PDA

View Full Version : SLAG is an Appalling BIGOT


Pages : 1 [2]

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-20-2008, 02:32 AM
It still amazes me that the f*cking pope was a Hitler youth...well it really doesn't, but it's so symmetrically hilarious.

Thig Lyfe
04-20-2008, 02:37 AM
I miss the old Pope. He had...
http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/5/53/Popeeyebeams.jpg

MadMax
04-20-2008, 02:41 AM
he looks like he's taking a poop

I pooped a little looking at the pic. Then I realized it was Daddy Jerry...:D

Frazod
04-20-2008, 03:02 AM
Private messages should remain private under all circumstances or they should be disabled entirely, IMHO.

Normally, yes. But when something as blatantly offensive as this is fired off into cyberspace, privately or otherwise, the offender deserves to be outed. I've done it myself on a couple of occasions. If you want to blast somebody like this, at least have the stones to do it in the public forum.

And also, if prudence tells you not to say some hateful shit to somebody you don't like publicly, perhaps your intelligence should tell you that the person you don't like just might jam it up your ass if you say it privately.

Anytime we type something in and click "sumbit," it is beyond our control from that point forward. IMO, we should conduct ourselves accordingly.

Bill Parcells
04-20-2008, 07:19 AM
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gdiBrNnLfCE&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gdiBrNnLfCE&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

mcan
04-20-2008, 08:29 AM
I feel like a private message is like telling somebody a secret. Unless you explicitly trust a person not to tell anybody else, you shouldn't entrust them with your secret.

Dave Lane
04-20-2008, 09:14 AM
Well, sure. But like I said, interpretation is needed, outside of scripture itself. Jesus preached to the people, but explained Himself only to the apostles. Just look at all the examples of that throughout the gospels. Then he gave the apostles the authority to bind and loose sin, and to go forth and preach the gospel and to baptize...not just anybody, but to the apostles. Then in Acts, we see the apostles passing that authority on by laying on of hands etc. The role of the priesthood was central in Judaism, and Jesus did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. This doesn't meant that the role of the priesthood was done away with. There is a ton of history on this though, and it would take books and years of study and research explain this...which ain't gonna happen today on Chiefsplanet...:)



LOL ROFL holy shit wow what a devote beliver in myth....

dave

Dave Lane
04-20-2008, 09:15 AM
I feel like a private message is like telling somebody a secret. Unless you explicitly trust a person not to tell anybody else, you shouldn't entrust them with your secret.

Actually looked like a neg rep comment to me but still....

Guru
04-20-2008, 09:21 AM
So Phelps', Scientologists, people who believe 2+2=5 and many other inane beliefs are just fine and to call those beliefs into question is to insult the person?
It's not my business what they believe. They haven't attacked me personally. Are they people I would spend time with? No. But they do have a right to their beliefs and I respect that.

burt
04-20-2008, 09:42 AM
It's not my business what they believe. They haven't attacked me personally. Are they people I would spend time with? No. But they do have a right to their beliefs and I respect that.

Phelps pickets military funerals. No matter what political ideals you may have, the death of a military person is painful to their family. Feeding on the grieving is wrong, and I would enjoy a confrontation with Phelps. I guess "They haven't attacked me personally." doesn't work for me. If I saw 2 guys beating up a woman, I would interject...even if "They haven't attacked me personally." Sometimes ya just gotta stand up.

Mr. Laz
04-20-2008, 09:50 AM
the fact that slag's rep isn't glowing RED just shows that there are many,many bible thump'ers around here who agree with him .... they just hide it better.

Guru
04-20-2008, 09:51 AM
Phelps pickets military funerals. No matter what political ideals you may have, the death of a military person is painful to their family. Feeding on the grieving is wrong, and I would enjoy a confrontation with Phelps. I guess "They haven't attacked me personally." doesn't work for me. If I saw 2 guys beating up a woman, I would interject...even if "They haven't attacked me personally." Sometimes ya just gotta stand up.

So you are going to attack phelps physically for what he is doing? Thats a great answer.

Guru
04-20-2008, 09:52 AM
the fact that slag's rep isn't glowing RED just shows that there are many,many bible thump'ers around here who agree with him .... they just hide it better.
What would be the point. Rep is useless anyway.

burt
04-20-2008, 09:55 AM
So you are going to attack phelps physically for what he is doing? Thats a great answer.

I enjoy your attempt to put words in my post. confrontation does not mean physically attack. It could mean it, but please be realistic...confront has many meanings. Nice leap.

Guru
04-20-2008, 10:00 AM
I enjoy your attempt to put words in my post. confrontation does not mean physically attack. It could mean it, but please be realistic...confront has many meanings. Nice leap.

I am done wasting time in this thread. If you don't get it, I can't explain it. I am tired of people trying to tell me what I mean and what I am saying. I know my philosophy of life and it has done me well to date. I think I will stick to what works for me.

Mr. Laz
04-20-2008, 10:04 AM
What would be the point. Rep is useless anyway.
very true ...... but it's a symbolic "CPlanet" tool of disapproval of the post or poster.

when a troll shows up they start glowing red pretty quickly.

when somebody from another football team shows up and gets mouthy ....... the same.

burt
04-20-2008, 10:09 AM
I am tired of people trying to tell me what I mean and what I am saying.

ROFL This, after you just redefined what I meant by confrontation! BTW, I didn't tell you what you meant or what you were saying...I was just disagreeing. What you said was clear.....

They haven't attacked me personally. Are they people I would spend time with? No. But they do have a right to their beliefs and I respect that.

I just don't believe that protesting a military funeral is appropriate. I agree wth the bikers that post up and keep Phelps out of ear shot and eyesight. Phelps has a right to protest, so do the bikers.

lastly,

If you don't get it, I can't explain it.

Sorry I am so obtuse and that I bothered a great intellect such as your self with my low brow opinion, that I haven't the mental capacity to have.

Iowanian
04-20-2008, 11:22 AM
Slag,

Your ignorant bullshit is exactly why the average Catholic takes so much grief for our faith.
Did you get sucked into some fringe Opus Dae or something?

Don't let me get in the way of your Catholic bash. Please continue.

SLAG
04-20-2008, 12:37 PM
Slag,

Your ignorant bullshit is exactly why the average Catholic takes so much grief for our faith.
Did you get sucked into some fringe Opus Dae or something?

Don't let me get in the way of your Catholic bash. Please continue.

Its Opus Dei and No I did not

If you would read the whole thread you would have seen this Gem

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4695569&postcount=147


Too bad some around here Can't Accept an Heartfelt Apology when one is given

Mr Luzcious
04-20-2008, 01:26 PM
Could you not have just dealt with Slag in private instead of airing the dirty laundry for everybody to see?

kstater
04-20-2008, 01:29 PM
Could you not have just dealt with Slag in private instead of airing the dirty laundry for everybody to see?

Where's the fun in that?

jjchieffan
04-20-2008, 01:42 PM
While I agree with the premise of your argument, that STDs, and AIDS are the fruit of a sexually immoral society, and that those that practice sexual immorality reap what they sow, I must stop there with my support of your argument. As a non catholic and a Christian, I find your behavior to be appalling. Your comments have only angered the Christians and the non christians on this board. Furthermore, to believe that only catholics are going to heaven is not only arrogant, but dead wrong. Read your bible. It says over and over that the way to heaven is available to anyone who accepts Christ as savior and asks for forgiveness of their sins. Nowhere is the catholic church even mentioned in the bible. If it was the case, don't you think it would be in there somewhere that you must be a catholic?

jjchieffan
04-20-2008, 01:51 PM
the fact that slag's rep isn't glowing RED just shows that there are many,many bible thump'ers around here who agree with him .... they just hide it better.

Just to make myself clear. I make no effort to hide my Christianity. I am proud to be a Christian. However, I feel that trying to force my views down everyone else's throat is wrong. I would, however, gladly invite any one of you to attend church or a church event with me anytime. If you choose to refuse, that is fine with me. If you choose to accept, even better. People who act like Slag are the reason many of you have negative views towards Christians. Please don't lump me and the other Christians who know how to act in with him.

Mr. Laz
04-20-2008, 02:14 PM
Just to make myself clear. I make no effort to hide my Christianity. I am proud to be a Christian. However, I feel that trying to force my views down everyone else's throat is wrong. I would, however, gladly invite any one of you to attend church or a church event with me anytime. If you choose to refuse, that is fine with me. If you choose to accept, even better. People who act like Slag are the reason many of you have negative views towards Christians. Please don't lump me and the other Christians who know how to act in with him.
fair enough ..... i said many, not all.

people are free to do as they see fit imo

go to church .... fine
don't go ... fine
pick your religion .... fine
force beliefs on others .... not so much

but there are many religion people that feel just like slag does .... but they just don't say it. Not just catholic either.

abortion and gays are the backbone of the religious far right.

bowener
04-20-2008, 02:14 PM
I bathe in sin.
I love sin.
I like to keep it within. [Luke 17:21]
I am pride. [all his creation he is proud of; if you tarnish it, you die]
I am gluttony. [of food? no. of ego stroking? yes. why create us if you are a perfect being, unless you are a glutton for our praise, glutton for our attention... no other need for us]
I am greed. [wants us all, all to itself, nothing else, nobody else can have us]
I am sloth. [ why are you resting on the 7th day? you are God, you are more than us, more than a physical state... tisk tisk]
I am envy. [see 10 commandments - worship 1 god, 'bc i am a jealous god']
I am lust.
[B]I am wrath. [Samuel (24:1); Samuel (6:6); Genesis 13:13]
I made all. [Isaiah 45:7; Genesis 2:17-- he made the tree of what?;
I am God.


Sorry,
I am lame.
I am bored.
I am bowener.
I am going outside now to lay in the grass.

Mosbonian
04-20-2008, 02:19 PM
fair enough ..... i said many, not all.

people are free to do as they see fit imo

go to church .... fine
don't go ... fine
pick your religion .... fine
force beliefs on others .... not so much

but there are many religion people that feel just like slag does .... but they just don't say it. Not just catholic either.

abortion and gays are the backbone of the religious far right.

As usual, way off the mark and an opinion that is incorrect.

mmaddog
*******

Al Bundy
04-20-2008, 02:31 PM
Who in the hell is Slag anyway? Wasn't he one of the dinobots?

irishjayhawk
04-20-2008, 02:35 PM
Just to make myself clear. I make no effort to hide my Christianity. I am proud to be a Christian. However, I feel that trying to force my views down everyone else's throat is wrong. I would, however, gladly invite any one of you to attend church or a church event with me anytime. If you choose to refuse, that is fine with me. If you choose to accept, even better. People who act like Slag are the reason many of you have negative views towards Christians. Please don't lump me and the other Christians who know how to act in with him.

Then are you one of the people who likes to use the "True Scotsman" fallacy?

Ultra Peanut
04-20-2008, 02:57 PM
While I agree with the premise of your argument, that STDs, and AIDS are the fruit of a sexually immoral society, and that those that practice sexual immorality reap what they sow, I must stop there with my support of your argument.SWEEEEEEEEEEET

TELL ME MORE

jjchieffan
04-20-2008, 03:01 PM
Then are you one of the people who likes to use the "True Scotsman" fallacy?

I don't know what the "True Scotsman" fallacy is.

burt
04-20-2008, 03:02 PM
Hey, the guy apologized....nuff said for me.

irishjayhawk
04-20-2008, 03:09 PM
I don't know what the "True Scotsman" fallacy is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Mr Luzcious
04-20-2008, 03:15 PM
No true Scotsman would ever resort to such fallacies.

jjchieffan
04-20-2008, 03:56 PM
SWEEEEEEEEEEET

TELL ME MORE

If you are trying to draw in me into a religious argument, I will pass. If you are just wanting me to clarify what I said, I will. I believe that God, in his judgment, does allow for diseases and other calamities to occur in order to punish and reduce the immorality in society. Obviously, the chance of death or serious illness would be a great deterrent. That is my opinion. If you disagree, you are entitled to your opinion.

DaneMcCloud
04-20-2008, 04:30 PM
If you are trying to draw in me into a religious argument, I will pass. If you are just wanting me to clarify what I said, I will. I believe that God, in his judgment, does allow for diseases and other calamities to occur in order to punish and reduce the immorality in society. Obviously, the chance of death or serious illness would be a great deterrent. That is my opinion. If you disagree, you are entitled to your opinion.

Considering the entire "civilized" world was "immoral" before the time of Christ, why wasn't the human race exterminated by disease preceding the rise of Christianity?

markk
04-20-2008, 04:48 PM
i don't know how you can be a 'bigot' against someone's sexual preference. but appalling indeed

kstater
04-20-2008, 04:52 PM
i don't know how you can be a 'bigot' against someone's sexual preference. but appalling indeed

bigot

noun
a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

jjchieffan
04-20-2008, 05:09 PM
bigot

noun
a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

Oh, well. By that definition, I guess Mecca would be a bigot.

jjchieffan
04-20-2008, 05:13 PM
Considering the entire "civilized" world was "immoral" before the time of Christ, why wasn't the human race exterminated by disease preceding the rise of Christianity?

Actually, back then, adulterers were dragged outside the city and stoned to death. Society took care of such things then. Now, you have to kill someone to even be considered for the death penalty, so God imposed his own death penalty. AIDS.

Count Alex's Losses
04-20-2008, 05:37 PM
I'd ****in fight the pope, too. I'd give the old bastard a right hook and yell WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW? Then a Vatican sniper would evacuate the insides of my head.

irishjayhawk
04-20-2008, 05:41 PM
If you are trying to draw in me into a religious argument, I will pass. If you are just wanting me to clarify what I said, I will. I believe that God, in his judgment, does allow for diseases and other calamities to occur in order to punish and reduce the immorality in society. Obviously, the chance of death or serious illness would be a great deterrent. That is my opinion. If you disagree, you are entitled to your opinion.

So if all immorality stopped, diseases would stop?

irishjayhawk
04-20-2008, 05:41 PM
I'd ****in fight the pope, too. I'd give the old bastard a right hook and yell WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW? Then a Vatican sniper would evacuate the insides of my head.

Not if you hijacked the popemobile.

jjchieffan
04-20-2008, 05:43 PM
So if all immorality stopped, diseases would stop?

I think I have taken this issue as far as I want to. To belabor it further, would be to do exactly what Slag was doing.

irishjayhawk
04-20-2008, 05:45 PM
I think I have taken this issue as far as I want to. To belabor it further, would be to do exactly what Slag was doing.

That's really a simple question, but that's fine.

DaFace
04-20-2008, 05:45 PM
So is there anything in this thread that's funny or interesting, or just a bunch of arguing? I'm too lazy to read through it all.

kstater
04-20-2008, 05:46 PM
So is there anything in this thread that's funny or interesting, or just a bunch of arguing? I'm too lazy to read through it all.
Yes

irishjayhawk
04-20-2008, 05:46 PM
So is there anything in this thread that's funny or interesting, or just a bunch of arguing? I'm too lazy to read through it all.

My summary of the Pope's letter Slag quoted. :p

Bill Parcells
04-20-2008, 06:03 PM
So is there anything in this thread that's funny or interesting, or just a bunch of arguing? I'm too lazy to read through it all.

Did god make you think of the prefix icons? o:-)

EyePod
04-20-2008, 06:51 PM
When the search function is restored, I'll be more than happy to find your rant over a misspelled word. You lit that poor sonbitch up. Why? Over a misspelled word? I'm sure I'm not the only one that remembers it. It was downright strange.

Other than that, be pissed at Slag. That's your business. The drama queen part came from feeling the need to actually start a thread over a cp member's douchebaggery. There's a lot of it that goes around, thank God we don't have a thread for all of it.

I do remember that last time. I don't know why I got so angry about that misspelled word ( I think it was someone just adding an "a" to an English word to make it Spanish)

I made this thread because I thought that it was pretty exceptional.

EyePod
04-20-2008, 06:52 PM
I really want to know who made the tag "slaggot" cause that is amazing.

Mr. Laz
04-20-2008, 07:03 PM
As usual, way off the mark and an opinion that is incorrect.

mmaddog
*******
tell me again what part i'm wrong about?

Originally Posted by jjchieffan http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=4697070#post4697070)
I believe that God, in his judgment, does allow for diseases and other calamities to occur in order to punish and reduce the immorality in society.

Count Alex's Losses
04-20-2008, 07:06 PM
Did god make you think of the prefix icons? o:-)

Enjoying that feature, are you?

Bill Parcells
04-20-2008, 07:16 PM
Enjoying that feature, are you?

Who are you?

Count Alex's Losses
04-20-2008, 07:21 PM
Who are you?

ALMIGHTY JEHOVAH

SBK
04-20-2008, 07:24 PM
LMAO at the tags

DaneMcCloud
04-20-2008, 07:52 PM
Actually, back then, adulterers were dragged outside the city and stoned to death. Society took care of such things then. Now, you have to kill someone to even be considered for the death penalty, so God imposed his own death penalty. AIDS.

ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL



Are you f*cking kidding me? Back "when"?

Even a casual student of world history knows that Greeks embraced homosexuality and many of the most famous Greeks were practicing homosexuals. The Romans (and especially the elite, including the Caesar's) were privy to massive orgies and homosexuality and bisexuality. Same goes for Egypt.

So again, how did "society" take care of them?

BigMeatballDave
04-20-2008, 08:19 PM
I believe in God and Jesus. It is completely insane to think God would create a virus to rid the planet of homosexuals. Some people just prefer to live in fantasy land.

InChiefsHell
04-20-2008, 08:45 PM
LOL ROFL holy shit wow what a devote beliver in myth....

dave

What do you believe in Dave? How is it that you can define my beliefs as "myth"?

...glad I could provide you with some entertainment I guess...:spock:

irishjayhawk
04-20-2008, 08:48 PM
What do you believe in Dave? How is it that you can define my beliefs as "myth"?

...glad I could provide you with some entertainment I guess...:spock:

Do you define Thor, Zeus, Roman gods, Greek Gods, Indian Gods, basically all gods of the past as "myth"?

DaneMcCloud
04-20-2008, 08:49 PM
What do you believe in Dave? How is it that you can define my beliefs as "myth"?

...glad I could provide you with some entertainment I guess...:spock:

Just because 600 million people believe something doesn't negate the fact that it's a myth.

As has been discussed ad nauseam in this forum, the existence of Christ cannot be factually proven.

That's why it's called faith. Either you believe or you don't.

But a person's decision to believe doesn't erase that it can't be proven as fact.

InChiefsHell
04-20-2008, 08:52 PM
Do you define Thor, Zeus, Roman gods, Greek Gods, Indian Gods, basically all gods of the past as "myth"?

Heh. You and me been down this road before my friend...but, just to launch into another 20 pages...yes, they are myth. Though, I don't think I'd call them gods of the past. And I don't think they didn't "exist" per se, but they were not\are not what their believers think they are...


...here we go...

InChiefsHell
04-20-2008, 08:54 PM
Just because 600 million people believe something doesn't negate the fact that it's a myth.

As has been discussed ad nauseam in this forum, the existence of Christ cannot be factually proven.

That's why it's called faith. Either you believe or you don't.

But a person's decision to believe doesn't erase that it can't be proven as fact.

The existence of Jesus, a man from Nazareth who was crucified by the Romans...is not a myth. Whether or not he was the Christ is the bone of contention...and that still doesn't really get to what I was getting at. My response was about why the Church teaches what it teaches, and where it gets that teaching from...your response was ROFL...and you now state that it's a FACT that it's a myth...which makes me...well...ROFLROFL

DaneMcCloud
04-20-2008, 09:00 PM
The existence of Jesus, a man from Nazareth who was crucified by the Romans...is not a myth. Whether or not he was the Christ is the bone of contention...and that still doesn't really get to what I was getting at. My response was about why the Church teaches what it teaches, and where it gets that teaching from...your response was ROFL...and you now state that it's a FACT that it's a myth...which makes me...well...ROFLROFL

Again, that's your belief. I'm not going to get into every single Biblical detail, each of which can be factually disputed (which of course at that point, Christians say "oh, that wasn't meant to be taken literally!) but there is no factual proof that the "Jesus" that was crucified by the Romans was actually Jesus of Nazareth.

I'm not knocking your faith or any other person's faith, whether it be Christian, Buddhist, Islamic, Jew or Hindu. But if you're going to try to convince people in the 21st century that "virgin births", "God as a human" and "resurrection from the dead" occurred more than 2,000 years ago, you're going to encounter resistance from those who require proof.

EyePod
04-20-2008, 09:06 PM
I'm really fine with this thread being done with. I just wanted to point out how horrible SLAG is, and I think the point's been made. Everyone should ignore him, and we'd all be a lot happier.

InChiefsHell
04-20-2008, 09:07 PM
Again, that's your belief. I'm not going to get into every single Biblical detail, each of which can be factually disputed (which of course at that point, Christians say "oh, that wasn't meant to be taken literally!) but there is no factual proof that the "Jesus" that was crucified by the Romans was actually Jesus of Nazareth.

I'm not knocking your faith or any other person's faith, whether it be Christian, Buddhist, Islamic, Jew or Hindu. But if you're going to try to convince people in the 21st century that "virgin births", "God as a human" and "resurrection from the dead" occurred more than 2,000 years ago, you're going to encounter resistance from those who require proof.

No argument there, and I have never entertained the aspiration of converting anyone on a Chiefs Football forum...I guess I'm saying you can't say it's myth...you can say you don't believe it, and that's fine, but to say it's myth means you can prove that it is...and you can't. You have evidence, which you have "faith" in...I do as well.

It just seems a little disingenuous to ROFL at someone's faith...like it's impossible or something. You have no proof to the contrary...you have only your faith that it's a myth...

...just sayin'. We each have our "gods" that we believe in...I won't point and laugh at yours.

InChiefsHell
04-20-2008, 09:08 PM
I'm really fine with this thread being done with. I just wanted to point out how horrible SLAG is, and I think the point's been made. Everyone should ignore him, and we'd all be a lot happier.

Yeah, but now look what you gone and done...:)

DaneMcCloud
04-20-2008, 09:11 PM
No argument there, and I have never entertained the aspiration of converting anyone on a Chiefs Football forum...I guess I'm saying you can't say it's myth...you can say you don't believe it, and that's fine, but to say it's myth means you can prove that it is...and you can't. You have evidence, which you have "faith" in...I do as well.

It just seems a little disingenuous to ROFL at someone's faith...like it's impossible or something. You have no proof to the contrary...you have only your faith that it's a myth...

...just sayin'. We each have our "gods" that we believe in...I won't point and laugh at yours.

Um, I didn't point and laugh. To the contrary, I was respectful. But if you want to get technical, okay:

Myth comes from the Greek word meaning "Word of Mouth". How does that not describe Christ's earliest followers? There weren't any texts written about him during his life, only after. Word of mouth only. Myth.

Additionally, a myth is a sacred story concerning the origins of the world or how the world and the creatures in it came to be in their present form. The active beings in myths are generally gods and heroes. Myths often are said to take place before recorded history begins. In saying that a myth is a sacred narrative, what is meant is that a myth is believed to be true by people who attach religious or spiritual significance to it.

So please explain how the story of Jesus isn't a myth?

irishjayhawk
04-20-2008, 09:24 PM
Heh. You and me been down this road before my friend...but, just to launch into another 20 pages...yes, they are myth. Though, I don't think I'd call them gods of the past. And I don't think they didn't "exist" per se, but they were not\are not what their believers think they are...


...here we go...

Based on what criteria are they a "myth" or "didn't exist per se"?

My hunch is that you were born into a family that told you these things. You were raised to believe them and even though there is this illusion in you consciously saying "yes I believe what my parents told me", it's not really your decision. You've been told for x amount of years and that's that.

But my hunch aside, what criteria makes it/them a "myth" or "didn't exist"?

irishjayhawk
04-20-2008, 09:28 PM
No argument there, and I have never entertained the aspiration of converting anyone on a Chiefs Football forum...I guess I'm saying you can't say it's myth...you can say you don't believe it, and that's fine, but to say it's myth means you can prove that it is...and you can't. You have evidence, which you have "faith" in...I do as well.

It just seems a little disingenuous to ROFL at someone's faith...like it's impossible or something.

It kind of is. "virgin births", "talking snakes", "Man-Gods", "women made from a rib in a man", "parting of the Red Sea", etc etc. It makes it pretty impossible unless you compartmentalize and make it so that nothing can actually interfere with the nice world.


You have no proof to the contrary...you have only your faith that it's a myth...

Likewise, and I'm rehashing old things, you don't have proof for leprechauns, witches, Hogwarts, unicorns, etc etc but we don't say we have faith in them or believe in them or attempt to DISPROVE them. They are just assumed to be fairy tales, fictional, or non-existent until someone proves otherwise.


...just sayin'. We each have our "gods" that we believe in...I won't point and laugh at yours.

Not always true.

blueballs
04-20-2008, 09:42 PM
This thread must be about religion and penises
to be this long
sounds to boring to explore

Mr Luzcious
04-20-2008, 09:44 PM
Um, I didn't point and laugh. To the contrary, I was respectful. But if you want to get technical, okay:

Myth comes from the Greek word meaning "Word of Mouth". How does that not describe Christ's earliest followers? There weren't any texts written about him during his life, only after. Word of mouth only. Myth.

Additionally, a myth is a sacred story concerning the origins of the world or how the world and the creatures in it came to be in their present form. The active beings in myths are generally gods and heroes. Myths often are said to take place before recorded history begins. In saying that a myth is a sacred narrative, what is meant is that a myth is believed to be true by people who attach religious or spiritual significance to it.

So please explain how the story of Jesus isn't a myth?

Lets not debate the meaning of a word. He believes Christianity to be true, and other religions to be false You believe Christianity to be false. There's no reason to debate around a word in the middle that doesn't really have anything to do with the concepts being discussed.

irishjayhawk
04-20-2008, 09:52 PM
Lets not debate the meaning of a word. He believes Christianity to be true, and other religions to be false You believe Christianity to be false. There's no reason to debate around a word in the middle that doesn't really have anything to do with the concepts being discussed.

That's fine and dandy but says nothing on the criteria he uses to arrive at a decision.

How would you answer the question? By what criteria do you assess what you will and won't believe in?

Mr Luzcious
04-20-2008, 10:02 PM
That's fine and dandy but says nothing on the criteria he uses to arrive at a decision.

How would you answer the question? By what criteria do you assess what you will and won't believe in?

Egad, I forgot a period. I could've sworn I'd put that in there.. anyway.

Oh, I suppose there are a few things that go into the decision. Some factual evidence, although thats probably the least reliable in regard to religion. Take the resurrection for example, there is plenty of "evidence" presented by both sides, sometimes the same evidence just looked at in a different way. There's also a logical element, (ie. does this make sense to me, or, does the way the world operates seem to jive with this particular belief) as well as an emotional element. I think that pretty well sums it up.

SBK
04-20-2008, 10:04 PM
Um, I didn't point and laugh. To the contrary, I was respectful. But if you want to get technical, okay:

Myth comes from the Greek word meaning "Word of Mouth". How does that not describe Christ's earliest followers? There weren't any texts written about him during his life, only after. Word of mouth only. Myth.

Additionally, a myth is a sacred story concerning the origins of the world or how the world and the creatures in it came to be in their present form. The active beings in myths are generally gods and heroes. Myths often are said to take place before recorded history begins. In saying that a myth is a sacred narrative, what is meant is that a myth is believed to be true by people who attach religious or spiritual significance to it.

So please explain how the story of Jesus isn't a myth?

There was a book written by an atheist who converted to Christianity called The Case for Christ. I'm going to read it, I'd recommend it for you as well.

In that he discusses the oral history of that time, and the writings outside of the bible that talked about Jesus, which there were several.

He did state that in the end it all comes down to faith. There's 100% is evidence not from the bible that Jesus existed, but there's not 100% proof that he's the son of God etc..That's where faith comes in.

One interesting sidenote he spoke of. When Jesus was arrested his 11 disciples (not Judas, he was busying hanging himself) were all scared and hid, denied Jesus and went back to their old lives. Then something changed to the point that nearly all of them were killed for what they claimed to have seen. What happened to these guys to turn from cowards to martyrs for something that they said they saw?

Anyway, I found that interesting, thought I'd share it with you.

And for the record, salvation doesn't come from the Catholic Church. (or the baptist, or the methodist, or the synagogue or whatever else church you'd like to insert here)--edit:this is a response to the first post on this thread, not to you Dane...:)

irishjayhawk
04-20-2008, 10:16 PM
Egad, I forgot a period. I could've sworn I'd put that in there.. anyway.

Oh, I suppose there are a few things that go into the decision. Some factual evidence, although thats probably the least reliable in regard to religion. Take the resurrection for example, there is plenty of "evidence" presented by both sides, sometimes the same evidence just looked at in a different way. There's also a logical element, (ie. does this make sense to me, or, does the way the world operates seem to jive with this particular belief) as well as an emotional element. I think that pretty well sums it up.

What "evidence" is there for the resurrection, for example? Quoting the Bible would be like me saying Hogwarts exists because I can quote Harry Potter books. So I ask, what evidence?

As for the logical element, how does most of the bible make sense? One man? Why not a woman? Rib woman? Why not woman created first? There's so many questions that logically the Bible fails pretty bad.

Finally, I don't really understand the emotional element? You feel something so it exists? Like I feel that trees can talk, so they do? Like, I feel that Jesus existed, therefore he did?

Mr Luzcious
04-20-2008, 10:26 PM
What "evidence" is there for the resurrection, for example? Quoting the Bible would be like me saying Hogwarts exists because I can quote Harry Potter books. So I ask, what evidence?

As for the logical element, how does most of the bible make sense? One man? Why not a woman? Rib woman? Why not woman created first? There's so many questions that logically the Bible fails pretty bad.

Finally, I don't really understand the emotional element? You feel something so it exists? Like I feel that trees can talk, so they do? Like, I feel that Jesus existed, therefore he did?

In that particular regard, I'm talking more.. circumstantial evidence. Obviously there is nothing direct I could use, except the Bible, and, well, you've addressed that alread.

You're kind of missing the idea on the logical element to. Although, I have to take issue with your particular choice of questions there. I mean.. cheez-its. Why didn't they call them cheeze-thats? Why are there so many styles of pen? Thats kind of a long the lines of what you were asking.

Back to the issue at hand though. Example - the Bible claims the world is fallen. Alright, I can look around me and.. yup. Score one for the Bible. Simple example, but it gets the point across. It also seems to claim that the best way to live is by its guidelines, and, from my experience, that seems to be the case. Even from, say, a ten commandments standpoint.

Emotionally, I'm talking more in the.. relational aspect. Easy to write off before, but not after you've experienced it.

irishjayhawk
04-20-2008, 10:36 PM
In that particular regard, I'm talking more.. circumstantial evidence. Obviously there is nothing direct I could use, except the Bible, and, well, you've addressed that alread.

What do you define as "circumstantial" rather than "direct"?

You're kind of missing the idea on the logical element to. Although, I have to take issue with your particular choice of questions there. I mean.. cheez-its. Why didn't they call them cheeze-thats? Why are there so many styles of pen? Thats kind of a long the lines of what you were asking.

Then what exactly were you talking about?

Back to the issue at hand though. Example - the Bible claims the world is fallen. Alright, I can look around me and.. yup. Score one for the Bible. Simple example, but it gets the point across. It also seems to claim that the best way to live is by its guidelines, and, from my experience, that seems to be the case. Even from, say, a ten commandments standpoint.

How do philisophical guidelines that make society a better place lend any credence to the Bible? The golden rule was around WAY before the Bible, as were, I'm betting many of the 10 commandments. Each religion has their own set, so I don't see how that is any testament.

In essence, you are, once again, using the Bible and it's contents to prove the Bible and it's contents. It's a logic circle.


Emotionally, I'm talking more in the.. relational aspect. Easy to write off before, but not after you've experienced it.

So personal testament? I experienced this so now I believe it?

DaneMcCloud
04-20-2008, 10:46 PM
There was a book written by an atheist who converted to Christianity called The Case for Christ. I'm going to read it, I'd recommend it for you as well.

In that he discusses the oral history of that time, and the writings outside of the bible that talked about Jesus, which there were several.

He did state that in the end it all comes down to faith. There's 100% is evidence not from the bible that Jesus existed, but there's not 100% proof that he's the son of God etc..That's where faith comes in.

One interesting sidenote he spoke of. When Jesus was arrested his 11 disciples (not Judas, he was busying hanging himself) were all scared and hid, denied Jesus and went back to their old lives. Then something changed to the point that nearly all of them were killed for what they claimed to have seen. What happened to these guys to turn from cowards to martyrs for something that they said they saw?

Anyway, I found that interesting, thought I'd share it with you.

And for the record, salvation doesn't come from the Catholic Church. (or the baptist, or the methodist, or the synagogue or whatever else church you'd like to insert here)--edit:this is a response to the first post on this thread, not to you Dane...:)

Great post. I appreciate the advice and the civility.

Again, I'm not here to judge anyone for their beliefs. People are free to believe whatever they want to believe. It's one of the greatest treasures of living in the Western World.

But at the same time, those who choose to believe in their respective faiths must come to realize that they are what they are: Faith. And converting a "non-believer" by quoting a book that someone may or may not be familiar with isn't going to change anyone's mind. And certainly not on an internet forum.

There are no absolute truths in Christianity. No mass record at the time (say, unlike the Inquisition, WWI, WWII, the Holocaust, etc.). No official Roman records but more importantly, no Jewish record. And Christ came to free the Jews! And they don't believe he was the Son of God. And supposedly, he was one of them! Yet they don't believe it to be true, even more than 2,000 years in the future.

Faith alone.

Mr Luzcious
04-20-2008, 10:48 PM
What do you define as "circumstantial" rather than "direct"?



Then what exactly were you talking about?



How do philisophical guidelines that make society a better place lend any credence to the Bible? The golden rule was around WAY before the Bible, as were, I'm betting many of the 10 commandments. Each religion has their own set, so I don't see how that is any testament.

In essence, you are, once again, using the Bible and it's contents to prove the Bible and it's contents. It's a logic circle.



So personal testament? I experienced this so now I believe it?

Circumstantial as in.. this lends credence to the claim.. or the opposite.

I answered that question in my previous statement...

Yes. I know. As I stated, it was merely a simple example. Let me state it in broader fashion. The Bible has proven itself to me as reliable, and, inasmuch as it can be tested (verifiable claims, not "can't be proven or disproven" sort of things), has proven itself to be true. As far as I can tell.

And.. yes, in a way. But that isn't my prime criteria. If it weren't for the other factors, I would dismiss it as delusion.

irishjayhawk
04-20-2008, 10:53 PM
Circumstantial as in.. this lends credence to the claim.. or the opposite.

I answered that question in my previous statement...

Yes. I know. As I stated, it was merely a simple example. Let me state it in broader fashion. The Bible has proven itself to me as reliable, and, inasmuch as it can be tested (verifiable claims, not "can't be proven or disproven" sort of things), has proven itself to be true. As far as I can tell.

And.. yes, in a way. But that isn't my prime criteria. If it weren't for the other factors, I would dismiss it as delusion.

But see, you're stuck in a logic circle or something similar anyway. The problem with the bolded part is that there are MANY MANY MANY MANY books/findings/stories/etc with the same moral guidelines and things that have proven to be "reliable" and "proven to be true".

That doesn't answer the question as to why the Bible specifically. Why not Confucianism? Why not Buddhist? Why not Islamic? Why not Greek God oriented? Why not Roman God oriented? All of those had texts that purported the same type of philosophical arguments and guidelines put forth by the Bible. Yet, you choose the Bible. Why?

Dave Lane
04-20-2008, 10:58 PM
Actually, back then, adulterers were dragged outside the city and stoned to death. Society took care of such things then. Now, you have to kill someone to even be considered for the death penalty, so God imposed his own death penalty. AIDS.

Thank god there are that many people like you. Geez....

Dave

Mr Luzcious
04-20-2008, 11:06 PM
But see, you're stuck in a logic circle or something similar anyway. The problem with the bolded part is that there are MANY MANY MANY MANY books/findings/stories/etc with the same moral guidelines and things that have proven to be "reliable" and "proven to be true".

That doesn't answer the question as to why the Bible specifically. Why not Confucianism? Why not Buddhist? Why not Islamic? Why not Greek God oriented? Why not Roman God oriented? All of those had texts that purported the same type of philosophical arguments and guidelines put forth by the Bible. Yet, you choose the Bible. Why?

I wasn't just talking about the moral guidelines. Yes, the Bible does have a lot of them, but I was also referring to the historical and philosophical aspects. One particular aspect that draws me to Christianity, as opposed to another religion, is the manner in which salvation is attained. Every other religion would have you earn it, Christianity claims that you can't earn it. And the more I study any other religion, the more weight that claim seems to hold.

I'll finish answering in another post, because this is taking so long.

irishjayhawk
04-20-2008, 11:09 PM
I wasn't just talking about the moral guidelines. Yes, the Bible does have a lot of them, but I was also referring to the historical and philosophical aspects. One particular aspect that draws me to Christianity, as opposed to another religion, is the manner in which salvation is attained. Every other religion would have you earn it, Christianity claims that you can't earn it. And the more I study any other religion, the more weight that claim seems to hold.

I'll finish answering in another post, because this is taking so long.

Again, a lot of texts for all religions are embedded in historical and philosophical accuracies.

I don't understand what salvation has to do with anything. Were you a convert to your current religion?

And I may be wrong but how exactly does Christianity say that it you can't earn salvation?

J Diddy
04-20-2008, 11:13 PM
Thank god there are that many people like you. Geez....

Dave

agreed

Mr Luzcious
04-20-2008, 11:13 PM
But see, you're stuck in a logic circle or something similar anyway. The problem with the bolded part is that there are MANY MANY MANY MANY books/findings/stories/etc with the same moral guidelines and things that have proven to be "reliable" and "proven to be true".

That doesn't answer the question as to why the Bible specifically. Why not Confucianism? Why not Buddhist? Why not Islamic? Why not Greek God oriented? Why not Roman God oriented? All of those had texts that purported the same type of philosophical arguments and guidelines put forth by the Bible. Yet, you choose the Bible. Why?

I guess I already sort of answered all of this already, but I will say, I have at least done some studying on Confucianism and Buddhism. While Confucianism does have some practical guidelines that might be useful, as a whole, I find that Biblical guidelines are..well.. better. Maybe more difficult in some cases, but more rewarding to follow. Buddhism on the other hand, seems entirely too self sufficient.

ClevelandBronco
04-20-2008, 11:14 PM
Evangelizing for your religion again, irish?

J Diddy
04-20-2008, 11:14 PM
Again, a lot of texts for all religions are embedded in historical and philosophical accuracies.

I don't understand what salvation has to do with anything. Were you a convert to your current religion?

And I may be wrong but how exactly does Christianity say that it you can't earn salvation?


It says and I quote

"Thou must search hard and low and be restrained. If thine is irish and a beaker, thou must cook in the fireplace of hell"

irishjayhawk
04-20-2008, 11:17 PM
Evangelizing for your religion again, irish?

If off is a TV channel, then yes.
If bald is a hair color, then yes.

Since neither are, no.

irishjayhawk
04-20-2008, 11:18 PM
I guess I already sort of answered all of this already, but I will say, I have at least done some studying on Confucianism and Buddhism. While Confucianism does have some practical guidelines that might be useful, as a whole, I find that Biblical guidelines are..well.. better. Maybe more difficult in some cases, but more rewarding to follow. Buddhism on the other hand, seems entirely too self sufficient.

So were you a convert to your current religion?

Or were you raised in it?

irishjayhawk
04-20-2008, 11:18 PM
It says and I quote

"Thou must search hard and low and be restrained. If thine is irish and a beaker, thou must cook in the fireplace of hell"

ROFL

Mr Luzcious
04-20-2008, 11:19 PM
Again, a lot of texts for all religions are embedded in historical and philosophical accuracies.

I don't understand what salvation has to do with anything. Were you a convert to your current religion?

And I may be wrong but how exactly does Christianity say that it you can't earn salvation?

Its everything! Thats the core of almost every religion. And yes.

Well.. here we're going to get into denominational differences. Catholics, for instance, will disagree with me. However, the main claim of Christianity is that man is fallen, and needs salvation, and that salvation is by grace alone. Not by man's own doing.

ClevelandBronco
04-20-2008, 11:21 PM
If off is a TV channel, then yes.
If bald is a hair color, then yes.

Since neither are, no.

Cool platitudes. Maybe I should take the time to read one of your longer posts.

Mr Luzcious
04-20-2008, 11:22 PM
So were you a convert to your current religion?

Or were you raised in it?

I was raised in it, but at the same time, I'm a convert. You aren't a Christian just because you always have been, you have to become one. You know... back to the ol.. fallen and sinful tune.

irishjayhawk
04-20-2008, 11:24 PM
I was raised in it, but at the same time, I'm a convert. You aren't a Christian just because you always have been, you have to become one. You know... back to the ol.. fallen and sinful tune.

See, from a psychological standpoint, I disagree. You were conditioned a certain way. So your view - however objective you think it is - isn't really all that objective.

If you see what I'm saying and where I'd go with it.

irishjayhawk
04-20-2008, 11:26 PM
Its everything! Thats the core of almost every religion. And yes.

Well.. here we're going to get into denominational differences. Catholics, for instance, will disagree with me. However, the main claim of Christianity is that man is fallen, and needs salvation, and that salvation is by grace alone. Not by man's own doing.

Right but what does salvation have to do with anything in picking a religion? You can't just pick something because you like the salvation ways.... Isn't that against the rules? ;)


I don't see what this has to do with the accuracy of the Bible or of any evidence you have to back up your faith. It seems like a justification or rationalization more than evidence to believe or why you believe.

Mr Luzcious
04-20-2008, 11:28 PM
See, from a psychological standpoint, I disagree. You were conditioned a certain way. So your view - however objective you think it is - isn't really all that objective.

If you see what I'm saying and where I'd go with it.

I knew thats where you were going from the get go.

Mr Luzcious
04-20-2008, 11:31 PM
Right but what does salvation have to do with anything in picking a religion? You can't just pick something because you like the salvation ways.... Isn't that against the rules? ;)


I don't see what this has to do with the accuracy of the Bible or of any evidence you have to back up your faith. It seems like a justification or rationalization more than evidence to believe or why you believe.

I knew you were going to say that. I didn't say I picked it because I liked it. I picked it because, based on experience, trying to save yourself is pretty much foolishness.

And this doesn't really have anything to do with its accuracy or evidence. We strayed from that path quite some time ago.

Logical
04-20-2008, 11:43 PM
Actually, back then, adulterers were dragged outside the city and stoned to death. Society took care of such things then. Now, you have to kill someone to even be considered for the death penalty, so God imposed his own death penalty. AIDS.Ridiculously ignorant....:shake:

Mr Luzcious
04-20-2008, 11:45 PM
Ridiculously ignorant....:shake:

For the record, I do NOT agree with that assessment of disease.

Chieficus
04-20-2008, 11:59 PM
See, from a psychological standpoint, I disagree. You were conditioned a certain way. So your view - however objective you think it is - isn't really all that objective.

If you see what I'm saying and where I'd go with it.

But from the human POV there is no objectivity: not in religion, not in science, not in philosophy. We're all subjected to our own tainting of interpretations and presuppositions.

An atheist who holds the scientific method as their bible has been conditioned in a certain way as well.

We all reject interpretations and evidences that deny our views and accept interpretations and evidences that support our views. I wouldn't expect an atheist to agree with me that the Bible is true anymore than I'd expect myself to say "There is no God!"

But even with all our conditioning and subjectivity and nagging presuppositions, etc. there is still an objective truth that exists. It's just a question as to who, if anyone, has it right. Either there is a God or there's not. If there is, then either he is a personal God or some great cosmic impersonal force. If he's personal then... on and on...

People can sit back and argue evidences until they're blue in the face. One will look to the stars and say "Truly the heavens declare the glory of God," and one will look and say, "We're just tiny insignificant specks in comparison to it all."

My question is: what best explains the reality that we experience on a daily basis?

If the universe is all that is was and ever shall be (let's not get too technical here!) then we're nothing more then mere (yet complex) machines that arose from years of cause and effects working within the realm of natural forces. We're chemically, biologically, and mechanically determined. And everything we experience falls into those realms. Love, care, compassion, desire, illusions of freedom, sentiments of meaning, even the conversation on this thread: mere ticks on a machine.

Yet I've never met a person, even the most hardcore atheists I've been friends with, who live with such a cold sentiment. Heck, that's even how the atheistic branch of existentialism got its start--people couldn't take the idea of a cold nihilism that flowed as a logical extension from naturalistic ideas: we crave meaning, so there must be meaning even if it’s all absurd.

Then you have the Bible that claims to be a light of objectivity to fight the limits of our finite mind. There's a God who is personal, a God who loves, a God who shows compassion, a God who desires, a God who gives meaning, a God who provided salvation so we can find a correction to our own corruption that screws up the world on a daily basis... A God who set eternity in the hearts of men, which seems to fit very well with the fact that we crave meaning beyond mechanical clicks.

We can argue evidences and foundations all we want, but in the end IMO a Judeo-Christian worldview just makes better sense of the world in which we live. It seems to be the best of the "truths" we're presented with. And if I believe it's the truth then it's my job to lay it out there in a way that honors Jesus and let the people do with it as they please.

Mr Luzcious
04-21-2008, 12:02 AM
But from the human POV there is no objectivity: not in religion, not in science, not in philosophy. We're all subjected to our own tainting of interpretations and presuppositions.

An atheist who holds the scientific method as their bible has been conditioned in a certain way as well.

We all reject interpretations and evidences that deny our views and accept interpretations and evidences that support our views. I wouldn't expect an atheist to agree with me that the Bible is true anymore than I'd expect myself to say "There is no God!"

But even with all our conditioning and subjectivity and nagging presuppositions, etc. there is still an objective truth that exists. It's just a question as to who, if anyone, has it right. Either there is a God or there's not. If there is, then either he is a personal God or some great cosmic impersonal force. If he's personal then... on and on...

People can sit back and argue evidences until they're blue in the face. One will look to the stars and say "Truly the heavens declare the glory of God," and one will look and say, "We're just tiny insignificant specks in comparison to it all."

My question is: what best explains the reality that we experience on a daily basis?

If the universe is all that is was and ever shall be (let's not get too technical here!) then we're nothing more then mere (yet complex) machines that arose from years of cause and effects working within the realm of natural forces. We're chemically, biologically, and mechanically determined. And everything we experience falls into those realms. Love, care, compassion, desire, illusions of freedom, sentiments of meaning, even the conversation on this thread: mere ticks on a machine.

Yet I've never met a person, even the most hardcore atheists I've been friends with, who live with such a cold sentiment. Heck, that's even how the atheistic branch of existentialism got its start--people couldn't take the idea of a cold nihilism that flowed as a logical extension from naturalistic ideas: we crave meaning, so there must be meaning even if it’s all absurd.

Then you have the Bible that claims to be a light of objectivity to fight the limits of our finite mind. There's a God who is personal, a God who loves, a God who shows compassion, a God who desires, a God who gives meaning, a God who provided salvation so we can find a correction to our own corruption that screws up the world on a daily basis... A God who set eternity in the hearts of men, which seems to fit very well with the fact that we crave meaning beyond mechanical clicks.

We can argue evidences and foundations all we want, but in the end IMO a Judeo-Christian worldview just makes better sense of the world in which we live. It seems to be the best of the "truths" we're presented with. And if I believe it's the truth then it's my job to lay it out there in a way that honors Jesus and let the people do with it as they please.

That was nice and well thought out. I wish I could do that. :)

The bolded part and beyond is what I was trying to get at.

SBK
04-21-2008, 12:14 AM
Great post. I appreciate the advice and the civility.

Again, I'm not here to judge anyone for their beliefs. People are free to believe whatever they want to believe. It's one of the greatest treasures of living in the Western World.

But at the same time, those who choose to believe in their respective faiths must come to realize that they are what they are: Faith. And converting a "non-believer" by quoting a book that someone may or may not be familiar with isn't going to change anyone's mind. And certainly not on an internet forum.

There are no absolute truths in Christianity. No mass record at the time (say, unlike the Inquisition, WWI, WWII, the Holocaust, etc.). No official Roman records but more importantly, no Jewish record. And Christ came to free the Jews! And they don't believe he was the Son of God. And supposedly, he was one of them! Yet they don't believe it to be true, even more than 2,000 years in the future.

Faith alone.

I posted all of that because the book had some great interesting points on the oral history of the past and other documents that most of us do not know about.

You're dead right that it's faith alone and trying to convert someone on an internet message board is pointless. I think these types of threads do far more harm than good to what the person is trying to convey.

Have a good evening kind sir!

Ultra Peanut
04-21-2008, 12:26 AM
Actually, back then, adulterers were dragged outside the city and stoned to death. Society took care of such things then. Now, you have to kill someone to even be considered for the death penalty, so God imposed his own death penalty. AIDS.oh my

Are you suggesting that killing people for committing sins is the right way to go?

Ultra Peanut
04-21-2008, 12:27 AM
Thank god there are that many people like you. Geez....

DaveI think we should take him out back and stone him!

KC2004
04-21-2008, 12:34 AM
My question is: what best explains the reality that we experience on a daily basis?




Reality, in everyday usage, means "the state of things as they actually exist". The term reality, in its widest sense, includes everything that is, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. Reality in this sense may include both being and nothingness, whereas existence is often restricted to being (compare with nature). In other words, "reality", as a philosophical category includes the formal concept of "nothingness" and articulations and combinations of it with other concepts (those possessing extension in physical objects or processes for example).


Not such a easy question to answer....it's left up to many interpretations.

ClevelandBronco
04-21-2008, 12:36 AM
oh my

Are you suggesting that killing people for committing sins is the right way to go?

Well, the SCOTUS just weighed in on the penalty for the sin of breaking the sixth commandment. I'm opposed to the death penalty, but my preference isn't government policy.

While I disagree with them about the "right way to go," I'm kind of hamstrung on this one.

What are your suggestions, UP?

Der Flöprer
04-21-2008, 01:19 AM
I'm really fine with this thread being done with. I just wanted to point out how horrible SLAG is, and I think the point's been made. Everyone should ignore him, and we'd all be a lot happier.

Hey thanks for letting all of us know that you're okay with this thread's ending. When was the last time anyone even mentioned Slag in this thread? Oh yeah, cause no one really gives a shit.

Der Flöprer
04-21-2008, 01:20 AM
Actually, back then, adulterers were dragged outside the city and stoned to death. Society took care of such things then. Now, you have to kill someone to even be considered for the death penalty, so God imposed his own death penalty. AIDS.

Oh Jesus wow. You're the kind of Christian that REALLY scares me. You know Fred Phelps?

Ultra Peanut
04-21-2008, 03:02 AM
Well, the SCOTUS just weighed in on the penalty for the sin of breaking the sixth commandment. I'm opposed to the death penalty, but my preference isn't government policy.

While I disagree with them about the "right way to go," I'm kind of hamstrung on this one.

What are your suggestions, UP?KILLKILLKILL

J Diddy
04-21-2008, 10:42 AM
Ridiculously ignorant....:shake:

agreed

Baby Lee
04-21-2008, 10:55 AM
If off is a TV channel, then yes.
If bald is a hair color, then yes.

Since neither are, no.

Yeah, because your not on here bitching about people turning on TVs or having a hair color.

Demonpenz
04-21-2008, 10:57 AM
I was raised catholic went to catholic school for 12 years so that is alot of time with the religion. I never liked how much money we would bring in for stain glass windows and crazy amounts of shit that could go to the poor. I understand if you are catholic you can't pick and choose what to believe, but some of the things they have you feeling guilty for have no point. Like wackin it. it relieves stress decreases a chance at cancer yet they have me feeling bad about it. I mean come on unless i am using fire me boys desk what is wrong with it

Ultra Peanut
04-21-2008, 10:58 AM
Yeah, because your not on here bitching about people turning on TVs or having a hair color.Congratulations! Your BABY LEE has devolved! It has become a STEVIERAY!

Baby Lee
04-21-2008, 11:09 AM
Congratulations! Your BABY LEE has devolved! It has become a STEVIERAY!

WTF?

I'm just pointing out that "I am not espousing anything" and "I am espousing nothing" are not the equivalent statements irish thinks they are.

kcchiefsus
04-21-2008, 11:33 AM
The Catholic Church Is Right

Plain and Simple.

Keep telling yourself that.

King_Chief_Fan
04-21-2008, 11:39 AM
Anti religious is your right. However, those who are religious have hope to cling to. Actually, we have God's promise to cling to. Jesus is man's saviour and he died a horrible death so that those who choose to believe in him will not suffer a horrible hell.

Being a Christian and raising your children to be Chritian does not keep children (or anyone) from being tempted and making wrong decisions. Becoming pregnant out of wedlock, or commiting a sin does not send a person to hell if they have accepted Christ. Christ becomes our redemption for sin when we ask for forgiveness. (That does not mean that we can or should do anything we want and that Christ's forgiveness is our get out of jail free card). What ever the choice we make, right or wrong can be forgiven. You will however have to live with the consequences of your actions on earth. You can't guarantee that we or our children will always make the right choices, but that shouldn't stop you from educating them on the pitfalls of those choices. Fill your children with your love and God's love and the results generally are better.

I am extremely grateful that my daughters kept themselves pure of sex before marrige. It was their choice. But they took the education/training from their parents and most importantly from God's word.

I am not trying to make a saint out of my girls or the parenting they got. I am just telling you the other side of the coin and a situation that worked.

PhillyChiefFan
04-21-2008, 11:44 AM
So I'm not sure if you realize this, but you worship a JEW (Not a Catholic). Second, your church was founded by PETER (not Jebus).

You lose again.

touche.

sedated
04-21-2008, 12:08 PM
we have God's promise to cling to. Jesus is man's saviour and he died a horrible death so that those who choose to believe in him will not suffer a horrible hell.

a sin does not send a person to hell if they have accepted Christ.

You will however have to live with the consequences of your actions on earth.

ROFL


my invisible man is better than your invisible man

sedated
04-21-2008, 12:25 PM
where do these tags come from?

"another allen thread, bake me a cake bitches?, eyepod = whiny bitch, god hates slags, god is poopy, laffo, lets do the catholic bash, lonely+sad, mecca like buttsekz, ohh my carrot cake, one true faith, pope = nazi, religion is fun, slag blew his priest, slag is a closet queer, slaggot"

Donger
04-21-2008, 12:34 PM
I think we should all just worship Joe Pesci.

Demonpenz
04-21-2008, 12:44 PM
i love dream theatre

Adept Havelock
04-21-2008, 12:53 PM
I think we should all just worship Joe Pesci.

He looks like a guy who can get things done.

el borracho
04-21-2008, 01:00 PM
my invisible man is better than your invisible man

Crom laughs at your four winds. He laughs from his mountain.

sedated
04-21-2008, 01:02 PM
I think we should all just worship Joe Pesci.

or the Fonz

let us ehhhhhh


<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8d/FGHolyFonz.jpg">

irishjayhawk
04-21-2008, 02:00 PM
But from the human POV there is no objectivity: not in religion, not in science, not in philosophy. We're all subjected to our own tainting of interpretations and presuppositions.

To an extent, but there is objectivity to be found. And there are people who are objective more of the time than subjective.

An atheist who holds the scientific method as their bible has been conditioned in a certain way as well.

The problem here is twofold. The Bible does not play with the same rules as the Scientific Method. One requires you take everything at face value without question and one requires you to question, test, and test some more regardless of the outcome. It's way more objective than the Bible.

Moreover, I might agree with you, but you are also assuming that all atheists hold the scientific method as their Bible. This is not true. It's also not even a close comparison to make. atheism is not a religion.

Plus, doesn't your argument fall apart with people who converted or people like me who were conditioned into religion and then broke free?

We all reject interpretations and evidences that deny our views and accept interpretations and evidences that support our views. I wouldn't expect an atheist to agree with me that the Bible is true anymore than I'd expect myself to say "There is no God!"

Again, not necessarily true. Especially with the Scientific Method. Also, how would you explain people who convert or break free of their initial interpretation and views?


But even with all our conditioning and subjectivity and nagging presuppositions, etc. there is still an objective truth that exists. It's just a question as to who, if anyone, has it right. Either there is a God or there's not. If there is, then either he is a personal God or some great cosmic impersonal force. If he's personal then... on and on...

Yep. But the problem here is that one addresses these issues and one does not. Religion does not. It just claims to know. Science actually puts forth evidence for it's claims and backs them up.

People can sit back and argue evidences until they're blue in the face. One will look to the stars and say "Truly the heavens declare the glory of God," and one will look and say, "We're just tiny insignificant specks in comparison to it all."

Perhaps.

My question is: what best explains the reality that we experience on a daily basis?

This isn't even up for debate. It's the scientific method and the reason is simple: it's testable, demonstrable, etc etc.

Religion doesn't even try.

If the universe is all that is was and ever shall be (let's not get too technical here!) then we're nothing more then mere (yet complex) machines that arose from years of cause and effects working within the realm of natural forces. We're chemically, biologically, and mechanically determined. And everything we experience falls into those realms. Love, care, compassion, desire, illusions of freedom, sentiments of meaning, even the conversation on this thread: mere ticks on a machine.

Whoa now, just because someone explains something doesn't mean they aren't feeling them. You seem to be searching for a higher meaning. But the fact is you aren't owed one or guaranteed one.

Yet I've never met a person, even the most hardcore atheists I've been friends with, who live with such a cold sentiment.

Again, that's a gross misunderstanding. Further, the explanation doesn't negate the feeling. Emotion can be the firing of neurons but that does nothing to the fact that you're feeling it.

Heck, that's even how the atheistic branch of existentialism got its start--people couldn't take the idea of a cold nihilism that flowed as a logical extension from naturalistic ideas: we crave meaning, so there must be meaning even if it’s all absurd.
ROFL

No. Absolutely not.

You did not just claim that nihilism is a logical extension of the atheistic branch. If you did, that just ruined your entire post.

Moreover, we are not guaranteeded meaning. We are not owed it. We may crave it, but we certainly aren't owed it. Naturalism does not lead to nihilism and to claim so would be beyond stupid.


Then you have the Bible that claims to be a light of objectivity to fight the limits of our finite mind.
ROFL

You argue the whole time about subjectivity and it's relation to atheism and how that may lead to nihilism and then you say the Bible claims to be the light of objectivity when it can't be.


There's a God who is personal, a God who loves, a God who shows compassion, a God who desires, a God who gives meaning, a God who provided salvation so we can find a correction to our own corruption that screws up the world on a daily basis...

All of those are interpretations of the text, obviously. I would say the god of the Old Testament is not loving. He destroyed the whole world save for a single family. I would say he is not loving because he turned people into salt pillars. I would say he is not loving because he chose on "race" of people out of all his creation (or so it claims).

All of this is derived from the fact that people think they are owed answers to the questions of Why are we here, What's the purpose, etc etc.


A God who set eternity in the hearts of men, which seems to fit very well with the fact that we crave meaning beyond mechanical clicks.

Mechanical clicks is a gross generalization and understatement that it really does a disservice. Another question it raises is why can't God simply be "The universe"?


We can argue evidences and foundations all we want, but in the end IMO a Judeo-Christian worldview just makes better sense of the world in which we live. It seems to be the best of the "truths" we're presented with. And if I believe it's the truth then it's my job to lay it out there in a way that honors Jesus and let the people do with it as they please.

So what about Muslim world view? What about Hindu world view? Tribal gods world view? Indian world views? All of those don't make as much sense? How do you determine that? What goes into that criteria.

Again, I have a hunch that you were raised to believe these things. And while you want to believe you made the decision yourself, it's really an elaborate lie or mind trick. Conditioning, as experiment after experiment proves, is VERY persuasive.

irishjayhawk
04-21-2008, 02:14 PM
Yeah, because your not on here bitching about people turning on TVs or having a hair color.

WTF?

I'm just pointing out that "I am not espousing anything" and "I am espousing nothing" are not the equivalent statements irish thinks they are.

Actually, he accused me or rather atheists of being a religion. My reply was perfectly in line with that.

Atheism is a religion if bald is a hair color.
Atheism is a religion if off is a television channel.

Therefore, I can't be evangelizing a religion. Pretty simple. Although, to be fair, your response wasn't exactly like stevieray's, so I wouldn't compare them. You actually addressed the content rather than projecting yourself or many of the other one or two line things stevie does.

Anti religious is your right. However, those who are religious have hope to cling to.

What hope? And by hope do you mean afterlife? Do you realize that you can take comfort in something that isn't remotely true? For example, a doctor telling you you'll be alright but you won't be. It gives tremendous comfort but isn't necessarily true. Sometimes it's outright false.

Actually, we have God's promise to cling to. Jesus is man's saviour and he died a horrible death so that those who choose to believe in him will not suffer a horrible hell.

First of all, lots of men were named Jesus back then. Secondly, lots of men were crucified. So don't act like this was a one time event or death. It's just as horrible as the electric chair. Do we worship the ones who were innocent who fried? No.

Moreover, I love the hell aspect. If in doubt, scare your populous into believing by saying if you don't, you'll burn and be in pain, and blah blah blah for all of eternity. It's like George Carlin said:

nd the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!
But He loves you.

Being a Christian and raising your children to be Chritian does not keep children (or anyone) from being tempted and making wrong decisions. Becoming pregnant out of wedlock, or commiting a sin does not send a person to hell if they have accepted Christ. Christ becomes our redemption for sin when we ask for forgiveness.

So if I claimed to do the same things, would you worship me? Why is one man who merely repeated philosophical ideas ad nausem deserving of so much respect? Ghandi did as much as Jesus did. Do we worship him as we do Jesus?

(That does not mean that we can or should do anything we want and that Christ's forgiveness is our get out of jail free card). What ever the choice we make, right or wrong can be forgiven. You will however have to live with the consequences of your actions on earth. You can't guarantee that we or our children will always make the right choices, but that shouldn't stop you from educating them on the pitfalls of those choices. Fill your children with your love and God's love and the results generally are better.

Why, then, is religion always at the forefront of scandals?

You need to realize that religion - specifically Christianity - does not own a monopoly on moral choices or making the right choice. People do that all the time without consulting a "higher power", "invisible man" or any of the like. People with no religion make superb decisions. Religion does not equal morality.

I am extremely grateful that my daughters kept themselves pure of sex before marrige. It was their choice. But they took the education/training from their parents and most importantly from God's word.

I am not trying to make a saint out of my girls or the parenting they got. I am just telling you the other side of the coin and a situation that worked.

Actually, you are trying to take credit for your choice to raise them in a religious household made them moral people and then implying - perhaps unintentionally - that if you don't raise people in a religious household they are immoral or impure.

Thig Lyfe
04-21-2008, 04:15 PM
The thing about SLAG that confuses me most is his Tendency to capitalize Words at Random.

Baby Lee
04-21-2008, 04:23 PM
Actually, he accused me or rather atheists of being a religion. My reply was perfectly in line with that.

Atheism is a religion if bald is a hair color.
Atheism is a religion if off is a television channel.

Therefore, I can't be evangelizing a religion. Pretty simple. Although, to be fair, your response wasn't exactly like stevieray's, so I wouldn't compare them. You actually addressed the content rather than projecting yourself or many of the other one or two line things stevie does.
Are you actually trying to say you have no point of view whatsoever on what constitutes a valid basis for believing or knowing something to be true or false?

Ve arr nie-awl-isss Lebowski!!!

Chieficus
04-21-2008, 04:26 PM
To an extent, but there is objectivity to be found. And there are people who are objective more of the time than subjective.

Oh, but of course. Those who operate with a heart for the logic of science are far more objective than some of us religious types... yeah right.

I'm not a big fan of Derrida or any of these post-mod French dudes but there's at least one thing I agree with him on--there's nothing outside the text. For us to experience and know, a thing (idea, data, emotions, etc.) goes through lenses of interpretation formed by our worldviews and basic assumptions. Like it or not, we're all VERY subjective...

The problem here is twofold. The Bible does not play with the same rules as the Scientific Method. One requires you take everything at face value without question and one requires you to question, test, and test some more regardless of the outcome. It's way more objective than the Bible.

No, the Bible does not play by the same rules as the SM. I don't know, however, what Bible you read that says you have to take everything at face value without question. The Bible itself demands verification for truthfulness: not verification you can do in a test tube, but then again while we learn a lot through the SM it's not the only means to truth and verification.

In Deuteronomy 18:20-22 God tells Israel if some guy comes along and says, "God says this will happen," you know whether or not he's a prophet actually speaking for God depending on whether or not what he says comes true. There's a claim and a requirement for verification.

Skip to the New Testament. In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul writes concerning the resurrection of Jesus. He mentions over 500 people who experienced Jesus walking around in the flesh after he was put to death; and he mentions several by name. The idea for the audience at the time was: if you have questions--go ask them and get their story.

He goes on to say that if Jesus is still in a grave (or to contemporize this with some of the stuff thrown around on this BB--even if the Jesus of the Bible had never existed, b/c then he also never would have raised) then us Christians we're fools, liars, and our faith is absurd and worthless. Therefore, if that's the case, then we're a pathetic lot who need the pity of others for our great stupidity.

And I whole heartedly agree with that. If there was no Jesus, or even if there was a Jesus but he never rose (and I'm not going to go the liberal Christian route and say: oh, it was a spiritual thing) then I'm a huge friggin' moron.

For Paul's audience he was telling them: there's questions, there's people who say it didn't happen. But there's eye-witnesses. Again: it's a type of claim that also demands verification.

Peter said that when we're questioned we should be able to give a defense/reason for our faith.

The Bible demands verification and thought in terms of its claims. Biblical Christianity is built upon faith, yes, but not this blind Kirkegaardian leap against reason that so many paint it to be. If that WERE the case then forget it: I have some hedonistic tendencies I'd rather indulge.

Moreover, I might agree with you, but you are also assuming that all atheists hold the scientific method as their Bible. This is not true. It's also not even a close comparison to make. atheism is not a religion.

Plus, doesn't your argument fall apart with people who converted or people like me who were conditioned into religion and then broke free?

Again, not necessarily true. Especially with the Scientific Method. Also, how would you explain people who convert or break free of their initial interpretation and views?

Everybody's religious. Some just don't recognize it.

And no, my argument doesn't fall apart with those who "break free." Because there's always circumstances and trigger mechanisms that cause the breaking. I have a friend who was raised "conditioned" in Christianity who "broke free" into atheism because, by his own admission, he just wanted to do whatever he "damn well pleased." I have another friend who went from Christianity to agnosticism because he was "sick of the hypocrites." Likewise, I know a guy who went from being "conditioned" in atheism and "broke free" into Christianity because he wanted to prove the stuff in the Bible wrong and the more he studied and thought about it, he became convinced it was true.

I don't claim to know what went on in your mind, but when its all boiled down at the end of the day: the conversion and breaking free has the same elements of conditioning as being raised in a religion and sticking with it.

This isn't even up for debate. It's the scientific method and the reason is simple: it's testable, demonstrable, etc etc.

Religion doesn't even try.

Thank God the SM is the sole arbiter of truth... oh wait... see above.

Whoa now, just because someone explains something doesn't mean they aren't feeling them. You seem to be searching for a higher meaning. But the fact is you aren't owed one or guaranteed one.

Again, that's a gross misunderstanding. Further, the explanation doesn't negate the feeling. Emotion can be the firing of neurons but that does nothing to the fact that you're feeling it.

Oh, I agree with the "feeling" thing. What I was getting at was the idea that even if we feel it, atheism still leads to a machine/process-like answer that just doesn't jive that well with the average person's daily experience and understanding of those "feelings."


ROFL

No. Absolutely not.

You did not just claim that nihilism is a logical extension of the atheistic branch. If you did, that just ruined your entire post.

Moreover, we are not guaranteeded meaning. We are not owed it. We may crave it, but we certainly aren't owed it. Naturalism does not lead to nihilism and to claim so would be beyond stupid.

Well, heck, I might be beyond stupid then, but I made the claim and I'm stickin' by it.

ROFL

You argue the whole time about subjectivity and it's relation to atheism and how that may lead to nihilism and then you say the Bible claims to be the light of objectivity when it can't be.

I said it claims to be "the light of objectivity." You claim it can't be. What you claim doesn't negate what it claims. But the actual claim, well, that's another discussion for another day...

All of those are interpretations of the text, obviously. I would say the god of the Old Testament is not loving. He destroyed the whole world save for a single family. I would say he is not loving because he turned people into salt pillars. I would say he is not loving because he chose on "race" of people out of all his creation (or so it claims).

The idea of who's interpretation is correct is another discussion for another day; but you're response here fits well into my point: we all interpret, we all have our subjective views in our striving to explain reality. Figuring out who's right--that's the fun part...

So what about Muslim world view? What about Hindu world view? Tribal gods world view? Indian world views? All of those don't make as much sense? How do you determine that? What goes into that criteria.

Simple answer: yes, IMO, they don't make as much sense. The reasons... well, that's another discussion for another day.

Again, I have a hunch that you were raised to believe these things. And while you want to believe you made the decision yourself, it's really an elaborate lie or mind trick. Conditioning, as experiment after experiment proves, is VERY persuasive.

Uh, it ain't a hunch--I make no secret about the fact that I was raised to believe these things. Heck, yes: God is a crutch, and I am a sheep (at least the Bible tells me so... :) )

But you know: an atheist who has an atheist son raised that boy to believe those things. He might think that he made the decision himself to be an atheist but its really an elaborate lie or a mind trick. Therefore there must be no merit to his belief and if he's going to break free he has to have some conversion experience to some religion that acknowledges a god.

As I've already said: I don't back away from the idea that we're all conditioned by our circumstance whether we keep our beliefs or change them. That doesn't mean that those of us (at least not all of us) who keep with the worldview we were raised on are mindless drones who salivate when a bell rings.

Heck, in my own personal experience I'm not even exactly matched up with my parents/the churches I grew up in. Yes, I've remained in the overarching Christian worldview, but they're premillennial dispensationalist, I'm an amillennial tweaked-covenantalist; I'm also about three points more calvinistic than they are; I also have a view that's different from their congregational view of church government--all some minor tweaked stuff that arose from my personal studies/research.

Even more, there was a time in my life where I quit going to church, really didn't care that much about what God or the Bible had to say, and even though I claimed to be religious I really lived (practically) more like a hedonistic atheist. But with time, study, thought, and the conditioning of circumstances--I didn't ultimately stick with that route.

irishjayhawk
04-21-2008, 05:06 PM
Are you actually trying to say you have no point of view whatsoever on what constitutes a valid basis for believing or knowing something to be true or false?

Ve arr nie-awl-isss Lebowski!!!

You are really dense apparently.

I am saying that atheist is not a religion in those ways.

As far as valid bases for believing and knowing something is true or false, the evidence is what I look at. And seeing as religion as little, if any, I don't put much stock into them.


@Chiefius - I'll get to yours. Class, for now.

Taco John
04-21-2008, 05:31 PM
SLAG is one of the worst representatives of the Catholic Church that I have ever ran across.

irishjayhawk
04-21-2008, 06:12 PM
Oh, but of course. Those who operate with a heart for the logic of science are far more objective than some of us religious types... yeah right.

Actually, yes. Because science has built in objectivity in mind. It is based around evidence, reason and objectivity. Whatever the data says, is what you must go by, regardless of what you intended to find. That isn't to say scientists run more and more to TRY to produce their intended results.

Science has no side, no agenda, no subjective view to be fulfilled. It's ruled by evidence and proof. Religion, on the other hand, has all of that but isn't ruled by evidence and proof. It has one of many sides, has an agenda, has a subjective view to be fulfilled.

I'm not a big fan of Derrida or any of these post-mod French dudes but there's at least one thing I agree with him on--there's nothing outside the text. For us to experience and know, a thing (idea, data, emotions, etc.) goes through lenses of interpretation formed by our worldviews and basic assumptions. Like it or not, we're all VERY subjective...


I am not saying as people we are subjective. But what I am saying is that the institution is objective, unlike religion.


No, the Bible does not play by the same rules as the SM. I don't know, however, what Bible you read that says you have to take everything at face value without question.

But see, you've hit the nail on the head. It does not play by the same rules. Period. But more importantly, you've once again trumpeted out the ole "interpretation" defense. And this is a can of worms.

For one, if it isn't to be taken literally, then why do we care about it? Lots of texts can be interpreted and meaning derived. If it isn't supposed to be literal, then why claim it as "God's word"?

For another, if it is, indeed, interpretational, on what criteria do you decide what to believe and what not? Obviously, it can't be the book itself because otherwise it's to be taken literal (and you're in a logic circle). So what outside source are you pulling evidence from to decide what is literal and what is interpretational.


The Bible itself demands verification for truthfulness: not verification you can do in a test tube, but then again while we learn a lot through the SM it's not the only means to truth and verification.

Please explain how it "demands verification for truthfulness"?

In Deuteronomy 18:20-22 God tells Israel if some guy comes along and says, "God says this will happen," you know whether or not he's a prophet actually speaking for God depending on whether or not what he says comes true. There's a claim and a requirement for verification.
ROFL

So the text says something and if it comes true IN THE TEXT, it's to be taken literally and is true? Really?

But see, here you're dividing yourself. Tim O'Brien has a novel called The Things We Carried about Vietnam war. In it, there is lots of historical accuracy. Does this mean we should take it all to be 100% true? Why not?

Moreover, any text can prove itself by answering claims. This can be done two fold. First, an author is writing fiction and says something will happen and then makes it happen. The second is that someone writes a story about events AFTER it happens and in the story someone says "x will happen" and it does. People can fit history retroactively. It says nothing about the Bible's accuracy.


Skip to the New Testament. In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul writes concerning the resurrection of Jesus. He mentions over 500 people who experienced Jesus walking around in the flesh after he was put to death; and he mentions several by name. The idea for the audience at the time was: if you have questions--go ask them and get their story.

Right. This explains why the New Testament - specifically Paul's - was written WELL after his death. And the lifespan back then was about 35. IIRC, the first gospel was written in 74 CE. That's 30ish years after. And that's the EARLIEST. Again, it's easy to name names when no one will catch you on it. Travel back then wasn't all that common. It's not virtually instantaneous as it is now. So the fact checking, if someone was to undertake it, would be VERY hard.

Moreover, you also hit the nail on the head here. Oral tradition. Are you familiar with the game "Telephone" where you say something more than likely it will come out differently through all the people it passes through. Or just look at folklore where each story gradually adds things. In the same vein, you have the Virgin birth. However, this was a translation error between LANGUAGES. The virgin birth was derived from the wrong translation of a greek word which meant YOUNG. Again, just accepted because it enhanced the story and the mysticism. And, of course, people liked to embellish stories. So not only do you have language barriers but also oral tradition barriers.

He goes on to say that if Jesus is still in a grave (or to contemporize this with some of the stuff thrown around on this BB--even if the Jesus of the Bible had never existed, b/c then he also never would have raised) then us Christians we're fools, liars, and our faith is absurd and worthless. Therefore, if that's the case, then we're a pathetic lot who need the pity of others for our great stupidity.

And I whole heartedly agree with that. If there was no Jesus, or even if there was a Jesus but he never rose (and I'm not going to go the liberal Christian route and say: oh, it was a spiritual thing) then I'm a huge friggin' moron.

Okay, so why do you not question it? Why are you just taking everything (virgin birth, resurrection, Jesus was actually son of god, etc etc) blindly?

For Paul's audience he was telling them: there's questions, there's people who say it didn't happen. But there's eye-witnesses. Again: it's a type of claim that also demands verification.

There are eye-witnesses who witnessed leprechauns. There are eye-witnesses that have witnessed aliens. There are eye-witnesses that claim to see things they did not see so they could get attention.

Again, you run into verification problems. And this is on top of the ORAL TRADITION problem and the LANGUAGE BARRIERS.

And where are these eye-witness verifications?

Peter said that when we're questioned we should be able to give a defense/reason for our faith.

As has anyone that's ever been in an argument. You should be able to defend your position. I don't see what's so worthy of that statement.

The Bible demands verification and thought in terms of its claims. Biblical Christianity is built upon faith, yes, but not this blind Kirkegaardian leap against reason that so many paint it to be. If that WERE the case then forget it: I have some hedonistic tendencies I'd rather indulge.

You keep talking about demanding verification. Yet, not once, in this long reply have you actually stated a verification of any kind regarding ANY of it's claims. The closest you come is using the Bible to verify the Bible. I can do that - recall my Harry Potter example.

Everybody's religious. Some just don't recognize it.

Care to explain?

And no, my argument doesn't fall apart with those who "break free." Because there's always circumstances and trigger mechanisms that cause the breaking. I have a friend who was raised "conditioned" in Christianity who "broke free" into atheism because, by his own admission, he just wanted to do whatever he "damn well pleased." I have another friend who went from Christianity to agnosticism because he was "sick of the hypocrites." Likewise, I know a guy who went from being "conditioned" in atheism and "broke free" into Christianity because he wanted to prove the stuff in the Bible wrong and the more he studied and thought about it, he became convinced it was true.

I was referring to your claim that people hold science as their Bible. If there are converts, obviously they don't fit your rule.

I don't claim to know what went on in your mind, but when its all boiled down at the end of the day: the conversion and breaking free has the same elements of conditioning as being raised in a religion and sticking with it.



Thank God the SM is the sole arbiter of truth... oh wait... see above.

Again not one mention of anything that could be construed as "truth" or "verification". The SM is not the sole arbiter of truth, but it is the best, to be sure.

Again, it's the demanding for evidence and proof. It's being able to be tested, to be analyzed etc.

Science does that to it's findings. Religion does not. There really is no debate there.


Oh, I agree with the "feeling" thing. What I was getting at was the idea that even if we feel it, atheism still leads to a machine/process-like answer that just doesn't jive that well with the average person's daily experience and understanding of those "feelings."

Well, thanks again, for the gross understatement and generalizing of what atheists believe. First, it's nihilism which isn't true. Then its "machine/process-like answer" which isn't true. The last one is an EXPLANATION, not a MEANING. Two different things. Two neurons firing to make you feel what you define as "love" is not "meaning". It's an explanation for "love." You seem to be confused between explanation and meaning.

And once again, you feel you are owed meaning. You aren't.


Well, heck, I might be beyond stupid then, but I made the claim and I'm stickin' by it.

Okay.

I said it claims to be "the light of objectivity." You claim it can't be. What you claim doesn't negate what it claims. But the actual claim, well, that's another discussion for another day...

How in the world can it be the "light of objectivity"?

The idea of who's interpretation is correct is another discussion for another day; but you're response here fits well into my point: we all interpret, we all have our subjective views in our striving to explain reality. Figuring out who's right--that's the fun part...

How do you figure out who's right? So far, you've used the Bible to verify the Bible.

Simple answer: yes, IMO, they don't make as much sense. The reasons... well, that's another discussion for another day.

This was my original question. I would like to know why you don't think they make as much sense. I'm going to go out on my hunch again and say, regardless of what you will claim, it's because you were brought up in it. Conditioning.

Uh, it ain't a hunch--I make no secret about the fact that I was raised to believe these things. Heck, yes: God is a crutch, and I am a sheep (at least the Bible tells me so... :) )

Okay, so above isn't a hunch.

But you know: an atheist who has an atheist son raised that boy to believe those things. He might think that he made the decision himself to be an atheist but its really an elaborate lie or a mind trick. Therefore there must be no merit to his belief and if he's going to break free he has to have some conversion experience to some religion that acknowledges a god.

See, it doesn't quite work that way. Problem is, religion is making a claim. It is up to them to prove it. The only mind trick would be a claim that isn't provable or can't be proven or refuses to be proven one way or the other. Thus, the only mind trick can be religion.

We don't go searching for leprechauns to disprove they exist, do we? No, it's just assumed they don't exist.

So, no, an atheist does not have a claim to adhere to. It's the default state. The television is off. When it's off, it's not a channel. Or, better put, bald is not a hair color.


As I've already said: I don't back away from the idea that we're all conditioned by our circumstance whether we keep our beliefs or change them. That doesn't mean that those of us (at least not all of us) who keep with the worldview we were raised on are mindless drones who salivate when a bell rings.

Actually, it does, when you don't question and still have zero proof or evidence to back up any claims.

It's like believing in Santa when you're 40 and you don't have a mental condition.

Heck, in my own personal experience I'm not even exactly matched up with my parents/the churches I grew up in. Yes, I've remained in the overarching Christian worldview, but they're premillennial dispensationalist, I'm an amillennial tweaked-covenantalist; I'm also about three points more calvinistic than they are; I also have a view that's different from their congregational view of church government--all some minor tweaked stuff that arose from my personal studies/research.

Even more, there was a time in my life where I quit going to church, really didn't care that much about what God or the Bible had to say, and even though I claimed to be religious I really lived (practically) more like a hedonistic atheist. But with time, study, thought, and the conditioning of circumstances--I didn't ultimately stick with that route.

Yes, conditioning. I'm still struggling, at times, with the 13 years of conditioning.

Chieficus
04-21-2008, 10:05 PM
This is going to be my last post on this thread since I have a vacation and wedding to be in this week (and weekend); but it's been fun, at least from my interpretive POV.

Okay, so why do you not question it? Why are you just taking everything (virgin birth, resurrection, Jesus was actually son of god, etc etc) blindly?

You keep talking about demanding verification. Yet, not once, in this long reply have you actually stated a verification of any kind regarding ANY of it's claims. The closest you come is using the Bible to verify the Bible. I can do that - recall my Harry Potter example.

Actually, it does, when you don't question and still have zero proof or evidence to back up any claims.

Other than my initial post detailing why I think Christianity gives a better overall explanation than atheism, I haven't included any reasons as to why I've come to my conclusions or evidences for them; nor have I intended to. Ours is really more of a discussion on the intelligibility and verifiability of religious beliefs (particularly Biblical Christianity). Not an examination of evidences.

So, please, careful with your sweeping generalizations.

And the thing with the "Bible verifying the Bible" that's not at all what I said. I simply argued that the Bible demands verification for its own claims, which it does--its in the text. The substance/means of that verification is, of course, going to be different thousands of years after it was written as opposed to when it was first written. That means of verification wasn't the main point, just that Christianity as biblically defined is not a "believe it without questioning things" religion as you want to paint it to be.

Science has no side, no agenda, no subjective view to be fulfilled. It's ruled by evidence and proof. Religion, on the other hand, has all of that but isn't ruled by evidence and proof. It has one of many sides, has an agenda, has a subjective view to be fulfilled.

But see, you've hit the nail on the head. It does not play by the same rules. Period.

Again not one mention of anything that could be construed as "truth" or "verification". The SM is not the sole arbiter of truth, but it is the best, to be sure.

Again, it's the demanding for evidence and proof. It's being able to be tested, to be analyzed etc.

Science does that to it's findings. Religion does not. There really is no debate there.

See, it doesn't quite work that way. Problem is, religion is making a claim. It is up to them to prove it. The only mind trick would be a claim that isn't provable or can't be proven or refuses to be proven one way or the other. Thus, the only mind trick can be religion.

We don't go searching for leprechauns to disprove they exist, do we? No, it's just assumed they don't exist.

So, no, an atheist does not have a claim to adhere to. It's the default state. The television is off. When it's off, it's not a channel. Or, better put, bald is not a hair color.

Pretty much everything you say in there flows from the fact that you're operating out of a very modernistic paradigm with heavy ties towards positivism. Especially in the idea that science is the best means of verification for truth and all things must be testable, not to mention the idea that atheism is the default state.

It's a very narrow metanarrative that writes any god or gods at best as unknowable in its own basic assumptions.

Science itself is limited in scope. In the search for truth it is a tool, as is the discussion of philosophy, and the examination of explanatory presuppositions, searches through and examination of historical claims, and, yes, even the consideration of eyewitness testimonies and personal experiences, and I could go on with more.

The best explanation for truth should come from a combination of these things and not be forced to unreasonably bow down to the supposed superiority of forming hypothesis, testing, and falsification.

irishjayhawk
04-22-2008, 12:41 AM
This is going to be my last post on this thread since I have a vacation and wedding to be in this week (and weekend); but it's been fun, at least from my interpretive POV.

True dat. Have fun, too.



Other than my initial post detailing why I think Christianity gives a better overall explanation than atheism, I haven't included any reasons as to why I've come to my conclusions or evidences for them; nor have I intended to. Ours is really more of a discussion on the intelligibility and verifiability of religious beliefs (particularly Biblical Christianity). Not an examination of evidences.

Is that not a contradiction?

So, please, careful with your sweeping generalizations.

And the thing with the "Bible verifying the Bible" that's not at all what I said. I simply argued that the Bible demands verification for its own claims, which it does--its in the text. The substance/means of that verification is, of course, going to be different thousands of years after it was written as opposed to when it was first written. That means of verification wasn't the main point, just that Christianity as biblically defined is not a "believe it without questioning things" religion as you want to paint it to be.

So my "Bible verifying the Bible" doesn't apply to your bolded part above?

Really?? How is it not a believe without questioning thing when you have impossibilities? Virgin Births, resurrections, salt pillars, global floods, parting of the Red Sea, etc etc. Seems to me you have to take those in stride.


Pretty much everything you say in there flows from the fact that you're operating out of a very modernistic paradigm with heavy ties towards positivism. Especially in the idea that science is the best means of verification for truth and all things must be testable, not to mention the idea that atheism is the default state.

How is science - specifically the SM - not one of the best means of verification? And why should all things not be testable? If they aren't, anything goes right? My fantasy world is then no longer fantasy. It's real. Psychopaths apparently have it all right. (Okay, yeah, that was an exaggeration)

How is atheism not the default state? Babies have no preconcived notions when they're born. They could care less what religion they are. As they grow older you have told them what to believe. Otherwise, they'd stay neutral until exposed by all the others at school. So I don't see how you can say it isn't the default state. Religion makes a claim. The claim of something's existence. Everything is assumed to be in non-existence until proven so. Leprechauns again. Would you say that kids when they're born believe in leprechauns without you saying a word about them? No. Period.

There is a default state and that is a blank slate. And that's what atheism is.


It's a very narrow metanarrative that writes any god or gods at best as unknowable in its own basic assumptions.

Don't know what you're getting at.

Science itself is limited in scope. In the search for truth it is a tool, as is the discussion of philosophy, and the examination of explanatory presuppositions, searches through and examination of historical claims, and, yes, even the consideration of eyewitness testimonies and personal experiences, and I could go on with more.

Never said anything to the contrary.....


The best explanation for truth should come from a combination of these things and not be forced to unreasonably bow down to the supposed superiority of forming hypothesis, testing, and falsification.

Never said everything HAS to pass through the SM, I've maintained that it's one of the best ways to maintain truth or get to truth.

Notice that all of the things you think make a good combination are not found in the Bible, unless you use the Bible to prove the Bible.

Rausch
01-29-2009, 10:43 AM
Apparently someone felt this thread needed to be bumped.

Bowser
01-29-2009, 10:47 AM
Brutal Thread Bump Achievement Unlocked - 25K

Gonzo
01-29-2009, 10:49 AM
Brutal Thread Bump Achievement Unlocked - 25K

Finish Him!!!!

Demonpenz
01-29-2009, 10:50 AM
he's on fire! big head unlocked

Dave Lane
01-29-2009, 10:57 AM
SLAG is one of the worst representatives of the Catholic Church that I have ever ran across.

He's everything thats wrong with the church and religion in general.

Dave

Bi_polar
01-29-2009, 11:08 AM
LOOK!!! CP is collectively bagging on someone's spirtual beliefs. One of the main reasons FAX left. You all are pathetic, seriously.

Demonpenz
01-29-2009, 11:10 AM
I will say this for Slag, from what I learned in the 18 or so years of catholic classes. He echo's alot of what I heard. The hardest thing is the fact that they want you to try to convert other people to save their souls. Sounded alot like we need money when i heard it at 18 sounds alot like it now

Brock
01-29-2009, 11:10 AM
LOOK!!! CP is collectively bagging on someone's spirtual beliefs. One of the main reasons FAX left. You all are pathetic, seriously.

How awful to be bagging on someone who espouses a Fred Phelps mentality. :rolleyes:

stevieray
01-29-2009, 11:12 AM
LOOK!!! CP is collectively bagging on someone's spirtual beliefs. One of the main reasons FAX left. You all are pathetic, seriously.you didn't get the memo? selective discrimination is ok.

Gonzo
01-29-2009, 11:15 AM
:rolleyes:

beach tribe
01-29-2009, 11:17 AM
LOOK!!! CP is collectively bagging on someone's spirtual beliefs. One of the main reasons FAX left. You all are pathetic, seriously.

You don't act very jive to the planet for a dupe who's probably been around as long as i have.

Crush
01-29-2009, 11:30 AM
LOOK!!! CP is collectively bagging on someone's spirtual beliefs. One of the main reasons FAX left. You all are pathetic, seriously.


If a person's spiritual beliefs cannot withstand criticism, then the foundation of those beliefs was weak to begin with.

Demonpenz
01-29-2009, 11:39 AM
I would like to page taco john for a second if he has a specific quote, but every priest I talked too always said that one of our jobs was trying to save souls for the one true religion. Although it may be annoying slag is just doing what he thinks will get him saved. You can throw his 5 kids before marridge in his face, but I think he bows down before the lord for forgiveness and shit.

Saulbadguy
01-29-2009, 11:40 AM
he's on fire! big head unlocked

ROFL

PhillyChiefFan
01-29-2009, 11:41 AM
If a person's spiritual beliefs cannot withstand criticism, then the foundation of those beliefs was weak to begin with.

Wow...that is a very well said response

:clap:

Saulbadguy
01-29-2009, 11:41 AM
you didn't get the memo? selective discrimination is ok.

Kind of redundant, don't you think?

stevieray
01-29-2009, 11:43 AM
Kind of redundant, don't you think?isn't that the point?

Saulbadguy
01-29-2009, 11:45 AM
isn't that the point?
There really is no point to your statement.

burt
01-29-2009, 11:53 AM
brutal thread. Slag, I won't judge you...please return the favor.

bowener
01-29-2009, 12:03 PM
Slag is a religious nut. I have a sister like that. If something good happens to her God did it. If something bad happens it "just wasn't meant to be". I don't waste time arguing with those people.

I am always confused by God's plan and my free will.

For example; when you go to a funeral they typically say things such as, "he led a righteous life, choosing to always do the right thing." Later they will end it with something like, "... in the end, this was part of God's grand plan, and we will have to accept that he wanted Johnny to be struck down by lightening while golfing."

It would seem that if their is a plan, I do not have much say so in what goes on, and really do not get to make a free choice, but rather, I was going to do that act because God planned for me to do that act to fulfill some plan he has designed outside of space and time.

Or, I have free action, continually fucking up God's grand plan. God is surely tired by now of writing and rewriting his plan every millisecond since it seems that it would be hard to interlace over 6 billion separate human life plans to all have a cohesive planned result.

bowener
01-29-2009, 12:05 PM
LOOK!!! CP is collectively bagging on someone's spirtual beliefs. One of the main reasons FAX left. You all are pathetic, seriously.

How?

stevieray
01-29-2009, 12:06 PM
There really is no point to your statement.

google is your friend , saul..bad...guy...

:)

Saggysack
01-29-2009, 12:10 PM
LOOK!!! CP is collectively bagging on someone's spirtual beliefs. One of the main reasons FAX left. You all are pathetic, seriously.

Aww, how sweet!

We love you too!

Taco John
01-29-2009, 12:23 PM
Slag is the worst representative of the Catholic Church that I've ever seen in all my life. The guy believes in all the pomp and circumstance, but knows nothing about love. His outward practice of the religion comes across as empty and pointless.

phisherman
01-29-2009, 12:25 PM
let's not forget good ole' kcjohnny, another sterling representative of catholicism.

suds79
01-29-2009, 12:29 PM
I am always confused by God's plan and my free will.


Yeah I think this can be tricky.

I think how I view it is that we all have free will and we choose to live our lives how we see it.

But I think there's also a part of God's plan and I openly admit that I don't fully understand. I mean I'm sure God knows what's going to happen to us and maybe sometimes he effects/changes how things might go about? I don't know.

I guess trying to figure out that part (God's plan) isn't as big of a deal for me.

All you can do is try to live your life happily and obey the laws he set forth.

Mr. Laz
01-29-2009, 12:31 PM
how can you go around telling everyone else they are evil and going to hell and not expect to be judged back?


just sayin' :shrug:

stevieray
01-29-2009, 12:31 PM
while we're at it, let's not forget forgiveness.

suds79
01-29-2009, 12:32 PM
On a different note on this Thread.

I think creating a thread calling someone a bigot is over the top.

We all have posters on this board that we might not think so much of. Should we all start a thread about it?

IF.. someone is a "bigot" that's on them to live with.

Demonpenz
01-29-2009, 12:38 PM
I forgot about Johnny being a Catholic too jeez the ones out there that are trying to make the world better and loving have an uphil battle.

plbrdude
01-29-2009, 12:46 PM
On a different note on this Thread.

I think creating a thread calling someone a bigot is over the top.

We all have posters on this board that we might not think so much of. Should we all start a thread about it?

IF.. someone is a "bigot" that's on them to live with.

true. i would rather try to see all the good i can in some one, and do my best to treat them like i would want to be treated. if it works out that i can't get along with some one, i'll just not have dealings with them if possible.

MOhillbilly
01-29-2009, 12:57 PM
LOOK!!! CP is collectively bagging on someone's spirtual beliefs. One of the main reasons FAX left. You all are pathetic, seriously.

ive been away for abit. link.

bowener
01-29-2009, 01:43 PM
Yeah I think this can be tricky.

I think how I view it is that we all have free will and we choose to live our lives how we see it.

But I think there's also a part of God's plan and I openly admit that I don't fully understand. I mean I'm sure God knows what's going to happen to us and maybe sometimes he effects/changes how things might go about? I don't know.

I guess trying to figure out that part (God's plan) isn't as big of a deal for me.

All you can do is try to live your life happily and obey the laws he set forth.

I agree, that is what you can do.

I do not follow those beliefs, but do not care if any other does. I will just be a good person the rest of my life. If I am damned to hell for not believing while being a good person, so be it, that seems greatly unfair being that I was a good person for no eternal reward.

InChiefsHell
01-29-2009, 02:04 PM
I would like to page taco john for a second if he has a specific quote, but every priest I talked too always said that one of our jobs was trying to save souls for the one true religion. Although it may be annoying slag is just doing what he thinks will get him saved. You can throw his 5 kids before marridge in his face, but I think he bows down before the lord for forgiveness and shit.

If I could just comment here. As a Catholic (and a pretty staunch one at that...although I still suck at it...) I would like to clarify a couple of things.

One, if SLAG is really trying to save souls because he thinks that will get him saved, he is wrong, and nowhere does the Catholic Church teach that any work or act on our part can save us, only the Grace of Jesus Christ can do that. Since I've seen a lot that SLAG has written here, my guess is that he is aware of this, and it's probably a mis-conception on people's part that he feels he must "save people's souls for the one true Church" in order for him to be saved.

Two, I don't know jack about the dude, or his past, or whatever. I also think it's pretty dis-ingenuous to assume that people can't grow or change after they make mistakes. IF that were the case, I'd never be able to teach my kids not to do something that I have done it the past, just because I've done something doesn't make it right, and I have to learn from my mistakes and grow.

Three, if you really had Priests telling you (every one you asked as you say) that your job as a Catholic was to save souls for the one true religion, that would be a vast simplification of what the mission of every Catholic is. We are to know our faith, defend it, and speak the truth about it when the opportunity arises, in the hopes that we might be instruments of God for the salvation of others. It's not to save our own souls, as I have stated above, we don't have anything to do with that, other than our cooperation with God's Grace.

Just sayin'.

I'm always sorry to hear from people who had a bad experience with the Church. I hope it hasn't destroyed your ability to listen, that happens a lot.

Inspector
01-29-2009, 03:20 PM
My experience is when someone bashes gay's the loudest, they usually are trying to deny something to themselves. I don't know the SLAG guy, but it sort of looks like he's got something hiding in the closet...

Just sayin'

ANd I hope that doesn't seem disrespectful cause I don't want to be disrespectful. Just the way it looks.

Sully
01-29-2009, 04:21 PM
While there are some poor representatives of religion on this board, there are some pretty good ones at well. I just thought that while we were taking time to point out the flies in the soup, maybe we should point out some folks who do good.

First off, though he comes across as a dickbag on here, apparently Iowanian really lives out his faith. I'm terribly impressed by what he does. I mean that. If he is half what he says he is, then I have a ton of respect for the guy.

joesomebody
01-29-2009, 05:20 PM
I will not to pretend to know WHY God Created homosexuals- but he did, I believe some Homo's are Gay by choice but SOME are born that way.

God is Not Discriminatory at ALL, he loves everyone even those that do not Love him, Those that do Not are not Punished by him but by the Devil but God allows this to Happen because he gave humans free will to Choose to follow him and his church and their rules Or not, its pretty much ALL or nothing.

The Definition of what is Acceptable in Gods eyes has NEVER changed in the Catholic Church -Is it still acceptable to the catholic church to burn men, women, and children at the stake? How bout sending out rapers and pillagers in the name of god?

I'm not saying anything bad about church, god, or Christianity, but I do think the Catholic Church has amended what is acceptable in gods eyes a bit...

***SPRAYER
01-29-2009, 05:25 PM
Is it still acceptable to the catholic church to burn men, women, and children at the stake? How bout sending out rapers and pillagers in the name of god?

I'm not saying anything bad about church, god, or Christianity, but I do think the Catholic Church has amended what is acceptable in gods eyes a bit...

Read the Magisterium if you have any questions; the answers are there for you to reject or accept.

Peace.

kstater
01-29-2009, 05:38 PM
I know Im on Ignore

I Stole Video games, and By Passed my employers internet (with their permission) before i Came back to my Faith in the Catholic Church

I do neither of those things anymore

So if a gay guy engages in homosexual acts, as long as he stops before he dies and finds his faith, will he go to heaven?

J Diddy
01-29-2009, 05:50 PM
So if a gay guy engages in homosexual acts, as long as he stops before he dies and finds his faith, will he go to heaven?


You seem concerned.

joesomebody
01-29-2009, 05:57 PM
Read the Magisterium if you have any questions; the answers are there for you to reject or accept.

Peace.I will, thank you.

kstater
01-29-2009, 06:07 PM
You seem concerned.

LMAO

No, I should have looked at the date of the thread and read the whole thing. Didn't know this was 10 months old.

InChiefsHell
01-29-2009, 06:56 PM
So if a gay guy engages in homosexual acts, as long as he stops before he dies and finds his faith, will he go to heaven?

No one on earth makes that call, only God judges souls. We can look at a sinful act and say that person may be in danger of hell, but in the end it is not up to us to decide.

There's a whole lot the Church's teaching on sin that people misunderstand.

Iowanian
01-29-2009, 06:59 PM
God is the only umpire in this game.

The Catholic Church is my coach. I just play right field and try to play solid defense get an on base percentage around .300 and hope thats good enough that I won't get cut in spring training.

SLAG
01-30-2009, 01:00 AM
sooo...
Heres the deal-

*I dont personally HATE homosexuals - I hate the sin- I hate MY sin - I hate ALL sin- there is alot of sin going around.

*I apologized earlier in this thread and I ment it and I still do mean it

*People make grand assumptions about me - its ok we all do it its the internet DUH! - but I have also kind of "Grown up" on this board - much like many other of our young lads have. Please forgive my lingering Adolescence

*I dont give a shit about my grammar on teh interwebs

*I have struggles in my faith like anyone - defending it when I can helps me grow in it and love it.

*I provide the "By the Book" Catholic answers to any question posed on me - regardless if I have broken the rules my self - I try to hold my self to those standards and use the Catholic church as the lens of the Truth to view/experience God's love. I have fallen short , and by the grace of God I wake up in the morning.

*I drink and I post [dont we all]

*NBC refused to air this AD during the SuperBowl:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/V2CaBR3z85c&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/V2CaBR3z85c&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
[that might deserve its own thread]

*I forget what else -

I love you all

keg in kc
01-30-2009, 02:05 AM
I love you allFag.

InChiefsHell
01-30-2009, 09:26 AM
That ad friggin' ROCKS! Seriously!

WilliamTheIrish
01-30-2009, 10:07 AM
So if a gay guy engages in homosexual acts, as long as he stops before he dies and finds his faith, will he go to heaven?


As long as he tithes at an accelerated rate.

EyePod
01-30-2009, 09:17 PM
The thing about SLAG that confuses me most is his Tendency to capitalize Words at Random.

Like his name!

EyePod
01-30-2009, 09:20 PM
I will say this for Slag, from what I learned in the 18 or so years of catholic classes. He echo's alot of what I heard. The hardest thing is the fact that they want you to try to convert other people to save their souls. Sounded alot like we need money when i heard it at 18 sounds alot like it now

Catholic high school turned me away from religion.

EyePod
01-30-2009, 09:23 PM
*NBC refused to air this AD during the SuperBowl

Pretty crazy ad. It's funny, I don't really hate you anymore SLAG. It was just a kind of "in the moment" rant. LET'S GO CHIEFS!!!

ClevelandBronco
01-30-2009, 10:00 PM
Pretty crazy ad. It's funny, I don't really hate you anymore SLAG. It was just a kind of "in the moment" rant. LET'S GO CHIEFS!!!

Thread change. Eyepod is an appauling bigot.

ClevelandBronco
01-30-2009, 10:04 PM
Catholic high school turned me away from religion.

I probably should have looked into high school. It might have turned me away from people who thought they knew dick when they were 17.

Ultra Peanut
01-30-2009, 10:16 PM
And also, that would mean there wouldn't be a flock of SLAGulls growing upNice work, me from 2008.

Ultra Peanut
01-30-2009, 10:19 PM
God is the only umpire in this game.

The Catholic Church is my coach. I just play right field and try to play solid defense get an on base percentage around .300 and hope thats good enough that I won't get cut in spring training.That's not a very good OBP.

Iowanian
01-31-2009, 08:03 AM
That's not a very good OBP.


Maybe you missed the part where I admit that and am trying not to get cut in spring training?

Unlike many of you, I know I have work to do and room for improvement.

***SPRAYER
01-31-2009, 08:41 AM
We don't choose Jesus, Jesus chooses us.

Dave Lane
01-31-2009, 10:55 AM
Shithead is one of the nicest little old ladies I've ever seen post.

Ultra Peanut
01-31-2009, 01:31 PM
Maybe you missed the part where I admit that and am trying not to get cut in spring training?

Unlike many of you, I know I have work to do and room for improvement.I'm just saying, at least aim for .335 or so.

Then again, if you get a bunch of slap singles and don't walk very much, you may end up being overvalued even with a .300 OBP. Can you run fast? Even if you don't get on base very well, some teams seem to value that highly.

Rausch
02-04-2009, 01:12 AM
First, I'd like to say that I most fucking certainly did not bump this piece of shit thread.

I have no idea why it's even up again.

It looks like I bumped it and I know for a fact that, frankly, I don't have enough give a $3it for any member here to save a thread and bring it back years later. The guys I like I talk to somewhat regularly and the one's I don't I just flat ignore or don't bother with. I don't give neg rep.

The ony reason I'm on this thread is because I got pos and neg rep today for some shit I said a year ago. I'll stand by that, but I don't like that it appears I bumped this fucking courtesy flush that should have been gone long ago...

Rausch
02-04-2009, 01:18 AM
I have been on very little in the last week or so. I have no idea what all's happened in this thread.

I have no idea WTF is going on outside the fact it appears I bumped a thread I know I did not. You can put my complaint wherever you want, and I have no political or sexual opinion on SLAG, my only complaint is that it appears I bumped a thread (I can promise you I did not) out of malice...

Jenson71
02-04-2009, 01:45 AM
Did you mix some meds with your alcohol, Rausch?

Rausch
02-04-2009, 02:53 AM
Did you mix some meds with your alcohol, Rausch?

As a rule, always.