most wars start over people who can't accept someone else's religion, or what someone else believes. Let the fighters believe whatever they want, and express that belief however they want. It's not like it's hurting you any.


----------



## O'BriensBud (Jan 26, 2007)

Its a sport, first a fore most. Its not like your beating the crap out of a person to be evil. You are doing it as a sport and both people generally have no ill will towards the other after a fight. When a football player scores a TD and goes down to one knee, did God really help him score that TD? Or is he just thanking god for giving him the ability that he has and the opportunity to do what he loves. I have no problem with fighters thanking God for giving them their talent and keeping them safe in the cage. Its better than Lance Armstrong when asked about how God helped him through cancer, he said God had nothing to do with it, it was all me.


----------



## Rambler14 (Jul 10, 2006)

Adora said:


> Some people i know who are christians might have a problem with it. But its not like they watch MMA anyway. I too am a christian i have very little problem with it. If it puts food on there table who am i to judge. AS the bible says those without sin cast the first stone.


Exactly.

All we see out of these people's lives are 10-15 minute snapshots 3-4 times a year. None of us know what kind of role God plays in these people's lives... whether they are devoted to the Word or not, bible study, going to church, going on mission trips, etc.


----------



## I.P.Freely (Dec 27, 2006)

notoriousviv said:


> What I don't understand is why anyone would care what another person believes, or how they express their beliefs, enough to come on a message board and make a topic about it. Whenever the issue of religion comes up, I hear people make the argument, "Well, most wars started over religion." No, most wars start over people who can't accept someone else's religion, or what someone else believes. Let the fighters believe whatever they want, and express that belief however they want. It's not like it's hurting you any.


I think wars start for many, many reasons- religion and intolerance are just two of them. The two biggest wars (WWI and WWII) just started because two big powers messed up, misjudged eachothers intentions and ended up having to fight eachother. And of course many are simply greed- trying to seize fat juicy bits of lads and oil fields and so on. 

'Intolerance' being the causes of most wars is just as much of a myth as religion being the cause.


----------



## Rubiness (Jun 27, 2006)

God is undefeated. I never hear the loser thank God.


----------



## Damone (Oct 1, 2006)

I was going to make a Fedor joke, but I think I'll refrain from typing it.


----------



## EC_Raider_07 (May 10, 2006)

acoldone said:


> Anyone notice how many Jesus/God mentions there were from the winners of UFC 68? I know this can be a touchy subject but man does that make me crack a smile. How bloody hypocritical to think God helped you pound the crap out of someone. Isn't the Christian motto to "Turn the other cheek?" I just wish they would keep it to themselves or if not, why not be fair and blame God when they lose?
> 
> "I'd like to curse God, Jesus and the holy spirit for letting me down during one of the most important fights of my life! Petooowee [SPITS]" :dunno:
> 
> Some of the biggest jackasses are "Christians". Almost like they use it as a "I can do no wrong" shield. Of course there are nice Christians as well, but these guys really look ridiculous when they go on about the stuff. Keep it to yourself you friggen bible-thumping, country breakfast eating hillbillies.  I don't watch UFC to be reminded of my evil ways and what a bad heathen I am.


Wow, some people REALLY will ***** about anything...

If religion is giving people motivation and something to work and live for, what harm can it do? And they're not "beating" someone's face in in a bad way. They're participating in a sport. God doesn't look down on football players, does he?

I bet you boo when fighters go to the ground, don't you?


----------



## LV 2 H8 U (Nov 7, 2006)

The question in general is very thought provoking..Is it uncristian like to fight?
I know many many "church goers" who fight, are they cristians?
Am I not because I fight?
HMMMM....


----------



## Pokkie (Oct 16, 2006)

LV 2 H8 U said:


> The question in general is very thought provoking..Is it uncristian like to fight?
> I know many many "church goers" who fight, are they cristians?
> Am I not because I fight?
> HMMMM....



It is unchristian like to fight since the concept of christianity is to turn the other cheek. In any case, its not that anyone's debating whether or not these people are christians, its more of people are saying that you shouldn't use the lord's name to justify something he wouldn't want. 

MMA fighters fight for themselves or their families, they don't fight for God. Much in the same way if I were to join some kind of Roshambo contest and won and said "I'd like to thank god for helping me win". Cause i'm sure God is up there blessing me with the power to kick people's nuts in for a few bucks. 

Yeah you have the right to say it, and no, not really anything wrong besides it being really odd to hear, and i think that's all the person who started this thread is trying to say.


----------



## <M>MA (Nov 20, 2006)

If a man wrongs you the bible says to turn the other cheek. What these guys do they train for and its a competition of technique and physical prowess. Nothing they do in my opinion would contradict what the Bible says other then the trash talking.


----------



## All-Star (Feb 27, 2007)

Sometimes having too much faith in God can be a downfall.

Just look at Matt Hughes for example, his excuse was that he _believed_ that it was his night to win. Obviously God (nor GSP) thought so ...


----------



## attention (Oct 18, 2006)

God helps those who help themselves.

God does not help one succeed and not help the other.

Im waiting for a mma fighter of Muslim faith to be victorious and thank Allah... then we can see how well or poorly this is accepted....
...Chances are it will be boo'd


----------



## acoldone (Oct 15, 2006)

EC_Raider_07 said:


> Wow, some people REALLY will ***** about anything...
> 
> If religion is giving people motivation and something to work and live for, what harm can it do? And they're not "beating" someone's face in in a bad way. They're participating in a sport. God doesn't look down on football players, does he?
> 
> I bet you boo when fighters go to the ground, don't you?


Actually no I don't boo. I actually don't like it when UFC fans boo for no apparent reason in my mind. The ground game is part of MMA. 

My point was it seemed a bit excessive this last UFC 68 and some people did mention it seemed a bit over the top. I'm not cursing and swearing because they do it. I just find it ironic and humourous more than anything. I guess I should have been more generous with the smilies.


----------



## acoldone (Oct 15, 2006)

Pokkie said:


> It is unchristian like to fight since the concept of christianity is to turn the other cheek. In any case, its not that anyone's debating whether or not these people are christians, its more of people are saying that you shouldn't use the lord's name to justify something he wouldn't want.
> 
> MMA fighters fight for themselves or their families, they don't fight for God. Much in the same way if I were to join some kind of Roshambo contest and won and said "I'd like to thank god for helping me win". Cause i'm sure God is up there blessing me with the power to kick people's nuts in for a few bucks.
> 
> Yeah you have the right to say it, and no, not really anything wrong besides it being really odd to hear, and i think that's all the person who started this thread is trying to say.


Thanks. You hit the nail on the head.


----------



## Tango87 (Oct 17, 2006)

acoldone said:


> Anyone notice how many Jesus/God mentions there were from the winners of UFC 68? I know this can be a touchy subject but man does that make me crack a smile. How bloody hypocritical to think God helped you pound the crap out of someone. Isn't the Christian motto to "Turn the other cheek?" I just wish they would keep it to themselves or if not, why not be fair and blame God when they lose?
> 
> "I'd like to curse God, Jesus and the holy spirit for letting me down during one of the most important fights of my life! Petooowee [SPITS]" :dunno:
> 
> Some of the biggest jackasses are "Christians". Almost like they use it as a "I can do no wrong" shield. Of course there are nice Christians as well, but these guys really look ridiculous when they go on about the stuff. Keep it to yourself you friggen bible-thumping, country breakfast eating hillbillies.  I don't watch UFC to be reminded of my evil ways and what a bad heathen I am.


Actually Matt Hughes claimed that he didn't have any angels with him in the GSP loss so he blamed God lol. I just blame his skill level and the fact that GSP is much better then him.

Yeah people should praise themselves for a hard work ethic, not some obscure being that no one has ever physically seen...


----------



## Tango87 (Oct 17, 2006)

attention said:


> Im waiting for a mma fighter of Muslim faith to be victorious and thank Allah... then we can see how well or poorly this is accepted....
> ...Chances are it will be boo'd


Wow that would be AMAZING! I would love to see that! If in the US, the fans would literally have a shit!


----------



## Aaronyman (Mar 1, 2007)

in every sport, it's only the Christians that seem to get blasted by agnostics and atheists... if a muslim thanked God, then that would be more than welcome, but if a Christian like Couture thanks the Lord Jesus Christ for dying for our sins I think that's wonderful. Spread the Word brother!


----------



## speedythief (Sep 23, 2006)

One of the strangest moments relating to this topic, for me, was to see Randy Couture claim the first reason he believes so much in America is because Jesus Christ died for [our] sins. (The second reason was the American GI who died for [our] freedom).

You believe in America because of Jesus Christ?

Am I the only one missing the connection he's making?


----------



## Aaronyman (Mar 1, 2007)

he said specifically he believed in America because of Jesus Christ?


----------



## speedythief (Sep 23, 2006)

Aaronyman said:


> he said specifically he believed in America because of Jesus Christ?


Right after his win.

Quote:

"I'd like to dedicate this fight... something was said to me recently... goes, 'why do you believe in America so much?' And the answer was, two people, Jesus Christ who stood up and died for our sins, and the American GI that steps up and dies for our freedom on a daily basis. This fight is for them."


----------



## Aaronyman (Mar 1, 2007)

perhaps he meant it because the US is a Christian nation, derived from Christian ideals. So he believes in the US because of it is founded upon Christianity.

I think he just wanted to mention his Christianity and how it is a big part of his life.


----------



## CroCopPride (Jan 13, 2007)

acoldone said:


> Anyone notice how many Jesus/God mentions there were from the winners of UFC 68? I know this can be a touchy subject but man does that make me crack a smile. How bloody hypocritical to think God helped you pound the crap out of someone. Isn't the Christian motto to "Turn the other cheek?" I just wish they would keep it to themselves or if not, why not be fair and blame God when they lose?
> 
> "I'd like to curse God, Jesus and the holy spirit for letting me down during one of the most important fights of my life! Petooowee [SPITS]" :dunno:
> 
> Some of the biggest jackasses are "Christians". Almost like they use it as a "I can do no wrong" shield. Of course there are nice Christians as well, but these guys really look ridiculous when they go on about the stuff. Keep it to yourself you friggen bible-thumping, country breakfast eating hillbillies.  I don't watch UFC to be reminded of my evil ways and what a bad heathen I am.


lol me and my friends were watching the last ufc and 
it was like every guy who won would be like "thank god"


----------



## speedythief (Sep 23, 2006)

Aaronyman said:


> perhaps he meant it because the US is a Christian nation, derived from Christian ideals. So he believes in the US because of it is founded upon Christianity.
> 
> I think he just wanted to mention his Christianity and how it is a big part of his life.


If he had said, ''I believe in America because America believes in Jesus Christ,'' then what he said would mean what you think he meant. Maybe you are right. It is just such a convoluted way of getting his point across.


----------



## Rambler14 (Jul 10, 2006)

Aaronyman said:


> in every sport, it's only the Christians that seem to get blasted by agnostics and atheists... if a muslim thanked God, then that would be more than welcome, but if a Christian like Couture thanks the Lord Jesus Christ for dying for our sins I think that's wonderful. Spread the Word brother!


Exactly.


----------



## kds13 (Nov 27, 2006)

The key to this thread is: *To each his own.* 


If a fighter wants to thank God, let him. It must be where he draws his strength and willpower from, so why wouldn't he thank him?

Each person has a different belief set and they shouldn't be denigrated for them.


----------



## EC_Raider_07 (May 10, 2006)

I agree. Let them thank who they want. If someone came out tommorow and said Thank Allah, or Nick Diaz said thanks Satan, I wouldn't think any less of them. And, yes, I do believe in christanity.

<Disclaimer: To my knowledge, Nick Diaz does not worship Satan.>


----------



## Hopperman (Oct 15, 2006)

Aaronyman said:


> perhaps he meant it because the US is a Christian nation, derived from Christian ideals. So he believes in the US because of it is founded upon Christianity.
> 
> I think he just wanted to mention his Christianity and how it is a big part of his life.



Just so you know the USA is not a christian nation and was not formed as a christian nation. The men who wrote the constitituion and formed this nation ( Thomas jefferson, Ben franklin)were not christians they were Diest. they understood there is a God, but were not christians, this nations was formed on Basic christian princilples. that dosnt mean christianity, a basic christian principle is simply (it is wrong to steal). which most people agree with.

I am a very strong christian, but our nation is not and was never intended to be a christian nation.


----------



## acoldone (Oct 15, 2006)

Tango87 said:


> Actually Matt Hughes claimed that he didn't have any angels with him in the GSP loss so he blamed God lol. I just blame his skill level and the fact that GSP is much better then him.
> 
> Yeah people should praise themselves for a hard work ethic, not some obscure being that no one has ever physically seen...


My sentiments exactly. Why can't people be proud it was their hard work and dedication that got them where they are? These guys spend a hell of a lot of time training. If God gives them the strength to work through it then great. But really you could get the same thing from believing in yourself.

The Armstrong comment about him saying he was responsible for beating cancer seems very honest to me. I respect that.


----------



## ZeroPRIDE (Apr 12, 2006)

If a fighter wants to thank God, let him. It must be where


> he draws his strength and willpower from, so why wouldn't he thank him?
> 
> Each person has a different belief set and they shouldn't be denigrated for them


Exactly repped


----------



## ZeroPRIDE (Apr 12, 2006)

> My sentiments exactly. Why can't people be proud it was their hard work and dedication that got them where they are? These guys spend a hell of a lot of time training. If God gives them the strength to work through it then great. But really you could get the same thing from believing in yourself.


Theres nothing wrong of being proud of your self as long as you remember him helping you.(if you believe in him).If they ask for a blessing from God(the people who thanked God, im sure they did ask before the fight) you have to meet him half way. If you work hard he'll do the rest. 



> The Armstrong comment about him saying he was responsible for beating cancer seems very honest to me. I respect that.


Im not sure if hes is a Christian or not,but i have to respect it also. IF he is a believer then i would have a problem./


----------



## EC_Raider_07 (May 10, 2006)

Hopperman said:


> Just so you know the USA is not a christian nation and was not formed as a christian nation. The men who wrote the constitituion and formed this nation ( Thomas jefferson, Ben franklin)were not christians they were Diest. they understood there is a God, but were not christians, this nations was formed on Basic christian princilples. that dosnt mean christianity, a basic christian principle is simply (it is wrong to steal). which most people agree with.
> 
> I am a very strong christian, but our nation is not and was never intended to be a christian nation.


Just because Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were not christians does not mean this nation was not founded on christianity.

The entire reason for the start of the American colonies was freedom of religion. European leaders were forcing whole religion, which people didn't want to deal with.

Also, almost all presidents were Christians. So, don't say because 2 people weren't christians, that this country wasn't started based on christanity.


----------



## kds13 (Nov 27, 2006)

EC_Raider_07 said:


> Just because Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were not christians does not mean this nation was not founded on christianity.
> 
> The entire reason for the start of the American colonies was freedom of religion. European leaders were forcing whole religion, which people didn't want to deal with.
> 
> Also, almost all presidents were Christians. So, don't say because 2 people weren't christians, that this country wasn't started based on christanity.


You're missing the point. This nation was founded on Christian principles, such as dont steal, murder, etc. These are basically just moral principles. But the religion factor that this nation was founded on was not Christian. More of the nation was Christian, but the nation was founded on religious freedom, not a specific religion.


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

EC_Raider_07 said:


> Just because Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were not christians does not mean this nation was not founded on christianity.
> 
> The entire reason for the start of the American colonies was freedom of religion. European leaders were forcing whole religion, which people didn't want to deal with.
> 
> Also, almost all presidents were Christians. So, don't say because 2 people weren't christians, that this country wasn't started based on christanity.


actually, it was founded on Masonic principles... not Christian. the majority of the most prominant founding fathers spoke and wrote openly that religion has no buisness in politics and that it should have no bearing on society!!!

to say that the "principles" found in christianity are somehow unique to, and unatainable without christianity is blatant theocentricity and willful ignorance of human potential. religion does not provide morals or ethics, it is simply an institutionalized mandate of those natural laws we would come about in society without it. no matter what you believe, even if God created everything, he didn't build a church. humanity came about the institution of religion--independant of spirituality--and transformed it into a system of actions which can easiliy be upheld by threatening eternal suffering. 

Since this thread seems to have diverged from the matter of athletes--and for that matter, anyone--thanking "God" for non-spectacular human ahievment, i won't comment on it. I've already said my fill on that subject a number of times.


----------



## highlander (Dec 31, 2006)

watitdo, good work you wasted your time and ours and got yourself banned - pretty sad. Go find something useful to do.


----------



## milkkid291 (Dec 31, 2006)

The reason why Couture said what he said is because he knows God loves The US so thats why we are the number 1 country in the world


----------



## Hopperman (Oct 15, 2006)

EC_Raider_07 said:


> Just because Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were not christians does not mean this nation was not founded on christianity.
> 
> The entire reason for the start of the American colonies was freedom of religion. European leaders were forcing whole religion, which people didn't want to deal with.
> 
> Also, almost all presidents were Christians. So, don't say because 2 people weren't christians, that this country wasn't started based on christanity.



Thomas Jefferson was the key person in forming our nation ( by writing the constitution) so if he wasnt a christian why would he make our nation something he dose not believe in?? 

It was from freedom of religion yes but that dosnt make it a christian nation. Im pretty sure there are more than one religion out there so just because they wanted freedom to worship dosnt mean they were christians.

What dose is matter if the presidents are christians? they didnt form this nation. America is a very religious nation yes but it is not a CHRISTIAN NATION and was never intended to be. THomas jefferson himself even wrote letters to John Adams saying this very same thing. and i need to show you then i certainly will


----------



## GMW (Nov 15, 2006)

Bonnar426 said:


> If fighters want to thank Jesus for helping them win a fight, I won't fault them for it. That's just thier believe! I will agree that some do come off as a little arrogant..ahem...ahem...Matt Hughes. But I think that comes from him winning so much that it went to his head. Nothing really do to with God he just got too arrogant for his own good.


I find it funny he thought that since if god made him win that is pretty clearly conflicting with free will.


----------



## WouldLuv2FightU (Jul 17, 2006)

Wow, 5 pages and no one has said this!

Matt Hughes did not so much as MENTION God in his post fight with Rogan. He said nothing about him at all! Can you believe it!? Watch again I'm pretty sure he didn't say a word.

Also, need I remind everyone who the first person was to instill separation of church and state? Carl Marx ring a bell??? Sounds like we have some commies in here lol.


----------



## All-Star (Feb 27, 2007)

WouldLuv2FightU said:


> Wow, 5 pages and no one has said this!
> 
> Matt Hughes did not so much as MENTION God in his post fight with Rogan. He said nothing about him at all! Can you believe it!? Watch again I'm pretty sure he didn't say a word.
> 
> Also, need I remind everyone who the first person was to instill separation of church and state? Carl Marx ring a bell??? Sounds like we have some commies in here lol.


That's true. However, it is most likely due to the shock of losing (getting kicked in the head did not help either) the fight that he was sort of speechless. He did not really say much in his post-fight interview with Rogan.

I cannot remember whether it was in his blog or in the press conference, but he said that coming into this fight, he believed he was suppose to win. He also said something about that if God had not planned for him to win, that he was fine with it.

Not verbatim, but something along those lines.


----------



## *IceMAn* (Sep 27, 2006)

What krazy is billy rush prayin in a huddle wit mfs before their fights be like "let tghose who trained the hardest win" and sh!t like that.


----------



## WouldLuv2FightU (Jul 17, 2006)

All-Star said:


> That's true. However, it is most likely due to the shock of losing (getting kicked in the head did not help either) the fight that he was sort of speechless. He did not really say much in his post-fight interview with Rogan.
> 
> I cannot remember whether it was in his blog or in the press conference, but he said that coming into this fight, he believed he was suppose to win. He also said something about that if God had not planned for him to win, that he was fine with it.
> 
> Not verbatim, but something along those lines.


No no, I'm talking about this last fight with Lytle. He never got scratched in that fight. He went up to Rogan in the middle of the ring, and gave his thanks and comments on the fight, and didn't mention God the ENTIRE TIME!


----------



## Rambler14 (Jul 10, 2006)

Hopperman said:


> I am a very strong christian, but our nation is not and was never intended to be a christian nation.


Go look up the original version of the Mayflower compact.

While this nation was largely founded on an idea of religious freedom and not pure Christianity, the case CAN be made that it was founded by Christians and that our laws can be traced to Judeo-Christian values.


----------



## Hopperman (Oct 15, 2006)

Rambler14 said:


> Go look up the original version of the Mayflower compact.
> 
> While this nation was largely founded on an idea of religious freedom and not pure Christianity, the case CAN be made that it was founded by Christians and that our laws can be traced to Judeo-Christian values.



How can you say it was founded by christians when Thomas Jefferson wrote the freakin constitution and was a Diest along with Ben Franklin and John Adams. so how can you say it was founded by christians when these guys where as far from christianity as you can be. 

Just bc i say this dosnt mean im not a christian i certainly am, but its just ridiculous when christians say our nation is and was made to be a christian nation when it was not. Go do research, read letters between Adams and Jefferson and you will see that they never intended it to be a chritian nation


----------



## SloberKnocker (Mar 3, 2007)

i wonder if all these fighters that blab on about thanking god actually live up to it. do the say there prayers everynight and before a meal. if not , i wonder if its their nerves takin, so messed up that they will mention god to warm up to the fans. or the fear of sayin sometin stupid due to a shitty personality.


----------



## Onganju (May 26, 2006)

If you don't endear yourself to the fans, it won't matter what you say after or before a fight.


----------



## tecnotut (Jan 2, 2007)

acoldone said:


> Isn't the Christian motto to "Turn the other cheek?"


Yes, it is. I too don't get the connection between beleiving that one ought to turn the other cheek when attacked, and then going on to body slam, punch and choke someone to submission or a knockout. It is a contradiction.


----------



## Rambler14 (Jul 10, 2006)

Hopperman said:


> How can you say it was founded by christians when Thomas Jefferson wrote the freakin constitution


It's unfair to label Thomas Jefferson as a secular "deist" who rejected Christianity completely. He was not what I would call a genuine Christian.

But,
He signed legislation that gave land to Indian missionaries.
He put chaplains on the government payroll.
He provided for the punishment of irreverent soldiers.
He sent Congress an Indian treaty that set aside money for a priest's salary and for the construction of a church.
He also read the Bible on a regular basis.

I never said it was intended to be a Christian nation. It was a nation created around Judeo-Christian values which allowed people religious freedom. Go read the Mayflower Compact if you haven't seen the original version.


----------



## IDL (Oct 19, 2006)

Organik said:


> i dunno... i think they take it to far..
> 
> someone should thank satan for fueling them with the energy to hurt people


LOL, that is priceless!

You get a rep for that one


----------



## IDL (Oct 19, 2006)

I'm not religious but I don't mind when someone thanks god for their win. 
It seems cooky, yes, but i'm sure it doesn't seem cooky to those who say it.

I'm sure religion does give mental strength to some people.:dunno:


----------



## gleaminx (Mar 5, 2007)

> Originally Posted by Pokkie
> It is unchristian like to fight since the concept of christianity is to turn the other cheek.


Christianity is to have faith that God came to this Earth as a mortal man (Jesus Christ) and was crucified as a perfect man to take our sin debt. This belief is the only way to heaven since we all are sinners and fall short of the glory of God.

Doing good works does not get you, me or anyone else into heaven. We are all evil and corrupt. Those of us who have chosen to accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior feel compelled to better ourselves for the glory of God.

Jesus said,(John 14:15) if you love me do my works.



> In any case, its not that anyone's debating whether or not these people are christians, its more of people are saying that you shouldn't use the lord's name to justify something he wouldn't want.


I don't see anything biblically wrong with MMA. You have two Chrisitan men who fight each other for a pay check. They want to hurt each other only to get the biggest pay check with the least amount of injury to themselves.



> MMA fighters fight for themselves or their families, they don't fight for God. Much in the same way if I were to join some kind of Roshambo contest and won and said "I'd like to thank god for helping me win". Cause i'm sure God is up there blessing me with the power to kick people's nuts in for a few bucks.


We all have to have some sort of tradeskills to put food on the table. It's no different than me thanking God for allowing me to climb telephone poles each and every day and coming home to my family every night instead of ending up in a morgue. 

These men are also witnessing to a HUGE amount of men and women that may not be hearing about Jesus Christ elsewhere. It also says.. Hey, I'm a badass and I love Jesus!

That's awesome in my opinion. :thumbsup:


----------



## ErinFitzpatrick (Feb 5, 2007)

I think this thread is great! I always tell my husband that I am waiting to hear a fighter slip up and say..'I'd like to thank my sponser, God!' I don't really mind fighters thanking God, per say, I just think that God hears you no matter what, you don't have to show off your spirituality to 19,000 fight fans while your thanking your sponsers and coaches.


----------



## gleaminx (Mar 5, 2007)

ErinFitzpatrick said:


> I think this thread is great! I always tell my husband that I am waiting to hear a fighter slip up and say..'I'd like to thank my sponser, God!' I don't really mind fighters thanking God, per say, I just think that God hears you no matter what, you don't have to show off your spirituality to 19,000 fight fans while your thanking your sponsers and coaches.


They aren't showing off their spirituality. They are witnessing to you to tell you that they have found peace. They have found eternal life after this whisper, we call life. They are telling you not because they are getting a sales referral but because they are truly concerned for your soul after this life is over.

Just like if you found a way to get a car for free, wouldn't you share it to everyone you knew?


----------



## libertywrestler (Sep 24, 2006)

let them thank God if they want, i think it's cool to see that


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

gleaminx said:


> They aren't showing off their spirituality. They are witnessing to you to tell you that they have found peace. They have found eternal life after this whisper, we call life. They are telling you not because they are getting a sales referral but because they are truly concerned for your soul after this life is over.
> 
> *Just like if you found a way to get a car for free, wouldn't you share it to everyone you knew?*


ah Religion, the cheapest car on the lot...


----------



## tecnotut (Jan 2, 2007)

Rambler14 said:


> I never said it was intended to be a Christian nation. It was a nation created around Judeo-Christian values which allowed people religious freedom. Go read the Mayflower Compact if you haven't seen the original version.


I'm not sure what you mean by being created "around Judeo-Christian values," but the U.S. Constitution does not mention Christianity, Judaism, Jesus Christ or the Bible at all, nor should it. 

Anyways, the original author of this topic was right: it is contradictory to believe that it's right to "turn the other cheek" when attacked, and be a sports fighter at the same time. Either you're commited to peacefulness, unless you make an exception to involuntary self-defense (competeting in a sport is voluntary), or you're not.


----------



## Hopperman (Oct 15, 2006)

Rambler14 said:


> It's unfair to label Thomas Jefferson as a secular "deist" who rejected Christianity completely. He was not what I would call a genuine Christian.
> 
> But,
> He signed legislation that gave land to Indian missionaries.
> ...



How can you say gunine christian. your either a christian or your not and Thomas Jefferson was not. A deist is someone who beleives that there is a God who created everything but just sits back and watches it happen that he is not involved in anything that occures in the world. So yes he reconized there was a God but he was not a Christian.

and i wasnt really talking to you about the christian nation thing more the other guy he said it was and was intended to be.

I would agree that some of the decisons were made through a Judeo Christian Worldview but that was not their compleate intention, seriously in order to attempt to create a christian nation it would be vital to actucally be christian, and then men who formed this nation were not.


----------



## Hopperman (Oct 15, 2006)

pt447 said:


> ah Religion, the cheapest car on the lot...



LOL that guy is the reason christians get a bad rep bc of stupid stuff like that


----------



## SpartanElite_MX (Feb 4, 2007)

SHIN2DADOME said:


> This is probably in the top three of the most stupid threads Ive ever read.


You have the best avatar I have seen in here evar :thumbsup: 

When was that pic taken, after he fought Cro Cop?


----------



## MetalMunkey (Oct 14, 2006)

tecnotut said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by being created "around Judeo-Christian values," but the U.S. Constitution does not mention Christianity, Judaism, Jesus Christ or the Bible at all, nor should it.
> 
> Anyways, the original author of this topic was right: it is contradictory to believe that it's right to "turn the other cheek" when attacked, and be a sports fighter at the same time. Either you're commited to peacefulness, unless you make an exception to involuntary self-defense *(competeting in a sport is voluntary), *or you're not.


But that's just it. They aren't attacking each other they are engaging in competition. No where in the Bible does it say that people can't engage in competition so long as the fighter keeps his integrity and morality. Show me where any of the fighters who thanked God last Saturday stepped away from the spirit of competition and grew angry or threw a fit. I can't believe this debate is still going, let them believe in God and if you don't like it get over it, they're not gonna change for you.


----------



## Onganju (May 26, 2006)

tecnotut said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by being created "around Judeo-Christian values," but the U.S. Constitution does not mention Christianity, Judaism, Jesus Christ or the Bible at all, nor should it.
> 
> Anyways, the original author of this topic was right: it is contradictory to believe that it's right to "turn the other cheek" when attacked, and be a sports fighter at the same time. Either you're commited to peacefulness, unless you make an exception to involuntary self-defense (competeting in a sport is voluntary), or you're not.


Wow... People take the "turn the other cheek" quotation way out of context. Most probably can't even quote the verse it came from. The whole of the passage states:



> You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." Matthew 5:38-42(NIV)


Most take this as a proclaimation of pacifism or non-violence. Actually, if it is taken in context to the time and culture that the passage would have been recorded in is more aptly a suggestion not to take vengeance on those who do you wrong or to hold grudges. In fact the act of "turning the other cheek" can be seen an act of resistance, as those in authority (such as the tax collectors and pharisees that Christ referred to multiple time during the Sermon on the Mount) would address many of those under them by disrespectfully back-handing them with their right hand. If the other cheek were offered and they struck them again in a forehand fashion, it would be in challenge and not in condescending reprimand (as the use of the left hand was considered unclean when addressing another person).

In fact, it can even be construed that the rest of the passage can be an avenue of "civil resistance" by putting the other person in danger of violating civil and religious law. When one gives up their tunic (literally: the shirt off their back), the receiver of that tunic is indebted to them. Further, if imperial soldiers forced servitude upon those of lower status to carry their packs, they were limited to requiring that their servitude be limited to a mile in travel. Anything else would be against military code. 

Wow... Going above and beyond your detractors and making them look foolish is not a new thing. Besides, I highly doubt that the same God that bestowed Samson with the strength to slay 1000 Phillistines using the jawbone of donkey is willing to mandate that his chosen people take their beatings with a smile. I haven't read anywhere that professing a Christian faith means that you have to be a *****. Such things do not hold continuous logic with even such popularly cliched and misinterpreted conceptual pundits of belief such as being "girded by the Armor of God...(Ephesians 6:10-18)." Guess what, there's a Sword in that set too.

Please spare me the sycophantic ravings otherwise.


----------



## Rambler14 (Jul 10, 2006)

tecnotut said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by being created "around Judeo-Christian values," but the U.S. Constitution does not mention Christianity, Judaism, Jesus Christ or the Bible at all, nor should it.


(from the declaration of independence)
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed *by their Creator* with certain unalienable Rights...

If you look at the front of the Supreme Court building, Moses is sitting in the middle w/ 2 tablets symbolizing the 10 Commandments.

There's also quotes from some of the Founding Fathers.


----------



## Rambler14 (Jul 10, 2006)

Hopperman said:


> I would agree that some of the decisons were made through a Judeo Christian Worldview but that was not their compleate intention, seriously in order to attempt to create a christian nation it would be vital to actucally be christian, and then men who formed this nation were not.


They're intention was to allow religious freedom and prevent the government from establishing a "religion of the state"

And while some of the men who formed this nation were not Christian, quite a few of them were.


----------



## tecnotut (Jan 2, 2007)

Rambler14 said:


> (from the declaration of independence)
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed *by their Creator* with certain unalienable Rights...


Again, no mention of Jesus Christ, the Bible, Jews or Christians. The DoI says "Creator", which is consistent with many things, including Deism. Second, the DoI is not the U.S. Constitution, which is superior to the DoI. The Constitution, the superior document and the most important foundation for our country, doesn't even allow an interpretation for even general Deism much less Christianity. 



> If you look at the front of the Supreme Court building, Moses is sitting in the middle w/ 2 tablets symbolizing the 10 Commandments.
> 
> There's also quotes from some of the Founding Fathers.


Moses, and other law givers figures (not religious prophets), such Confucious, who did not believe in Christianity.


----------



## tecnotut (Jan 2, 2007)

MetalMunkey said:


> But that's just it. They aren't attacking each other they are engaging in competition. No where in the Bible does it say that people can't engage in competition so long as the fighter keeps his integrity and morality. Show me where any of the fighters who thanked God last Saturday stepped away from the spirit of competition and grew angry or threw a fit. I can't believe this debate is still going, let them believe in God and if you don't like it get over it, they're not gonna change for you.


You miss the point. The issue isn't whether it's a sport or not, but rather, whether it's a violent sport or not. The turn the other cheek phrase is one that advocates non-violence. I'm sorry, but punching, chocking, elbowing, slamming, and kicking are violent. They do harm to the body, and may even cause death.


----------



## tecnotut (Jan 2, 2007)

Onganju said:


> Most take this as a proclaimation of pacifism or non-violence. Actually, if it is taken in context to the time and culture that the passage would have been recorded in is more aptly a suggestion not to take vengeance on those who do you wrong or to hold grudges.


Non-violence is consistent with not taking revenge. So if it meant not taking violent revenge, then that's consistent with the non-violence interpretation.


----------



## MetalMunkey (Oct 14, 2006)

tecnotut said:


> You miss the point. The issue isn't whether it's a sport or not, but rather, whether it's a violent sport or not. The turn the other cheek phrase is one that advocates non-violence. I'm sorry, but punching, chocking, elbowing, slamming, and kicking are violent. They do harm to the body, and may even cause death.


EDIT: Ugh, nevermind, the Bible is interpreted in many ways. Who cares?


----------



## tecnotut (Jan 2, 2007)

Read my response to him.


----------



## MetalMunkey (Oct 14, 2006)

tecnotut said:


> Read my response to him.


I did, I hate theological discussion because usually each side is so decided on their beliefs that nothing ever comes to it. I'm all done.


----------



## Onganju (May 26, 2006)

tecnotut said:


> Non-violence is consistent with not taking revenge. So if it meant not taking violent revenge, then that's consistent with the non-violence interpretation.


Then guess what? It would then inapropriate to apply the concept to acts of competition, war, or when actions brought about concequences as litigated by law. I love it when folks tought the "reformed" view of the "New Testament Christian." I agree with loving your neighbors and enemies, but I'm not going to forget that their is an Old Testament that I have to read through to even get that far.

Sorry, I don't think God intended me to forget the fact that I have a set of balls between my legs.


----------



## Onganju (May 26, 2006)

tecnotut said:


> You miss the point. The issue isn't whether it's a sport or not, but rather, whether it's a violent sport or not. The turn the other cheek phrase is one that advocates non-violence. I'm sorry, but punching, chocking, elbowing, slamming, and kicking are violent. They do harm to the body, and may even cause death.


I'm sorry... But if it were that clear cut, or blindly blanketed, then Jacob would not have been blessed after wrestling the angel of God (Genesis 32:22-32). If you think that was a gentle match, then Jacob wouldn't have dislocated his hip.


----------



## WouldLuv2FightU (Jul 17, 2006)

God's just still sour that Fedor armbarred him. If God really cared about fighters then Fedor would have lost by now.


----------



## tecnotut (Jan 2, 2007)

Onganju said:


> I'm sorry... But if it were that clear cut, or blindly blanketed, then Jacob would not have been blessed after wrestling the angel of God (Genesis 32:22-32). If you think that was a gentle match, then Jacob wouldn't have dislocated his hip.


But that's the Old Testament, not the New. For Christians, the New Testament is superior to the Old. Jesus is portrayed as a pacifist in the New Testament: If someone strikes you, you don't strike back.If you have beef with the New Testament, then take it up with the New Testament, not with me.


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

Hopperman said:


> LOL that guy is the reason christians get a bad rep bc of stupid stuff like that


so, i made up the crusades, Charlamane's concquest of Europe, the foreced conversion or death of the South American people's, ignorance of stem cell research, denial of all people's to be treated equal, and any number of other things directly linked to the Christian religion?

yeah...

i think it's hilarious that the Christians of today, condemn what fundamentalist islamists are doing now, yet, without any single difference, it's exacctley what Christianity did for a thousand years or so! hey, according to those hardcore muslims, they are fully interpreting their sacred text, rightfully justifying there actions!


and on the MMA against Christian values thing... i'm not sure if anyone brought this up... but MMA isn't violance. The no-violance stance of Christianity is violence inteded as malicious action. therefore, attacking another person for greed or any of the other "7 deadly sins". MMA is a competition between two willing people with no harm or malintention inteded on either, by either!

done...


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

tecnotut said:


> But that's the Old Testament, not the New. For Christians, the New Testament is superior to the Old. Jesus is portrayed as a pacifist in the New Testament: If someone strikes you, you don't strike back.If you have beef with the New Testament, then take it up with the New Testament, not with me.


so, the only thing Christians take from the old testiment is that God created the universe? lol...

if it's so unimportant, why include it? for that matter, why ignore that it's the entire scripture of the jews, and think that only Christians go to heaven?

but, i'm not going to get into that...


----------



## tecnotut (Jan 2, 2007)

pt447 said:


> so, i made up the crusades, Charlamane's concquest of Europe, the foreced conversion or death of the South American people's, ignorance of stem cell research, denial of all people's to be treated equal, and any number of other things directly linked to the Christian religion?
> yeah...
> 
> i think it's hilarious that the Christians of today, condemn what fundamentalist islamists are doing now, yet, without any single difference, it's exacctley what Christianity did for a thousand years or so! hey, according to those hardcore muslims, they are fully interpreting their sacred text, rightfully justifying there actions!


I agree with everything you say here. I would like to add that more Christians have killed more innocents than Muslims. Christians in World War II have probably killed more innocents than Muslims have killed in all of history. 



> and on the MMA against Christian values thing... i'm not sure if anyone brought this up... but MMA isn't violance. The no-violance stance of Christianity is violence inteded as malicious action. therefore, attacking another person for greed or any of the other "7 deadly sins". MMA is a competition between two willing people with no harm or malintention inteded on either, by either!
> 
> done...


This is where you go wrong. There is an intent to harm. Beating the shit out of someone is harmful, and may even cause death. Most or many of the fighters have personal grudges with each other as well, and really do want to beat the shit out of each other. MMA is a violent sport, hence the very heavy regulations. But the violence is why I like it.


----------



## Hopperman (Oct 15, 2006)

tecnotut said:


> But that's the Old Testament, not the New. For Christians, the New Testament is superior to the Old. Jesus is portrayed as a pacifist in the New Testament: If someone strikes you, you don't strike back.If you have beef with the New Testament, then take it up with the New Testament, not with me.



That is one of the most ridiculous statments i have ever heard. to say the New Test. is surperior to the Old test. The old test. is there for a reason BC IT is IMPORTANT, feel free to read it sometime and then you will relize it is not inferiour to the New test.



And on the whole turn the other cheek thing. that is if someone dose you wrong. not if you are participating in a sport that requires you to strike the other person. If you actually read to Bible then you would know thats ridiculous. All you are doing is taking saying from the Bible and taking them way out of proportion, in all honesty you HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!!!


----------



## Hopperman (Oct 15, 2006)

tecnotut said:


> I agree with everything you say here. I would like to add that more Christians have killed more innocents than Muslims. Christians in World War II have probably killed more innocents than Muslims have killed in all of history.
> 
> 
> 
> This is where you go wrong. There is an intent to harm. Beating the shit out of someone is harmful, and may even cause death. Most or many of the fighters have personal grudges with each other as well, and really do want to beat the shit out of each other. MMA is a violent sport, hence the very heavy regulations. But the violence is why I like it.



Do you have a problem against christians or somthing? bc everyone one of your post says something bad about christians


----------



## Hopperman (Oct 15, 2006)

Onganju said:


> I'm sorry... But if it were that clear cut, or blindly blanketed, then Jacob would not have been blessed after wrestling the angel of God (Genesis 32:22-32). If you think that was a gentle match, then Jacob wouldn't have dislocated his hip.



Compleatly agree


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

tecnotut said:


> I agree with everything you say here. I would like to add that more Christians have killed more innocents than Muslims. Christians in World War II have probably killed more innocents than Muslims have killed in all of history.
> 
> 
> _
> This is where you go wrong. There is an intent to harm. Beating the shit out of someone is harmful, and may even cause death. Most or many of the fighters have personal grudges with each other as well, and really do want to beat the shit out of each other. MMA is a violent sport, hence the very heavy regulations. But the violence is why I like it._


see, i disagree here, because the harm "intended" isn't really out of greed. sure, both guys want to win, but, especially with the really respectible fighters, they don't wish permanant harm on each other, and both get some form of enjoyment out of the competition even if they get hurt!

there is no sheer hate or malinention in the violence of MMA. Christian principls oppose violence due to hate, greed, desire, whatever. but while a fighter needs to have desire and to some extent, greed, both fighters wouldn't choose to be anywhere else when that fight starts. that negates the hatred intnention of the actions they take.

at least that's how i see it...


----------



## Onganju (May 26, 2006)

tecnotut said:


> But that's the Old Testament, not the New. For Christians, the New Testament is superior to the Old. Jesus is portrayed as a pacifist in the New Testament: If someone strikes you, you don't strike back.If you have beef with the New Testament, then take it up with the New Testament, not with me.


WHAT?!?!?!

That is completely ridiculous! In Matthew 5:17-19 it reads:


> 'Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfil. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


Christ himself addressed that mindset completely! When he was preaching, and he brought about his message of salvation and reform, he wasn't reforming or abolishing the previous laws. He was reforming and abolishing the practices and mindset of those that were teaching it. He in no way told anyone to disregard the Old Testament, nor remove it from the cannon of The Bible. The previous passage is proof of that. I haven't been a regular church attendee for almost a decade, and I know not to make such ridiculous claims.



pt447 said:


> so, the only thing Christians take from the old testiment is that God created the universe? lol...
> 
> if it's so unimportant, why include it?


Wow... Even a professed, antogonistic, aetheist can see the error in that view.

Point #1: In MMA the competitors (in general) are the most respectful athletes out of any sport out there. A very small handful go in there with malicious intent. In which case, the issue is with the competitor and not the competition itself. It's like the Torah and the Pharisees. Can that differentiation be made and understood? 

Point #2: Never was it established, nor was it intended that once one professes their faith, becomes "born again," or accepts "salvation" that they would no longer need to be vigilant or militant in action. Heck, in 2nd Timothy 2:3-4 Paul wrote "Take your part in suffering as a loyal Soldier of Christ Jesus. A soldier on active duty..." That is New Testament. You do know what it is like for soldiers in active duty right? They fight, and they take violent actions. Why? Because it is their job and responsibility to do so.

These guys compete and fight. It is their job and responsibility to do so. As a husband, it is my job to care for and protect my wife. If I were to discover her being sodomized by some unknown rapist, am I supposed to "turn the other cheek" and offer my own anus to the same criminal? I think not.


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

Onganju said:


> WHAT?!?!?!
> 
> That is completely ridiculous! In Matthew 5:17-19 it reads:
> 
> ...


not sure what that has to do with MMA, but whatever...

what if the rapist wasn't sodomizing her? what if she was cheating on you and giving the guy head? would you attack the guy, or her for choosing to do what she did?


----------



## Onganju (May 26, 2006)

pt447 said:


> not sure what that has to do with MMA, but whatever...
> 
> what if the rapist wasn't sodomizing her? what if she was cheating on you and giving the guy head? would you attack the guy, or her for choosing to do what she did?


Actually... I was simply relating the mindsets on his/her theological "point of view."

On the second part, I'll get back to you on that. Let's just say that either case would receive a very "Old Testament" response.


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

Onganju said:


> Actually... I was simply relating the mindsets on his/her theological "point of view."
> 
> On the second part, I'll get back to you on that. Let's just say that either case would receive a very "Old Testament" response.


alright, i'll buy it...


----------



## tecnotut (Jan 2, 2007)

Hopperman said:


> That is one of the most ridiculous statments i have ever heard. to say the New Test. is surperior to the Old test. The old test. is there for a reason BC IT is IMPORTANT, feel free to read it sometime and then you will relize it is not inferiour to the New test.


I didn't say it's not imporant, just inferior to the NT for most Christians. Why? Because Chrsitanity is about Christ, and we get our info about Christ in the NT, not the OT. Hence, NT is more important. Finally, I have nothing against Christians. Most of my friends are Christians. 



Onganju said:


> WHAT?!?!?!
> 
> That is completely ridiculous! In Matthew 5:17-19 it reads:


See my comment above. 



pt447 said:


> see, i disagree here, because the harm "intended" isn't really out of greed.


You're not talking about intent when you talk about what the intent is coiming out of (e.g. greed, hate, etc.). That's motivation, which is different from intent. The intent in MMA is always to harm, but the motivation behind the intent may vary. Some if it is greed, some hate, or whatever. The phrase "turn the other cheek" just says not to strike anyone who strikes you. It makes no mention or exceptions for different motivations. Personally, like most people on this board, I too think it's a silly philosophy. If someone strikes me, they're going to get knocked the **** out.


----------



## tecnotut (Jan 2, 2007)

Onganju said:


> On the second part, I'll get back to you on that. Let's just say that either case would receive a very "Old Testament" response.


That's the spirit!


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

tecnotut said:


> I didn't say it's not imporant, just inferior to the NT for most Christians. Why? Because Chrsitanity is about Christ, and we get our info about Christ in the NT, not the OT. Hence, NT is more important. Finally, I have nothing against Christians. Most of my friends are Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


actually, the intent in MMA is to win, the path through which you win, is to cause only enough "harm" to do so. the intent isn't the violence, that is only the method of persuing that intent/goal.


----------



## tecnotut (Jan 2, 2007)

pt447 said:


> actually, the intent in MMA is to win, the path through which you win, is to cause only enough "harm" to do so. the intent isn't the violence, that is only the method of persuing that intent/goal.


You're still confusing intent with motive. The desire to win in MMA is the motive. The dictionary defines motive as "the goal or object of a person's actions: Her motive was revenge." The acts that allow a fighter to win are intentional. When someone strikes someone, it's either intentional (i.e. had intent) or it was accidental (no intent). Clearly the fighters have intent to strike, and their motiveis to win. The "turn the other cheek" verse simply says to not strike someone back or in return regardless of their motive and regardless of their intent. It's a form extreme pacificism, and whomever wrote that verse was an unreasonable tree-hugger.


----------



## Onganju (May 26, 2006)

tecnotut said:


> I didn't say it's not imporant, just inferior to the NT for most Christians. Why? Because Chrsitanity is about Christ, and we get our info about Christ in the NT, not the OT. Hence, NT is more important. Finally, I have nothing against Christians. Most of my friends are Christians.


I'm afraid your argument holds no water sir. Especially since I sited passages from the New Testament that clearly states otherwise. The whole of the Old Testament leads up to the arrival of Christ. That is like saying your parents aren't important because everything that you've done is by your hands alone. It may be technically correct from a removed viewpoint, but it wouldn't account for everything that makes you unique. 

In fact, none of your statements have been backed by a shred of Scripture. Merely, you've made conjectural statements based off of quotations of Scripture. In effect, you've come to a sword fight without even a belt to hold up your pants, much less the scabbord of even a wooden sword.

pt447: I thought about where I left off with our part of this thread. To be totally honest, I don't know what I would do. However, I have an idea that I wouldn't decide to just "turn the other cheek" and continue on joyfully asking the man to stand up so that I can toss his salad while my wife felates him. You know what I mean?

That's one of those "sanity breaking now/ask for forgiveness later" type situations. I hope in being honest I haven't answered in a vague fashion.


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

i'll accept that, Onganju. i have to believe that anyone, at any time, could be faced with a situation where there most sacred beliefs fall the way side if need be. i don't care what you believe or how much of a pacifist you are; if you stand by and don't kill the person/persons hurting your family and closes friends, you're a worthless coward!


----------



## tecnotut (Jan 2, 2007)

Onganju said:


> I'm afraid your argument holds no water sir. Especially since I sited passages from the New Testament that clearly states otherwise.


The Matthew verse doesn't impeach the other Matthew verse of "turn the other cheek" verse. They're not related. The NT verse you cite refers to not violating the Ten Commandments or the Laws. Hows does this show that JEsus did not advocate extreme pacifism? But I've yet to see a NT passage denoucing extreme pacificsm. 



> The whole of the Old Testament leads up to the arrival of Christ. That is like saying your parents aren't important because everything that you've done is by your hands alone. It may be technically correct from a removed viewpoint, but it wouldn't account for everything that makes you unique.


I can only repeat myself again. I didn't say the OT isn't important. Just said it's not as important as the NT. It's like saying the U.S. Constitution is more important than the Declaration of Independence in running our country. Likewise, the NT is more important to Christians in runnign their lives. Just as the Bible is important to Muslims, but it's not as important to them as the Koran because the Koran, not the NT or OT, talks about Muahmmad.


----------



## tecnotut (Jan 2, 2007)

pt447 said:


> i'll accept that, Onganju. i have to believe that anyone, at any time, could be faced with a situation where there most sacred beliefs fall the way side if need be. i don't care what you believe or how much of a pacifist you are; if you stand by and don't kill the person/persons hurting your family and closes friends, you're a worthless coward!


Hear hear!


----------



## WouldLuv2FightU (Jul 17, 2006)

pt447 said:


> so, i made up the crusades, Charlamane's concquest of Europe, the foreced conversion or death of the South American people's, ignorance of stem cell research, denial of all people's to be treated equal, and any number of other things directly linked to the Christian religion?
> 
> yeah...
> 
> ...


I could be wrong, but I have heard that Muslims were actually responsible for the very first crusades, not christians...but other than that your point remains valid.


I think it's wierd how the Old Testament and the New Testament totally contradict each other in almost every possible way, yet Christians think nothing of it, like it's normal for something you believe in to have multiple contradictions and inconsistancies.


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

as far as i reall, the holy Roman empire up and decided to get rid of Islam, so threatened conversion or death!

lasted like hundreds of years...


----------



## Holy9 (Oct 20, 2006)

Yikes, I'm only used to talking about Religion and Politics when my buddies and I are drunk. 
My two cents is this: I find it to be alright for people to thank God, but thanking God to help win is a little strange. Obviously its just spiritual, but if God actually helped, why wouldn't He help the other guy too? Then would we would just have draws all the time?? :laugh:


----------



## liveson777 (Aug 18, 2006)

WouldLuv2FightU said:


> I could be wrong, but I have heard that Muslims were actually responsible for the very first crusades, not christians...but other than that your point remains valid.
> 
> 
> I think it's wierd how the Old Testament and the New Testament totally contradict each other in almost every possible way, yet Christians think nothing of it, like it's normal for something you believe in to have multiple contradictions and inconsistancies.



lol your really misinformed not contradictory lol plz dont go there you dont know what your talking about..no contradictorys at all my friend just Judgements and redemptions


----------



## liveson777 (Aug 18, 2006)

Holy9 said:


> Yikes, I'm only used to talking about Religion and Politics when my buddies and I are drunk.
> My two cents is this: I find it to be alright for people to thank God, but thanking God to help win is a little strange. Obviously its just spiritual, but if God actually helped, why wouldn't He help the other guy too? Then would we would just have draws all the time?? :laugh:



someone has to win...and everythings happens for a reason our thoughts arent like His...but yes might seem sstrange but it happens


----------



## tecnotut (Jan 2, 2007)

liveson777 said:


> lol your really misinformed not contradictory lol plz dont go there you dont know what your talking about..no contradictorys at all my friend just Judgements and redemptions


Biblical Contradictions


----------



## liveson777 (Aug 18, 2006)

tecnotut said:


> Biblical Contradictions


state ur claim im not tryn to read a bunch of stuff right now

u make a point of what u have read then ill tell u the deal


----------



## liveson777 (Aug 18, 2006)

pt447 said:


> i'll accept that, Onganju. i have to believe that anyone, at any time, could be faced with a situation where there most sacred beliefs fall the way side if need be. i don't care what you believe or how much of a pacifist you are; if you stand by and don't kill the person/persons hurting your family and closes friends, you're a worthless coward!



if you have the time please read it.....it might shed some light on you topic

Jesus, Pacifism, and the Sword


----------



## tecnotut (Jan 2, 2007)

liveson777 said:


> state ur claim im not tryn to read a bunch of stuff right now
> 
> u make a point of what u have read then ill tell u the deal


You are truly a lazy person if you don't even want to read two verses that contradict each other, yet despite your laziness, you somehow still get riled up when someone claims they're contradictory? 

Anyhow, a OT verse advocates an eye for en eye. That's a form of extreme retribution. If someone cut someone's arm off, we don't vut their arm of in return. Our Constitution prohibits extreme and unusual punishment. Yet a NT verse says never to strike someone back if they strike you. In fact, you should turn the other cheek so they can strike that sid of your face as well. There's your contradiction. 

Now here's the MMA connection: Surely for a Christian the NT verse is superior to the OT verse, since the NT is about Christ, and there's no Christianity without Christ -- this arguument is undeniable. If this is the case (and it is), then Christians should not compete in violent sports like MMA fighting because it goes directly against JEsus' teaching to turn the other cheek.


----------



## liveson777 (Aug 18, 2006)

tecnotut said:


> You are truly a lazy person if you don't even want to read two verses that contradict each other, yet despite your laziness, you somehow still get riled up when someone claims they're contradictory?
> 
> Anyhow, a OT verse advocates an eye for en eye. That's a form of extreme retribution. If someone cut someone's arm off, we don't vut their arm of in return. Our Constitution prohibits extreme and unusual punishment. Yet a NT verse says never to strike someone back if they strike you. In fact, you should turn the other cheek so they can strike that sid of your face as well. There's your contradiction.
> 
> Now here's the MMA connection: Surely for a Christian the NT verse is superior to the OT verse, since the NT is about Christ, and there's no Christianity without Christ -- this arguument is undeniable. If this is the case (and it is), then Christians should not compete in violent sports like MMA fighting because it goes directly against JEsus' teaching to turn the other cheek.


i see you points but its not valid yopu taking them out of context things change once Christ came to the earth...i think that its mostly out of hate.. look at Ron waterman hes a mma fighter and hes a christian i dont see a problem with that its all about the context its used in it is a sport so i dont think anything is wrong with it and ive prayed about it myself at first i had conviction about it and finally came to the conclusion that its not out of hate or just evil.. its a sport


----------



## tecnotut (Jan 2, 2007)

liveson777 said:


> i see you points but its not valid yopu taking them out of context things change once Christ came to the earth...i think that its mostly out of hate.. look at Ron waterman hes a mma fighter and hes a christian i dont see a problem with that its all about the context its used in it is a sport so i dont think anything is wrong with it and ive prayed about it myself at first i had conviction about it and finally came to the conclusion that its not out of hate or just evil.. its a sport


It's also a violent sport that may lead to serious injury or death. The "turn the other cheek" rule is about peace and non-violence, so _nothing_ it taken out of context here. The question is _not_ whether it's a sport, or whether it's out of hate ot not (and trust me, many of those fighters _do_ hate each other). The question _is_ whether it's violent or not.


----------



## liveson777 (Aug 18, 2006)

tecnotut said:


> It's also a violent sport that may lead to serious injury or death. The "turn the other cheek" rule is about peace and non-violence, so _nothing_ it taken out of context here. The question is _not_ whether it's a sport, or whether it's out of hate ot not (and trust me, many of those fighters _do_ hate each other). The question _is_ whether it's violent or not.



well actually this is the verse ur talking about

NLT Matthew 5:38 "You have heard the law that says the punishment must match the injury: 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' Matthew 5:39 But I say, do not resist an evil person! If someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer the other cheek also. 

its not refering to being a peaceful person its talking about resisting an evil person


----------



## Onganju (May 26, 2006)

tecnotut said:


> The Matthew verse doesn't impeach the other Matthew verse of "turn the other cheek" verse. They're not related. The NT verse you cite refers to not violating the Ten Commandments or the Laws. Hows does this show that JEsus did not advocate extreme pacifism? But I've yet to see a NT passage denoucing extreme pacificsm.


Matthew 10:34-36 : "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the world. *No, I did not come to bring peace, but a sword*. I came to set sons against their fathers, daughters against their mothers, daughters-in-law against their mothers-in-law; a man's worst enemies will be the members of his own family"

Read the part in bold. It's pretty blunt. Again, it's from the New Testament. In fact, from the same book the "turn the other cheek" passage comes from. Can you produce the same type of proof? Or are you going to continue to postulate with nothing in hand?




tecnotut said:


> I can only repeat myself again. I didn't say the OT isn't important. Just said it's not as important as the NT. It's like saying the U.S. Constitution is more important than the Declaration of Independence in running our country. Likewise, the NT is more important to Christians in runnign their lives. Just as the Bible is important to Muslims, but it's not as important to them as the Koran because the Koran, not the NT or OT, talks about Muahmmad.


Then you obviously are in flat denial of very plain evidence that I've sited otherwise. I hate to reduce the gravity of our subject matter by this analogy, but I'm going to make it anyways. If I were to read The Hobbit and then the rest of the Fellowship of the Ring novels from J.R.R. Tolkien, I could not with straight face say that The Hobbit were any less important or greatly irrelevant to the rest of the Fellowship mythos. I would be grossly incorrect to even assume to make that claim. Why? 'Cause if Bilbo never found the One Ring, then Frodo would have never found himself missing a finger at the end of the last book.

If I were to state that my life before any given epoch was of no consequence, then I would not be telling the truth would I? Same with the Bible. It has to be looked at from a whole, in a "big picture" view. OT less significant than the NT... Yeah sure...


----------



## Onganju (May 26, 2006)

And with that, I'm done with this thread. When even a professed, antagonistic aetheist can see the flaw in your logic and the fact that your arguments are not backed with anything tangible but your postulations, then you have to re-think your position. I will make a correction and a statement on your behalf sir.

You are not the reason why Christian's get a "bad rep."

But you are demonstrating why many think that being "christian" is synonomous with a being a *****. Sorry, I don't prescribe to that.


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

i'll just gloss over the fact that this thread turned into who's interpreting the Bible more correctly...

man, what a loaded sentence...

...so...hard..to..not..go..further...


----------



## liveson777 (Aug 18, 2006)

*hey gm*

did you read the link i suggested?


----------



## tecnotut (Jan 2, 2007)

Onganju said:


> Matthew 10:34-36 : "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the world. *No, I did not come to bring peace, but a sword*. I came to set sons against their fathers, daughters against their mothers, daughters-in-law against their mothers-in-law; a man's worst enemies will be the members of his own family"
> 
> Read the part in bold. It's pretty blunt. Again, it's from the New Testament. In fact, from the same book the "turn the other cheek" passage comes from. Can you produce the same type of proof? Or are you going to continue to postulate with nothing in hand?


Okay, then you just proved that the New Testament is 
inconsistent. The "turn the other cheek" verse portrays Jesus as a pacifist _a la_ Ghandi, then in the very same book, it portrays Jesus as a sword wielding warrior. Would the real Jesus please stand up, please stand up?



> If I were to state that my life before any given epoch was of no consequence, then I would not be telling the truth would I? Same with the Bible. It has to be looked at from a whole, in a "big picture" view. OT less significant than the NT... Yeah sure...


Well, in the NT verse, Jesus does state to disregard the OT law: "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' *But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also*."

As to Tolkien, those books are not books to prescribe a way of life. The NT prescribes the Christian way of life. The NT, not the OT, is what distinguishes Christianity from Judaism. 



liveson777 said:


> did you read the link i suggested?


Yup. Just gives opinions as to what it may have meant. But I look at the ordinary meaning of words, and "strike" means "strike". Second, if it possible the word has a different meaning apart from the ordinary meaning, then by the flip side, it is also possible that it does _not_ have a different meaning apart from the ordinary meaning.

For example, striking may have been symbolic, the link argues. But this is false, because the verse tells us to not take an eye for an eye. The eye for an eye law is about violent punishment, not symbolic punishment. Another one interpretation is that we should not take revenge. This too is false because the eye for an eye law is not about revenge, but about _proportionality in retribution_. Further, he says "do not resist the evil person" -- which means, let him do what he wants to you after he says to not take an eye for an eye.


----------



## RyanMac (Nov 26, 2006)

I would say they're more thanking Jesus for "keeping them safe" than helping them "win the fight" .. just a non-believers observation though.


----------



## Alfromsleep (Jul 11, 2006)

Where was god last night when I was getting tapped again and again by my coach? Where were you beardy, damn you, where were you?!!


----------



## ESPADA9 (Oct 13, 2006)

acoldone said:


> Anyone notice how many Jesus/God mentions there were from the winners of UFC 68? I know this can be a touchy subject but man does that make me crack a smile. How bloody hypocritical to think God helped you pound the crap out of someone. Isn't the Christian motto to "Turn the other cheek?" I just wish they would keep it to themselves or if not, why not be fair and blame God when they lose?
> 
> "I'd like to curse God, Jesus and the holy spirit for letting me down during one of the most important fights of my life! Petooowee [SPITS]" :dunno:
> 
> Some of the biggest jackasses are "Christians". Almost like they use it as a "I can do no wrong" shield. Of course there are nice Christians as well, but these guys really look ridiculous when they go on about the stuff. Keep it to yourself you friggen bible-thumping, country breakfast eating hillbillies.  I don't watch UFC to be reminded of my evil ways and what a bad heathen I am.


MMA is a sport; all participants enter into the octagon as willing participants.
The “turning the other cheek” ideology you use is taken completely out of context.
It was taken from the Sermon on the Mount speech Jesus gave which goes something like this…
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-42, NIV) 

Jesus was trying to say (just in case anyone was actually listening) that instead of being consumed with hate and revenge on your enemy, the wise thing to do is turn the other cheek (figuratively and NOT literally).

Anyone with an ounce of wisdom can see that by never taking the offense but only using force as a means of defending yourself or your family/property your life will be much more fulfilling.

Jesus encouraged people to defend their property and their life/family but to NEVER perpetuate violence when given the chance to turn away.

"But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." Luke 22:36:

"Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:14).

Before you try and slander Christianity you might want to do some research and have a better understanding of its teachings (and not judge it on the babblings of a few narrow minded self righteous finger pointing evangelicals).


----------



## tecnotut (Jan 2, 2007)

ESPADA9 said:


> Jesus was trying to say (just in case anyone was actually listening) that instead of being consumed with hate and revenge on your enemy, the wise thing to do is turn the other cheek (figuratively and NOT literally).


The figurative interpretation doesn't make sense. How do you resist an evil person figuratively? How do you resist having your tunic taken figuratively? How do you reist an eye for an eye figartively? You can only resist 
literally. And if God is perfect, then he wouldn't speak in ambiguous terms to allow room for misinterpretations. 



> Anyone with an ounce of wisdom can see that by never taking the offense but only using force as a means of defending yourself or your family/property your life will be much more fulfilling.


There is a very rational logic behind pacifism. If everyone practiced it, there would be no need for violence at all -- no need ofr defense. If you say "but that's not how the word is". Well, duh. But pcifism isn't saying that's how the world is, it's just saying that's how the world ought to be. It's a value judgement. 





> "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." Luke 22:36:
> 
> "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:14).


You can't have your cake and eait it too. You can't pick and choose which verses you want read literally (like the above), and which ones you want read figuratively just to suit your interprtational goals. So the sword verse is literal, yet the other cheek is figurative? Come on man.


----------



## ESPADA9 (Oct 13, 2006)

tecnotut said:


> The figurative interpretation doesn't make sense. How do you resist an evil person figuratively? How do you resist having your tunic taken figuratively? How do you reist an eye for an eye figartively? You can only resist
> literally. And if God is perfect, then he wouldn't speak in ambiguous terms to allow room for misinterpretations.
> 
> 
> ...


Turn the other cheek AND the sword verse were figurative in modern terms.
No one carries a sword but you have the right to defend yourself and your property/family from evil, tyranny, etc.

If someone strikes you the turn the other cheek adage does not necessarily means that that person will ALWAYS strike you on the cheek, it may be a verbal assault you may be pushed or shoved.

You sound like you’re hung up on semantics and are missing the point, congratulations.


----------



## tecnotut (Jan 2, 2007)

ESPADA9 said:


> Turn the other cheek AND the sword verse were figurative in modern terms.
> No one carries a sword but you have the right to defend yourself and your property/family from evil, tyranny, etc.


I can see the sword verse figurative in the sense of actually not carrying a sword in modern times (people carry guns now), but it still can be literal in the sense that Jesus is saying you have the right to defend yourself. But what I'm saying is why can't it be a _figurative_ interpretation in the sense that he's saying to fight evil _spiritually_, not physically (e.g. by spreading the word of God)? Again, you are just pickign and choosing when you want to interpret a verse figuartively and when to interpret literally. 



> If someone strikes you the turn the other cheek adage does not necessarily means that that person will ALWAYS strike you on the cheek, it may be a verbal assault you may be pushed or shoved.



I know. But the point is that you're not supposed to verbally assault back, push back or strike back. It's a verse about the value of non-violence. If anyoen thinks it's not about the importance of non-violence, then they need to go back to 3rd grade reading.


----------



## ESPADA9 (Oct 13, 2006)

Yes I have a 3rd grade reading comprehension (except for that part about my BSChE).

Re read my post…

“Jesus encouraged people to defend their property and their life/family but to NEVER perpetuate violence when given the chance to turn away.”

“Anyone with an ounce of wisdom can see that by never taking the offense but only using force as a means of defending yourself or your family/property your life will be much more fulfilling”.

Thanks for playing smart guy.


----------



## tecnotut (Jan 2, 2007)

ESPADA9 said:


> Yes I have a 3rd grade reading comprehension (except for that part about my BSChE).
> 
> Re read my post…
> 
> ...


I did read your post. Read my reply to it.


----------



## Stratosphere (Feb 4, 2007)

What a stupid thread. Religious threads never get anywhere but being locked and people getting banned.


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

Stratosphere said:


> What a stupid thread. Religious threads never get anywhere but being locked and people getting banned.


becauses the very essence of religion is ignorance, conflict and unique truths... hense, everything that goes against social humanity and getting along!


----------



## acoldone (Oct 15, 2006)

ESPADA9 said:


> MMA is a sport; all participants enter into the octagon as willing participants.
> The “turning the other cheek” ideology you use is taken completely out of context.
> It was taken from the Sermon on the Mount speech Jesus gave which goes something like this…
> "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-42, NIV)
> ...


I don't think I was slandering Christianity. It was the fighters I was picking on more in jest than anything. Take it down a notch. You're much too serious.


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

_"and not judge it on the babblings of a few narrow minded self righteous finger pointing evangelicals"_

whom ever wrote this has a very limited grasp on the actual effects of religious belief. That narrow minded few have managed to single handedly shape American social policy for a long time, limiting scientific and medical advancement and change in this country, as well as help foster support for ideologically justified millitary campaigns.


----------



## ESPADA9 (Oct 13, 2006)

pt447 said:


> _"and not judge it on the babblings of a few narrow minded self righteous finger pointing evangelicals"_
> 
> whom ever wrote this has a very limited grasp on the actual effects of religious belief. That narrow minded few have managed to single handedly shape American social policy for a long time, limiting scientific and medical advancement and change in this country, as well as help foster support for ideologically justified millitary campaigns.


Radical evangelical Christian propaganda or your mindless socialist/communist leftist blather, what’s the difference???????? You BOTH defy logic.


----------



## Tango87 (Oct 17, 2006)

ESPADA9 said:


> Radical evangelical Christian propaganda or your mindless socialist/communist leftist blather, what’s the difference???????? You BOTH defy logic.


Ok I didnt read what you are replying to but I think believing in some imaginary being is defying logic...


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

ESPADA9 said:


> Radical evangelical Christian propaganda or your mindless socialist/communist leftist blather, what’s the difference???????? You BOTH defy logic.


ok...

i'm not really socialist or communist... and i'm certainly not leftist... just because i don't believe that religion has any basis for infecting society with it's doctrines, and forcing them upon all social policy and everyone living within America, doesn't mean i'm a leftist.

it's obviously people like you who were taught long ago that anyone who isn't religious is a blasphemous sinner that defy logic. it's sad really, to for no reason believe that someone who doesn't believe in the same invisible man you do is evil, wrong, going to hell or just plane unethical...

seems like from your little outbrust that, once again, intollerence bread from religion rears it's ugly, but familiear head!


and it's always fun when someone who blindly believes what they've been taught about a magical man in the sky that watches you masterbate and won't let you see your family in eternity if you drip some gravy on the carpet as a teenager, tells me, someone who studies nature, reality and logic, that _I'm_ defying logic!

i don't know, but believing in something without proof or any justification is pretty much the definition of defying logic... it's not rare though, to have a religious person, someone who basically swears there alligence to some words in a book, that has no true grasp of logic. 

only a religious person would say; "of course it's logical to imagine the universe was thrown together in 6 days, and that creater doesn't have to be explained... it's just easier to believe this... it's perfectly logical!"


----------



## WouldLuv2FightU (Jul 17, 2006)

pt447 said:


> ok...
> 
> i'm not really socialist or communist... and i'm certainly not leftist... just because i don't believe that religion has any basis for infecting society with it's doctrines, and forcing them upon all social policy and everyone living within America, doesn't mean i'm a leftist.
> 
> ...


*Bows head*

Amen.

and...

PWNED.


----------



## ESPADA9 (Oct 13, 2006)

pt447 said:


> ok...
> 
> i'm not really socialist or communist... and i'm certainly not leftist... just because i don't believe that religion has any basis for infecting society with it's doctrines, and forcing them upon all social policy and everyone living within America, doesn't mean i'm a leftist.
> 
> ...


Congratulations on still failing to poses the adequate reading comprehension to understand the written English language.

Comical how you try and peg me as a Christian conservative, re read my post I was CONDEMING evangelical’s idiot…

I never defended evangelical radicals I was making the point that religious extremists are whack jobs. I don’t take a literal interpretation of the bible, no sane person would

How did you come to the conclusion that “That narrow minded few have managed to single handedly shape American social policy for a long time, limiting scientific and medical advancement and change in this country, as well as help foster support for ideologically justified military campaigns.”

The USA has led the world in science for the last 100 years.
Nobel Prize winners, mostly Americans!

Winners of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry

Winners of the Nobel Prize in Physics

Winners of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

I doubt you are employed in a science based industry so why are you pretending to speak for academia or science?

As for supporting military campaigns do you consider FDR, Truman and JFK to be religious nuts?
Then explain this… FDR... led us into World War II. GERMANY NEVER ATTACKED US, JAPAN DID
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman...finished that war and started one in Korea,
NORTH KOREA NEVER ATTACKED US
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.

John F. Kennedy... escalated the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Johnson... turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
VIETNAM NEVER ATTACKED US
From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

As for religion being the reason wars are started or that without religion there would never be wars consider these facts.

The Spanish Inquisition lasted 350 years. Realistic estimates credit it with 3,000-4,000 deaths. A terrible thing, no doubt, but it hardly compares to the French Reign of terror, the logical extreme conclusion of French Enlightenment atheism and “rationality.” The Reign of Terror, in the name of reason against religion, in just eleven months, from September 1793 to July 1794, killed between 20,000 and 40,000.

I’m not sure who you are referring to when you use the 3rd grade term “PWNED” but try not to let my irrefutable empirical evidence hit you in your single digit IQ pot head, your lack of education, intelligence and historical perspective leaves you pretty much defenseless in any argument not relating to smoking pot in mommies basement, playing video games or anti American delusional propaganda, have another glass of kool-aid and go watch some MTV retard.


----------



## Onganju (May 26, 2006)

pt447 said:


> becauses the very essence of religion is ignorance, conflict and unique truths... hense, everything that goes against social humanity and getting along!


Sorry to go back on my words earlier, but I had noticed this.

I disagree simply for the fact that I am confident that the human animal would propegate ignorance, conflict and "everything that goes against social humanity and getting along" quite well enough regardless of religion. When I consider the nature of humans as competitive animals that are subject to "natural law," I can easily remove any semblance of religion and still logically and reasonably come to the conclusion that we would still be killing each other on a regular basis. Even herbivores kill each other when competing to increase the longevity of their genes.

On a side note: What continually dismays me sir is that you are more than content to label those with religious beliefs as ignorant or mislead. Now, can you honestly say that to me after the discussions we've had on this board?


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

ESPADA9 said:


> Congratulations on still failing to poses the adequate reading comprehension to understand the written English language.
> 
> Comical how you try and peg me as a Christian conservative, re read my post I was CONDEMING evangelical’s idiot…
> 
> ...


honestly, youre entire argument is worthless because, for no reason, you've resorted to name calling and acting like a child... calling me an idiot does nothing buy prove your ignorance.

also, if you're going to criticize, get your targets straight. i never used to term PWND... so go check your facts...

as far as your nobel prizes, that's great. but all the nobel prizes in the world don't reflect the limits of society religion has and continues to impose. the limits to important scientific and medical research, such as stem cells, and the justification for wars. It's no coincidence that Bush, in almost all of his speeches about Iraq, refers to them as evil, and talks about good conqouring, blah blah blah. that's religious speak, because without religion, there is no "evil". the term evil makes it easy to hate, and makes it easy to accept that mass scale murder and occupation is ok because, "they're evil and we're good". don't think all the religious connotations in Bush's speeches are accidental. they're there for a reason!


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

Onganju said:


> Sorry to go back on my words earlier, but I had noticed this.
> 
> I disagree simply for the fact that I am confident that the human animal would propegate ignorance, conflict and "everything that goes against social humanity and getting along" quite well enough regardless of religion. When I consider the nature of humans as competitive animals that are subject to "natural law," I can easily remove any semblance of religion and still logically and reasonably come to the conclusion that we would still be killing each other on a regular basis. Even herbivores kill each other when competing to increase the longevity of their genes.
> 
> On a side note: What continually dismays me sir is that you are more than content to label those with religious beliefs as ignorant or mislead. Now, can you honestly say that to me after the discussions we've had on this board?


i never said that everyone who's religious is ignorant... but the basis for religious belief are much more simplistic than most people want to realize. there are very basic psychological and cultural reasons for the propogation of religion, and they have nothing to do with intellegence or logic. religion itself is a scurge, and those who believein it so strongly as to think their views are what everyone else should ive by--i.e. stem cell research, gay marraige, abortion, etc.--are ignorant. i have no problem if you're religious as long as you don't "pity" me, "pray" for me, or in your heart believe i am somehow less well off because i myself am not religious. if you're religious and you leave it at personal belief, that's perfectly fine with me. 

also, on the note of humanity devolving into chaos without religion, that simply isn't true. ask yourself; if you believe that your reason for acting morally is only because there is a god that is judging you, then what would happen, hypothecially, if i proved there was no god? would you suddenly choose to act immorally? would you simply kill people because you wanted to? or wouldn't you still know that killing is wrong, most of the time?

our morals evolved as acceptable reflexes, that stayed with us as mechinisms which help propogate our species. we simply know that killing indescriminatly is wrong because if everyone did that, everyone would kill each other. we live in social groups, therefore we are bread to comprehend social limits and boundaries. we just know what personal space is because we desire it ourselves. if we were solitary, we wouldn't have such senses. 

the problem with religion, and many religious people, is that creationism is central to the entire religious dogma. once you realize that creation is wrong, then you understand that humanity evolved from lesser--really, previous, not lesser--creatures. that means that religion is a human invention; a way to explain that which we did not understand, adn still cannot comprehend. it is a way we organized our ethics. that's fine, but once it became an institiution, that ruined everything. it became a creed, a requirment. black and white rules, when everyone knows that there are times when swtiching the train tracks so that the one man trapped on track A dies, while saving the five people on track B is acceptable!

we all know this, it's inbread into our DNA... literally!

if you're religious, you won't enjoy it, but if you truly want to understand the non-religious way of though, read Richard Dawkins's; The God Dilusion. he brings up all religious problems and explains them more eloquintly then i ever could.

sorry for meandering... but my point is, that nobody who isn't heavily grounded in religion believe that our ability to act civilly with each other has anything to do with religion. go look up the statistics; the vast, vast majority of people in prison are religious, many severely so. how do you explain that if religion is the source of our morals. many hardcore criminals claim to act in a moral way in the rest of their lives, but they could be rapists and murderers. you can't just say that they all just "happen" to be religious. the fact is that religion does nothing but make people feel guilty for feeling human, for acting human, and for using human intuition and the ability to wonder. i'm sorry, but an institution that punishes people for questioning that very institution is a dangerous, cancerous thing.

spirituality is perfectly fine, and although i won't go into how anyone cannot truly "love" jesus, if that's your "personal" belief, and it is spiritual to you, fine. but influencing policy is different. denying science is different. and claiming that without religion, humanity would disintegrate is so obsurd it baffles many minds.


----------



## WouldLuv2FightU (Jul 17, 2006)

Yea, that was me who used "PWNED", and I never use that word, but it just fit so perfectly this time there was no other word to use.

ESPADA sounds like a pretty smart guy but he's too stuck up to admit when he is wrong sometimes. 

Jumping to conclusions about people who smoke pot makes you look VERY intelligent ESPADA. Bravo.


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

hey, some people just thrive under the veil of ignorance. it's much easier to accept what you think you know, than to accept the truth about people who act, look, think, believe differently than you!

he's prolly one of the many people that has zero clue of the history of marijuana; especially it's prohibition and criminalization. he most likely thinks it's always been "evil" and wrong. prolly doesn't know that for a good party of America's industrialized history, cocaine, opium and heroin were the main ingrediant in almost every medicine Americans took, for everything. not that i'm equating heroin to marijuana, but too many people don't reserach the history of any topic, let alone drugs, before they criticize, generalize and stereotype!


----------



## WouldLuv2FightU (Jul 17, 2006)

pt447 said:


> hey, some people just thrive under the veil of ignorance. it's much easier to accept what you think you know, than to accept the truth about people who act, look, think, believe differently than you!
> 
> he's prolly one of the many people that has zero clue of the history of marijuana; especially it's prohibition and criminalization. he most likely thinks it's always been "evil" and wrong. prolly doesn't know that for a good party of America's industrialized history, cocaine, opium and heroin were the main ingrediant in almost every medicine Americans took, for everything. not that i'm equating heroin to marijuana, but too many people don't reserach the history of any topic, let alone drugs, before they criticize, generalize and stereotype!


Now you've done it. Prepare for ESPADA to tell you what he does for a living now. He's mentioned it several times but I always forget, but no worries, I'm sure he'll remind us of his prosperous life in California working with world-reknown scientists and such. 

Just ****ing with you ESPADA, cuz you had to diss me for smoking a plant.


----------

