|
| |
mundhra
dread pirate neckbeard   SSHOLEPosts: 1636 Registered: 3/25/2002 Offline
|
12/1/2005 at 16:56 |
vasudeva: mundhra: many religious rules benefit an organized, civilized society, but the same conclusions can be achieved through rational thought - an off-topic easy example is kosher food preparation.
:INTERROBANG:
eating pork was pretty hairy business back in the day. same kinda thing with 'thou shalt not kill' - pretty decent advice regardless of whether or not a god tells us.
On 2005-12-01 at 10:58:57, mundhra enjoyed furrysex
____________________
But the whole of modern so-called civilized existence is an attempt to deny reality insofar as it exists. When did Don last look at the stars, when did Norman last get soaked in a rainstorm? |
| |
nocal
It's insane, this guy's taint  SSHOLEPosts: 811 Registered: 8/25/2004 Offline
|
12/1/2005 at 17:20 |
nocal or uart: please explain this (independent of catholicism).
I don't get what you're trying to prove with this point. That it's impossible, outside of the realm of "miracle"? Yeah, basically. That's why religion is mostly faith-based and not empirical. However, if I recall, this part wasn't actually in the bible anyway. It's one of those things decided well after the fact. If we're to look at it that way, there's no such thing as the immaculate conception anyway.
christianity is not a beautiful and unique snowflake.
No religion is. It's not a surprise. But what you don't seem to realize is that Zoroastrianism didn't invent that shit either. Many religions believe in a savior, one who dies and is reborn. It's a very motherfucking common idea. Christians believe that their savior has already come.
So then there was no crucifixion, but a staking.
This changes everything.
Maybe I explained this poorly. LK tries to say, among other things, that christianity ripped off the cross imagery. I come back and say that early christians didn't do that (their image was, after all, a fish -- that was how they identified each other) and it was added by someone after the fact who tried to blur the lines between religions in order to effectively rule. It doesn't "change" anything, just explains why the cross is such a common symbol.
the same conclusions can be achieved through rational thought
It does sort of depend on your line of rational thought.
There's the ring analogy(which Tolkien totally ripped off, rendering his work pointless). If I wear a ring that makes me invisible and, hence, free from punishment, I would be stupid not to take advantage of that. That is a rational way of saying that if I can get away with shit, I should, because it makes my life better.
Genetically, and evolutionarily, it's in my best interest to take advantage of every situation in order to propagate my genes. If I were a good human animal, my best strategy would be impregnating many woman while donating as little time and effort as possible to ensure that my potential offspring survive.
BUT. Game theory has an experiment. There are those that only give, those that only receive, and those that do both. Those that only give end up losing. Those that only receive win...but at a cost. They do not win as much as if they give and receive. When there is reciprocation, everyone wins an equally large amount.
So what I'm saying here is that christianity is just one system of encouraging the correct rational thought. Of course it doesn't always work, even though it was written for (essentially) illiterate morons. |
| |
LORDKAHUNA
Don't make me fuk your moustache  SSHOLEPosts: 1624 Registered: 8/5/2003 Offline
|
12/1/2005 at 17:45 |
Dude, that is strictly a matter of which side of the fence you are sitting on, I expected better.
Actually, I addressed that. But ok.
While you can argue that christianity affects some of its members negatively, you can't argue that it affects all of its members negatively. If you try to argue that, then you've never met a single upstanding, nice christian? Now Branch Davidians. Can you say that its goal is to be beneficial to people? Or was it to give a couple of men exclusive power over people? They contributed nothing to the world, they were not about giving people hope or charity. It was about one dude getting to fuck lots of chicks in his compound.
I find it amusing that you fielded one of the most easily criticized sects listed, don't have the chops to tackle the calvinists?
but
Is religion's goal to be beneficial to the people, or is it to serve religion, at all costs?
and
Who is to say that Koresh and the boyz were not true christians, and the rest are cults?
-Born of a virgin by immaculate conception.
Mary was born by immaculate conception. It was that she was born without original sin, the only way she could supposedly give birth to the son of god.
I can see that you have missed my point right out of the gate, but I'll play.
Immaculate Conception is a Roman Catholic doctrine that says Mary, was preserved by God from original sin at the time of her own conception, and lived life completely sin free. This is where the long list 'o' sects is handy, because the Catholics ascribe law/rules/limitations to what is supposed to be an omnipotent god, and many other sects have issue with this cause yr bible sets no precident for a sin-free human to exist after the fall of man, apparently the catholics like to suck and blow at the same time.
Don't confuse immaculate conception with the doctrine of the virgin birth, both deal with separate subjects. Mary was conceived by icky/dirty/sinful fuking, but her soul kept lily-white by God.
You have lifted yr catholic skirts, this has been noticed and noted, but my point was the similarity between the two (Jesus and Mithras), not the minute differences.
-Born in a stable.
Wrong. Manger =! Stable.
Rong, err right, ok semantics.
Mirriam Webster said:
Main Entry: man·ger
Pronunciation: 'mAn-j&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mangeour, manger, from Middle French maingeure, from mangier to eat, from Latin manducare to chew, devour, from manducus glutton, from mandere to chew
Definition : a trough or open box in a stable designed to hold feed or fodder for livestock
*sigh*
-His birth is celebrated on Dec 25th
Not in the bible.
So, it hasn't stopped the majority of "christians" from celebrating Jesus' birth on this date, for fuking centuries!
-He made a Contract (or Covenant) with Man confirming an older contract with God.
No. He is the new covenant.
OK STOP!
Now you are not even trying, this is a Sunday Skool answer. The name "Mithras" literally means covenant, again it is the similarities that I am trying to illuminate.
-On judgment day, the dead will arise and be judged
-He will send sinners to Hell
-He will send the faithfull to Heaven
-On judgment day there will be a final conflict between evil and good.
-The forces of evil will be destroyed and the saved will live in paradise forever.
Revelations may or may not be a part of the bible that was tacked on after the fact by an unknown author. Most scholars doubt its authenticity.
LOLOLOLOL
I love how you suck and blow at the same time regarding this, I think you need to decide whether or not you are going to believe the bible or not (psst, look down).
-He is depicted as having a halo
Not in the bible.
LOLOLOLOL
The perception of Jesus is what I was alluding to (I thought you would connect those dots yo), upon examination of artwork from the last 1000+ years, Jesus is depicted as a halo-wearin pimp most of the time.
Frankly, what you said that follows doesn't really hold up, then. Precious little of what you say is in the bible is actually in it. He was born of a virgin mother and ascended into heaven.
huh?
HOLY FUCKING SHIT!
Death and rebirth. Sin and redemption. Baptism. The rise and fall of the sun. Symbolism. That was an old fucking symbol before Mithras, I can pretty much guarantee that.
right......
Mithras and his cult circled the globe over the course of a few thousand years.
RIGHT, YES YES YES!?!
2) Mithras Worship fell into decline with the arrival of the Roman Empire and the strong Zoroastrian philosophy of "one true god", did not fit with the multigod Roman belief system.
Actually, it was just arriving in Rome and prospering exactly at the same time as christianity. Also, the Romans were unusually tolerant of the religious beliefs of followers, which allowed them to rule so effectively. If anything, christianity was persecuted in those days
I said that Mithras worship both fell into decline and prospered over the 445 year Roman Empire
I won't point out your contradiction with your above statement.
..if you're trying to say that christianity's "one true god" system somehow managed to win out against Mithras, it doesn't make for a sensible argument.
That is not what I was trying to say
5) Emperor Constantine convened the Great Christian Council of Nicea in 325AD {the one that determined the "Canon" which would be known as the bible) , care to venture a guess as to who he worshiped before his conversion? (sekrit cloo, Mithras!!!1 YAY!!!1)
Constantine was a worshipper of a monotheistic sun god.
In the interests of unity Constantine deliberately chose to blur the distinctions among Christianity, Mithraism and Sol Invictus-deliberately chose not to see any contradictions among them.
OK, yes!!
So Constantine, in the name of unity, purposefully blurred the distinctions of the two. That does not mean that one ripped off the other, or that Constantine deliberately made christianity more like his pagan beliefs
Sure it does.
How about my problems with Mithras? That motherfucker ripped off Egyptian pagans! Also some Assyrians! What a fucker!
Actually you are on the right track, but the ficticious Mithras didn't rip anyone off, how could he.
Instead of seeing the similarities as somehow damning, it's strange to me that you don't see it as evidence of a singular human view of everything.
GAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!111
*head assplode*
To see that nearly every legitimate, long-lasting religion has these uncanny similarities...it doesn't strike you as too perfect?
No, because that is not a true statement, but if you mean the similarity between christianity and much more elderly belief systems, then yes, it smells like perfect recycled bullshit.
That maybe Christianity is a continuation of what mankind has known for thousands of years? And maybe, just maybe, Christians are the same as many other religions but simply believe that their savior has come already?
Make up your mind, cause christianity has no room for any other religion.
I will meander back to my Original Point, that the most basic element of christianity (Jesus Christ) appears to be a rip-off of an earlier belief, which in turn, is a rip-off of much older beliefs. Nobody can prove through 3rd party endorsement (non-church related) that Jesus ever existed, and hardly less than a cursory glance would yield evidence that he never did.
On 2005-12-01 at 11:50:12, LORDKAHUNA enjoyed furrysex
On 2005-12-01 at 11:51:33, LORDKAHUNA enjoyed furrysex
____________________
the rice I had yesterday came out practically verbatim |
| |
nocal
It's insane, this guy's taint SSHOLEPosts: 811 Registered: 8/25/2004 Offline
|
12/1/2005 at 18:12 |
don't have the chops to tackle the calvinists?
If you consider the Calvinists to be a cult. I don't. But whatever.
Is religion's goal to be beneficial to the people, or is it to serve religion, at all costs?
My point was that cults serve themselves, religions benefit people.
Immaculate Conception is a Roman Catholic doctrine
Yeah. Not in the bible. Therefore not inspired by god.
apparently the catholics like to suck and blow at the same time.
If you believe in the tenets of Vatican II, then sure.
but my point was the similarity between the two (Jesus and Mithras), not the minute differences.
Many of your points were wrong. Besides that, the evidence for Mithraic cults and religions are mostly pictorial. Hardly any written record survives at all. A ruler tried to blend his religion with christianity. You think that Mithras influenced christianity. It isn't out of the realm of possibility that it's the other way around. But what part of that argument is unreasonable to you, I'm not sure.
Rong, err right, ok semantics.
No. He wasn't born in a fucking stable. Doesn't say it in the bible. Also, it never says "three" wise men. So to you it might be splitting hairs, but it's accurate to say that.
LOLOLOLOL
The perception of Jesus is what I was alluding to (I thought you would connect those dots yo), upon examination of artwork from the last 1000+ years, Jesus is depicted as a halo-wearin pimp most of the time.
LOLOLOLOL
Wow artists paint him some way so that makes it true! It's not in the bible, and in fact, it goes against christian belief to have "graven images" of god (who jesus is) unless you believe Vatican II. I mean seriously, should I also believe that he was white and had long hair? (goes against jewish tradition for men)
LOLOLOLOL
I love how you suck and blow at the same time regarding this, I think you need to decide whether or not you are going to believe the bible or not (psst, look down).
LOLOLOL
The bible has a part that, to biblical scholars, looks tacked on, separate from the whole message, confusing, and in an entirely different style. Of course, we can believe it if you want.
So Constantine, in the name of unity, purposefully blurred the distinctions of the two. That does not mean that one ripped off the other, or that Constantine deliberately made christianity more like his pagan beliefs
Sure it does.
Yeah, unless it was the other way around and he made pagan beliefs more in line with christianity.
I will meander back to my Original Point, that the most basic element of christianity (Jesus Christ) appears to be a rip-off of an earlier belief, which in turn, is a rip-off of much older beliefs.
You can't prove that anyone was alive. I can't prove that Darwin existed (plus he ripped off another author) SO EVOLUTION MUST BE BULLSHIT. Philosophy from Jesus, and the message of the bible, is not invalidated or validated by extremely tenous and circumspect historical evidence. |
| |
Uart
DARTH MENSES  Posts: 1228 Registered: 3/5/2005 Offline
|
12/1/2005 at 19:19 |
nocal: don't have the chops to tackle the calvinists?
If you consider the Calvinists to be a cult. I don't. But whatever.
Calvin was a continental reformer during the protestant 'revolution.' His teaching was spread on the continent in what has been known as "reformed" churches and in Britain as the Church of Scotland/Free Church of Scotland or sometimes just plain Presbyterianism.
Mostly the idea of Calvinism is reminiscent of other protestant leanings -- cleansing the religion of Catholic beliefs and worship that are not in the bible. Calvin also tossed in his own theory of predestination -- the belief that the fate of your soul is determined from birth -- you're either saved or damned and there is no way to change it. Bad behavior in this life (however) is a sure-fire sign that you were not in-fact saved and will be going to hell, as a saved person's soul is pure and incapable of major sin.
Is that what you're looking for? I can give you more, like I can start talking about John Knox's interpretation of Calvin... While predestination is not in the bible, it is an attempt to explain the process by which people are chosen to be "saved," it is a belief of the churches derived from Calvinist thought.
Calvinism isn't a church and it isn't a cult -- its an adherence to the teachings of a particular theologian within a church.
Immaculate Conception is a Roman Catholic doctrine
Yeah. Not in the bible. Therefore not inspired by god.
In Catholicism it IS considered to be inspired, it is among the "infallible" teachings of the church.
LOLOLOLOL
The perception of Jesus is what I was alluding to (I thought you would connect those dots yo), upon examination of artwork from the last 1000+ years, Jesus is depicted as a halo-wearin pimp most of the time.
LOLOLOLOL
Wow artists paint him some way so that makes it true! It's not in the bible, and in fact, it goes against christian belief to have "graven images" of god (who jesus is) unless you believe Vatican II. I mean seriously, should I also believe that he was white and had long hair? (goes against jewish tradition for men)
The Halo was a common device for depicting Divinity or holiness in the Middle Ages -- it was never intended for people to believe that ANYONE actually had a halo.
|
| |
DonQuixote
DARTH MENSES  Posts: 641 Registered: 4/22/2005 Offline
|
12/1/2005 at 19:38 |
Ok I think we got way off topic here. We have all flexed our thological muscle enough to know that we are all well edutcated people, but I think the original point was to ask Nocal questions about Christianity. It seems he was trying to alleviate some of the ideas that may lead people to think Christianity in itself (outside of the power structure) is a bad thing.
The problem with the thread's idea, is that religion (and hatred thereof) is about belief not empiracle fact. There is no way to actually prove any point that is made about a belief or lack thereof. Its almost like quantum physics, no one can see a quark but there is evidence that they exist. You can cite symptoms but never hold out a "root cause" validating you theory. However, quantum physics is more than helpful in trying to make things better. But arguing over its theories, unless you actually are a quantum physicist, gets one no where.
I think the good thing about this thread is that if people had genuine questions about christianity and how can it be usefull to them, then Nocal would be more than happy tohelp those that were interested.
But it seems to just have sprialed into a stagnant argument about the "goodness" of christianity.
Anyways, nice try Nocal. Whatever gets people through the day is fine with me as long as the belief is not forced on me.
Everyone feel free to ask questions in my "Ask the Atheist" forum.
____________________
( . )( . ) <--- Boobs. |
| |
sunny77
SENATOR BABYHEAD  Posts: 225 Registered: 11/2/2005 Offline
|
12/1/2005 at 20:32 |
sfw: when have forums ever stayed on topic? LS isn't a place that revolves around your wishes, and I think it was very arrogant of you to create the "ask the atheist" thread. We all know that the one person at LS that is entitled that kind of respect is invariably vasudeva. other than that, keep your fucking mouth shut. staple it, if need be.
____________________
l hate wrecker. That is all. |
| |
vasudeva
Bad Taste in your Mouth  SSHOLEPosts: 4469 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
12/1/2005 at 20:40 |
sunny77: We all know that the one person at LS that is entitled that kind of respect is invariably vasudeva.
And Sunny77, of course.
____________________
slippedhole> I am on to you and your evil intentions. I am the true protector of this website and am willing to do battle with you. |
| |
sunny77
SENATOR BABYHEAD Posts: 225 Registered: 11/2/2005 Offline
|
12/1/2005 at 20:43 |
vasudeva
posted on 1/12/2005 at 20:40
sunny77: We all know that the one person at LS that is entitled that kind of respect is invariably vasudeva.
And Sunny77, of course.
Not quite, vas.
____________________
l hate wrecker. That is all. |
| |
acheron
Cynical_Malcontent  SSHOLEPosts: 559 Registered: 4/29/2004 Offline
|
12/1/2005 at 22:53 |
I'm entertained if not overly interested in this thread.
Question for Mr. Jesus-expert: Where did all the notions of hell come from? Are they mentioned in scripture specifically? |
| |
nocal
It's insane, this guy's taint SSHOLEPosts: 811 Registered: 8/25/2004 Offline
|
12/1/2005 at 23:59 |
Question for Mr. Jesus-expert: Where did all the notions of hell come from? Are they mentioned in scripture specifically?
Answer for Mr. Jerk-face: Notions of hell come from the bible. They are mentioned a bunch of times in scripture. Of course, a reasonable person sees it as allegorical; the idea being that not having god's love is akin to being tortured. Ever love someone and have them not love you back? Hell is like that times infinity, I guess you could say. It's not a literal place, just a state of being.
If you're an unreasonable person, you believe that there is this place under the ground where fire burns the bad people and the devil pokes them in the asshole with a pitchfork.
I was taught that hell is not for those that are genuinely repentant. If you kill a man, die, and you go to purgatory, and are genuinely sorry and accept god's love (yeah, god can tell if you're faking it, so don't try it!), you will go to heaven eventually.
However, if you reject god's love, and you turn your back on god, either because you don't give a shit about what you did or some other reason, you will go to hell where you will never experience the ultimate love of a creator loving its creation. |
| |
LORDKAHUNA
Don't make me fuk your moustache SSHOLEPosts: 1624 Registered: 8/5/2003 Offline
|
12/2/2005 at 00:08 |
Is religion's goal to be beneficial to the people, or is it to serve religion, at all costs?
My point was that cults serve themselves, religions benefit people.
LOL
Immaculate Conception is a Roman Catholic doctrine
Yeah. Not in the bible. Therefore not inspired by god.
Huh?
What are you getting on about here?
apparently the catholics like to suck and blow at the same time.
If you believe in the tenets of Vatican II, then sure.
I don't believe in tenets, their suckblow is clearly evident, whenever the rules don't serve their purpose they change em.
Many of your points were wrong.
No
A ruler tried to blend his religion with christianity. You think that Mithras influenced christianity.
Yes
It isn't out of the realm of possibility that it's the other way around.
No, considering the timeline of it all.
But what part of that argument is unreasonable to you, I'm not sure.
WTF?
Rong, err right, ok semantics.
No. He wasn't born in a fucking stable. Doesn't say it in the bible. Also, it never says "three" wise men. So to you it might be splitting hairs, but it's accurate to say that.
Hay Mr. Fluffytail, don't quote the bible at me as the be-all-end-all untill you can state that you believe it's contents.
You keep using the "not in the bible" defense, but articulate in yr own words that the entire book of Revelation's credibility is in question (ie. suckblow). Seriously WTF, in or fuking out!
LOLOLOLOL
The perception of Jesus is what I was alluding to (I thought you would connect those dots yo), upon examination of artwork from the last 1000+ years, Jesus is depicted as a halo-wearin pimp most of the time.
LOLOLOLOL
Wow artists paint him some way so that makes it true! It's not in the bible, and in fact, it goes against christian belief to have "graven images" of god (who jesus is) unless you believe Vatican II. I mean seriously, should I also believe that he was white and had long hair? (goes against jewish tradition for men)
I was speaking of perception, how iconically both figures were portrayed in the same manner, it may seem silly now, but sacred art was a big deal to illiterate believers back then.
LOLOLOLOL
I love how you suck and blow at the same time regarding this, I think you need to decide whether or not you are going to believe the bible or not (psst, look down).
LOLOLOL
The bible has a part that, to biblical scholars, looks tacked on, separate from the whole message, confusing, and in an entirely different style. Of course, we can believe it if you want.
Oh, just one ?
So Constantine, in the name of unity, purposefully blurred the distinctions of the two. That does not mean that one ripped off the other, or that Constantine deliberately made christianity more like his pagan beliefs
Sure it does.
Yeah, unless it was the other way around and he made pagan beliefs more in line with christianity.
Wouldn't that further weaken the position of Christ in christianity, It still supports that christianity was manufactured, not inspired.
You can't prove that anyone was alive.
What the shit?
I can't prove that Darwin existed
You are right, and don't let his grave in Westminster Abbey , or his exhaustive written record, or the scores of first-hand accounts of people who interacted with him, or his progeny fool you one bit.
(plus he ripped off another author) SO EVOLUTION MUST BE BULLSHIT.
What? I do not trust this argumentative nonsensecal arguement
Philosophy from Jesus, and the message of the bible, is not invalidated or validated by extremely tenous and circumspect historical evidence.
Translation:
The Bible and Jesus may or may not have said shit that can or cannot be proven.
On 2005-12-01 at 18:36:02, LORDKAHUNA enjoyed furrysex
On 2005-12-01 at 18:37:24, LORDKAHUNA enjoyed furrysex
____________________
the rice I had yesterday came out practically verbatim |
| |
LORDKAHUNA
Don't make me fuk your moustache SSHOLEPosts: 1624 Registered: 8/5/2003 Offline
|
12/2/2005 at 00:23 |
nocal: Question for Mr. Jesus-expert: Where did all the notions of hell come from? Are they mentioned in scripture specifically?
Answer for Mr. Jerk-face: Notions of hell come from the bible. They are mentioned a bunch of times in scripture. Of course, a reasonable person sees it as allegorical; the idea being that not having god's love is akin to being tortured. Ever love someone and have them not love you back? Hell is like that times infinity, I guess you could say. It's not a literal place, just a state of being.
How can you qualify this?
Again with the literal and figurative, I think I dig your christianity, I can craft it into whatever I want.
Dude, I have a sense that you are drinking from the fire hose on this one.
No hate nigger.
On 2005-12-01 at 18:23:55, LORDKAHUNA enjoyed furrysex
____________________
the rice I had yesterday came out practically verbatim |
| |
nocal
It's insane, this guy's taint SSHOLEPosts: 811 Registered: 8/25/2004 Offline
|
12/2/2005 at 01:13 |
You are right, and don't let his grave in Westminster Abbey , or his exhaustive written record, or the scores of first-hand accounts of people who interacted with him, or his progeny fool you one bit.
Don't let Jesus' legions of followers and the written record fool you.
I don't believe in tenets, their suckblow is clearly evident, whenever the rules don't serve their purpose they change em.
I think that at least in terms of Vatican II we agree.
Many of your points were wrong.
I meant with the Mithras/Jesus similarities, but I'm not sure I made that clear.
Where we're maybe not understanding each other on the whole blending of pagan beliefs with christianity is with this: most of the similarities that you bring up are not actually in the bible. It was created after the fact. Born of a virgin mother? Not in the bible. Therefore, I would say that christianity never intended to steal that. Instead, someone tacked that on in the oral tradition in order to blend pagan beliefs with christianity.
The only similarities seem to actually be: born of a god in human form, died and reborn. Now of course, these are big ol' motherfucking similarities. But as I pointed out before, the whole death/rebirth thing is a common image. Born of a god into human form...that's also a common image, but less common and more suspect. That I can admit.
No, considering the timeline of it all.
Like I said before, it has nothing to do with timeline. There is no proof that Zoroastrianism or whichever religion influenced the actual bible. Sure, they influenced the tradition, such as unknown and unimportant dates and celebrations, but the bible itself has no proof of such influence.
You keep using the "not in the bible" defense, but articulate in yr own words that the entire book of Revelation's credibility is in question (ie. suckblow). Seriously WTF, in or fuking out!
My own words, and the words of others.
wiki
But sure, whatever. Still what I've read about Mithraism doesn't include the bullet points that you posted anyway.
In fact, according to this:
-Mithras was born from a rock. Not in a stable, or manger, or whatever.
And here, Wikipedia says what I've been saying all along:
Christians would argue that because the Gospels were written mostly before 100 and that since little is known of Roman Mithraism until after 100 that it is not plausible to say that Christianity borrowed any of its doctrines from Mithraism; some Christians have suggested that Mithraism may have borrowed some elements from Christianity. Other, non-Christian scholars disagree on both the dating of the gospels and with the conclusions made.
A better determinant of borrowing, is to compare core doctrines between Christianity and Mithraism. The adoption of imagery or icons or festivals is fairly peripheral (such as the adoption by christendom of winter solstice or Saturnalia festivals as Christmas) but seldom reflect basic religious tenets. A further example of this are the various gnostic cults (such as Pelagianism) which adopted the personage of Jesus or the concept of a Savior, yet did not adopt the underlying doctrinal elements.
Hay Mr. Fluffytail, don't quote the bible at me as the be-all-end-all untill you can state that you believe it's contents.
To say that the bible says that Jesus was born in a manger and not a stable requires no belief on my part. It's a matter of two different words. Mark Twain said, the difference between lightning and lightning bug. There's a difference, although really I'm not even sure why we're still arguing over it.
I was speaking of perception, how iconically both figures were portrayed in the same manner, it may seem silly now, but sacred art was a big deal to illeterate believers back then.
I can paint a million pictures of Jesus with a huge black dong coming out of the top of his head. Paintings don't show up in the bible.
What? I do not trust this argumentative nonsensecal arguement
Darwin may or may not have ripped off at least one author. Wallace was his name, and he was already published, and in fact, there was already a debate over natural selection. Prove to me that they exist (besides the written record [because who knows who wrote all that stuff] and their supposed grave sites [who knows if that's really them]) and that they didn't rip off an idea that has been around for thousands of years.
Translation:
The Bible and Jesus may or may not have said shit that can or cannot be proven.
Yeah dude. I can't prove any of it. What are you getting at? Being involved in the sciences in school, it's nearly fucking impossible to empirically prove anything. ANYTHING. Be it scientific or otherwise.
How can you qualify this?
Again with the literal and figurative, I think I dig your christianity, I can craft it into whatever I want.
The bible is very often allegory and parable. There's a reason why Jesus spoke in parables, and it was because some people are idiots. If you're reasonably intelligent, you don't believe that there is an actual hell under us filled with fire and a devil who stabs our asses for eternity. However, it is representative of the pain that one would feel if one were to reject god.
But I can't drill completely through the world or pull god out of the sky to tell you, so I can't prove it. |
| |
IMBOLCPunxsutawneyPhil
SENATOR BABYHEAD  Posts: 244 Registered: 3/17/2005 Offline
|
12/2/2005 at 03:00 |
do like sometimes I make little sense.. fuck.. oh well.
anyhow mr. douchnozzle-sucking-pig,
mundra is right, this so called religion came out of something else, just as questionable..
and I add that this thar religion is merely a society's way of making good with the nature and environ around them.
no big words see? simple too, and in hickory!
plus tell me how it is not a fairy tale, that's a good un.
uart, I took 12 years, and none of it went up my bum.
____________________
If you include a null character |
| |
acheron
Cynical_Malcontent SSHOLEPosts: 559 Registered: 4/29/2004 Offline
|
12/2/2005 at 03:46 |
Answer for Mr. Jerk-face:
 |
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian  SSHOLEPosts: 949 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
12/3/2005 at 03:04 |
nocal: The bible is very often allegory and parable. There's a reason why Jesus spoke in parables, and it was because some people are idiots. If you're reasonably intelligent, you don't believe that there is an actual hell under us filled with fire and a devil who stabs our asses for eternity. However, it is representative of the pain that one would feel if one were to reject god.
 idiots - heh.
Maybe there's also another reason Jesus taught using parables. Consider the notion that what a sentient being percieves is through a small set of physical senses, and that quite possibly there is much much more to the reality of who we are and why we are here than we can tell just through observation. I think Jesus spoke in parables because that was the only way to describe that which words alone can't convey. And if he threw in the occasional jibe at the idiots, well then more power to him - render unto Ceasar, buddy.
____________________
To the dog who has money, men say "My Lord Dog". |
| |
|
Actually there is only one real pervert here that i can tell. No, it's not me or qwerty. -- ghostrider
|
