Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Monotheism vs. Mercuryism

daytonanerd
Posts: 6,769
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 8:05:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Today, I want to explore the 2 most major types of religions in this world. The first is monotheism, the belief in one god. And the second, which is Mercuryism, which is the new religion which is already the most popular in the world, that Freddie Mercury caused the Big Bang when he sang his first note, and has been the ruler and manipulator of the universe, and how he appointed Wilt Chamberlain to be his Co-God, and having Brian May, Roger Taylor, and John Deacon be his Vice god. Let us begin the comparison!

Sames:
1. The God(s) are the rulers of the universe in the beliefs of religion.
2. This/These God(s) have messengers to spread their world around their rule.

Now, let's get to some differences.
1. Mercuryism supports logical science in evolution and the Big Bang, while monotheism traditionally veers off that course, and resorts to creationism, in the creation of the world/universe in 7 days, and that all species were created by their respective God.
2. Monotheism, of course, has 1 god, while Mercuryism has 1 Head God, 1 Co-God, and 3 Vice-Gods, a much more organized system.
3. Mercuryism makes a lot more since than Monotheism. Monotheism is just saying that a big man is controlling us In the sky, with no scientific proof, while the events of Mercuryism have scientific evidence behind them. I mean, Mercuryism complies with the scientific findings of the Big Bang and Evolution. Monotheism just isn't supported.

What are your thoughts on this most important issue?
#FeeltheFreezerBern
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2012 12:39:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 8:05:09 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
What are your thoughts on this most important issue?

That is intriguing. The only problem is that you say Mercuryism makes more sense than monotheism, yet you have the big bang happening when Mercury sang his first note. His first note was sung in the 20th century, but the big bang happened 13.7 billion years ago. So Mercuryism is incoherent. It makes no sense at all. In monotheism, God is "other" than the universe, but Freddie Mercury was part of the universe, so monotheism makes more sense than Mercuryism.

That is, unless you say Mercury predated his incarnation and actually sang his first note before he became human.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
daytonanerd
Posts: 6,769
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2012 1:08:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/3/2012 12:39:48 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/2/2012 8:05:09 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
What are your thoughts on this most important issue?

That is intriguing. The only problem is that you say Mercuryism makes more sense than monotheism, yet you have the big bang happening when Mercury sang his first note. His first note was sung in the 20th century, but the big bang happened 13.7 billion years ago. So Mercuryism is incoherent. It makes no sense at all. In monotheism, God is "other" than the universe, but Freddie Mercury was part of the universe, so monotheism makes more sense than Mercuryism.

That is, unless you say Mercury predated his incarnation and actually sang his first note before he became human.

That is exactly the belief that is shared among Mercuryism. The Mercury of the 20th century was the human incarnation of himself, sort of like Jesus in Christianity. He sang his first note way before the first signs of our solar system, or our galaxy. It was when his first note was sang when the big bang happened. Mercury was the controller of the Universe. The Chamberlain, May, Taylor, and Deacon beliefs are almost the same to that of Mercury's. Though, Mercury was the soul of the first star that exploded to start the Big Bang
#FeeltheFreezerBern
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2012 1:15:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/3/2012 1:08:58 AM, daytonanerd wrote:
That is, unless you say Mercury predated his incarnation and actually sang his first note before he became human.

That is exactly the belief that is shared among Mercuryism. The Mercury of the 20th century was the human incarnation of himself, sort of like Jesus in Christianity. He sang his first note way before the first signs of our solar system, or our galaxy. It was when his first note was sang when the big bang happened. Mercury was the controller of the Universe. The Chamberlain, May, Taylor, and Deacon beliefs are almost the same to that of Mercury's. Though, Mercury was the soul of the first star that exploded to start the Big Bang

Well, that would explain why he was such a good singer.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Clash
Posts: 220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2012 7:42:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Mercuryism supports logical science in evolution and the Big Bang, while monotheism traditionally veers off that course, and resorts to creationism, in the creation of the world/universe in 7 days, and that all species were created by their respective God.

I don't know about Christianity and Judaism, but Islam never states that the world/universe was created in 7 days.

And the second, which is Mercuryism, which is the new religion which is already the most popular in the world, that Freddie Mercury caused the Big Bang when he sang his first note, and has been the ruler and manipulator of the universe, and how he appointed Wilt Chamberlain to be his Co-God, and having Brian May, Roger Taylor, and John Deacon be his Vice god.

This is just hilarious. If this makes more sense than Monotheism, then you certainly don't know what makes sense and what doesn't make sense.
daytonanerd
Posts: 6,769
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2012 9:12:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/3/2012 7:42:18 AM, Clash wrote:
Mercuryism supports logical science in evolution and the Big Bang, while monotheism traditionally veers off that course, and resorts to creationism, in the creation of the world/universe in 7 days, and that all species were created by their respective God.

I don't know about Christianity and Judaism, but Islam never states that the world/universe was created in 7 days.

And the second, which is Mercuryism, which is the new religion which is already the most popular in the world, that Freddie Mercury caused the Big Bang when he sang his first note, and has been the ruler and manipulator of the universe, and how he appointed Wilt Chamberlain to be his Co-God, and having Brian May, Roger Taylor, and John Deacon be his Vice god.

This is just hilarious. If this makes more sense than Monotheism, then you certainly don't know what makes sense and what doesn't make sense.

Or maybe, the rest of the world just doesn't know what sense is... Yet.
#FeeltheFreezerBern
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 5:53:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/3/2012 9:12:08 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 11/3/2012 7:42:18 AM, Clash wrote:
Mercuryism supports logical science in evolution and the Big Bang, while monotheism traditionally veers off that course, and resorts to creationism, in the creation of the world/universe in 7 days, and that all species were created by their respective God.

I don't know about Christianity and Judaism, but Islam never states that the world/universe was created in 7 days.

And the second, which is Mercuryism, which is the new religion which is already the most popular in the world, that Freddie Mercury caused the Big Bang when he sang his first note, and has been the ruler and manipulator of the universe, and how he appointed Wilt Chamberlain to be his Co-God, and having Brian May, Roger Taylor, and John Deacon be his Vice god.

This is just hilarious. If this makes more sense than Monotheism, then you certainly don't know what makes sense and what doesn't make sense.

Or maybe, the rest of the world just doesn't know what sense is... Yet.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 9:21:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 8:05:09 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
Today, I want to explore the 2 most major types of religions in this world. The first is monotheism, the belief in one god. And the second, which is Mercuryism, which is the new religion which is already the most popular in the world, that Freddie Mercury caused the Big Bang when he sang his first note, and has been the ruler and manipulator of the universe, and how he appointed Wilt Chamberlain to be his Co-God, and having Brian May, Roger Taylor, and John Deacon be his Vice god. Let us begin the comparison!

Sames:
1. The God(s) are the rulers of the universe in the beliefs of religion.
2. This/These God(s) have messengers to spread their world around their rule.

Now, let's get to some differences.
1. Mercuryism supports logical science in evolution and the Big Bang, while monotheism traditionally veers off that course, and resorts to creationism, in the creation of the world/universe in 7 days, and that all species were created by their respective God.
2. Monotheism, of course, has 1 god, while Mercuryism has 1 Head God, 1 Co-God, and 3 Vice-Gods, a much more organized system.
3. Mercuryism makes a lot more since than Monotheism. Monotheism is just saying that a big man is controlling us In the sky, with no scientific proof, while the events of Mercuryism have scientific evidence behind them. I mean, Mercuryism complies with the scientific findings of the Big Bang and Evolution. Monotheism just isn't supported.

What are your thoughts on this most important issue?

Freddie Mercury, like all of fallen humanity, was his own god and paid a terrible price for it..

But who knows what deals men make with God in their final moments?
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
Clash
Posts: 220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 9:34:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/3/2012 9:12:08 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 11/3/2012 7:42:18 AM, Clash wrote:
Mercuryism supports logical science in evolution and the Big Bang, while monotheism traditionally veers off that course, and resorts to creationism, in the creation of the world/universe in 7 days, and that all species were created by their respective God.

I don't know about Christianity and Judaism, but Islam never states that the world/universe was created in 7 days.

And the second, which is Mercuryism, which is the new religion which is already the most popular in the world, that Freddie Mercury caused the Big Bang when he sang his first note, and has been the ruler and manipulator of the universe, and how he appointed Wilt Chamberlain to be his Co-God, and having Brian May, Roger Taylor, and John Deacon be his Vice god.

This is just hilarious. If this makes more sense than Monotheism, then you certainly don't know what makes sense and what doesn't make sense.

Or maybe, the rest of the world just doesn't know what sense is... Yet.

Sure, it may be the case that the rest of the world just doesn't know what sense is yet... Or it may be the case that Mercuryism really just doesn't make sense. I'll go with the latter one.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 12:13:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/3/2012 1:15:48 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/3/2012 1:08:58 AM, daytonanerd wrote:
That is, unless you say Mercury predated his incarnation and actually sang his first note before he became human.

That is exactly the belief that is shared among Mercuryism. The Mercury of the 20th century was the human incarnation of himself, sort of like Jesus in Christianity. He sang his first note way before the first signs of our solar system, or our galaxy. It was when his first note was sang when the big bang happened. Mercury was the controller of the Universe. The Chamberlain, May, Taylor, and Deacon beliefs are almost the same to that of Mercury's. Though, Mercury was the soul of the first star that exploded to start the Big Bang

Well, that would explain why he was such a good singer.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
bulproof
Posts: 25,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 3:18:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 5:54:23 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
Bump. What are your guys' opinion on this?
Knew as soon as I saw your avatar that you were a man of the stilt. Huzzah
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
skinker
Posts: 345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 9:12:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Atheists displaying their theotropism again. Can't really stay away from the Light so they even try to make up their own light with their pen lights under the covers as little boys in bed, oooo-eeee, giggle, giggle..
daytonanerd
Posts: 6,769
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 10:05:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 9:12:38 AM, skinker wrote:
Atheists displaying their theotropism again. Can't really stay away from the Light so they even try to make up their own light with their pen lights under the covers as little boys in bed, oooo-eeee, giggle, giggle..

Ah, so I'll take that as an order for a tin foil hat.

Praise be Freddie Mercury.
#FeeltheFreezerBern