PDA

View Full Version : "don't be datin' no atheists"



Pages : [1] 2

Virus
14th June 09, 12:18 PM
This guy was on some talk show a while back. He's some shitwank relationship "expert" and he said that women shouldn't date atheists because they have no morals. Imagine if a Catholic got on TV and said "Don't date Protestants. They have no morals."

Well he said it again on Larry King and he threw a little evolution denial and "Why are there still monkeys?" in as an added bonus.

9hTnmZkHnTE

Aphid Jones
14th June 09, 12:33 PM
Virus, your latest threads remind me of AAAhmed's "dis nigga be h8in on islam" threads, only you've replaced... well you get the idea.

HappyOldGuy
14th June 09, 12:37 PM
I'm pretty sure I wasn't gonna be dating him anyhow.

Aphid Jones
14th June 09, 12:42 PM
http://www.laceyp.com/IMAGES/SickBurn.jpg

boondock lee
14th June 09, 12:50 PM
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert Einstein.

Nuff said.

EuropIan
14th June 09, 12:54 PM
"That's right, baby. I am who your parents warned me against"

Kiko
14th June 09, 01:11 PM
Why are there still monkeys? Did he say they shouldn't date either?

Truculent Sheep
14th June 09, 01:15 PM
Monkeys are selfish. They should have killed themselves like the Dinosaurs did. BUT NO! They had to hang around like embarrassing relatives. Damn those monkeys. And don't get me started on Promisians.

Kiko
14th June 09, 01:20 PM
http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGS/Shared/StaticFiles/animals/images/primary/black-spider-monkey.jpg

Cullion
14th June 09, 01:26 PM
I'm confused, is 'monkeys' a euphemism for 'negroes' here ?

Kiko
14th June 09, 01:28 PM
I think he asked 'why are there still monkeys?' as if to challenge evolution. Faulty reasoning assuming that IF there was evolution, all the monkeys would have become.. um.. people? What about the fish though?

Cullion
14th June 09, 02:09 PM
I think he asked 'why are there still monkeys?' as if to challenge evolution. Faulty reasoning assuming that IF there was evolution, all the monkeys would have become.. um.. people? What about the fish though?

Well, Monkeys and Fish are still here because Tripitaka still has to bring Buddhism to the west. Where did Monkey come from in the first place?

"In the worlds before Monkey, primal chaos reigned. Heaven sought order. But the phoenix can fly only when its feathers are grown. The four worlds formed again and yet again, as endless aeons wheeled and passed. Time and the pure essences of Heaven, the moisture of the Earth, the powers of the Sun and the Moon all worked upon a certain rock, old as creation. And it became magically fertile. That first egg was named "Thought". Tathagata Buddha, the Father Buddha, said, "With our thoughts, we make the World". Elemental forces caused the egg to hatch. From it then came a stone monkey. The nature of Monkey was irrepressible!"

So, the pig comes into it a little bit later. I'm still not sure how black people fit in.

NuQkVyRLt44

AAAhmed46
14th June 09, 03:44 PM
Virus, your latest threads remind me of AAAhmed's "dis nigga be h8in on islam" threads, only you've replaced... well you get the idea.

I was scared id get this kind of reputation. From now on, i shall commence in posting about non-slamic stuff!!!

AAAhmed46
14th June 09, 04:03 PM
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert Einstein.

Nuff said.

Wasn't Einstien pantheistic?

kracker
14th June 09, 04:09 PM
I was scared id get this kind of reputation. From now on, i shall commence in posting about non-slamic stuff!!!

Nothing wrong with being a one issue guy on sociocide:P.

Shawarma
14th June 09, 04:11 PM
Virus is not like Ahmed.

Ahmed has opened a book on religion once or twice in his life.

Virus copies shit from the internet without actually knowing what he's talking about.

Cullion
14th June 09, 04:37 PM
It's not that often I agree with Shawarma. There must be some kind of planetary conjuction tonight.

HappyOldGuy
14th June 09, 04:42 PM
I would date Aaahmed.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
14th June 09, 04:49 PM
how do you know he aint ugly?

bob
14th June 09, 04:50 PM
You know his religion forbids him to perform cunnilingus on you don't you?

AAAhmed46
14th June 09, 04:54 PM
how do you know he aint ugly?

Well i did post a picture here on sociocide long long ago in a thread i started. I don't know if it's still active.

AAAhmed46
14th June 09, 04:59 PM
http://www.sociocide.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46299

AAAhmed46
14th June 09, 05:01 PM
Whats cunnilings?

HappyOldGuy
14th June 09, 05:03 PM
how do you know he aint ugly?


You know his religion forbids him to perform cunnilingus on you don't you?

There is a simple solution that solves both of those problems.

Cullion
14th June 09, 05:04 PM
Whats cunnilings?

I think it's like washing the dishes in a restaurant when you can't afford to pay, except this is when you're with a prostitute.

EuropIan
14th June 09, 06:20 PM
You know his religion forbids him to perform cunnilingus on you don't you?
Only cunnilingus?

Harpy
14th June 09, 07:16 PM
Back on topic. Virus, wouldn't you rather not date women who would be swayed by such an opinion?

This is a good thing, except for the part where it narrows down your choice even further.

Maybe your prejudice is limiting you (Elizabeth Bennett could teach you a thing or two).

EuropIan
14th June 09, 07:30 PM
If that man has any sway with fathers, atheists could get laid because of him.

Virus
14th June 09, 08:10 PM
I was scared id get this kind of reputation. From now on, i shall commence in posting about non-slamic stuff!!!

Don't listen to him. Post more of those threads.

Virus
14th June 09, 08:15 PM
Virus is not like Ahmed.

Ahmed has opened a book on religion once or twice in his life.

Virus copies shit from the internet without actually knowing what he's talking about.

Prove that I've never opened a book on religion.



Back on topic. Virus, wouldn't you rather not date women who would be swayed by such an opinion?

This is a good thing, except for the part where it narrows down your choice even further.

Maybe your prejudice is limiting you (Elizabeth Bennett could teach you a thing or two).

I actually don't care.

Fearless Ukemi
14th June 09, 09:30 PM
It's still pretty common for people not to marry people who don't share their religious beliefs outside of western cultures.

Harpy
14th June 09, 09:41 PM
I actually don't care.

You don't care that your choices are being limited? Could you ever be in a relationship with someone who is not a hardcore worshipper (of whatever religion) but still believes in God and may from time to time pray or celebrate religious festivals?

socratic
14th June 09, 10:31 PM
I was scared id get this kind of reputation. From now on, i shall commence in posting about non-slamic stuff!!!

Your stuff about ME history was very interesting. I say 'fawck h8ers, mang'.

Besides, everyone knows that hyper religious chicks are absolute closet nymphos. This is terrible news! Imagine all the freaky sex we could be having if they'd just be more tolerant :(

Spade: The Real Snake
14th June 09, 10:32 PM
Didn't Steve Harvey die?

EDIT
Shit is was Bernie Mack.

EDIT EDIT
IN BEFORE OBVIOUS MJS JOKE

Virus
15th June 09, 12:28 AM
You don't care that your choices are being limited? Could you ever be in a relationship with someone who is not a hardcore worshipper (of whatever religion) but still believes in God and may from time to time pray or celebrate religious festivals?

No, I don't care about religion.

Harpy
15th June 09, 12:58 AM
Oh, so you'd date a semi-religious girl? Go to church with her if she asked etc.?

Virus
15th June 09, 01:36 AM
Oh, so you'd date a semi-religious girl? Go to church with her if she asked etc.?

I wouldn't go to church. That's asking a bit isn't it?

Harpy
15th June 09, 01:40 AM
Yeah it is, but you wouldn't stop your partner doing it right? What if it was a really special occassion and it meant alot to the person you love?

G-Off
15th June 09, 01:42 AM
Yeah it is, but you wouldn't stop your partner doing it right? What if it was a really special occassion and it meant alot to the person you love?

Why does it matter? Does he have to be angry about this?

Harpy
15th June 09, 01:43 AM
Not angry, just wondered if he could ever take his partner seriously if they were even a little religious.

Virus
15th June 09, 02:05 AM
Yeah it is, but you wouldn't stop your partner doing it right? What if it was a really special occassion and it meant alot to the person you love?

Why would I stop someone going to church? It would be impossible to do anyway.

JohnnyCache
15th June 09, 12:38 PM
I actually like crazy Christians more then "sane" ones

At least "nutty" Christians are internally consistent: They read the bible. They believe what it says. They go with it.

The people that are all, "Hey, I guess I . . . technically sorta believe in god, but I don't do any of that crazy believing the whole bible thing" are the problematic ones for me.

See also "OMG, I GUESS I WOULD SAY I'M SPIRITUAL BUT NOT RELIGIOUS"

JohnnyCache
15th June 09, 12:40 PM
Not angry, just wondered if he could ever take his partner seriously if they were even a little religious.

This is what I'm saying.

how the fuck do you be "a little religious"

You either believe in imaginary shit or you don't.

"I believe in god but I reject all his specific teachings because they aren't convenient to my modern life"

is not MODERATE religion, it's just poor observance of the same belief.

Cullion
15th June 09, 01:04 PM
You're smarter than that Johnny.

Lebell
15th June 09, 01:10 PM
i agree with the negr0.

(lolol negro in a suit!!!1laff!!1)

As a white devil i'm void of any emphaty or social skills whatso-ever by nature.
Then i found Jesus.

Correction, Jesus found me.

bobyclumsyninja
15th June 09, 01:24 PM
Everyone needs comfort, in this life. Religion does it for some.

I don't like being preached to/at. I especially don't like it when they bust a wide-eyes, as though that makes it more truthful, and persuasive. I try not to crush people's belief systems, and in return, I demand no one impose theirs on mine.

I empathize enough with people's needs to not tell them they're full of shit, but I don't pretend to be religious, to suit their needs. If we get into a deep discussion, they'll get their feelings hurt. I spare them my brutal honesty, but I'm not willing to pander to their insecurities, by engaging them in a halfway manner...I just want to be left alone about it. I'm not thrilled that things are the way they are, I just don't like to fantasize about "what if, wouldn't it be great" or "I was told..."

If the young lady in the OP is a little detatched, perhaps that's natural as she was RAIS3D as F9iGGIN CO$. Wouldn't you develop some protective detachment in that situation...assuming you didn't buy it, and stay there (the real horror).

Like the fam, hate the girl won't work ever. Like the girl, hate the fam is hardly rare. If she's cool, best of luck to you both.

bobyclumsyninja
15th June 09, 01:28 PM
How many people here have friends that describe themselves as a "recovering Catholic"? I know a guy who was raised in Bible tent revival tongues and flailing steez. He's still recovering.

Any heavy dose of religion on a kid, is sooooooooo damaging, without real life perspective (as in, not giving them 16th or summit century tools for a modern world).

It's a growing experience for them to get over it...adversity builds character. Horribly traumatized and scarred character....but character. (insensitive ban plz)

JohnnyCache
15th June 09, 01:32 PM
You're smarter than that Johnny.

No, I'm really not. It's dumb to believe in fake things and it doesn't get smarter because you REALLY REALLY REALLY believe in them.

Cullion
15th June 09, 01:48 PM
No, I'm really not. It's dumb to believe in fake things and it doesn't get smarter because you REALLY REALLY REALLY believe in them.

I don't believe that you're not intelligent enough to understand that some people are capable of believing in a religion but viewing some or all of the miraculous stories as symbolic, or that they may view some of the laws as applying to a particular time and place.

I don't believe you actually think that.

Lebell
15th June 09, 01:53 PM
johnny is doing a lousy trolljob obviously.

i say 3/10.

Jesus is sitting next to me, he says he gives him a 6/10 for trying but that's just how He is.

JohnnyCache
15th June 09, 02:05 PM
I don't believe that you're not intelligent enough to understand that some people are capable of believing in a religion but viewing some or all of the miraculous stories as symbolic, or that they may view some of the laws as applying to a particular time and place.

I don't believe you actually think that.

What part of "the religion" do they believe in?

If they believe in the part about the supernatural being not in evidence that trumps any fence-sitting choice they make. Why would a certain fraction of his miracles, decided by the sensibility of the reader, be simply parables designed to illustrate his miraculous existence when said parables should be total un-needed, their needfulness negated by his actual and obvious existence and ability to produce miricles?

"I believe in a divine and miraculous god but I do not believe the ancient stories of Him are accurate, but rather symbolic stories about Him" is not really a more credible or less credulous statement than "I belive in a divine and miraculous god"

Virus
15th June 09, 03:10 PM
Hey JC:

cTqVA0IpRLs

HappyOldGuy
15th June 09, 03:20 PM
Hey JC, JC...

ebwajADIm7k

Dagon Akujin
15th June 09, 03:26 PM
I actually like crazy Christians more then "sane" ones

At least "nutty" Christians are internally consistent: They read the bible. They believe what it says. They go with it.



This is so incredibly not at all true, however. The "Bible-Thumpers" pick and choose just as much as the "Moderate" X-Tians do.

For instance: They use Levitical codes to denounce homosexuality, and at the same time wear blended clothes and eat shrimp (equally denounced in Levitical law).

For instance: They preach about Jesus as the King of Peace but bring guns to their church services.

For instance: They make a big fuss about abortion but they don't mind when God sanctified bashing kids' brains on rocks.

For instance: They make a big deal about premarital sex but they don't pay any attention to the punishments of rape in the bible (you have to marry the girl) or the idea of dating (you bought your wife as property). They are simply the Fun-Police.

Bible-Thumpers just use what crazyness they want at the time that they want it. They are the ultra-PC crowd, censoring and bleeping while at the same time yelling "Jesus was a Republican!" They are simply jealous of those who have more fun than they do. So fuck 'em.

Cullion
15th June 09, 04:34 PM
What part of "the religion" do they believe in?

It varies.



Why would a certain fraction of his miracles, decided by the sensibility of the reader, be simply parables designed to illustrate his miraculous existence when said parables should be total un-needed, their needfulness negated by his actual and obvious existence and ability to produce miricles?

Because the stories were written by humans.



"I believe in a divine and miraculous god but I do not believe the ancient stories of Him are accurate, but rather symbolic stories about Him" is not really a more credible or less credulous statement than "I belive in a divine and miraculous god"

Maybe not, however, do you really find a moderate and kindly Catholic more annoying than Pastor Phelps? Really?

I don't believe you.

JohnnyCache
15th June 09, 05:21 PM
It varies.




Because the stories were written by humans.



Maybe not, however, do you really find a moderate and kindly Catholic more annoying than Pastor Phelps? Really?

I don't believe you.

I find them just as logically boggling. Rudeness isn't precisely the same thing. Phelps is RUDER, he would be more annoying to speak with, but they're similarly logically irksome.

BELIEF IN GOD is the core irrationality of religion. The TENETS of religion aren't the point at all. If two people believe in werewolves, one of them talks about it all the time and lives a werewolf conscious life, and the other one just quietly believes in werewolves, they are both still PEOPLE THAT FUCKING BELIEVE IN WEREWOLVES and the guy who is ACTING as though he believes in werewolves is actually MORE sensible then the one who ISN'T.

Cullion
15th June 09, 05:25 PM
We've done the irrational foundations of quasi-scientific materialism on another thread.

JohnnyCache
15th June 09, 05:34 PM
This is so incredibly not at all true, however. The "Bible-Thumpers" pick and choose just as much as the "Moderate" X-Tians do.

For instance: They use Levitical codes to denounce homosexuality, and at the same time wear blended clothes and eat shrimp (equally denounced in Levitical law).

For instance: They preach about Jesus as the King of Peace but bring guns to their church services.

For instance: They make a big fuss about abortion but they don't mind when God sanctified bashing kids' brains on rocks.

For instance: They make a big deal about premarital sex but they don't pay any attention to the punishments of rape in the bible (you have to marry the girl) or the idea of dating (you bought your wife as property). They are simply the Fun-Police.

Bible-Thumpers just use what crazyness they want at the time that they want it. They are the ultra-PC crowd, censoring and bleeping while at the same time yelling "Jesus was a Republican!" They are simply jealous of those who have more fun than they do. So fuck 'em.

true enough but these are actual shortfalls in their education - C and E christians know the whole story and willfully ignore the annoying strictures.

EuropIan
15th June 09, 05:41 PM
We've done the irrational foundations of quasi-scientific materialism on another thread.
and it involved you having to reject empirisim "just because"

Cullion
15th June 09, 05:45 PM
Johnny, which ignored strictures are you referring to?

Cullion
15th June 09, 05:47 PM
and it involved you having to reject empirisim "just because"

Um.. no. It involved me pointing out the difference between empiricism and formal proof. Anyway, if people want to get back into that they should dig up the old thread.

JohnnyCache
15th June 09, 05:52 PM
We've done the irrational foundations of quasi-scientific materialism on another thread.

So? it's always fun. I will always make five minutes to point out THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR GOD and ALL TIME SPENT WORSHIPING HIM COULD BE BETTER SPENT.

JohnnyCache
15th June 09, 05:55 PM
Johnny, which ignored strictures are you referring to?

any and all strictures and principles an individual might ignore.

EuropIan
15th June 09, 05:56 PM
I think the Shellfish clause is one of the more convinient ones to ignore.

Dagon Akujin
15th June 09, 06:06 PM
^^^^So are the ones about poking out your own eyeballs, sleeping with your dead brother's wife, keeping the "proper" holidays (which is one of the 10 Commandments), destroying everything of your enemies and not having treaties with them (another of the 10 Commandments), and not eating cheeseburgers (another god-fucking-hell-shit 10 Commandment).

HappyOldGuy
15th June 09, 06:13 PM
^^^^So are the ones about poking out your own eyeballs, sleeping with your dead brother's wife, keeping the "proper" holidays (which is one of the 10 Commandments), destroying everything of your enemies and not having treaties with them (another of the 10 Commandments), and not eating cheeseburgers (another god-fucking-hell-shit 10 Commandment).
The first sorta. The rest, not so much. Unless the god-fucking-hell-shit commandments are different than the regular set.

Dagon Akujin
15th June 09, 06:22 PM
^^^^^^^^^Yeah, Christians don't even know what their own fucking Bible calls the "10 Commandments", but it ain't the ones they wanted to get posted in courthouses.

Dagon Akujin
15th June 09, 06:28 PM
The following are NOT the 10 Commandments. These are just some things that God yelled at the Jews to make them scared:

1. Don't have no other gods.
2. Don't make no idols.
3. Don't use your God's name in vain.
4. Keep your Sabbath holy-
5. Yo, honor your parents.
6. Don't do that murdering thing.
7. Don't be all up in adultery.
8. Don't be taking nobody's stuff.
9. Don't lie.
10. Don't covet. (Exodus 20)


Then there are the ACTUAL 10 Commandments. Notice that there isn't even anything about murder, or stealing, or adultry, or anything close to what we would now-a-days consider "bad" and tell little kids in Bible study to refrain from. In fact, the actual 1st Commandment is more a command to kill, steal, and destroy in the name of God.

1. I'm all jealous, so do not make treaties with any other people but smash their stuff instead.
2. Don't make no idols.
3. Eat unleavened bread for seven days in the month of Abib.
4. Firstborn boys are Mine.
5. Don't show up at My place empty handed.
6. Work 6 days out of the week.
7. Celebrate the wheat harvest and the Feast of Ingathering.
8. All My homies must meet Me three times a year.
9. Don't mix My sacrifices with liquor and stay away from My leftovers.
10. Don't boil babies in their momma's milk. (Exodus 34)

EuropIan
15th June 09, 06:45 PM
The following are NOT the 10 Commandments. These are just some things that God yelled at the Jews to make them scared:

1. Don't have no other gods.
2. Don't make no idols.
3. Don't use your God's name in vain.
4. Keep your Sabbath holy-
5. Yo, honor your parents.
6. Don't do that murdering thing.
7. Don't be all up in adultery.
8. Don't be taking nobody's stuff.
9. Don't lie.
10. Don't covet. (Exodus 20)


Then there are the ACTUAL 10 Commandments. Notice that there isn't even anything about murder, or stealing, or adultry, or anything close to what we would now-a-days consider "bad" and tell little kids in Bible study to refrain from. In fact, the actual 1st Commandment is more a command to kill, steal, and destroy in the name of God.

1. I'm all jealous, so do not make treaties with any other people but smash their stuff instead.
2. Don't make no idols.
3. Eat unleavened bread for seven days in the month of Abib.
4. Firstborn boys are Mine.
5. Don't show up at My place empty handed.
6. Work 6 days out of the week.
7. Celebrate the wheat harvest and the Feast of Ingathering.
8. All My homies must meet Me three times a year.
9. Don't mix My sacrifices with liquor and stay away from My leftovers.
10. Don't boil babies in their momma's milk. (Exodus 34)
u1kqqMXWEFs

Cullion
15th June 09, 06:55 PM
any and all strictures and principles an individual might ignore.

Is this a cute way of saying you aren't actually sure which strictures they're ignoring?

Cullion
15th June 09, 06:59 PM
and not eating cheeseburgers (another god-fucking-hell-shit 10 Commandment).

That isn't one of the ten commandments, it just appears in the same chapter. Jewish dietary law doesn't apply to Christians according to the New Testament.

Quikfeet509
15th June 09, 07:34 PM
JC FTW.


That would be Johnny Cache BTW.

Ajamil
15th June 09, 08:08 PM
ALL TIME SPENT WORSHIPING HIM COULD BE BETTER SPENT.

How do you figure? Plenty of religions extol the idea of making everyday activities your act of worship, and coming together as a community is certainly beneficial to a community - whether it be done for an event, an abstract idea, or a commonly held fictional belief.

Dagon Akujin
15th June 09, 09:18 PM
and not eating cheeseburgers (another god-fucking-hell-shit 10 Commandment).That isn't one of the ten commandments, it just appears in the same chapter. Jewish dietary law doesn't apply to Christians according to the New Testament.

Um... Exodus 34 is where the 10 are at. It does list the cheeseburger thing there.



Exodus 34

The New Stone Tablets

1 The LORD said to Moses, "Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke. 2 Be ready in the morning, and then come up on Mount Sinai. Present yourself to me there on top of the mountain. 3 No one is to come with you or be seen anywhere on the mountain; not even the flocks and herds may graze in front of the mountain."

4 So Moses chiseled out two stone tablets like the first ones and went up Mount Sinai early in the morning, as the LORD had commanded him; and he carried the two stone tablets in his hands. 5 Then the LORD came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the LORD. 6 And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."

8 Moses bowed to the ground at once and worshiped. 9 "O Lord, if I have found favor in your eyes," he said, "then let the Lord go with us. Although this is a stiff-necked people, forgive our wickedness and our sin, and take us as your inheritance."

10 Then the LORD said: "I am making a covenant with you. Before all your people I will do wonders never before done in any nation in all the world. The people you live among will see how awesome is the work that I, the LORD, will do for you. 11 Obey what I command you today. I will drive out before you the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. 12 Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you. 13 Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles. [a] 14 Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

15 "Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices. 16 And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same.

17 "Do not make cast idols.

18 "Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you. Do this at the appointed time in the month of Abib, for in that month you came out of Egypt.

19 "The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock. 20 Redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem all your firstborn sons.

"No one is to appear before me empty-handed.

21 "Six days you shall labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest.

22 "Celebrate the Feast of Weeks with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, and the Feast of Ingathering at the turn of the year. 23 Three times a year all your men are to appear before the Sovereign LORD, the God of Israel. 24 I will drive out nations before you and enlarge your territory, and no one will covet your land when you go up three times each year to appear before the LORD your God.

25 "Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast, and do not let any of the sacrifice from the Passover Feast remain until morning.

26 "Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the LORD your God.

"Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk."

27 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." 28 Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. [B]And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.

Virus
16th June 09, 03:49 AM
It's in the interests of a believer to keep their definitions and theological conceptions vague. That way you can have your space-cake and eat it too.

JohnnyCache
16th June 09, 04:13 AM
How do you figure? Plenty of religions extol the idea of making everyday activities your act of worship, and coming together as a community is certainly beneficial to a community - whether it be done for an event, an abstract idea, or a commonly held fictional belief.

Choosing to bask in the beauty, benevolence and functionality of the world and forming a community are not limited to those of religion. Coming together as a community for the sake of doing so, in sincerity, is "better" than doing so out of obedience to a fictional character.

A hypothetical "lossless religion" where your only act of devotion is doing exactly what you'd do if you weren't a member is, well, just a sort of less affirmative atheism: "I believe in a creator, I guess, but I endorse only a version of Him that demands worship only in the form of normal activities."

That's correctness born of conveiniece, not any real reasoned belief in authenticity.

Even choosing to passively meditate on the greatness of god through contemplation of his omnipresence is a sad, if moving, practice to me - simply because it's very likely incorrect. Why not worship the beauty of real forces? Are they less beautiful for being explicable?

Is it the omnipresent truth and beauty of the world that this sort of worshiper loves or the idea of rendering the mundane less so by infusing it with divinity?

Lebell
16th June 09, 04:50 AM
omg....if some of you nutheads are against or in favor of religion, just make sure you actually know something about your religion of choice/subject to bash.

you all sound like Virus:' waargh! i hate xtians!!! eventhough i havent got a clue what its all aboot!!'

Virus
16th June 09, 05:44 AM
Virus:' waargh! i hate xtians!!! eventhough i havent got a clue what its all aboot!!'

Yeah? What don't I have a clue about?

Lebell
16th June 09, 06:38 AM
Yeah? What don't I have a clue about?

pretty much everything about religion you're clueless about.
your main approach to it is faulty, perhaps even deliberately so, so it enables you to make ' a point' .

in fact ive noticed that several atheists/religion bashers actually use the same literal strict interpretation of holy books as fundemantalists do.

so that kinda takes the edge off and offers some comic relief.

main point is, if you follow/live by a religion you better know your stuff, and the same goes for people who want to critisise that religion.

bobyclumsyninja
16th June 09, 07:35 AM
I think if any but the craziest actually fully knew their religion, there would be a lot less going on. Ignorance, is in some ways, a prerequisite to having faith. Not knowing the answer, allows one to 'will' into being, the reality of their chosen/inherited belief system.

I don't need to be fully audited, and go through the entire co$ code just to know they're full of shit. Certain clues/discrepancies can indicate to an observant person quite clearly, that as a whole, it's not worth having in the brain.

Someone doesn't need to know everything about something, to make a fairly accurate judgement about it's authenticity. There simply isn't time, in this life, to do so, with everything.

Not only that, but some things are a distraction from others. You don't have to study the collected works of Bach, to know that some people can't sing/play for shit.

You don't have to read the entire literature regarding religions to reject their premise(s). We are afforded reasoning minds, and can use them well, when "I wish" isn't getting in the way.

There should be some inquiry, but validating religions isn't solely based in their internal dogmas. It's about those ideas, and their relationship to the world we're actually living in/on. If there's enough discrepancy, then their assertions of infallibility, and correctness can be appropriately questioned at some point preceding a PHD in the subject.

Virus
16th June 09, 08:17 AM
pretty much everything about religion you're clueless about.
your main approach to it is faulty, perhaps even deliberately so, so it enables you to make ' a point' .

in fact ive noticed that several atheists/religion bashers actually use the same literal strict interpretation of holy books as fundemantalists do.

so that kinda takes the edge off and offers some comic relief.

main point is, if you follow/live by a religion you better know your stuff, and the same goes for people who want to critisise that religion.

In other words; people that actually believe it don't have the r34l religion. Just because you have your "I sort of believe it, I sort of don't" religion doesn't mean everyone else thinks that way. They get criticized because they cause the most problems. People don't campaign to have nonsense taught in schools because they think it's a nice metaphor, people don't take land because god metaphorically told them they could have it and people don't blow themselves up in markets to get to a metaphorical paradise.

The books that people think were written by god (from the three monotheisms) mandate slavery and genocide. You want to defend that as a poetic metaphor it's your burden, not mine.

Lebell
16th June 09, 09:01 AM
In other words; people that actually believe it don't have the r34l religion.

No.
In other words: people should take time to study a religion before yapping about it in either way.
This is point 'A'.


Just because you have your "I sort of believe it, I sort of don't" religion doesn't mean everyone else thinks that way.

Derogatory remark...see point A.



They get criticized because they cause the most problems. People don't campaign to have nonsense taught in schools because they think it's a nice metaphor, people don't take land because god metaphorically told them they could have it and people don't blow themselves up in markets to get to a metaphorical paradise.

ORlly?
Suicebombings during the vietnam war didnt happen?
Nazis didnt invade Poland?
USSR didnt invade afghanistan?
etc?
again, see point A.


The books that people think were written by god (from the three monotheisms) mandate slavery and genocide. You want to defend that as a poetic metaphor it's your burden, not mine.

No, if you would have some idea of what the fuck you were yapping about you would know i dont have to proof shit, you should read more books about these subjects, im not covering unknown terratories here.
Vast amounts of studies of how the Torah, new testament, Quran and hadiths are composed, copied and later add-ons.

so...i guess...see point fucking A.
please.

HappyOldGuy
16th June 09, 10:19 AM
Choosing to bask in the beauty, benevolence and functionality of the world and forming a community are not limited to those of religion.

So why doesn't anybody else do it?

Fearless Ukemi
16th June 09, 11:08 AM
In response to the post a few up, religion has not caused the most problems. Government has.

KO'd N DOA
16th June 09, 11:32 AM
Often points at which religion causes problems is when there is cross over into the world of Politics, and the interpretation of creeds and ideas into law and policy.

Anyone who grows up in church (and most likely) Mosque and Synagoge settings will remember it is internal church politics that is the cause of most of the scisms, and division and that there is only so much internal conflict they can handle.

"Who took my tupperware container?" after a collective dinner causes as much problems as "Should I allow my daughter date the uncircumsized?"

nihilist
16th June 09, 11:58 AM
If evolution exists why are there still idjits?

Shawarma
16th June 09, 01:32 PM
We keep you around for our amusement.

Cullion
16th June 09, 03:56 PM
Um... Exodus 34 is where the 10 are at. It does list the cheeseburger thing there.

The ten commandments are repeated in 3 parts of the Old Testament, the 'do not seethe a kid in the milk of it's mother' injuction is also in the verse you cite, but it is not one of the ten commandments. Ask any Rabbi, Catholic, Anglican or Russian Orthodox priest.

It's part of Jewish dietary law, not the Ten Commandments, and if strictly and literally applied it just says 'don't cook a baby goat in its mother's milk'. No mention of cheese and beef together.

Christians are only bound by Noahide dietary law (no eating parts cut straight from a live animal).

Fearless Ukemi
16th June 09, 03:57 PM
According to Jesus, there are only two commandments.

Cullion
16th June 09, 04:00 PM
Choosing to bask in the beauty, benevolence and functionality of the world and forming a community are not limited to those of religion.

Nobody said that.



Coming together as a community for the sake of doing so, in sincerity, is "better" than doing so out of obedience to a fictional character.

I'm not sure why.



A hypothetical "lossless religion" where your only act of devotion is doing exactly what you'd do if you weren't a member is, well, just a sort of less affirmative atheism: "I believe in a creator, I guess, but I endorse only a version of Him that demands worship only in the form of normal activities."

That's correctness born of conveiniece, not any real reasoned belief in authenticity.

Lebell is right, you do interpret scripture just like a fundamentalist.



Even choosing to passively meditate on the greatness of god through contemplation of his omnipresence is a sad, if moving, practice to me - simply because it's very likely incorrect. Why not worship the beauty of real forces? Are they less beautiful for being explicable?

Is it the omnipresent truth and beauty of the world that this sort of worshiper loves or the idea of rendering the mundane less so by infusing it with divinity?

Some people feel they don't have a choice in this, because they aren't working from faith, but from ineffable personal experience. But.. to go further down this road would be to rehash another thread. Do you want a link to it?

Quikfeet509
16th June 09, 04:27 PM
Religious folks that say that they believe in a god and aspects of their sacred texts but don't really follow it are like people that say they believe in living a healthy, productive lifestyle but still overeat, skip the gym frequently, and binge on alcohol and nicotine.


Oh wait...

Fearless Ukemi
16th June 09, 04:40 PM
I believe in an entitiy commonly known as God. I just don't believe a lot of what people wrote about it.

Kiko
16th June 09, 04:48 PM
1. no1 b4 me. srsly.

2. dnt wrshp pix/idols

3. no omg's

4. no wrk on w/end (sat 4 now; sun l8r)

5. pos ok - ur m&d r cool

6. dnt kill ppl

7. :-X only w/ m8

8. dnt steal

9. dnt lie re: bf

10. dnt ogle ur bf's m8. or ox. or dnkey. myob.

M, pls rite on tabs & giv 2 ppl.

ttyl, JHWH.

ps. wwjd?

Zendetta
16th June 09, 07:20 PM
A lot of people cry out "oh God! oh God!" while they are having sex.

Virus, do you cry out "Oh Dawkins! Oh Dawkins!" when you are making the beast with two backs?

JohnnyCache
16th June 09, 09:18 PM
What the fuck is the deal with you people?

Listen: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD

IF Y

YOU BELIEVE IN A SUPERNATURAL ENTITY IN THE ABSENCE OF PROOF.

DO YOU DRAW YOUR MORALITY FROM GOD

IF Y

YOUR MORALITY IS FALSE


Got it?

JohnnyCache
16th June 09, 09:21 PM
pretty much everything about religion you're clueless about.
your main approach to it is faulty, perhaps even deliberately so, so it enables you to make ' a point' .

in fact ive noticed that several atheists/religion bashers actually use the same literal strict interpretation of holy books as fundemantalists do.

so that kinda takes the edge off and offers some comic relief.

main point is, if you follow/live by a religion you better know your stuff, and the same goes for people who want to critisise that religion.

It's very, very simple. I don't believe in the supernatural. I think "god" and "angels" are just as false as "werewolves" and "vampires"

There's no proof, of any kind, they exist, and I do not understand why people will not shut up about them.

The bible is NOT a book full of device. It is very much intended to be literal, and the subsequent re-interpretation of it as metaphorical has NEVER been anything but a mechanism to reduce dissonance between the indoctrinated mind and the obviously false.

Zendetta
16th June 09, 10:53 PM
I have a sense of reverence and awe towards what I see as an Intelligent, Creative, and possibly Compassionate (jury is still out on that last one) Force in the Universe.

Where does that put me on your whacko scale?

HappyOldGuy
16th June 09, 11:43 PM
YOUR MORALITY IS FALSE


Got it?

Do you?

nihilist
17th June 09, 12:08 AM
I have a sense of reverence and awe towards what I see as an Intelligent, Creative, and possibly Compassionate (jury is still out on that last one) Force in the Universe.

Where does that put me on your whacko scale?

Most people have an imagination.
If you believe that this force somehow had the bright idea to create Britney Spears,
then it is a short leap to believe that this force speaks through prophets, punishes for disobedience and is jealous of your proclivity for tree-groping.

Harpy
17th June 09, 12:57 AM
There's no proof, of any kind, they exist, and I do not understand why people will not shut up about them.


JC - I consider myself quite a rational human being but the above statement doesn't feel right to me. There are more than 5 senses, I actually believe this and feel that there just aren't enough people who can consistently 'use' them to provide data to disprove your above statement.

Brand me a hippy, so be it.

WarPhalange
17th June 09, 02:16 AM
There are more than 5 senses, I actually believe this and feel that there just aren't enough people who can consistently 'use' them to provide data to disprove your above statement.

You mean Common Sense? Scientists have known about it for decades now. But, like you said, there's not enough people that can consistently use it to provide enough data in order to make the idea mainstream.

JohnnyCache
17th June 09, 02:40 AM
JC - I consider myself quite a rational human being but the above statement doesn't feel right to me. There are more than 5 senses, I actually believe this and feel that there just aren't enough people who can consistently 'use' them to provide data to disprove your above statement.

Brand me a hippy, so be it.

ahhh

so?

What does that have to do with any of this?

nihilist
17th June 09, 02:45 AM
JC - I consider myself quite a rational human being but the above statement doesn't feel right to me.

THIS ISN'T THE FEELINGS THREAD, BITCH.

Virus
17th June 09, 04:09 AM
Actually there are more than five senses, there's proprioception, temperature, pain, blood volume, chemoreception, plus a bunch of other stuff.

But if you mean senses that detect the supernatural. Well, nobody that claims that has been able to come up with anything that a person with an overactive imagination couldn't have.

Lebell
17th June 09, 05:04 AM
oh its going to be one of those threads right?

feeling checks people!

im feeling sexy.

Lebell
17th June 09, 05:08 AM
It's very, very simple. I don't believe in the supernatural. I think "god" and "angels" are just as false as "werewolves" and "vampires"

There's no proof, of any kind, they exist, and I do not understand why people will not shut up about them.

There's no proof in a scientifical way.
I agree.


The bible is NOT a book full of device. It is very much intended to be literal, and the subsequent re-interpretation of it as metaphorical has NEVER been anything but a mechanism to reduce dissonance between the indoctrinated mind and the obviously false.

no, not obviously.
please....remember point 'A' .

more point 'A' people!

Virus
17th June 09, 06:54 AM
Lebell, regarding point A;

How much study of Muslim apologetics do you need before you can say that nobody should have to live like this:

http://www.hudsonny.org/2009/03/a-struggle-for-equality.php

Also Lebell, if I may;

You've made the charge that I don't understand religion. Yet when I ask what I don't understand you don't give a straight answer. From what I can tell, you think I ignore that "it's all a bit metaphorical really" for some people. Believe in a divine creator that intervenes by writing books of metaphors for first century Palestinians if you wish. But to say that all religious people think this way is erroneous. As the link above indicates, that's not due to beliefs in metaphors.

Virus
17th June 09, 08:25 AM
Virus, do you cry out "Oh Dawkins! Oh Dawkins!" when you are making the beast with two backs?

Ask your mom.

Kein Haar
17th June 09, 09:20 AM
I doubt his mother even knows about this forum.

That's not logical and rational at all, Virus...and you pride yourself on those things.

I'm surprised you brought up Zendetta's mom like that. I really am.

HappyOldGuy
17th June 09, 10:30 AM
oh its going to be one of those threads right?

feeling checks people!

im feeling sexy.

Check!

JPVrrGQtwDE

Lebell
17th June 09, 10:47 AM
Lebell, regarding point A;

How much study of Muslim apologetics do you need before you can say that nobody should have to live like this:

http://www.hudsonny.org/2009/03/a-struggle-for-equality.php

You need enough study to be sure what is actually being said in the quran.
Not get everything off anonymous people on the internet.



Also Lebell, if I may;

You've made the charge that I don't understand religion. Yet when I ask what I don't understand you don't give a straight answer.


You dont understand religion, if you would have you'd understand its not like a science, its more likea mystery, i cant give you exact answers.
already covered this in the gnosis for noobs thread.




From what I can tell, you think I ignore that "it's all a bit metaphorical really" for some people. Believe in a divine creator that intervenes by writing books of metaphors for first century Palestinians if you wish.


There are more complex concepts in those writings then you or i could ever come up with in ourlifetime.
go read it.
(quran excluded, basically a bad copybook imo)


But to say that all religious people think this way is erroneous. As the link above indicates, that's not due to beliefs in metaphors.

No thats due to stupidity.
It's not unlike the gun issue: do guns kill or the people who hold them.

WarPhalange
17th June 09, 11:24 AM
Actually there are more than five senses, there's proprioception, temperature, pain, blood volume, chemoreception, plus a bunch of other stuff.

Err... no. Those are all based on our other senses. temperature and pain refer to the sense of touch. Yeah, sometimes shit might be touching you from the inside, such as cancer killing your bones or something, but it's still touch. Temperature = touch.

Don't want to look into the other two, but blood volume? The hell is that?

Ajamil
17th June 09, 11:31 AM
Since we've divulged into ESP, does anyone know if there was a follow-up on P.E.A.R. (http://www.princeton.edu/%7Epear/)?

Edit: Reading comprehension!! They joined with the International Consciousness Research Laboratories. (http://www.icrl.org/history.php)

nihilist
17th June 09, 11:43 AM
... blood volume? The hell is that?
That's when Jebus gives you a boner.

Cullion
17th June 09, 01:18 PM
What the fuck is the deal with you people?

Listen: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD

IF Y

YOU BELIEVE IN A SUPERNATURAL ENTITY IN THE ABSENCE OF PROOF.

DO YOU DRAW YOUR MORALITY FROM GOD

IF Y

YOUR MORALITY IS FALSE


Got it?

What do you mean by 'false' morality?

Lebell
17th June 09, 01:20 PM
seriosuly, none of you posters on here are qualified to even discuss this.

its like discussing quantummechanics with toddlers.

Fearless Ukemi
17th June 09, 01:23 PM
This thread needs more music videos.

Zendetta
17th June 09, 01:28 PM
Ask your mom.

Lol, well played.

She complained that you couldn't get it up.

"Spare the Rod", etc

Kein Haar
17th June 09, 01:32 PM
Bay Area males are very familiar with matters of the rod.

nihilist
17th June 09, 02:25 PM
its like discussing quantummechanics with toddlers.


How'd that work out for ya?

MaverickZ
17th June 09, 03:08 PM
This thread needs more music videos.
WXWq7sB5k3s

Lebell
17th June 09, 03:24 PM
How'd that work out for ya?

oh man...it was awfull...

i was in the kindergarten cos i dated this teacher woman.
so i thought i'd start out with explaining the relativity theory of einstein and work my way up to full on quantum mechanics (trying to impress meh chick ofcourse! )

well, toddlers must have a short attention span or something, i blame mtv.
so i kinda start screaming i might have thrown with some furniture, the kids were crying and trying to hide under their blankets.

in the end i got a restraining order from all kindergardens and my hot teacher woman broke up with me.

Lebell
17th June 09, 03:25 PM
music videos right?
enjoy the titties!
vYT2aWavXlc

Kiko
17th June 09, 03:26 PM
Datin' athiests is oke. It's when you want to marry 'em that you get into problems....

MaverickZ
17th June 09, 03:32 PM
Datin' athiests is oke. It's when you want to marry 'em that you get into problems....
Why?

Kiko
17th June 09, 03:34 PM
Assuming that you practice some religion that would call for a religious wedding.... hilarity could ensue.

HappyOldGuy
17th June 09, 03:40 PM
Why?

I swear not to fool around or smack a bitch in the sight of, well, me!


More peaches
vUxbyyeNniU

Cullion
17th June 09, 03:41 PM
Depends how militant they are. I don't believe in God and had a religious wedding service. I'm not nuts enough to need to be restrained from yelling 'God isn't real!' whilst my relatives are enjoying a bit of harmless pageantry.

nihilist
17th June 09, 03:46 PM
so you're down for a bris?

Cullion
17th June 09, 03:48 PM
so you're down for a bris?

She would have to be something special.

nihilist
17th June 09, 03:50 PM
She would have to be something special (http://www.thesunblog.com/frosting/amy_winehouse_4_wenn1832955.jpg).

Cullion
17th June 09, 03:53 PM
I'd want her to brush her teeth first, certainly.

Virus
17th June 09, 05:16 PM
Err... no. Those are all based on our other senses. temperature and pain refer to the sense of touch. Yeah, sometimes shit might be touching you from the inside, such as cancer killing your bones or something, but it's still touch. Temperature = touch.

Well you're sort of correct in that free nerve endings respond to a variety of stimuli but there are also specialized types of nerve endings (thermorecpetors) that respond to hot, cold and pain. (nociceptors)



Don't want to look into the other two, but blood volume? The hell is that?

They are baroreceptors (pressure) in the wall of the aorta that detect blood volume and adjust accordingly by stimulating the release of hormones from the kidneys.

I'm just saying that "the five senses" is a bit of a misnomer because that's only the five special senses. There's a whole bunch of other senses, some which we are conscious of such as linear acceleration and head position (otolith organs in the inner ear) and stretch receptors in the deep muscle tissue, many of which we aren't such as chemoreceptors that respond to changes in blood pH or carbon dioxide levels. I assure you this is standard medical science and I'm not just being a fuckwank. Well, I am being a fuckwank but that's for totally different reasons.

JohnnyCache
17th June 09, 05:28 PM
What do you mean by 'false' morality?

If you're doing it because it's a commandment from god, that's not moral. Obedience isn't ethical just because you're obeying commands that happen to me harmless at the moment.

You're just lucky god's not telling you to do anything bad.

Cullion
17th June 09, 05:33 PM
If you're doing it because it's a commandment from god, that's not moral.

Why?



Obedience isn't ethical just because you're obeying commands that happen to me harmless at the moment.

You're just lucky god's not telling you to do anything bad.

Isn't that somewhat like saying that it's not moral to rely on your own sense of sympathy with others, because somebody might really piss you off one day ? or you might convince yourself that you need that thing you're planning to steal?

What's the true ethical framework that you're following instead?

Yiktin Voxbane
17th June 09, 06:23 PM
So if a deeply religious type falls for an Atheist ... WHY is it the atheists responsibilty to bend to the whims of the weak minded .. erm , oops , religious partner ?

If that's a small price to pay for love ......... then SURELY the religious type can simply not have a religious wedding (seeing as abandoning of ones deeply held principles is a small price to pay for love) .

HappyOldGuy
17th June 09, 06:26 PM
So if a deeply religious type falls for an Atheist ... WHY is it the atheists responsibilty to bend to the whims of the weak minded .. erm , oops , religious partner ?
Because any atheist who isn't a retarded sciencologist doesn't have any principles on the subject that need bending.

qcKMg7eEjj8

Virus
17th June 09, 06:49 PM
seriosuly, none of you posters on here are qualified to even discuss this.

its like discussing quantummechanics with toddlers.

That's an invalid analogy. QM is a hard science that makes objectively testable predictions. Religion consists of made-up stories that are then subjectively interpreted.

Cullion
17th June 09, 07:10 PM
The analogy Lebell's drawing is with attempting to explain or discuss those subjective interpretations with you.

mrblackmagic
17th June 09, 07:14 PM
Am I the only person who knows that guy was comedian Steve Harvey?
Wouldn't exactly call his word gospel.

BTW. If you actually follow the Bible to a "t," you'd be jewish. Fundie's play phone book with the word just like everyone else that's why they have so many weird ass versions of the xtianity.

Cullion
17th June 09, 07:16 PM
Am I the only person who knows that guy was comedian Steve Harvey?
Wouldn't exactly call his word gospel.

BTW. If you actually follow the Bible to a "t," you'd be jewish.

Um.. New Testament.

mrblackmagic
17th June 09, 07:22 PM
Even through the Pauline lineage, xtianity is still a Jewish religion. They had the same holidays, rituals, activities, etc. Modern christian denominations follow their own traditions and dogma.

nihilist
17th June 09, 08:02 PM
Um... Jebus is majik.

mrblackmagic
17th June 09, 08:23 PM
Probably not.

His entourage just talked him up to get more ass.

Ajamil
17th June 09, 10:47 PM
Wasn't there a huge debate between Paul and other apostles about whether or not Christians had to follow Jewish rituals? Whether they ever "agreed" or not, I'm pretty sure the Council of Nicea determined "no."

nihilist
18th June 09, 12:15 AM
Wasn't there a huge debate between Paul and other apostles about whether or not Christians had to follow Jewish rituals? Whether they ever "agreed" or not, I'm pretty sure the Council of Nicea determined "no."
The council of Nicea > God

Virus
18th June 09, 03:41 AM
Real adverts:

miULdI-qocg

http://matadornetwork.cachefly.net/bravenewtraveler.com/docs//wp-content/images/posts/20090601-gun.jpg

Lebell
18th June 09, 03:51 AM
Wasn't there a huge debate between Paul and other apostles about whether or not Christians had to follow Jewish rituals? Whether they ever "agreed" or not, I'm pretty sure the Council of Nicea determined "no."

Good point.
The problem with Christianity is the same universal problem that occurs whenever more then 10 people form a club.

The original founding members are gone and new people start to fuck around with ' the rules' .

Is xtianity the same as judaism?
yes and no.
yes as in: they added the OT into the xtian bible.
no idea why.

no as in: jesus himself said so.
there arent whole verses in the NT for nothing that describe the arguments and critics Jesus had with the scolars and conservatives.

he got crucified for it.
so no, what he did was different from what was out there before he came with his teachings.

enter Paul of Tarsus, a roman (probably went native) who claimed to have had a vision of Jesus and subsequently altered ad tinkered with a shitload of rules.

Nicea was powerplay for the emperor and the church, in their minds there were too many forms of xtianity and they had to draw a line.

if you would leave out all the paulinian crap and the OT and stuck with the 4 evangalical chapters you'd be left with a way more humane form of xtianity.
Thats why i always say: read the book but this time only the parts that Jesus (alledgedly) said.

Virus
18th June 09, 04:39 AM
Did he say that you get tortured when you die if you aren't a christian, like in Mark 16:16?


He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.


Or was that a mistake that someone put in later?

Lebell
18th June 09, 05:21 AM
Did he say that you get tortured when you die if you aren't a christian, like in Mark 16:16?



Or was that a mistake that someone put in later?

point A my dearest friend.

Tortured damned...those are your words.

Understand the concept first, in n00bspeak: there is a message: you best live life according to certain rules, that way you can save yourself and not be lost/damned etc.

One of the basic concepts of religions is: you can advance within the big game plan (go to heaven, reach nirwana etc) or get stuck (reincarnate /relearn your life) or even be lost ( damned, hell, permanently dead without God).

Thats an important if not the most importat part of what drives prophets in most religions, they want to warn you and explain how to live a (in their mindset) good fruitfull life so you end up in some good way after you die.


if you cant handle that, sucks to be you.

so when Jesus says people are at risk of being damned see it as a warning instead of ' zomg!! nobody tells me what to do!!11!'

Lebell
18th June 09, 05:23 AM
your last post is the perfect example of why you should read more.

you tend to pick random quotes that you think will prove your point without fully understanding the concepts.

socratic
18th June 09, 05:27 AM
A lot of people cry out "oh God! oh God!" while they are having sex.

Virus, do you cry out "Oh Dawkins! Oh Dawkins!" when you are making the beast with two backs?

I remember a really funny anecdote from a pastor-who-taught-my-pastor-back-when-I-went-to-a-religious-school. He apparently would literally see Jesus standing at the foot of his bed, giving him the thumbs up of approval [think 'Buddy Christ'], every time he would plough his wife's field.

How hilariously awkward would it be if JC tried to give pointers? "What? Oh, come on now, don't get defensive, I'm just doing it because I Love you."

As for the "but but but critics only take a fundamentalist interpretation!" complaint: "no, actually, they take a literalist interpretation because it's most effective to criticise what the book actually says in its text. If you're trying to cut down the crazy tree you don't start with the flowers, you start by pulling up the roots."


I have a sense of reverence and awe towards what I see as an Intelligent, Creative, and possibly Compassionate (jury is still out on that last one) Force in the Universe.

Where does that put me on your whacko scale?

Dude, everyone knows you're already nucking futs. You're the Heavyweight contender for the All-Crazy Insane Championship. World-renowned Cupcake-fornicator, dead-rabbits-as-pets-and-or-companions, thinks-soccer-is-a-safe-fun-and-enjoyable-sport abso-fucking loopy. You're so insane reality becomes thin in your presence. Alan Moore and Grant Morrison both think you're a valid source of religious advice. You taught Manson all he knows. You make Scientologists look like John Q Normal. Entire industries are devoted to studying just how off-the-walls, making-clothes-made-of-dead-bugs crazy you are. Psssh. Imaginations are claiming more and more of these kids every year. Breaks your heart it does.



Is xtianity the same as judaism?
yes and no.
yes as in: they added the OT into the xtian bible.
no idea why.

I'm starting to think Virus actually does know more about religion than you. Maybe it's because all the 'original' Christians [Jesus and his crew, and all the subsequent members of the faith up until the Romans really caught wind of it, save for like one apostle who had a Roman father] were Jews, with Jewish religious upbrings, and Christianity was only relevant in a Jewish religious context? Jesus preached to Jews, hung out with Jews, discussed Jewish religion the prophecies of which he said he fulfilled with Jews, and WAS A JEW. That's why Jewish religious materials were piggybacked onto the NT, because they're an intrinsic part of Christianity.

socratic
18th June 09, 05:32 AM
Honestly I could find myself dating a religious chick, and I wouldn't have much of a problem with it. I come off all militant on here but in the real world I know to shut my mouth when something good is about to happen.

Kiko
18th June 09, 05:36 AM
You guys are amazing. Spending so much time, energy and all to study and argue about something you think is wrong, fictitious and or nonsense.

I just might pray for you to find some sort of peace.

Virus
18th June 09, 05:55 AM
You guys are amazing. Spending so much time, energy and all to study and argue about something you think is wrong, fictitious and or nonsense.

I just might pray for you to find some sort of peace.

Ever been to this place called Bullshido?

Virus
18th June 09, 05:57 AM
point A my dearest friend.

Tortured damned...those are your words.

Understand the concept first, in n00bspeak: there is a message: you best live life according to certain rules, that way you can save yourself and not be lost/damned etc.

One of the basic concepts of religions is: you can advance within the big game plan (go to heaven, reach nirwana etc) or get stuck (reincarnate /relearn your life) or even be lost ( damned, hell, permanently dead without God).

Thats an important if not the most importat part of what drives prophets in most religions, they want to warn you and explain how to live a (in their mindset) good fruitfull life so you end up in some good way after you die.


if you cant handle that, sucks to be you.

so when Jesus says people are at risk of being damned see it as a warning instead of ' zomg!! nobody tells me what to do!!11!'

No offense Lebell, but for the self-described Erwin Schrödinger of bible studies that's pretty lame.

Lebell
18th June 09, 05:58 AM
I'm starting to think Virus actually does know more about religion than you.

It's okay, you have already proven you're not very good at thinking. ;-)



Maybe it's because all the 'original' Christians [Jesus and his crew, and all the subsequent members of the faith up until the Romans really caught wind of it, save for like one apostle who had a Roman father] were Jews, with Jewish religious upbrings, and Christianity was only relevant in a Jewish religious context?

Christianity emerged from Judaism, this is true, Jesus friends, apostels etc were raised as jews.If you would take time to read the NT you can find many stories about how they clashed with the orthodox scolars about jewish laws.
The main point is the teachings of Jesus, his visions on the sabbath, foodprotocols, inheriting, donating money, praying and kosher food.
Now go read it for yourself dont take my word for it.




Jesus preached to Jews, hung out with Jews, discussed Jewish religion the prophecies of which he said he fulfilled with Jews, and WAS A JEW. That's why Jewish religious materials were piggybacked onto the NT, because they're an intrinsic part of Christianity.

No shit...aaargh...okay i'll try to get my point across again:jesus was not a jew.
that is the whole friggin point.
he said for example: people think i have come to bring the laws, but i have come to fullfill them.
so his life and his actions were the example.
and his life and his actions included agitating against strict rules and complicated upperclasses of priests etc.

So eventhough i can understand why some people thought it was a good thing to include the OT into the bible, i strongly diagree.
The NT can stand on its own, in fact it would be betterbecause the way the bible is now you first read the ot and meet this angry vengefull god, and suddenly in the NT that god loves humakind so much he's sending his own son to be crucified for them.

they are two different concepts of god.

the god of the jews and muslims are in fact the same imo.
a jealous vengefull god.

the god image jesus brought forward was a positive intermezzo.
unfortunately jesus teachings arent very usefull for male ego's and rulers, where the jewish and muslim gods are better to feed the concept of holy wars and a sense of superiority.

even the christians went on crusades despite of jesus' teachings.
that kind of shit is in humans and some religions accamodate those dark desires better then others.



still too difficult for you?
okay, ill write down 1 and 1 makes 2.
over the years long after im dead other people start using stuff for their own agendas and yell : yes but in some cases1 and 1 makes 3!

am i dumb or those people?

Lebell
18th June 09, 06:08 AM
No offense Lebell, but for the self-described Erwin Schrödinger of bible studies that's pretty lame.

yes its lame to you.
you crave for concrete answers.
they arent there.

socratic
18th June 09, 06:32 AM
You guys are amazing. Spending so much time, energy and all to study and argue about something you think is wrong, fictitious and or nonsense.

I just might pray for you to find some sort of peace.

Now that's just cold. What did we do to earn such passive-aggressive condescension?


Christianity emerged from Judaism, this is true, Jesus friends, apostels etc were raised as jews.If you would take time to read the NT you can find many stories about how they clashed with the orthodox scolars about jewish laws.The main point is the teachings of Jesus, his visions on the sabbath, foodprotocols, inheriting, donating money, praying and kosher food.
Now go read it for yourself dont take my word for it.

I have read it. Actually, it was less he clashed with the 'orthodox' so much as he clashed with the 'fundamentalist mainstream'. Both the Pharisees and the Sadducees (the latter ran the Sanhedrin, not that that means anything to you) were both extremely devout, near-literalist, fundamentalist movements.


No shit...aaargh...okay i'll try to get my point across again:jesus was not a jew.
that is the whole friggin point.
he said for example: people think i have come to bring the laws, but i have come to fullfill them.
so his life and his actions were the example.
and his life and his actions included agitating against strict rules and complicated upperclasses of priests etc.

He was born of a Jewish family, he lived in Judea, he was circumcised, he has a direct line to David [or so his followers claims], he fulfilled the JEWISH prophecies, he wanted to insert his philosophy as the Jewish answer to the Jewish question of "How do religion in this trouble time?". The God he spoke of was the Jewish God, he preached a new approach to this same God but at no point did he say "Okay, we've got a new God now." His wasn't even the first cult to do this. Jesus said "I've got the new Judaism!" but that doesn't make him 'not Jewish', you retard.


So eventhough i can understand why some people thought it was a good thing to include the OT into the bible, i strongly diagree.
The NT can stand on its own, in fact it would be betterbecause the way the bible is now you first read the ot and meet this angry vengefull god, and suddenly in the NT that god loves humakind so much he's sending his own son to be crucified for them.

You realise Jesus' whole point was he said right up front he's the Messiah predicted in the OT and he fulfilled prophecies from the OT? Without the OT he lacks any legitimacy at all. There's actually a reason [hint: it was in a certain OT book...] why Jesus died before his legs could be broken. As I said, the NT cannot stand by itself because that means divorcing Jesus and his message from his own identity and culture and even fucking religion [but hey, that's already happened...]

socratic
18th June 09, 06:39 AM
In a lot of ways, Jesus and radicals like him were really ahead of the curve, introducing a trend of teacher-centric Judaism that would come to the fore after the Diaspora began. Indeed, Lebell, he was relatively against the 'power structure' of religious practice [irony, irony, ironyyyyyyyy!] I wish White_Kimbo was here, I've been meaning to ask him if a Sanhedrin had been held since the fall of Jerusalem.

You know in a lot of ways Jesus wouldn't simply make sense at all if you didn't understand Judaism, or tried to understand him as a 'not-Jew'.

Lebell
18th June 09, 06:54 AM
I have read it. Actually, it was less he clashed with the 'orthodox' so much as he clashed with the 'fundamentalist mainstream'. Both the Pharisees and the Sadducees (the latter ran the Sanhedrin, not that that means anything to you) were both extremely devout, near-literalist, fundamentalist movements.

yawn...passive agressive much?




He was born of a Jewish family, he lived in Judea, he was circumcised, he has a direct line to David [or so his followers claims], he fulfilled the JEWISH prophecies, he wanted to insert his philosophy as the Jewish answer to the Jewish question of "How do religion in this trouble time?". The God he spoke of was the Jewish God, he preached a new approach to this same God but at no point did he say "Okay, we've got a new God now."

He did not say it literally.
He did question things like gentiles and jews in relation to God and social interaction, the sabbath,the need for circumcision and spoke out against kosher food.

you claim to have read it, you either are a liar or did not read carefully enough.




His wasn't even the first cult to do this. Jesus said "I've got the new Judaism!" but that doesn't make him 'not Jewish', you retard.

oh i recognise this of you, whenever you fail at being smart you stoop down to namecalling.




You realise Jesus' whole point was he said right up front he's the Messiah predicted in the OT and he fulfilled prophecies from the OT?


No.
His whole point was the teachings and actions he has done.
The focus point is not that he is the messiah or son of god.
Thats erronous.
Many people make that mistake.




Without the OT he lacks any legitimacy at all.


Nope.





There's actually a reason [hint: it was in a certain OT book...] why Jesus died before his legs could be broken. As I said, the NT cannot stand by itself because that means divorcing Jesus and his message from his own identity and culture and even fucking religion [but hey, that's already happened...]

Again, no.
New religious concepts come forth out of old ones, and often get incorporated.

So if you don't know about hinduism you could not understand the teachings of Buddha?



The buddha came from HIndus, surrounded by hindu friends discipels etc.
But nowadays his teachings can be understood on their own.

You have a narrow mindset by the looks of it.

socratic
18th June 09, 07:12 AM
yawn...passive agressive much?
If you don't understand Jesus context, at least in-so-far as it influenced him, you don't understand Jesus. This is very simple.


He did not say it literally.
He did question things like gentiles and jews in relation to God and social interaction, the sabbath,the need for circumcision and spoke out against kosher food.

you claim to have read it, you either are a liar or did not read carefully enough.
He may have questioned the 'chosen by God, everyone else can't worship our God' part of 'being Jewish' but that doesn't mean he stopped being Jewish. You also forget that Jewish is an ethnic identity as well as a religious one, especially during Jesus' time, which is why Jesus was a Jew, because that was the ethnic identity of his parents, that was his society, and that was his ethnic identity. Shit, as a Nazarite, he was a very select kind of Jew, and I imagine Nazarite philosophy probably influenced him greatly.


No.
His whole point was the teachings and actions he has done.
The focus point is not that he is the messiah or son of god.
Thats erronous.
Many people make that mistake.
His words were kinda important too, that's kinda why he taught people. And yeah, it kinda is a big deal that he was the messiah, that's one reason why he claimed legitimacy as a teacher and for his teachings.


Again, no.
New religious concepts come forth out of old ones, and often get incorporated.

So if you don't know about hinduism you could not understand the teachings of Buddha?

The buddha came from HIndus, surrounded by hindu friends discipels etc.
But nowadays his teachings can be understood on their own.

You have a narrow mindset by the looks of it.
That's called ironic, yes it is.

No doubt Gautama picked up some element of his teachings from ascetic practices he learnt, but he ultimately denied connection to past methods or ideas and completely redefined anything he borrowed from the old religion. Gautama was not a Hindu, as far as the story goes. He was arreligious in his upbring. Gautama used Hindu words and may have adopted ascetic practices [such as the emphasis on meditation] but he divorced these, as far as I know, from their Hindu theology.

However, I would deny that an understanding of the times and the religious currents Gautama WAS exposed to would not help you understand him or his teachings.

If you don't understand the messianic prophecies of the OT then Jesus' story doesn't make sense and neither does Christianity.

socratic
18th June 09, 07:28 AM
Matthew and Luke both state explicitly Christ fulfilled the Jewish messianic prophecies. Standard Christian dogma is that 'son of man', as said by Christ, was a reference to Daniel and the messianic prophecy therein, and was Christ stating he was the Messiah. If Christ was not the messiah then no Jew would have had any reason to listen to his teachings, at least once Christ was dead; this was how Christianity was legitimised to the Jewish audience, that Christ and his teachings were a natural extension of the old faith, and that the messianic prophecy [since technically the Jews at the time were waiting for the messiah to come and re-establish their kingdom-of-God] was fulfilled by him. This is why the OT is relevant to the NT, because Christ's authority came from him fulfilling the old prophecies. This is why the OT should remain included. Even if no one reads the OT as relevant to Christianity, it was relevant once. Less so now that Christianity is such a mainstream religion rather than a Jewish cult, but the whole foundation of Christianity is in the OT and the religion wouldn't be the same without it. For one thing, Christ's lineage is probably another of the main reasons why the OT is included- pretty much you could trace Christ's' lineage back to Adam, if my understanding is correct.

socratic
18th June 09, 07:32 AM
Something people don't really appreciate outside of scholarly circles is the long, long history of Christianity and just how damn radically it has changed since its inception. Naturally no one knows shit about the religion until long after the fact [Christ's death, I mean], but the character of it has no doubt changed over the years. Scriptures in, scriptures out, politicisations, added doctrines to absorb European religions... Makes you wonder what it was like in the beginning. If memory serves Aahmed used to know a lot about Middle eastern history and a lot a lot about the OT and its history. Maybe he'd have an interesting perspective on this, but I dunno if ancient ME history covers the 0s AD that closely.

Lebell
18th June 09, 07:40 AM
If you don't understand Jesus context, at least in-so-far as it influenced him, you don't understand Jesus. This is very simple.

Nope.
You wouldnt need to have the whole OT.
The basic messages of Jesus were quite universal.
In his parrabels he often used agraric subjects.



He may have questioned the 'chosen by God, everyone else can't worship our God' part of 'being Jewish' but that doesn't mean he stopped being Jewish.

Oh okay, if you say so.
So evethough he suggested circumcision was not needed, nor was sabbath that important and stating that what leaves your mouth making one unclean instead of what enters your mouth doesnt make him a bad jew in the eyes of most jews?

he basically said the following, ive translated it in n00bspeak:

'LOLOL! the current class of priests are hypocrite phoneys, they have no idea what they are talking about *laffs*

ZOMG!!1 those pharisees made the temple like a den of robbers!

U guiz, you can eat whatever the hell you like and what the hell is sabbath about anyway? LOLOL!

dont let yourself get panwz0rd by the man.'

yeah sounds like a jew allright.





You also forget that Jewish is an ethnic identity as well as a religious one, especially during Jesus' time, which is why Jesus was a Jew, because that was the ethnic identity of his parents, that was his society, and that was his ethnic identity. Shit, as a Nazarite, he was a very select kind of Jew, and I imagine Nazarite philosophy probably influenced him greatly.

you are aware you are following the logic of jews not of jesus himself?



His words were kinda important too, that's kinda why he taught people. And yeah, it kinda is a big deal that he was the messiah, that's one reason why he claimed legitimacy as a teacher and for his teachings.

He talked about his heavenly Father, or referred to himself as the son of man.
When directly confronted with the question ' Are you the son of God?' he replied: thou sayest it.




No doubt Gautama picked up some element of his teachings from ascetic practices he learnt, but he ultimately denied connection to past methods or ideas and completely redefined anything he borrowed from the old religion.

Really?!

REALLY?!

completely redefined???






Gautama was not a Hindu, as far as the story goes. He was arreligious in his upbring. Gautama used Hindu words and may have adopted ascetic practices [such as the emphasis on meditation] but he divorced these, AS FAR AS I KNOW, from their Hindu theology.

Ah...now i understand.




However, I would deny that an understanding of the times and the religious currents Gautama WAS exposed to would not help you understand him or his teachings.

So that story how he used to be a prince kept safe within the palace, oblivious to suffering was just an entertaining prologue?
okay.


If you don't understand the messianic prophecies of the OT then Jesus' story doesn't make sense and neither does Christianity.

So what you are saying is: the prophesy is more important then the event that is being prophesised.

it clearly must be since the big event the prophecies were talking about would be insignificant without it?

if you find yourself in a thunderstorm that wasnt predicted in the weatherforecast you would not know what the thunderstorm was?

nihilist
18th June 09, 07:45 AM
I WILL PRAY FOR YOU!

Lebell
18th June 09, 07:46 AM
Something people don't really appreciate outside of scholarly circles is the long, long history of Christianity and just how damn radically it has changed since its inception. Naturally no one knows shit about the religion until long after the fact [Christ's death, I mean], but the character of it has no doubt changed over the years. Scriptures in, scriptures out, politicisations, added doctrines to absorb European religions... Makes you wonder what it was like in the beginning. If memory serves Aahmed used to know a lot about Middle eastern history and a lot a lot about the OT and its history. Maybe he'd have an interesting perspective on this, but I dunno if ancient ME history covers the 0s AD that closely.

True, early Christianity had many many forms.
I'm more in the Gnostic circles myself.

The problems with the gnostics were that they were too laidback, they werent dogmatic, let women participate or even lead sermons or studygroups and usually didnt waste time on hierarchy.

The catholics did.
They won.

Fun fact, in the ten commandments you have this commandment that says ' dont make idols/images, right?
The catholics did it anyway so they could indoctr...ehr...educate the gospel to the illeterate peoples of the north.

Ever wondered why there was an ox in the nativity image?
So gallics and germanics could relate.

ofcourse this wasnt the only reason, but its a fun fact.

socratic
18th June 09, 08:20 AM
Nope.
You wouldnt need to have the whole OT.
The basic messages of Jesus were quite universal.
In his parrabels he often used agraric subjects.
Honestly? A lot of Jesus' parables don't make a lot of sense without a real knowledge of Judaism and Jewish history, either. Samaritans were a subject Jesus chose for a reason.


Oh okay, if you say so.
So evethough he suggested circumcision was not needed, nor was sabbath that important and stating that what leaves your mouth making one unclean instead of what enters your mouth doesnt make him a bad jew in the eyes of most jews?
He was most certainly a bad Jew, as far as religion was concerned. He was an ascetic who broke every rule in the Nazarite book. But that doesn't mean he ignored the whole 'God' part. I'd say more than anything he wanted to take Judaism in a new direction, rather than simply start anew.


he basically said the following, ive translated it in n00bspeak

yeah sounds like a jew allright.
So if you're a revivalist Christian who says "The other guys are corrupt and wicked, I shall lead us back to God!" you aren't a Christian? Just because he opposed the way things were [a LOT of people did at the time] doesn't mean he said "Okay, new religion time! We no longer believe in the God of Moses!"


you are aware you are following the logic of jews not of jesus himself?
What the hell is that supposed to mean? Jewish was actually an ethnicity back then, FYI, they had a country and everything.


He talked about his heavenly Father, or referred to himself as the son of man.
When directly confronted with the question ' Are you the son of God?' he replied: thou sayest it.
Well, his three buddies all seem to think he seriously was the messiah, and said somewhat cryptically that he was in fact the messiah, for the purposes of spreading the religion that was certainly the belief that took hold.


Really?!

REALLY?!

completely redefined???
I was being a bit dramatic, I think, but I think you'd agree that any time you take a religion, remove all its theology except for the particularly ascetic-influenced parts [samsara, karma, nirvana, but you completely redefine how they sit in your new worldview] you aren't really the same religion anymore. In Hinduism those concepts relate to Gods, a worldview, and a supernatural system that was not really shared with Buddhism. His ideas of the 'self' and 'soul' were pretty unique, too, if I'm correct. Jesus said "Screw this law, this law, and this law, but keep all those other ones, and I don't like this heirarchy thing, but we are still talking about the God of Moses the one true God yay! PS: Pacifism." Buddha was like: "Those guys are wrong about EVERYTHING, this is the real 411, there are no Gods, just humanity, there is no self and all human suffering comes from this false concept, and this here is the means to enlightenment." I'll admit that really to understand Gautama's life you need to understand a bit about Hinduism and certainly India- "Why is it that he wanted to be enlightened? Why is it that he did such horrible things to himself? Why'd he meditate?" are all questions which you could answer best if you knew about the history and the religious character of India.


Ah...now i understand.
Yeah, sorry Lebell, all I did was speak to Buddhists, attend lectures, talk to Monks, read a book or two. Not a monk myself or a Vedic scholar so I can't tell you too much.


So that story how he used to be a prince kept safe within the palace, oblivious to suffering was just an entertaining prologue?
okay.
Depends on your interpretation. I guess in a lot of ways it follows the Buddhist view on humanity and life quite accurately.


So what you are saying is: the prophesy is more important then the event that is being prophesised.
No, I'm saying what gave Jesus and Christianity in general a context and a sense of authority was the prophecies, and in a historical, theological and scholarly sense the religion would not make sense if the 'old' parts, where relevant, weren't included. People don't feel the need to include this anymore because they no longer have to justify Christ or his teachings, but way back in the day when they were a religious minority they most certain did.


it clearly must be since the big event the prophecies were talking about would be insignificant without it?

if you find yourself in a thunderstorm that wasnt predicted in the weatherforecast you would not know what the thunderstorm was?
Once again not a good metaphor, dude. The point is that a) you can't understand things in history outside of their context, no exceptions. Using your example you couldn't understand much about the nature of thunderstorms or their activity if you've never been to earth or anything like earth. In particular, people like Jesus, who relied heavily on certain of the 'old' religious doctrines and ideas [you know, like the God of Moses?], can't be understood as well as possible if you don't understand what those doctrines are, how they relate to Christ and his teachings, and how the nature of his times was relevant to him. "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" doesn't make sense if you didn't know Rome conquered Judaea.

socratic
18th June 09, 08:24 AM
True, early Christianity had many many forms.
I'm more in the Gnostic circles myself.

Then you should understand pretty well that Christianity when it started was a lot closer to Judaism, or in the very least, certain Judaistic sects and traditions, then it does now.

KO'd N DOA
18th June 09, 09:08 AM
This is why I think discussions with the Messianic Jews is so much fun, it invalidates many of the arguments stated here about New Testament vs Old Testament, and the MJs do not comfortably fit into any box, jewish, christian or otherwise.

"Shabat Salom " and "Christ my Redeemer" from the same person can play with the nice orderly debunking arguements thrown about so freely.

Ajamil
18th June 09, 09:12 AM
Not to derail too much, but the Srimad-Bhagavatam has a prophecy about Gautama Buddha; he actually was an incarnation of God who came to deceive the atheists into following a form of God without having to think about it. That's right, Buddha is God trolling you LOLOL!

I'm not nearly well-read enough in Buddhism, so please those who are smack me down, but my understanding was that Gautama Buddha rarely if ever spoke about anything transcendant - neither confirming nor denying. I've heard one Buddhist put it this way: if your house is on fire, there's no time to worry about what's outside your house - you just need to get out.

His rejection of the Vedas was also (according to Vaishnava thought) to stop incorrect use of them. For example, during that time Brahmins were twisting Vedic injunctions to mean that animal slaughter was acceptable, and Buddha declared that if that was what the Vedas said, then he rejected the Vedas.

Lebell, would you accept that your conception of Christianity is not held by the majority (or certainly a large number) of Christians?

Lebell
18th June 09, 09:20 AM
okay im fed up with quoting so i'll adress some general points.

about the samaritans and ceasar contexts: those can be historical contaxts aswell.
its not proof that xtianity is close to judaism.

before it gets too complicated: imo there arent such things as 1 xtianity 1 judaism 1 islam etc.

lets stick with the example of xtianity.
now some weirdo like Koresh, imo it has nothing to do with where it emerged from: xtianity.
Sure there's talk about jesus and god etc but its clearly something else.

Same could be said for Jesus and judaism.
i would say that the most correct way to describe jesus goes something like this: a teacher and in minor degree a prophet on who christianity is based.
he grew up in jewish culture and had a jewish background.

thats his link.
besides that he had quite different ideas on crucial parts of judaic laws etc.

saying that xtianity is some jewish sect is not seeing it for what it is.

now about gnosticism and related matters: the difficulty in my position is that im the first person who'll nod his head and will laugh when i see the average tv evangelist and those scary born again xtians.

they freak me out.
so when i talk about xtianity, i mean the xtianity as i think it is meant, not the mainstream dogma's you see.

i approach the texts from/about jesus as a buddhist would do with buddhist texts.

and because i try to focus on the message i think its important to get clear what we are bashing here.
are we bashing dogmatic xtians/muslims/jews and their narrowminded ideas and strict laws or arewe bashing the contents of the message?


there's a saying in dutch: don't throw away the child together with the bathwater..(after bading the child)

Lebell
18th June 09, 09:25 AM
Not to derail too much, but the Srimad-Bhagavatam has a prophecy about Gautama Buddha; he actually was an incarnation of God who came to deceive the atheists into following a form of God without having to think about it. That's right, Buddha is God trolling you LOLOL!

LOL! awesome!




Lebell, would you accept that your conception of Christianity is not held by the majority (or certainly a large number) of Christians?

oh yes.
ive had many discussions which usually ended with ' you might be on to something' from the other side.

perhaps i shouldnt call myself a christian because i dont believe Jesus was literally born out of immaculate conception, or died for our sins and rose from the dead.

He was actually much more then that.
Besides, his death is besides the point, its about what he said and did.
I also dont believe he was the only one out there and that you can only get into heaven through him.
(no virus thats NOT what he meant, i know the quote too)

nihilist
18th June 09, 10:23 AM
a teacher and in minor degree a prophet on who christianity is based.


HERETIC JEW!!!

HappyOldGuy
18th June 09, 10:39 AM
Good point.
The problem with Christianity is the same universal problem that occurs whenever more then 10 people form a club.

The original founding members are gone and new people start to fuck around with ' the rules' .

Is xtianity the same as judaism?
yes and no.
yes as in: they added the OT into the xtian bible.
no idea why.

no as in: jesus himself said so.
there arent whole verses in the NT for nothing that describe the arguments and critics Jesus had with the scolars and conservatives.

he got crucified for it.
so no, what he did was different from what was out there before he came with his teachings.

enter Paul of Tarsus, a roman (probably went native) who claimed to have had a vision of Jesus and subsequently altered ad tinkered with a shitload of rules.

Nicea was powerplay for the emperor and the church, in their minds there were too many forms of xtianity and they had to draw a line.

if you would leave out all the paulinian crap and the OT and stuck with the 4 evangalical chapters you'd be left with a way more humane form of xtianity.
Thats why i always say: read the book but this time only the parts that Jesus (alledgedly) said.

Stop. Now.

1st century christianity 101

Paul of Tarsus was a hellenized jew. Like almost all of the upper classes in 1st century judea. He is responsible for almost everything we know as christianity, including all 4 gospels. The "original christianity" was probably purely jewish, and it's main successors were organized around Jesus brother in jerusalem. Paul was just this guy who had a vision. He never actually met jesus, only some of his followers. He went to the crew in jerusalem and said, "hey guys, I saw your teacher in a vision. He told me I should go teach his message." They said, "whatever dude, why don't you go teach the gentiles somewhere far far away." So he said, "cool, I have the blessing of the elders" and went all over asia minor teaching the gentiles. Turned out he was really good at it. Possibly because he wasn't hampered by memories of the actual breathing jesus guy. Meanwhile, a bunch of other jews in jerusalem got uppity with the romans and provoked a brutal punitive expedition that got almost all of the original crew wiped out. The handful of survivors fled jerusalem and found refuge with Pauls followers out in the world, whereupon Paul was all, "my house, my rules." So they played it his way.

Thus endeth the sermon.

And now is the time on shprockets when we dance
4g_AgvdsC5M

Lebell
18th June 09, 11:39 AM
Stop. Now.

1st century christianity 101

Paul of Tarsus was a hellenized jew. Like almost all of the upper classes in 1st century judea. He is responsible for almost everything we know as christianity, including all 4 gospels. The "original christianity" was probably purely jewish, and it's main successors were organized around Jesus brother in jerusalem. Paul was just this guy who had a vision. He never actually met jesus, only some of his followers. He went to the crew in jerusalem and said, "hey guys, I saw your teacher in a vision. He told me I should go teach his message." They said, "whatever dude, why don't you go teach the gentiles somewhere far far away." So he said, "cool, I have the blessing of the elders" and went all over asia minor teaching the gentiles. Turned out he was really good at it. Possibly because he wasn't hampered by memories of the actual breathing jesus guy. Meanwhile, a bunch of other jews in jerusalem got uppity with the romans and provoked a brutal punitive expedition that got almost all of the original crew wiped out. The handful of survivors fled jerusalem and found refuge with Pauls followers out in the world, whereupon Paul was all, "my house, my rules." So they played it his way.

Thus endeth the sermon.



you stopped reading about this subject in the 60ies right?
refresh your knowledge dude.

oh and after you finished up reading i'll tell you about what happened with the USSR.

HappyOldGuy
18th June 09, 12:05 PM
you stopped reading about this subject in the 60ies right?
refresh your knowledge dude.

oh and after you finished up reading i'll tell you about what happened with the USSR.
I got my degree in 1991, but I keep up on my reading (although my koine is pretty much fully decayed). Any other dumb comments? Cause god knows somebody who thinks paul was a Roman is going to be able to make this an interesting debate.

Protip: Llewelyn is not a publisher of primary sources.

Zendetta
18th June 09, 01:31 PM
Protip: Llewelyn is not a publisher of primary sources.

ROFL.

You are a Mean Old Man.

Lebell
18th June 09, 01:48 PM
I got my degree in 1991, but I keep up on my reading (although my koine is pretty much fully decayed). Any other dumb comments? Cause god knows somebody who thinks paul was a Roman is going to be able to make this an interesting debate.

he had citizenship.
what are you saying old timer?
a jew cant be roman...or...an american?!
huh?


Protip: Llewelyn is not a publisher of primary sources.

neither is savitri devi. :-p

dont resist, just take the ownage.

HappyOldGuy
18th June 09, 02:04 PM
he had citizenship.
what are you saying old timer?
a jew cant be roman...or...an american?!
huh?



neither is savitri devi. :-p

dont resist, just take the ownage.
A jew can be a roman citizen. Paul probably was. Your statement in context attempted to use that as some sort of evidence that he didn't have "teh real christianity." I agree that he didn't have teh real, but the relevant point that is flying over your pointy little head is that he had the only version that we modern types have any access to. Teh real went extinct in the jewish wars and none of our gospels represent it.

Lebell
18th June 09, 02:12 PM
FAIL.

HappyOldGuy
18th June 09, 02:19 PM
FAIL.

Secular peer reviewed or shut your whore mouth.

Lebell
18th June 09, 02:29 PM
Secular peer reviewed or shut your whore mouth.

i may have a whore mouth but atleast i still got my own teeth...

<333

Shawarma
18th June 09, 02:52 PM
This is my kind of religious debate!

Now insult his momma.

HappyOldGuy
18th June 09, 03:04 PM
i may have a whore mouth but atleast i still got my own teeth...

<333

Unfortunately that is a detriment to the one skill you are really good at,

Lebell
18th June 09, 03:53 PM
This is my kind of religious debate!

Now insult his momma.

why?
his momma still got her teeth.
it was HOG who got all of uncle Bob's attention...


lolol! see what i did there?

Fearless Ukemi
18th June 09, 03:59 PM
More proof that religion causes all the world's conflicts.

Virus
18th June 09, 04:02 PM
Lebell, HOG; Please argue more.

Virus
18th June 09, 04:07 PM
What was this about the USSR? What's the relevance?

HappyOldGuy
18th June 09, 04:19 PM
Lebell, HOG; Please argue more.

You should both take note of the fact that Lebell is the only person on sociocide who could lose a religion argument with Virus.

Lebell
18th June 09, 04:54 PM
i havent lost a discussion yet.

like i said: discussing quantummechanics with todlers.
its only natural you cant understand it and think you have actually 'won' a discussion.

you only win in a discussion when you change your mind or think things over.
its not about convincing other people so much, its to see how convinced you yourself are.

WarPhalange
18th June 09, 06:24 PM
Wasn't Peter the fag that decided that knockin' boots before marriage was bad? What a fag.

Harpy
18th June 09, 06:27 PM
PL - have you ever 'knocked boots'?

JohnnyCache
18th June 09, 07:40 PM
I love all the arguing of fine points of the history of your invisible friends.

All this time and thought wasted on shit that doesn't exist.

HappyOldGuy
18th June 09, 07:54 PM
I love all the arguing of fine points of the history of your invisible friends.

All this time and thought wasted on shit that doesn't exist.

Christianity didn't exist?

mrblackmagic
18th June 09, 07:58 PM
Jesus was a jewish reformer with various Zoroastrian influences, but still a Jew.

But if you want to really go there. I would define the any Xtian as:

anyone follows the life and teaches of Jesus Christ as according to scripture not dogma, tradition, or religious authority.

Sadly, Waldensians were killed in one fell swoop.

socratic
18th June 09, 11:35 PM
Jesus was a jewish reformer with various Zoroastrian influences, but still a Jew.

But if you want to really go there. I would define the any Xtian as:

anyone follows the life and teaches of Jesus Christ as according to scripture not dogma, tradition, or religious authority.

Sadly, Waldensians were killed in one fell swoop.

I'd suggest certain of his conceptions- a nonphysical kingdom of heaven, for example- probably trace themselves to other Jewish ascetic movements. John's baptism shtick and the philosophy it entailed was no doubt influential, since at least in the stories Paul passed on Christ publically supported John's movement. I've read that Christian texts as we know them bear Hellenic cult influence as well [which wouldn't surprise me, the number of Greeks and Greek religions operating in Judea], such as the Orphites and the Eleusians. There was also another Roman religion [I forget which off the top of my head] that seemed to have been borrowed from, in-so-far as Christ's birth-story is involved.

Christ's death is an extremely important part of Christian doctrine and the symbolism of it, whilst lost on those who haven't read the OT, is equally important in light of the 'original movement' and as I understand it is a vestigial element from a time in which Christians, radical Jews, were trying to convince other Jews of the validity of their teacher and his teachings as a Messianic figure.

Zendetta
18th June 09, 11:46 PM
There was also another Roman religion [I forget which off the top of my head] that seemed to have been borrowed from, in-so-far as Christ's birth-story is involved.

Mithras

nihilist
19th June 09, 01:19 AM
Don't be forgetting these guys:






ATTIS - Phrygia: Born of the virgin Nana on December 25. He was both the Father and the Divine Son. He was a savior crucified on a tree for the salvation of mankind. He was buried but on the third day the priests found the tomb empty -- He had arisen from the dead (on March 25th). He followers were baptized in blood, thereby washing away their sins -- after which they declared themselves "born again." His followers ate a sacred meal of bread, which they believed became the body of the savoir.



BUDDIAH – INDIA: Born of the Virgin Maya on December 25th. He was announced by a star and attended by wise men presenting costly gifts. At birth angles sing heavenly songs. He taught in temple at age 12. Tempted by Mara, the Evil One (Satan), while fasting. He was baptized in water with the Spirit of God present. Buddiah healed the sick and fed 500 from a small basket of cakes and even walked on water. He came to fulfill the law and preached the establishment of a kingdom of righteousness and obliged followers to poverty and to renounce the world. He transfigured on a mount. Died (on a cross, in some traditions), buried but arose again after tomb opened by supernatural powers. Ascended into heaven (Nirvana). Will return in later days to judge the dead. Buddiah was called: "Good Shepherd," "Carpenter," "Alpha and Omega," "Sin Bearer," "Master," "Light of the World," "Redeemer," etc.



DIONYSUS - GREECE: Born of a Virgin on December 25th, placed in a manger. He was a traveling teacher who performed many miracles. Turned water into wine. Followers ate sacred meal that became the body of the god. He rose from the dead March 25th. Identified with the ram and lamb's and was called "King of Kings," "Only Begotten Son," "Savior," "Redeemer," "Sin bearer," "Anointed One," the "Alpha and Omega."



HERACLES – GREECE: Born at the winter equinox of a virgin who refrained from sex with her until her god-begotten child was born and was sacrificed at the spring equinox. He too, was called "Savior," "Only begotten," "Prince of Peace," "Son of Righteousness."



KRISHNA - INDIA: Krishna was born while his foster-father Nanda was in the city to pay his tax to the king. His nativity heralded by a star, Krishna was born of the virgin Devaki in a cave, which at the time of his birth was miraculously illuminated. The cow-herds adored his birth. King Kansa sought the life of the Indian Christ by ordering the massacre of all male children born during the same night at He. Krishna traveled widely, performing miracles -- raising the dead, healing lepers, the deaf and the blind. The crucified Krishna is pictured on the cross with arms extended. Pierced by an arrow while hanging on the cross, Krishna died, but descended into Hell from which He rose again on the third day and ascended into Heaven. (The Gospel of Nicodemus tell of Jesus' descent into Hell.) He will return on the last day to judge the quick and the dead. Krishna is the second person of the Hindu trinity.



OSIRIS – EGYPT: He came to fulfill the law. Called "KRST," the "Anointed One." Born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave / manger, with his birth announced by a star and attended by three wise men. Earthly father named "Seb" (translates to "Joseph.") At age 12 he was a child teacher in the Temple and at 30 he was baptized, having disappeared for 18 years. Osiris was baptized in the river Iarutana -- the river Jordan -- by "Anup the Baptizer," who was beheaded. (Anup translates to John.) He performed miracles, exorcised demons, raised El-Osiris from the dead. Walked on water and was betrayed by Typhon, crucified between two thieves on the 17th day of the month of Athyr. Buried in a tomb from which he arose on the third day (19th Athyr) and was resurrected. His suffering, death, and resurrection celebrated each year by His disciples on the Vernal Equinox -- Easter. Called "The Way, the Truth, the Light," "Messiah," "god's Anointed Son,' the "Son of Man," the "Word made Flesh," the "word of truth." Expected to reign a thousand years.

nihilist
19th June 09, 01:21 AM
Cullion will be along shortly to declare just how much of what I just posted is BS.

Lebell
19th June 09, 05:22 AM
hahaha....point A people...


personally i havent read anything new except for the buddiah version.

what if, Jesus' teachings are still relevant because we have his teachings and not the teachings of the others.

Later on people start to fuck around and make it fit into the religious pallet of that time thus validating their claims.

so far nothing against or in favour of the person of Jesus.

these variations prove how the mechanism works in religious concepts.

Lebell
19th June 09, 05:25 AM
also, those who are familiar with bullshido.

ever thought about aliveness and dead patterns within religions?

aliveness in religion is more difficult then dead patterns, thats why most people are more comfortable sticking with mainstream denominations attending fancy looking sermons.


just a sidenote.

socratic
19th June 09, 07:06 AM
also, those who are familiar with bullshido.

ever thought about aliveness and dead patterns within religions?

aliveness in religion is more difficult then dead patterns, thats why most people are more comfortable sticking with mainstream denominations attending fancy looking sermons.

just a sidenote.

Disagree. We're seeing an unprecedented explosion in 'new religions' and wacky cults and whatnot in the past century or so. 'Aliveness' is getting pretty big in the religious world.

socratic
19th June 09, 07:07 AM
PS: Reese, Krishna crucified? You aren't even trying man. Krishna also wasn't born to a virgin.

Lebell
19th June 09, 09:57 AM
Disagree. We're seeing an unprecedented explosion in 'new religions' and wacky cults and whatnot in the past century or so. 'Aliveness' is getting pretty big in the religious world.

not on a large scale we don't.

Virus
19th June 09, 10:25 AM
Scientology, Mormonism, Bahai. These religions are huge and only came about comparatively recently compared to Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Humans haven't exhausted their capacity for making things up and confusing it for divine revelation.

HappyOldGuy
19th June 09, 10:31 AM
Cullion will be along shortly to declare just how much of what I just posted is BS.

I'm impressed. That's quality troll material.

HappyOldGuy
19th June 09, 10:34 AM
Disagree. We're seeing an unprecedented explosion in 'new religions' and wacky cults and whatnot in the past century or so. 'Aliveness' is getting pretty big in the religious world.
It's not unprecedented. It's happened almost the same way a few times before. Including the first coupla centuries CE. It's what happens when religion becomes about what you believe instead of who you are/what you do.

Lebell
19th June 09, 10:35 AM
look you dumbasses, with alive or dead patterns i mean actually doing what the scriptures say.

fucking hell are you guys retarded?!
the goddamn point that i made was about being humble, but i guess you're too stupid to understand that, and have some goddamn patience with your fellow man!!!!


AAARGH!!!



wait...


what?

Virus
19th June 09, 10:37 AM
The scriptures say that slavery is kosher. You down with that?

Lebell
19th June 09, 10:37 AM
socratic, virus, one of these days ill hop on a plane and ram the love and peace of our Lord down your throats.

Lebell
19th June 09, 10:38 AM
The scriptures say that slavery is kosher. You down with that?

the OT said that.

FAIL.

HappyOldGuy
19th June 09, 10:41 AM
the OT said that.

FAIL.

Really, "Slaves, obey your masters" is from the OT?

Virus
19th June 09, 10:46 AM
the OT said that.

FAIL.

And the NT:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm

"Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward."1 Peter 2:18

Lebell
19th June 09, 11:02 AM
gnostic here.
we dont ' do' peter.


FAIL.

Virus
19th June 09, 11:06 AM
You said slavery was only mentioned in the OT. If you didn't mean it why did you say it?

Lebell
19th June 09, 11:08 AM
You said slavery was only mentioned in the OT. If you didn't mean it why did you say it?

no, it was my fault, i wasnt aware of that quote.

see?

if i fuck up i can admit to it.

so in this case point A goes for me.

FickleFingerOfFate
19th June 09, 11:13 AM
see?

if i fuck up i can admit to it.


You must spend a great deal of time in confession!

:rolleyes:

Lebell
19th June 09, 11:21 AM
not really.

i focus on what jesus said, so the gospels, things like the letters, Acts, revelations etc i dont read as much.

instead i read gnostic scriptures from the nag hammadi and as a side letters from early (some gostic)church figures.

Lebell
19th June 09, 11:25 AM
oh hang on, i just read that whole part, not just the convenient quote part and its not condoning slavery.
later on the text goes: (from dutch trans.) because this is mercy, because he who keeps God in mind can bear UNJUST suffering.

Lebell
19th June 09, 11:30 AM
Virus, if you are making the claim it is condoning slavery, please explain.
you claim, you provide the motivation.

Fearless Ukemi
19th June 09, 11:31 AM
Slavery....

Facepalm

Fearless Ukemi
19th June 09, 11:32 AM
So, who was it that abolished the Atlantic slave trade?

Virus
19th June 09, 11:34 AM
Who upheld it as God's will?

Fearless Ukemi
19th June 09, 11:36 AM
Right now, the muslim countries of Africa and the Middle East take the lead in human traffic.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/131928

Yes, slavery is in scipture because it was an accepted and common practice at that time. People who followed the gospels of Jesus were the ones who lead the movements in changing that. Most ancient societies depended on slavery to even exist.

Lebell
19th June 09, 11:39 AM
see? thats all what virus can come up with.
asking a ' witty' question but when you ask him to go in depth he wont because it will be obvious to all he hasnt got a clue what he's talking about.

carry on.

Lebell
19th June 09, 11:41 AM
Right now, the muslim countries of Africa and the Middle East take the lead in human traffic.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/131928

Yes, slavery is in scipture because it was an accepted and common practice at that time. People who followed the gospels of Jesus were the ones who lead the movements in changing that. Most ancient societies depended on slavery to even exist.

personally i think every white man should have a black woman to cook for him and stuff.
they're great at that.

besides, the ones that arent in slavery are doing all the slavework at the house and on the fields anyway.

its not like african men are known for their pro-activeness.

Shawarma
19th June 09, 11:42 AM
What an exceptionally well-researched and totally unbiased article. Clearly has no bone to pick with anyone.

I'm not surprised that Africa tops the list, but I believe Eastern Europe and Asian countries traffick more sex-slaves around than the Muslim world.

Fearless Ukemi
19th June 09, 11:54 AM
Human trafficking is not limited to sex slaves.

That article is not far off at all and it has been that way since the middle ages, yet people always associate slavery with Europeans. Did you see Israel in the heading and decide to stop reading?

http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2009/index.htm

JohnnyCache
19th June 09, 12:29 PM
hahaha....point A people...


personally i havent read anything new except for the buddiah version.

what if, Jesus' teachings are still relevant because we have his teachings and not the teachings of the others.

Later on people start to fuck around and make it fit into the religious pallet of that time thus validating their claims.

so far nothing against or in favour of the person of Jesus.

these variations prove how the mechanism works in religious concepts.

Have you heard of CS Lewis' triparte argument? That Jesus was either lunatic, criminal, or truly god? Because sans divinity, his teachings are actually rather immoral, and their ethical framework truly strange.

Cullion
19th June 09, 01:20 PM
Cullion will be along shortly to declare just how much of what I just posted is BS.

I'm pretty sure we've done that one before.

In fact, you just posted a bunch of stuff that I had to explain the flaws in to Riddeck over a year ago.

Lebell
19th June 09, 01:34 PM
Have you heard of CS Lewis' triparte argument? That Jesus was either lunatic, criminal, or truly god? Because sans divinity, his teachings are actually rather immoral, and their ethical framework truly strange.

hahahaha! quotes [plz.
jesus' teachings immoral?

wow...i'd love to get deeper into this!

Fearless Ukemi
19th June 09, 01:37 PM
If you base your morality on Jewish law then yes, his teachings were immoral.

Virus
19th June 09, 01:40 PM
hahahaha! quotes [plz.
jesus' teachings immoral?

wow...i'd love to get deeper into this!

He said that people who don't accept his preachings go to hell.

Cullion
19th June 09, 01:41 PM
How is that immoral?

Virus
19th June 09, 01:46 PM
For starters, it's lying.

For seconds, if it were true. Eternal torture would be pretty much the most immoral thing possible to inflict on someone.

Ajamil
19th June 09, 02:15 PM
BUDDIAH – INDIA: Born of the Virgin Maya on December 25th. He was announced by a star and attended by wise men presenting costly gifts. At birth angles sing heavenly songs. He taught in temple at age 12. Tempted by Mara, the Evil One (Satan), while fasting. He was baptized in water with the Spirit of God present. Buddiah healed the sick and fed 500 from a small basket of cakes and even walked on water. He came to fulfill the law and preached the establishment of a kingdom of righteousness and obliged followers to poverty and to renounce the world. He transfigured on a mount. Died (on a cross, in some traditions), buried but arose again after tomb opened by supernatural powers. Ascended into heaven (Nirvana). Will return in later days to judge the dead. Buddiah was called: "Good Shepherd," "Carpenter," "Alpha and Omega," "Sin Bearer," "Master," "Light of the World," "Redeemer," etc.
Don't know who this is, but usually people see the man named Issa in the Vedas as a reference to Jesus, I'll find the wiki and perhaps a good link to a crank saying Jesus went to India till he was 30.

Hmm, all I can find now are writings from Notovitch who was told about Issa from Buddhist monks (when asked by others, the monks disavowed having such scriptures). I thought I found Vedic texts concerning Issa before. Ahh well.

Found it! (http://www.gosai.com/krishna-talk/58-jesus-in-the-vedas.html) It was the Bhavisya Purana. Good site, I always like sites that criticize what I'm looking for.



KRISHNA - INDIA: Krishna was born while his foster-father Nanda was in the city to pay his tax to the king. His nativity heralded by a star, Krishna was born of the virgin Devaki in a cave, which at the time of his birth was miraculously illuminated. The cow-herds adored his birth. King Kansa sought the life of the Indian Christ by ordering the massacre of all male children born during the same night at He. Krishna traveled widely, performing miracles -- raising the dead, healing lepers, the deaf and the blind. The crucified Krishna is pictured on the cross with arms extended. Pierced by an arrow while hanging on the cross, Krishna died, but descended into Hell from which He rose again on the third day and ascended into Heaven. (The Gospel of Nicodemus tell of Jesus' descent into Hell.) He will return on the last day to judge the quick and the dead. Krishna is the second person of the Hindu trinity.
They were in the dungeon of Devaki's brother, Kamsa. Kamsa was worried about a prophecy that Devaki's 8th child would kill him, so he was going to kill her, but her husband Vasudeva in desperation said imprison us and when the children were born, he would present them to Kamsa to decide whether to kill them or not. I wouldn't say "heralded by a star," but I suppose you could infer that from the descriptions of the heavens and demigods celebrating the moment.

Krishna, according to the Bhagavatam, wasn't born but appeared in Vishnu form to his parents, told Vasudeva to spirit him out of the city to the small town of Vrindavan. When Kamsa learned of the missing child, he went all Herod on the place (or Herod went all Kamsa, since he was first) and told his minions to kill all children born around that time.

The talk of Krishna being crucified is hooey. Where did you hear that? Also His exploits focus much more on His triumphs over demons more than miraculous healings. He never went to the Hellish planets (just dbl checked this, He once had the lord of death, Yamaraja, come to Him, and he once went to a lower but not Hellish planet Sutala-loka where the devoted demon Bali Maharaja reigned), and while He will "return again," this isn't for judgment. The next incarnation - the whole second coming thing, they've got the white horse and the sword and everything - will be Kalki. When He comes in a couple hundred thousand years, it's to wipe out the rest of humanity which has degraded past the point of spiritual comprehension and usher in the return of Satya-yuga, the golden age.

I know there are many correlations and lots of Christ figures in myth literature, but you should also know people bend things to fit theory. Apparently there's a lot of talk about an author named Moor in pages on Krishna being crucified.

Edit: Stupid internets going down and making my comments late...

Virus
19th June 09, 03:09 PM
Why did god design the earth to be more hospitable to bacteria and viruses than to humans?

Fearless Ukemi
19th June 09, 03:14 PM
Because he is a sadistic asshole.

Cullion
19th June 09, 03:18 PM
For starters, it's lying.

You don't know one way or the other.



For seconds, if it were true. Eternal torture would be pretty much the most immoral thing possible to inflict on someone.

Why?

Cullion
19th June 09, 03:19 PM
Why did god design the earth to be more hospitable to bacteria and viruses than to humans?

If your rejection of Christian morality is going to be 'but it's supposed to be nicer and, well easier than this', then you haven't read much about the subject at all.

Ajamil
19th June 09, 03:20 PM
Why did god design the earth to be more hospitable to bacteria and viruses than to humans?

The universe is designed to accommodate 4.8 million species of life. Why do you think humans should get top billing in that?

Kiko
19th June 09, 03:20 PM
Ever been to this place called Bullshido?

I avoid it like the plague. Nothing there that either interests me or I can't find here.


Now that's just cold. What did we do to earn such passive-aggressive condescension?

I'm also praying for the recovery of a baby ball python that I took to the vet from work today. Sorry not to have answered you all sooner, I been working.


It's still funny to see all you athiest/agnostics studying works of faith. I don't have any interest in reading your stuff or trying to change your mind. So is preaching/converting part of your schtick, then?

Cullion
19th June 09, 03:26 PM
I'd be amazed if Virus actually read the bible. He seems to just copy and paste out of context stuff he doesn't understand from atheist sites.

Fearless Ukemi
19th June 09, 03:28 PM
It's still funny to see all you athiest/agnostics studying works of faith. I don't have any interest in reading your stuff or trying to change your mind. So is preaching/converting part of your schtick, then?


I am not an atheist, just a lukewarm Christian who fails at living it every day.

Kiko
19th June 09, 03:29 PM
We all fail. It's about how many times and how hard you try to get better at it.

Apologies to any others who don't fit the side or denomination I just mentioned. You know what I meant.

MaverickZ
19th June 09, 03:49 PM
Buddha-Dharma is so calmly fulfilled and powerfully omnipresent that it has never moved at all, yet it melts the iron wheel.

Aphid Jones
19th June 09, 03:50 PM
I'm pretty sure we've done that one before.

In fact, you just posted a bunch of stuff that I had to explain the flaws in to Riddeck over a year ago.
was that where we asked him to produce the text from the Egyptian Book of the Dead that said Osiris was born to a virgin Mary and had twelve disciples?

And he said he couldn't be bothered to go back through all those books he read?

Cullion
19th June 09, 03:55 PM
Yeah I think so. It was the one where he kept on quoting from an online movie which made claims about all modern western religion being just symbolism for astrology, and I said 'yeah but if you look outside tonight, you'll see that stars X and constellations Y don't actually do what it says in the video'.

Virus
19th June 09, 04:38 PM
The universe is designed to accommodate 4.8 million species of life. Why do you think humans should get top billing in that?

Because religion claims that the universe is designed with humans in mind. It's a shame you don't get the point of that question.