The Sphere
General Garbage => Tropical Paradise of Hard Shelled Fruits => Topic started by: Murdadont on Feb 18, 2006, 06:47:36 PM
-
Hi
Really nice forum! I like it very much!
What additional forums do you want to see here? Lets discuss that!
If you have some free time you can try interesting free game online (http://www.wgadesign.ru/free-game.htm).
-
Murdayou!
-
I think we should have a spam forum.
Wait. THE GENERAL FORUM IS BECOMING SUCH.
I want to stab spam-bots.
-
This forum is kawaii desu ne
-
I somehow don't see them using teh spam forum if I brought it back. It takes up space anyway.
-
Hah! I remember the SPAM forum!
-
I miss the lyrics forum.
-
Iinteresting threads and posts? Now I know he didn't bother to even look at the place.
-
This forum is kawaii desu ne
oh God, stop it. Stop talking like a fan girl!! :pukes:
-
Hah! I remember the SPAM forum!
Are any of you Jewish? Then I could've had one of you wax nostalgic on Nuriko's Nazi spam forum.
-
This forum is kawaii desu ne
oh God, stop it. Stop talking like a fan girl!! :pukes:
Ha ha. Served.
-
Faye's had a Jew in her....does that count?
-
He's HALF jew. And oohh I love him so :wub:
-
Does he sleep with his little bag-o-gold around his neck? Just curious.
-
Well before not, now who knows! for what he told me last time, he works in 4 different places! (and he doesn't even need to!) Are all the jews workaholics?
-
Faye's had a Jew in her....does that count?
That depends on how much.
-
You'd have to ask her...but she did say he was a half a Jew.
-
Yeah, his dad is jew, his mom is catholic. But now that I remembered, his dad became christian before he married for a 2nd time, so now I think that makes him not jew at all ;)
-
Jew Blood is Jew Blood. You should know that. The Nazi's went through family histories get all of it out of German areas. Ask your Grandpa!
-
This forum is kawaii desu ne
oh God, stop it. Stop talking like a fan girl!! :pukes:
Ha ha. Served.
I can talk anyway i like without being served. I say the worst shit all the time in real life and make girls walk past a closet full of transformers before they sleep with me.
-
Kids are only jewish if their mother's jewish.
-
Yeah I know that but for some reason his dad made him jew. Maybe because he's fucking nuts.
-
Or maybe you're narrow minded to give a fuck?
-
or maybe you can just shut the fuck up cause nobody gives a damn about your stupid opinions? :)
-
If it hasn't stopped me before...
-
...and it won't now.
-
This reminds me of a Chuck Norris fact:
"Chuck Norris is 1/8th Cherokee. This has nothing to do with his ancestry, the man just ate a fucking Indian."
BTW, it's kind of interesting to note that Jews are the only religious group in the world that are inseparably tied to their ethnic group. Christians, Muslims, and virtually all other religions encompass many ethnicities and people, but not Judaism. You can practice Judaism, but you'll never be a Jew unless you're of that bloodline.
-
They are God's people.
God loves Fish Balls.
-
Gifiltah fish isn't so bad.
-
Yeah I know that but for some reason his dad made him jew. Maybe because he's fucking nuts.
Shit...if he doesn't want his Jewish hertiage I'll take it. I could use the "in" for Hollywood.
-
BTW, it's kind of interesting to note that Jews are the only religious group in the world that are inseparably tied to their ethnic group. Christians, Muslims, and virtually all other religions encompass many ethnicities and people, but not Judaism. You can practice Judaism, but you'll never be a Jew unless you're of that bloodline.
Cause if you are not jew, and you want to get IN, they are BITCHES about it. so they try at their best to not let you in by using different methods. this is a fact, ladies and gentlemen.
-
So, become a Buddhist. They are the real force overtaking hollywood.
-
that's scientology
-
Don't say scary words!
-
Buddhism > Scientology.
-
But somehow I doubt buddhists have a "kill list".
-
But somehow I doubt buddhists have a "kill list".
They do, they just label their murders as "fate".
-
BTW, it's kind of interesting to note that Jews are the only religious group in the world that are inseparably tied to their ethnic group. Christians, Muslims, and virtually all other religions encompass many ethnicities and people, but not Judaism. You can practice Judaism, but you'll never be a Jew unless you're of that bloodline.
Cause if you are not jew, and you want to get IN, they are BITCHES about it. so they try at their best to not let you in by using different methods. this is a fact, ladies and gentlemen.
The Catholics do the same thing; they use these methods to drive people away. They call it Catholicism.
-
It's alot better than the Jesus freaks.
-
Well I guess any religon where you can buy your way into Heaven if you give the church enough money could appeal to a lot of people.
-
The Catholics do the same thing; they use these methods to drive people away. They call it Catholicism.
ehm no, that goes only to gay people!
-
Tell me why Catholics are suppose to eat fish on Fridays and I'll actually take that comment seriously.
And I already know...I want to see if you know.
-
Cause that's the day Jesus died and we can't eat meat.
dude i went to a catholic school for 12 years, i own you and everybody on this board on catholic theme
-
No....that's what they told you, to justify this absurd rule. That's not the real reason why.
The real reason is that the fisherman in Italy had fallen on hard times. Seems there weren't as many people eating fish as they use too. So they got together and went to the Pope and asked for help. The Pope agreed to help them by making it a rule that all Catholics had to eat Fish on Fridays. Thus increasing the amount of fish bought. They then put in that bullshit story into a book and taught it to good little catholic childern so they wouldn't question it.
Look it up, if you don't believe me.
-
Hmm nah
-
Well I guess any religon where you can buy your way into Heaven if you give the church enough money could appeal to a lot of people.
Every religion goes through that phase, plus why would you bring that up? That was reformed like years ago. Jesuit powah!
-
Hmm nah
Fine, don't learn the truth. It did actually start out as a Fast. Early Catholics where required to Fast on Wed and Friday. Not cause Jesus died on Friday, but because the Jews did it on on Monday and Thrusdays and they didn't want to fast on the same days as the Jews. To Fast back then meant to actually not eat anything...at all. The eating of fish didn't come in till much later. Early Christians where nothing like the Catholics of today. Ask a Catholic when the chruch was formed, and they'll say when Jesus appointed Peter pope. But really, that never happen. It's a misinterpretation of Jesus's true meaning in there, but that's another debate for another day. I'd say the Catholic church we know today wasn't founded till after Constantine converted and held the First Council of Nicaea.
If Jesus was alive today he wouldn't be overturning the money changers tables in Solmon's temple, he'd be pulling down the statues of saints in the Vatican.
-
Well I guess any religon where you can buy your way into Heaven if you give the church enough money could appeal to a lot of people.
Every religion goes through that phase, plus why would you bring that up? That was reformed like years ago. Jesuit powah!
Because it shows the twisted idealogy of the Catholic Church. They only changed it cause they where called on it. If they could still get away with it, they would. Same with not letting the Bible being translated out of Latin and into english so that only a member of the clergy could read it. It was an easy way to insure that the masses wouldn't learn anything that the church didn't want them too.
-
"People who have powet...."
Plus, every religion does that. The holy sutras in Buddhism were restricted in similar ways, while you have missionaries going around forcing natives to learn English in exchange for food.
Not to mention those creepy mormons. They represent the other extreme. No one should be that... nice.
*shudders* I NEED PORN!
-
What I like about Bush is that he's very catholic and he doesn't like abortions.
-
1. the spam started out so nice, with the flattery.
2. It's so nice of Rama to step up predict for us what Jesus would do
3. Bush is not very Catholic. Please don't group him in with us.
-
yes he is. a lot of people voted for him cause of his catholic/christian point of view.
-
3. Bush is not very Catholic. Please don't group him in with us.
Bush isn't Catholic at all, he is a Neo Conservative Christian, which is about as different from Catholicism as any religion gets. They believe in hell, the end of the world, the rapture, God's wrath, etc.
Catholics don't believe in any of that garbage..
-
If Jesus was alive today he wouldn't be overturning the money changers tables in Solmon's temple, he'd be pulling down the statues of saints in the Vatican.
Or blowing up statues of the Buddha..? :P
-
3. Bush is not very Catholic. Please don't group him in with us.
Bush isn't Catholic at all, he is a Neo Conservative Christian, which is about as different from Catholicism as any religion gets. They believe in hell, the end of the world, the rapture, God's wrath, etc.
Catholics don't believe in any of that garbage..
yeah we do, wtf are you talking about
aanyways, my point is, Bush is against abortion, so thats great. good.
-
3. Bush is not very Catholic. Please don't group him in with us.
Bush isn't Catholic at all, he is a Neo Conservative Christian, which is about as different from Catholicism as any religion gets. They believe in hell, the end of the world, the rapture, God's wrath, etc.
Catholics don't believe in any of that garbage..
yeah we do, wtf are you talking about
aanyways, my point is, Bush is against abortion, so thats great. good.
You need to reread Catholic doctrine and edicts from el Papa.
Hell is a state of mind existing only on Earth, and through Jesus's universal forgiveness of humanity means with forgiveness and pennance (either on earth or in Purgatory) we all go to heaven no matter what.
Catholics do not believe that the end of the world is any thing to worry about. Will the world end? Yeah, any scientist will tell you that. Do Catholics worry about the end of the world everyday? No. Neo-Cons do, and that is fucking scary.
And as a Catholic, I never heard much of God's wrath on you, unless you do something really bad.
One thing you could bitch about... Priests touching their Acolytes. Thankfully I was never an altar boy, and never molestered... I guess I was just not pretty enough :(
-
Even after you wore that fruit-flavored tinted gloss?
-
"People who have powet...."
Plus, every religion does that. The holy sutras in Buddhism were restricted in similar ways, while you have missionaries going around forcing natives to learn English in exchange for food.
Not to mention those creepy mormons. They represent the other extreme. No one should be that... nice.
*shudders* I NEED PORN!
Well don't misunderstand me. I actually don't like most organized religions, not even the one I was raised as. I think most religions have strayed very far from the original ideas they where founded on and have be corrupted by greed, powet, and other assorted fleshly endeavors. There is a prostant church called "James River Assembly" that runs commericals on local TV here that makes me even more sick to my stomach then Catholic dogma does.
Catholics do not believe that the end of the world is any thing to worry about. Will the world end? Yeah, any scientist will tell you that. Do Catholics worry about the end of the world everyday? No. Neo-Cons do, and that is fucking scary.
I actually believe that most Revelation was written about Nero's regin and was more a commetary on what was happening then, then what is going to happen.
-
The world is going to end for sure. This is how it goes down...
It will be preceded by Fimbulvetr, the winter of winters. Three such winters will follow each other with no summers in between. Conflicts and feuds will break out, even between families, and all morality will disappear. This is the beginning of the end.
The wolf Skoll will finally devour the sun, and his brother Hati will eat the moon, plunging the earth [into] darkness. The stars will vanish from the sky. The cock Fjalar will crow to the giants and the golden cock Gullinkambi will crow to the gods. A third cock will raise the dead.
That's the part I was appointed to play.
-
my point is, Bush is against abortion, so thats great
Until one of his daughters gets knocked up by the "wrong type". Then she'd be off on a "ski weekend" so fast windows would be shattering from the sonic boom.
This is part of why, even with as much flap there has been in the past about it, medical records of women who have had abortions will never be opened. Too many abortion protesters have had abortions themselves (http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/anti-tales.shtml).
-
Bush isn't Catholic at all, he is a Neo Conservative Christian, which is about as different from Catholicism as any religion gets. They believe in hell, the end of the world, the rapture, God's wrath, etc.
Catholics don't believe in any of that garbage..
Sorry, I didn't make my use of understatement clear. I meant:
3. Bush is not "very Catholic." Please don't group him in with us.
And I see Bernie has been drinking the same omniscient-juice Rama has.
-
They told me it was Kool-Aid.
-
Considering that both wife Laura and grandmother Barbara have been quite vocal about keeping abortion legal, I felt it was a safe draught to quaff:
"No, I don't think it should be overturned," Mrs. (Laura) Bush told NBC's "Today Show" when asked about the high court's decision, Roe vs. Wade.
CNN archives
Former first lady Barbara Bush said Sunday there was nothing any president could do about abortion and that the volatile issue should not be part of the presidential campaign.
Republicans For Choice PAC
Most young women take problems of this nature to their mothers. Considering the position that this would put a pro-abstinence President in, I don't think such would be public fodder or necessarily shared with Dad. However, considering that the Tequlia Twins are the most rebellious First Daughters since Alice Roosevelt climbed onto the White House roof to smoke, they could very well proudly birth a First Bastard if they weren't inclined to marry the guy, or if the match was discouraged. A quiet confinement and secret adoption would be out of the question in this day and age.
And ,of course, all of this except the unaltered quotes is rhetorical conjecture and not portrayed as anything but. :)
-
Have any of you besides Rama actually bothered to look into any of this at all? Good grief, you have some funny ideas.
First of all, Christians != Catholics. Catholics are a sizeable subgroup of Christiandom, but they are by no means equivalent. Well, unless you ask a dyed-in-the-wool Catholic, since that church claims to be the only means to reconciliation with God (and, no, this has not been reformed in any way by any council or whatever).
Cause if you are not jew, and you want to get IN, they are BITCHES about it. so they try at their best to not let you in by using different methods. this is a fact, ladies and gentlemen.
Being that Muslims teach that Allah's day of judgment can't come until all Jews are killed, anti-Semitism is on the rapid rise, and that there's a lot expected of a practicing Jew, I'm not surprised that they're not eager to proselytize. It could be a death sentence in some areas, and they only want those who're absolutely serious about it.
The Catholics do the same thing; they use these methods to drive people away. They call it Catholicism.
Actually, there's no problem in becoming a Catholic. The only problem is that you are supposed to go through baptism into the church as an infant. You just have to overcome this either by fervent adherance to doctrine, participation in the various rituals (Mass, Eucharist, Rosary, etc.) and holy days of the church (can those of you who are Catholic remember all of them, out of curiousity?), copious contributions to the church, and weather Purgatory after an undisclosed amount of time.
Cause that's the day Jesus died and we can't eat meat.
Jesus dying on "Good" Friday is a popular misconception. If you actually pay attention to what the gospel accounts say, He died on a Thursday afternoon. This is also supported by ancient Hebrew Messianic prophecies, who actually nailed the year and day. That is easily proven, and given that the very pious Jews of the day apparently did not dispute the day of Christ's death, there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the date.
Early Christians where nothing like the Catholics of today. Ask a Catholic when the chruch was formed, and they'll say when Jesus appointed Peter pope. But really, that never happen. It's a misinterpretation of Jesus's true meaning in there, but that's another debate for another day. I'd say the Catholic church we know today wasn't founded till after Constantine converted and held the First Council of Nicaea.
Whammy! You got it. The actual reading of the verse is interesting. When Jesus referred to him as Peter, he used the Greek petros, which means "small rock" or "pebble". But when He said, "on this rock I will build my church," He used the word petra, which means "large rock". He was referring to Himself. Elsewhere in scripture, God is referred to as the rock, so this makes much more sense. Besides, Peter wasn't even the most influential apostle...Paul was the one who most shaped the early Christian faith. Which makes the fact that Pauline doctrine is largely minimized in the Catholic belief system in favor of tradition all the more ironic. And the whole keys to the kingdom thing was not a literal conferral of succession, but an endowment to all those who believed.
If Jesus was alive today he wouldn't be overturning the money changers tables in Solmon's temple, he'd be pulling down the statues of saints in the Vatican.
What part of "thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" was misunderstood, here? Dispensational theology aside, if the Catholic church believes itself to be the replacement of ancient Israel (a mistake, but that's their belief), then shouldn't the commandment especially apply to them?
BTW, it was Herod's temple, actually. But anyway.
What I like about Bush is that he's very catholic....
Were I a cow, I would have squirted milk out of my nose with that one :D
It's so nice of Rama to step up predict for us what Jesus would do.
Well, from my reading, He wasn't a fan of idols. And the Bible teaches against venerating men, angels, and anyone else who isn't God. So I don't imagine he's far off base here.
Bush isn't Catholic at all, he is a Neo Conservative Christian, which is about as different from Catholicism as any religion gets. They believe in hell, the end of the world, the rapture, God's wrath, etc.
Catholics don't believe in any of that garbage..
You probably intended to say "evangelical", as one can be a neocon without being a Christian, as it's a political ideology, not a religion. Although some treat their politics as a religion...but anyway.
But in any case, you're wrong, because Catholics do believe in hell, the end of the world, judgment, and the whole kit-and-caboodle. They just add a lot more stuff to the salvation part than what's actually in the Bible (whatever translation, and whether you use the Deuterocanonicals or not), and that's where my gripe is.
Or blowing up statues of the Buddha..? :P
Contrary to what blithering idiots like Yassir Arafat have to say, Jesus (or Issa, if you're a Moslem) was not the first Palestinian terrorist.
Hell is a state of mind existing only on Earth, and through Jesus's universal forgiveness of humanity means with forgiveness and pennance (either on earth or in Purgatory) we all go to heaven no matter what.
Catholics do not believe that the end of the world is any thing to worry about. Will the world end? Yeah, any scientist will tell you that. Do Catholics worry about the end of the world everyday? No. Neo-Cons do, and that is fucking scary.
And as a Catholic, I never heard much of God's wrath on you, unless you do something really bad.
Tom's right here, to a degree. Catholic doctrine states that everyone can go to heaven, eventually, after spending an untold amount of time in purgatory...unless you're a reformed/apostolic/evangelical/any other non-Roman Catholic Christian, who are eternally condemned to hell. If you don't believe it, read the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, where over 100 anathemas (essentially, God-damnations) are pronounced against protestantism. And no, they weren't overturned by Vatican II, as is commonly claimed...in fact, it reaffirmed it. As did John Paul not many years ago.
Did you guys know that several Catholic celebrities such as John Paul II, Teresa, and John Cardinal O'Conner did not know how long they would remain in purgatory and be denied access to heaven? Of all people, you'd think they'd know or have a fast track there. So if they are uncertain under their system, how can anyone else be, despite the Bible claiming in numerous places that you can know?
Again, neocons are not necessarily Christian. And, again, I believe he's referring to evangelicals. And there's no reason to be frightened of it...either you believe it and have made preparations for it, or you don't believe it and figure it's bunk. So that's that.
Well don't misunderstand me. I actually don't like most organized religions, not even the one I was raised as. I think most religions have strayed very far from the original ideas they where founded on and have be corrupted by greed, powet, and other assorted fleshly endeavors. There is a prostant church called "James River Assembly" that runs commericals on local TV here that makes me even more sick to my stomach then Catholic dogma does.
I actually believe that most Revelation was written about Nero's regin and was more a commetary on what was happening then, then what is going to happen.
There's a lot of kooks out there, but you can not assume they represent fundamentalist, Biblical Christianity just because they have a loud voice or whatever. You can only go by comparing their stated beliefs with the Bible. 9 times out of 10, they're kooks. 1 time out of 10, they've misunderstood something along the way. But you say "protestant" church as if it's one big, organized church of its own. Most evangelical church assemblies have their own autonomy on interpretation and doctrine, even if they belong to a certain denomination. And just because they have the name of a denom on their marquee doesn't mean they're anything like who they identify with (see Westboro Baptist Church for a shining example).
But saying Revelation was Christian code for describing revenge for Nero's reign makes absolutely no sense. For one thing, it was written years following Nero's time as emperor. Second, it wasn't the worst persecution of Christians of its time, anyway. Third, much of what was talked about doesn't fit in any way. In my experience, it's just a means of downplaying the sometimes frightening imagery of the book, the relegation of it as a Christian fairy tale used to scare people into conversion.
This is part of why, even with as much flap there has been in the past about it, medical records of women who have had abortions will never be opened. Too many abortion protesters have had abortions themselves.
I have a 25 year old cousin who had an abortion as a teen, and it has haunted her ever since. There's an emptiness in her life that she's filled to the brim with guilt over it, and she may never forgive herself for it. Ever since, she's been very anti-abortion, because of the effect it had on her and many like her. You have to be a cold-hearted bastard to not feel any bit of sorrow for these tiny beings taken out of their place, mutilated, and either incinerated or sold as research materials. You can tell yourself it's just tissues being thrown out and not a real person, but the fact remains that we all came from a similar state, and under normal circumstances, that fetus would have been born just as we were.
My cousin was not a church goer and still isn't. But she often asks if God could ever forgive her, since she apparently can't herself. The truth is, God already has, and she just has to come to terms with Him and herself. Just because a person doesn't love him or herself doesn't mean He can't or won't.
-
I actually believe that most Revelation was written about Nero's regin and was more a commetary on what was happening then, then what is going to happen.
Oh it is.
Plus Jesus never meant to say you had to be a Christian, therefore I believe everyone goes to heaven, even rapists. I also believe in reincarnation. Jesus did it. When he returned, no one recognized him until he spoke, which to me at least, means he was in another body, but his soul had memory of Jesus and had the same mannerisms.
-
damn people! 2 pages already of all these religious stuff? some of you need to get a gf, pronto
my opinion in short: abortion is wrong. bush thinks abortion is wrong. bush is right therefore i like bush.
-
Don't think Eddie would be too wild about my getting a girlfriend.
bush is right therefore i like bush.
That's very sweet, Faye. Considering the scandal brewing about putting major seaports in the hands of the UAE, he needs all the friends he can get. :lol:
-
Whoops! Maybe I should have capitalized his name for you or cited the entire quote! :lol:
-
he's just a dummy. i feel bad for him cause i bet other people are making those decisions and using him as a puppet, cause he looks so naive! aww :(
edit: Bernie you wrote about the religious thing too? i didn't read the last 2 pages hehe sorry. in your case you already have someone ;)
-
If you got pregnant from a one night stand would have the baby?
-
I think abortion is wrong, but it's neccessary. People die all the time. Guns kill people too, why not ban those? Because there's no thrill like yelling at a scared woman making a difficult decision while shouting death threats at her. I know it gets me hard!
And while it's fucking dumb as hell to sell our ports overseas, there's alot worse going on now. I am more interested on how the Republicans are saying no no, and the Bush administration is saying yes yes!
And Faye is the only foriegner to love Bush. Am I the only one who chuckled from the Lesbian thing? :)
-
If you got pregnant from a one night stand would have the baby?
i wouldn't get pregnant cause i don't do one night stands.
if you get pregnant, its your fault, not the baby's. you can always give it for adoption, its better than killing him.
-
So rape is the woman's fault? Especially incestual?
Wow you sound like Ben.
-
i haaate when men are in favor of abortion. i mean what the fuck, its not like you are gonna give birth to it.OBVIOUSLY you will never get pregnant, so of course, your "in favor of adoption" is nule.
even if its rape, its not the baby's fault. my point here is, whatever happens and whatever reason leads to a woman getting pregnant, even if she doesn't want the baby she can just give birth to it and give it up for adoption.
-
I am in favor of abortion because it is a solution to over population. We live in a society that fails to reason, that fails to grasp logic... I am tired of children being thrust into poor living conditions, being raised to become scum and a stain upon society. I've seen how my two slut sisters live...one of them is a drug addict. Children shouldn't be raised in those conditions, yet those two feel that their doing the right thing--and there is nothing we can do about it.
Adoption is another story. There's a good chance that the child will be disturbed from that alone. Yes, I will agree that is a better solution than preventing life--however I would rather be dead than to have found out that I was the product of a love-less meaningless relationship and that no one gave a damn about me...knowing that I Was a burden to be tossed aside.
Albeit, many adoptive parents are good people who do a good job of raising children--but there are thousands of children who go unclaimed in orphanages and are all but destroyed from that...
-
If you got pregnant from a one night stand would have the baby?
i wouldn't get pregnant cause i don't do one night stands.
LOVE IS OVER!
-
i haaate when men are in favor of abortion. i mean what the fuck, its not like you are gonna give birth to it.OBVIOUSLY you will never get pregnant, so of course, your "in favor of adoption" is nule.
even if its rape, its not the baby's fault. my point here is, whatever happens and whatever reason leads to a woman getting pregnant, even if she doesn't want the baby she can just give birth to it and give it up for adoption.
Well, I hope you're never raped, and then you're forced from your life to care for this baby you never asked for. Then when the baby is loathed by you because it's a constant reminder of the continuing pain and misery existant in your life because someone didn't have enough self controll, and now your life and it's life is a living hell because you were raped.
That happens alot.
-
I am in favor of abortion because it is a solution to over population. We live in a society that fails to reason, that fails to grasp logic... I am tired of children being thrust into poor living conditions, being raised to become scum and a stain upon society. I've seen how my two slut sisters live...one of them is a drug addict. Children shouldn't be raised in those conditions, yet those two feel that their doing the right thing--and there is nothing we can do about it.
Adoption is another story. There's a good chance that the child will be disturbed from that alone. Yes, I will agree that is a better solution than preventing life--however I would rather be dead than to have found out that I was the product of a love-less meaningless relationship and that no one gave a damn about me...knowing that I Was a burden to be tossed aside.
Albeit, many adoptive parents are good people who do a good job of raising children--but there are thousands of children who go unclaimed in orphanages and are all but destroyed from that...
Another very good point.
Since I believe in Reincarnation, and since everyone dies eventually, and there's killing going on all the time... why not just protest death?
-
Well, from my reading, He wasn't a fan of idols. And the Bible teaches against venerating men, angels, and anyone else who isn't God. So I don't imagine he's far off base here.
Exactly. If you bow down in front of statue of the Virgin Mary and ask her to help you with a problem. Or you light a little candle in your home and ask for Saint Peter to help a sick friend then you are breaking the first commandment. Jesus was a jew and he obeyed Jewish law, and the first commandment was part of that law.
-
You're wrong, however, since the Mary and the saints are not being worshiped as God, or else their wouldn't be angels either. The aspect of mary is that of a reflection of God, the maternal motherly side of it. The first commandment states don't worship any other god, however the appearence of Jesus justly negated that, since that was Moses's law and Jesus came around and preached the new law. If you follow succession, Mohamed came around because of idoltry, etc, however that's because of misunderstandings of saints and Mary.
But then the fact that many Muslims take the life of Mohamed as holy... it's no better.
Just to reinterate, find me a prayer to Mary that doesn't ask for God's help.
-
There are so many unwanted children and abused children in this world and that makes me sad which is something because I don’t like children.
-
That too, and alot of these kids are with paternal parents.
-
damn people! 2 pages already of all these religious stuff? some of you need to get a gf, pronto
my opinion in short: abortion is wrong. bush thinks abortion is wrong. bush is right therefore i like bush.
For the record, I like bush, too
I think abortion is wrong, but it's neccessary. People die all the time. Guns kill people too, why not ban those? Because there's no thrill like yelling at a scared woman making a difficult decision while shouting death threats at her. I know it gets me hard!
And while it's fucking dumb as hell to sell our ports overseas, there's alot worse going on now. I am more interested on how the Republicans are saying no no, and the Bush administration is saying yes yes!
And Faye is the only foriegner to love Bush. Am I the only one who chuckled from the Lesbian thing?
I don't see where it's necessary. The practice of abortion has no other purpose than to end the life of an unborn child, and the legality or illegality thereof cannot be compared with that of firearms. Guns are tools...used in hunting, self-defense, law enforcement, and military operations; in addition to their misuse in the commission of crimes. Come to think of it, a gun can be used to conduct an abortion, too...in which case you could be tried for double homicide. Talk about your double standards....
The port thing is an issue of trust. Do you trust the United Arab Emirates to not misuse their hold on ports on our eastern seaboard for the execution of terrorist activity? One side says yes, that they're a staunch ally in the "war on terror", yet the other side says no, that they're a state sponsor of it with corruption and infiltration rife in their government. One side says don't do anything about it, or risk losing the support of a Middle Eastern, Muslim nation; whereas the other says better safe than sorry, and one more enemy over there makes little difference. I fall in the ranks of the "other side", as you do. The Bush administration is, like on several other major issues, dead wrong and had best listen to both the electorate and his bureaucratic objectors.
As for Faye's faux pas, I immediately thought of the image of a protestor holding a sign that said, "Lesbians Against Bush", and I chortled.
I am in favor of abortion because it is a solution to over population. We live in a society that fails to reason, that fails to grasp logic... I am tired of children being thrust into poor living conditions, being raised to become scum and a stain upon society. I've seen how my two slut sisters live...one of them is a drug addict. Children shouldn't be raised in those conditions, yet those two feel that their doing the right thing--and there is nothing we can do about it.
Adoption is another story. There's a good chance that the child will be disturbed from that alone. Yes, I will agree that is a better solution than preventing life--however I would rather be dead than to have found out that I was the product of a love-less meaningless relationship and that no one gave a damn about me...knowing that I Was a burden to be tossed aside.
Albeit, many adoptive parents are good people who do a good job of raising children--but there are thousands of children who go unclaimed in orphanages and are all but destroyed from that....
Overpopulation? That's no excuse. In fact, that's outright bullcrap and a cop-out. Since Roe V Wade, there have been over 35 million abortions...this country can hold that many people. And to justify it by saying, "it's for their own good," is the worst form of totalitarianism. Those would-have-been people would have at least had the chance at a good life...but thanks to us playing God, these have been deprived of the fundamental right of life and the ability to live in liberty and pursue their own happiness.
Not to say that some people shouldn't be sterilized, but who am I or anyone else to say who? But killing the fetus after the fact is just plain unfair, whatever the reason.
As for the rape argument, whatever happened and whoever's responsible, that child belongs to the woman. And it is her responsibility just like I was my mother's responsibility and most of you were your mothers' responsibility. Shunning that responsibility because you didn't ask for it and it happened under extreme circumstances just doesn't change that, and to opt for abortion in response is, once again, unfair to the child and not in its best interests. BTW, have you ever actually watched an abortion? Can you quantify which is more horrible, the means by which the pregnancy was initiated, or the means by which it was terminated? And do two wrongs suddenly make a right?
Exactly. If you bow down in front of statue of the Virgin Mary and ask her to help you with a problem. Or you light a little candle in your home and ask for Saint Peter to help a sick friend then you are breaking the first commandment. Jesus was a jew and he obeyed Jewish law, and the first commandment was part of that law.
You're wrong, however, since the Mary and the saints are not being worshiped as God, or else their wouldn't be angels either. The aspect of mary is that of a reflection of God, the maternal motherly side of it. The first commandment states don't worship any other god, however the appearence of Jesus justly negated that, since that was Moses's law and Jesus came around and preached the new law. If you follow succession, Mohamed came around because of idoltry, etc, however that's because of misunderstandings of saints and Mary.
But then the fact that many Muslims take the life of Mohamed as holy... it's no better.
Just to reinterate, find me a prayer to Mary that doesn't ask for God's help.
The saints who pass on do not at any point become angels. You don't get a halo, wings, or a harp when you hit heaven. I don't know if that's what you were saying in your first sentence or not, but I wanted to make sure this was clear.
Anyway, Mary is often venerated as the Queen of Heaven (John Paul II outright called her that on occasion), which she is not. In fact, there was a pagan cult in the days of the ancient Israelites who worshipped a goddess known as the Queen of Heaven (Jeremiah 7:18 and chapter 44), and it was reported that it angered God and invited His judgment. What did they do? They offered cakes and incense to this entity, who was either analogous or the same as a Caananite, Egyptian, and Babylonian deity of similar function. Venerating this person was seen as blasphemy in the sight of God. It is often denied that such worship is directed at Mary, but it is. Rather than praying to God, as is the right of the saved, Catholics opt instead to curry favor by those who cannot hear their prayers, such as her and the other saints officially recognized by that church. Mary was indeed a vessel chosen by God--yet, she was no more Godlike than the disciples were. She was upright and pleased God, but she is not, cannot, and does not reflect any aspect of God. God says in Isaiah 42:8 that, "I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images."
Mary was not a perpetual virgin (she had several other children following the birth of Jesus), she was not the mother of the Church (Jesus said the Church was built on Himself), she was not sinless (admitting her need of a Savior herself in the Magnificat), she can not mediate or intercede for sinners (that's the job of the Great High Priest, the resurrected and glorified Jesus Christ), and she isn't so omnipresent that she can hear the prayers of millions of needful Catholics. She's a wonderful lady who played a special role in human history, but she is...not....God. Her lack of prominence in scripture should verify this…there are records of a lot of women in the Bible, and many of them had more mention made of them than was made of Mary. She was a humble woman of great integrity, and the worship (seriously, what else would one call praying to a friggin’ statue, even if it’s in the name of God? Why not pray to God?) of her as if she’s accepting of it besmirches the character of the one who said of her Son, “whatever He says, do it,” during the wedding of Cana.
As for Jesus ushering in a new law and doing away with Mosaic law, this is another error. The command to not bow before any god but Yahweh is still in full effect, and Jesus said He and His Father are one. Jesus also said that He didn’t come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. He lived the perfect life because we couldn’t, and He wouldn’t have been able to provide Himself a just basis on which to forgive sin had He not done so…that of a Righteous dying as a substitute for the unrighteous, and being the Infinite, was able to pay that penalty for everyone. The law He preached was not, in fact, new; but it was the old law put in simple terms. Rather than a law of obligation, it was a law of love. And the saved love Him, because He loved them first, and they therefore keep His commandments because of that love and the grace He provides…not out of obligation to any one church (which claims to dole out that grace incrementally based on our observance of its ordinances) or to satisfy a vengeful God.
As for any supposed “succession” of Islam, don’t make me laugh. Aside from some commonality in their revised version of Biblical history, that religion has no bearing on the other two in question. Although Muslims have a respect for Marian theology (to the downplay of Issa, their alternative Jesus), which gives them a tiny bit of common ground with Catholicism, their beliefs by and large are not compatible in any way with the vast majority of Christian doctrine.
-
In the case of rape I'm all for abortion. An atrocity enacted upon a woman should not make her responsible "no matter what" for some child that she never consented to engage in the act of conception of. She has been violated in a manner most foul and it is not her duty to bear the child of he who commited an act so heinous that I personally hold it 2nd only to murder.
If my mother was raped not only would I not want her to have the child but if the assailiants identity were known unto me I would wreak vengeance upon him and his family (if he had one).
-
This post was left blank.
-
Until one of his daughters gets knocked up by the "wrong type". Then she'd be off on a "ski weekend" so fast windows would be shattering from the sonic boom.
Time to get Bush's daughters knocked up by an Arab!
Jesus dying on "Good" Friday is a popular misconception. If you actually pay attention to what the gospel accounts say, He died on a Thursday afternoon. This is also supported by ancient Hebrew Messianic prophecies, who actually nailed the year and day.
ha ha, nailed. :lol:
I have a 25 year old cousin who had an abortion as a teen, and it has haunted her ever since.
Does it haunt everyone who's had an abortion, or just Christians? If she's so devistated that she killed a living being, then she should get knocked up again and make a new one! And while she's at it, stop eating meat. And veggies. And everything.
my opinion in short: abortion is wrong. bush thinks abortion is wrong. bush is right therefore i like bush.
Thank God you can't vote. Sadly enough, a lot of people who do vote think the same way. They don't bother to vote on a guy due to his policies, track record, or how he does business. They vote on him because of his religion.
Idiots shouldn't be allowed to vote.
For the record, I like bush, too
You suck. Also, tl;dr.
And how the hell do you guys quote multiple people?
Edit: Tom, fix your damn post, it doesn't make sense. :rolleyes:
-
As for the rape argument, whatever happened and whoever's responsible, that child belongs to the woman. And it is her responsibility just like I was my mother's responsibility and most of you were your mothers' responsibility. Shunning that responsibility because you didn't ask for it and it happened under extreme circumstances just doesn't change that, and to opt for abortion in response is, once again, unfair to the child and not in its best interests. BTW, have you ever actually watched an abortion? Can you quantify which is more horrible, the means by which the pregnancy was initiated, or the means by which it was terminated? And do two wrongs suddenly make a right?
The world is not black and white.
The saints who pass on do not at any point become angels. You don't get a halo, wings, or a harp when you hit heaven. I don't know if that's what you were saying in your first sentence or not, but I wanted to make sure this was clear.
I mean if you have beings as angels, then you have a God who needs help in some way. The analysis of patients who have damnaged subconsciouses analyzed through therapy reveal that the soul can transubstantiate. Also, through God, isn't anything possible, or else what is omnipotence?
Anyway, Mary is often venerated as the Queen of Heaven (John Paul II outright called her that on occasion), which she is not. In fact, there was a pagan cult in the days of the ancient Israelites who worshipped a goddess known as the Queen of Heaven (Jeremiah 7:18 and chapter 44), and it was reported that it angered God and invited His judgment. What did they do? They offered cakes and incense to this entity, who was either analogous or the same as a Caananite, Egyptian, and Babylonian deity of similar function. Venerating this person was seen as blasphemy in the sight of God. It is often denied that such worship is directed at Mary, but it is. Rather than praying to God, as is the right of the saved, Catholics opt instead to curry favor by those who cannot hear their prayers, such as her and the other saints officially recognized by that church. Mary was indeed a vessel chosen by God--yet, she was no more Godlike than the disciples were. She was upright and pleased God, but she is not, cannot, and does not reflect any aspect of God. God says in Isaiah 42:8 that, "I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images."
The diffrence in the 'Pagan' symbol and the cult of Mary is that again, you're point that the people worshiping her are worshiping her as a God, the one who performs the miracle, etc. She isn't, she is channeling God's powet, as an Angel or an intermediary would. This is similar to Satan's powet as the adversary, since Mary would relfect the positive and Satan would reflect the negative. Both are agents of God, or maybe just powerful beings nonetheless. Belief in Satan is a similar form of this, so if you can't believe in Mary having powet, than neither does Satan.
Mary was not a perpetual virgin (she had several other children following the birth of Jesus), she was not the mother of the Church (Jesus said the Church was built on Himself), she was not sinless (admitting her need of a Savior herself in the Magnificat), she can not mediate or intercede for sinners (that's the job of the Great High Priest, the resurrected and glorified Jesus Christ), and she isn't so omnipresent that she can hear the prayers of millions of needful Catholics. She's a wonderful lady who played a special role in human history, but she is...not....God. Her lack of prominence in scripture should verify this…there are records of a lot of women in the Bible, and many of them had more mention made of them than was made of Mary. She was a humble woman of great integrity, and the worship (seriously, what else would one call praying to a friggin’ statue, even if it’s in the name of God? Why not pray to God?) of her as if she’s accepting of it besmirches the character of the one who said of her Son, “whatever He says, do it,” during the wedding of Cana.
While there is no real proof to Mary having Kids, I also believe in it. Otherwise to your other point about Mary not having any powet. The thing, God hears the prayers, and can represent himself through Mary as a maternal figure, which the imagery of Jesus can represent a different things. Her choice by God to sire Jesus (who I don't believe is God reborn, rather just an aspect of God, like Mary, Satan, Angels, even us) makes her special in the fact that for his view on what it was to be human and to reveal something to humanity makes her intrumental in the mythology of it. Praying to a state of Mary or of Jesus is both invoking the same onimoptent powet, just like praying to Vishnu, Buddha, Allah, etc.
As for Jesus ushering in a new law and doing away with Mosaic law, this is another error. The command to not bow before any god but Yahweh is still in full effect, and Jesus said He and His Father are one. Jesus also said that He didn’t come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. He lived the perfect life because we couldn’t, and He wouldn’t have been able to provide Himself a just basis on which to forgive sin had He not done so…that of a Righteous dying as a substitute for the unrighteous, and being the Infinite, was able to pay that penalty for everyone. The law He preached was not, in fact, new; but it was the old law put in simple terms. Rather than a law of obligation, it was a law of love. And the saved love Him, because He loved them first, and they therefore keep His commandments because of that love and the grace He provides…not out of obligation to any one church (which claims to dole out that grace incrementally based on our observance of its ordinances) or to satisfy a vengeful God.
The accounts of Jesus were written after his time, which the Muslims see as retarded that we take it as word. The laws of Moses were even worse, written well before their time. The Koran isn't any better either. :P The commandents were set to a time where there were rampant cults, etc, that the Jews didn't like, so they attributed commandments to God based on common forms of natural and cultural law. The appearence of Jesus negates any prior teachings by nature, since if the laws worked, his appearence would not have been neccessary.
As for any supposed “succession” of Islam, don’t make me laugh. Aside from some commonality in their revised version of Biblical history, that religion has no bearing on the other two in question. Although Muslims have a respect for Marian theology (to the downplay of Issa, their alternative Jesus), which gives them a tiny bit of common ground with Catholicism, their beliefs by and large are not compatible in any way with the vast majority of Christian doctrine.
The Islamic Religion regards itself as the sucessive and final form of the religion of Abraham, which Moses and Jesus both preached about. The supposed 'perfection' of the Koran was marred by the Chaos after the expansion stopped, and a plethera of Korans appeared.
The world is a complicated place, and the vast representations of God throughout our culture share common grounds when you remove cultural and societal factors. Religion is a tricky thing, but it's mostly mythology. Are you a theology student, because you bring up some interesting arguments, but are tainted with protestant beliefs on Catholicism.
-
Well, I hope you're never raped, and then you're forced from your life to care for this baby you never asked for. Then when the baby is loathed by you because it's a constant reminder of the continuing pain and misery existant in your life because someone didn't have enough self controll, and now your life and it's life is a living hell because you were raped.
That happens alot.
its not the baby's fault.
-
The baby is a clump of cells. Is a anyone's fault who dies? We all die, you'll die, and I will die. This world is temporary.
-
but we don't get KILLED. what is wrong with you? god.
-
Terrorism. Death Penality. Genocide. "Pre-emptive" strikes. "Whoops, we thought there were terrorists in that school."
-
Who's to say we aren't? People who die from faulty machinery, drunk/wreckless drivers, companies that use cheaply made hydrogenated oils because it's easy to use and costs penies, hydrocarbon based technology that further pollutes the world when better alternatives were discovered, etc.
Prisioners are put to death, and so are sick people. I never said abortion is right, but death is sometimes neccessary. Some who die deserve life, some who live deserve death. If heaven exists, why worry. Those who fear death don't believe in an afterlife.
-
The cock Fjalar will crow to the giants and the golden cock Gullinkambi will crow to the gods. A third cock will raise the dead.
That's the part I was appointed to play.
Ha ha, damn you make me laugh. I'll never sleep with you, but you make me laugh.
This religion stuff is over my head. As I read, I can literally feel all this God-stuff pushing the perversion out of my head, though I do admire the knowledge some of you possess on the subject. The Golden Rule is all I can really follow and much of the time, I do think it may have been for the best if I had been aborted. Whether or not I would actually get one myself is a tough call, but I needn't go on. I'm certain I've stated my opinion on the whole thing many times before.
-
This is part of why, even with as much flap there has been in the past about it, medical records of women who have had abortions will never be opened. Too many abortion protesters have had abortions themselves (http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/anti-tales.shtml).
I could only read so much of that before getting too mad too continue. Fucking hypocrites.
-
I wanna play a cock.
-
You already are one.
-
^_^
Awesome.
Hey, wait-a-minute...
-
Mary was not a perpetual virgin
I love the perpetual virgin thing..It makes me laugh everytime I hear it. I mean do they have to actually tell you that Joesph and sex with his wife.
"And Joseph knew Mary, and Mary was pleased, and she doth told her husband that this is so.. And Joseph said unto Mary. I know Baby...I know."
I mean we can assume that he was married to her for most of Jesus's life or at least up until he was 12 when they went to passover. Joseph was mentioned there. So they had been married for at least 12 years. ...don't you think at least once he'd want to get get down, get down, get down tonight with Mary?
-
It was to promote celibacy in the clergy.
-
Which worked out sooooooooo well.
-
True. I agree Priests should allow to be married, but only to nuns. Nuns are fucking hawt.
-
I'll never sleep with you, but you make me laugh.
That's for the best. If something went wrong and you didn't abort our baby it would probably have horns and invisible psychic hands capable of decapitating people on a whim.
-
Does it haunt everyone who's had an abortion, or just Christians? If she's so devistated that she killed a living being, then she should get knocked up again and make a new one! And while she's at it, stop eating meat. And veggies. And everything.
I didn't say she was a Christian. And she's had two children since then. And there is no comparison between killing a cow and killing a child. Fool.
The world is not black and white.
Imagine you're a fetus. Imagine that you as a fetus can form cognizant thoughts and observe your surroundings. On one hand, your dad's an incestuous child abusing son of a bitch, and on the other hand, your mother is a hurt, confused, and scared teenager. Now you're going to die over it. So, for you, the world would be pretty black and white.
I mean if you have beings as angels, then you have a God who needs help in some way. The analysis of patients who have damnaged subconsciouses analyzed through therapy reveal that the soul can transubstantiate. Also, through God, isn't anything possible, or else what is omnipotence?
Ah, the old "can God create a rock too big for Him to lift?" posit :)
Angels are described as ministering spirits. If I were supreme over all things, I'd like to get somebody else to do the things that need doing around the place, even though I could do it myself. And I'm struggling to see what you're talking about with "souls that transubstantiate" line.
The diffrence in the 'Pagan' symbol and the cult of Mary is that again, you're point that the people worshiping her are worshiping her as a God, the one who performs the miracle, etc. She isn't, she is channeling God's powet, as an Angel or an intermediary would. This is similar to Satan's powet as the adversary, since Mary would relfect the positive and Satan would reflect the negative. Both are agents of God, or maybe just powerful beings nonetheless. Belief in Satan is a similar form of this, so if you can't believe in Mary having powet, than neither does Satan.
Where'd the idea come from? It certainly isn't the Bible or the records of the early Church. By all indications, it's a distinctly Roman innovation based on "tradition", and the only precedent is found in the familiar mother/son god twofer found in a lot of pagan religions.
According to what is actually known and not left up to said tradition, Mary has nothing to do with the dispensation of grace (or channeling God's powet). Satan is not analogous, as he is not an agent of God (though he can be used by Him, as in the case of Job). Also, Satan is an active agent in the world, whereas Mary hasn't been since sometime in the first century.
The Bible clearly states that Jesus is the only intermediary for mankind, and if tradition conflicts with what it says, then I consider it a no-brainer.
While there is no real proof to Mary having Kids, I also believe in it. Otherwise to your other point about Mary not having any powet. The thing, God hears the prayers, and can represent himself through Mary as a maternal figure, which the imagery of Jesus can represent a different things. Her choice by God to sire Jesus (who I don't believe is God reborn, rather just an aspect of God, like Mary, Satan, Angels, even us) makes her special in the fact that for his view on what it was to be human and to reveal something to humanity makes her intrumental in the mythology of it. Praying to a state of Mary or of Jesus is both invoking the same onimoptent powet, just like praying to Vishnu, Buddha, Allah, etc.
Rama ably addressed the subject of Mary's later children, so I won't.
If God hears these prayers, then why go through Mary at all? And why would God need to express Himself through a maternal figure? Where do you get this? It's not in the Bible or early Church history. And for an "aspect of God", then Jesus sure made some outrageous claims to deity and equality with His Father in heaven. If you have issues with the concept of the Trinity, that's one thing, but nothing makes sense, much less Christianity, to one who subscribes to a universalist, pantheistic theology, as you apparently do.
And if I were God, I'd be pissed when people keep calling me by the names they prefer rather than what I prefer. If your girlfriend were named Susan and you kept calling her Tameka, would you blame her for being upset? If God was an unseen, impersonal force (as in St*r WarzzZZ), He would never have had a need for avatars such as those you mentioned, now would He (or, in this case, It)?
The accounts of Jesus were written after his time, which the Muslims see as retarded that we take it as word. The laws of Moses were even worse, written well before their time. The Koran isn't any better either. The commandents were set to a time where there were rampant cults, etc, that the Jews didn't like, so they attributed commandments to God based on common forms of natural and cultural law. The appearence of Jesus negates any prior teachings by nature, since if the laws worked, his appearence would not have been neccessary.
Some believe a book of His sayings was recorded in Aramaic soon after He made them, which was used in the composition of the book of Matthew. This is just based on textual criticism of the manuscripts, which used Aramaic and coarse Greek in it's recording. But in any case, the book of Mark is believed to have been written somewhere between 35 and 55 AD, which is still pretty soon for an autobiography. The only one written late enough to have not included eyewitnesses or critics of the account is John, and the words and doctrine of the other three were found to have been accepted quite early on in the Church. So that's not really a viable argument.
The fact that Muslims see it as foolish is meaningless, particularly when they follow the contradictory teachings received over the adult lifetime of an illiterate man recorded years following his death and never followed any sort of standard and on which not all Muslims today agree are true. You know that in one place the Qur'an states that the Bible is true in all accounts and to treat Jews and Christians as brethren, but later declares it to have been corrupted and the corruptors thereof should be mistreated? Which is it? You got the description of the Qur'an right, but not because it compares favorably in any way to the Bible.
The veracity of Old Testament writings gained a increased respect following the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Something like 95% of the available texts for comparison came out to be matching the Masoretic text, with the discrepancies coming in the form of obvious copy errors and physical damage to the scrolls themselves. While not quite as precise in comparison with the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT of which no extant documents remain but was compiled around the same time as the DDSs), no doctrines or stories or prophecies were altered in a manner that would cause conflict. Given that the text was practically unchanged within the five hundred or so years between the DDSs and the earliest manuscripts we have available elsewhere, chances are they hadn't changed significantly in the previous thousand years. And why would they have, anyway? There are many other ways of verifying OT texts, but that's one of the major ones.
I don't think you understand how OT doctrine relates to the coming of Christ, because if you did, you'd realize that saying Christ's arrival negated anything can't be more wrong. In fact, the coming of Christ verified the testimony of the Hebrew scriptures, whether you look at the order and purpose of Jewish temple worship, the many prophecies of the expected Messiah, or the very purpose of establishing the Jewish people. From the very beginning, well before Moses ever even lived, there was the promise of a Savior, and that the institutions of Judaism were founded to point towards that day. And on the day foretold, Christ came to do the work required to bring this about.
The Islamic Religion regards itself as the sucessive and final form of the religion of Abraham, which Moses and Jesus both preached about. The supposed 'perfection' of the Koran was marred by the Chaos after the expansion stopped, and a plethera of Korans appeared.
If it were truly what it claimed, then every synagogue and church should close its doors, recite the Islamic creed of conversion, and start praying towards Mecca. But it's so wrong on so many levels that it's impossible for any discerning person to take those claims seriously. Everything from Ishmael being the father of the Arabian nation, Abraham erecting the Ka'aba, and its statements concerning Jesus are easily refuted and proven inaccurate.
The world is a complicated place, and the vast representations of God throughout our culture share common grounds when you remove cultural and societal factors. Religion is a tricky thing, but it's mostly mythology. Are you a theology student, because you bring up some interesting arguments, but are tainted with protestant beliefs on Catholicism.
God said in Jeremiah 29:13 that "ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart." But God also said He'd already revealed himself to mankind (Romans 1-2, which explains why the whole world is declared sinful before God), so it's not surprising that they'd have some semblance of morality and conscience. I agree that religion is mostly myth, which is precisely why no other system of belief or theology can compare to the Judeo-Christian faith, despite the occasional parallel (natural, given that He's revealed Himself). Everything else misses the point: we need a way back to God, and there is no other way on our own, save for the One provided for us. And nothing else can stand up to investigation and scrutiny very long...something that no other system has been able to withstand.
I am not a theology student in the formal sense, but I do take seriously the injunctions of I Peter 3:15 and Jude 3, which state, respectively: "...be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear..." "...ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." So I read and study for myself, and I try to find out what others are saying, chell up on them, and address them in some meaningful way. If I'm wrong, and the Bible is a lie or untrustworthy, I might as well say to hell with it all. But I have yet to find anything that stands up to it.
As for my "tainted" views on Catholicism, I don't see myself as the one who's tainted here. Biblically speaking, I am correct...there's no way to honestly defend some of the craziness rampant in that system. A quick and easy (if a little loaded) way to illustrate this is tracing all the ills of the world typically ascribed to Christianity...who was the group actually these things? And who were the ones most often subjected to the horrors of the medieval period? Check up on it. And if I make a good point, does the fact that you discount my views on one topic negate everything else?
It was to promote celibacy in the clergy.
Which is funny, in that a celibate priesthood was not a characteristic of Biblical history. Neither Jewish priests nor Christians (called a "priesthood of believers" by the writer of the book of Hebrews) were commanded to be unmarried...Paul elected to be unmarried because it freed up his schedule, not because of any command.
Celibacy within the priesthood was and is a hallmark of pagan temple worship. It can be readily found in Greek, Babylonian, and Egyptian religious systems. So I assume that was part of Constantine's merging of state religion and Christianity during the fourth century.
-
Ah, the old "can God create a rock too big for Him to lift?" posit
Angels are described as ministering spirits. If I were supreme over all things, I'd like to get somebody else to do the things that need doing around the place, even though I could do it myself. And I'm struggling to see what you're talking about with "souls that transubstantiate" line.
i.e. souls that ascend. And that addage is flawed, because it is a conditional paradox.
Where'd the idea come from? It certainly isn't the Bible or the records of the early Church. By all indications, it's a distinctly Roman innovation based on "tradition", and the only precedent is found in the familiar mother/son god twofer found in a lot of pagan religions.
According to what is actually known and not left up to said tradition, Mary has nothing to do with the dispensation of grace (or channeling God's powet). Satan is not analogous, as he is not an agent of God (though he can be used by Him, as in the case of Job). Also, Satan is an active agent in the world, whereas Mary hasn't been since sometime in the first century.
The Bible clearly states that Jesus is the only intermediary for mankind, and if tradition conflicts with what it says, then I consider it a no-brainer
The Bible was written after the fact by religious zealots. Who's to say what is really going on. All the contradictions don't make it that reliable. Why is John more important that the children of Fatima?
Some believe a book of His sayings was recorded in Aramaic soon after He made them, which was used in the composition of the book of Matthew. This is just based on textual criticism of the manuscripts, which used Aramaic and coarse Greek in it's recording. But in any case, the book of Mark is believed to have been written somewhere between 35 and 55 AD, which is still pretty soon for an autobiography. The only one written late enough to have not included eyewitnesses or critics of the account is John, and the words and doctrine of the other three were found to have been accepted quite early on in the Church. So that's not really a viable argument.
The fact that Muslims see it as foolish is meaningless, particularly when they follow the contradictory teachings received over the adult lifetime of an illiterate man recorded years following his death and never followed any sort of standard and on which not all Muslims today agree are true. You know that in one place the Qur'an states that the Bible is true in all accounts and to treat Jews and Christians as brethren, but later declares it to have been corrupted and the corruptors thereof should be mistreated? Which is it? You got the description of the Qur'an right, but not because it compares favorably in any way to the Bible.
The veracity of Old Testament writings gained a increased respect following the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Something like 95% of the available texts for comparison came out to be matching the Masoretic text, with the discrepancies coming in the form of obvious copy errors and physical damage to the scrolls themselves. While not quite as precise in comparison with the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT of which no extant documents remain but was compiled around the same time as the DDSs), no doctrines or stories or prophecies were altered in a manner that would cause conflict. Given that the text was practically unchanged within the five hundred or so years between the DDSs and the earliest manuscripts we have available elsewhere, chances are they hadn't changed significantly in the previous thousand years. And why would they have, anyway? There are many other ways of verifying OT texts, but that's one of the major ones.
I don't think you understand how OT doctrine relates to the coming of Christ, because if you did, you'd realize that saying Christ's arrival negated anything can't be more wrong. In fact, the coming of Christ verified the testimony of the Hebrew scriptures, whether you look at the order and purpose of Jewish temple worship, the many prophecies of the expected Messiah, or the very purpose of establishing the Jewish people. From the very beginning, well before Moses ever even lived, there was the promise of a Savior, and that the institutions of Judaism were founded to point towards that day. And on the day foretold, Christ came to do the work required to bring this about.
Never heard that argument. It fails considering the great lengths his people would have made to preserved Jesus's writings. I've read and studied the Qumran scrolls, and Jesus wasn't the Jewish messiah, he was something else. The proof is in the pudding, and things attributed to the Messiah never happened with Jesus.
If it were truly what it claimed, then every synagogue and church should close its doors, recite the Islamic creed of conversion, and start praying towards Mecca. But it's so wrong on so many levels that it's impossible for any discerning person to take those claims seriously. Everything from Ishmael being the father of the Arabian nation, Abraham erecting the Ka'aba, and its statements concerning Jesus are easily refuted and proven inaccurate.
Tell that to all the Muslims in the middle East, because they would say you're wrong and that is happening. Religion is fun, isn't it? :)
God said in Jeremiah 29:13 that "ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart." But God also said He'd already revealed himself to mankind (Romans 1-2, which explains why the whole world is declared sinful before God), so it's not surprising that they'd have some semblance of morality and conscience. I agree that religion is mostly myth, which is precisely why no other system of belief or theology can compare to the Judeo-Christian faith, despite the occasional parallel (natural, given that He's revealed Himself). Everything else misses the point: we need a way back to God, and there is no other way on our own, save for the One provided for us. And nothing else can stand up to investigation and scrutiny very long...something that no other system has been able to withstand.
I am not a theology student in the formal sense, but I do take seriously the injunctions of I Peter 3:15 and Jude 3, which state, respectively: "...be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear..." "...ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." So I read and study for myself, and I try to find out what others are saying, chell up on them, and address them in some meaningful way. If I'm wrong, and the Bible is a lie or untrustworthy, I might as well say to hell with it all. But I have yet to find anything that stands up to it.
As for my "tainted" views on Catholicism, I don't see myself as the one who's tainted here. Biblically speaking, I am correct...there's no way to honestly defend some of the craziness rampant in that system. A quick and easy (if a little loaded) way to illustrate this is tracing all the ills of the world typically ascribed to Christianity...who was the group actually these things? And who were the ones most often subjected to the horrors of the medieval period? Check up on it. And if I make a good point, does the fact that you discount my views on one topic negate everything else
The fallacies in the bible extend well beyond what alot of people think is in there. The Bible is the word of man, not God. If it were the true word of God, every civilization on Earth would posess it, it would be written in the stars. The development of cultures over time has produced thousands of religions, and despite western powet, Judeo Christian beliefs are not as big as some other heavy wieghts like Hinduism, the varied local tribal beliefs that continue to exist in many countries, and Buddhism.
The celibacy issue is outdated, you should have read my other posts on it.
The Catholics and the Protestants are both wrong in many ways, and any 'wrongs' the Catholics did in the past is compounded with the wrongs the protestants have done and are doing now. Some people can accept religion and not care, others turn it into their lives, and that is a dangerous thing for humanity. America's founding fathers knew it, and they would be astonished to see the state of the world currently. I am a Catholic Deist and I accept all other religions as aspects of God. ^^
Have you read the LotR stuff in relation to JudeoChristian structure? The Gnostic dualism in it is quite nice. I only read LotRs recently because a professor was using it to discuss dualism and modern views on Christianity.
-
LOTR is NOT an allegory to judeochristian anything. Did your professor try to present it that way? If I'd been there I would've owned him in front of the entire class.
-
...no, that's not it, you misunderstand.
Tolkien was a very religious man, and his presentation of the mythology, especially in the Silmarillion, serve as a unifier of World Religions. The role of Archangels and Angels and adversaries all play out like a religion would, with obvious references to existing mythos.
-
Did you read somewhere that he intended his work to serve as a unifier of world religion? Cause I can think of 2 accounts to the contrary off hand. One in a letter from tolkien himself and another from chris tolkien. The Sil is in no way a shout-out to christianity. He despised allegory with a passion and probably wouldn't approve of your professor, but he's dead so no one can stop this...
except me...
*takes down 2 handed sword from it's wall hanging*
-
o.o
The elves represent a Buddhist philosophy, reincarnating and watching the world die to it's end. The process of Nirvana is different...
Eru Illuvitar is God, and the various Vala are the archangels/gods (note lowercase) while Melkor is Satan, the adversary and twister of life. The Maiar are angels, etc.
The various heroes in the Silmarillion are representations of various myths from around the world, notably Norse, Indian, Greek, and Celtic.
There is more, but I am working on another paper on another subject, but if you wanna discuss more I can tonight.
-
The various heroes part of your statement I agree with. The rest I think is poop. Do you have sources?
I mean I'm not saying someone can't draw those parallels but according to tolkien he didn't and I'm not sure but I think it irked him that people were trying to draw religious allegory into LOTR. I'd have to find that letter.
-
I'm sure he didn't like it, but he wrote it. I have a book somewhere around here.
-
It's possible that Tolkien took elements of real religion and added them together into the religion of Middle Earth.
However, I do remember him saying he didn't want people trying to find deeper meaning in LOTR. He even said there was no deeper meaning (even though I know for a fact you could compare the Ents to enviromentalism, and Gandalf to Jesus).
Imagine you're a fetus. Imagine that you as a fetus can form cognizant thoughts and observe your surroundings. On one hand, your dad's an incestuous child abusing son of a bitch, and on the other hand, your mother is a hurt, confused, and scared teenager. Now you're going to die over it. So, for you, the world would be pretty black and white.
I have trouble accepting your argument because you're religious and that usually makes people biased against things like abortion.
For one thing, I'm pro-choice. It's between the Mother, the Doctor, and whatever God they believe in. Second thing, you're thinking that children have the capability to reason like an adult while in the womb, where in fact, the child has mental capabilities comparable to a small mammal, at best. The way I see it, the mother has every right to get rid of this fetus as long as the fetus is in her body and not surviving on it's own outside of the womb. How can you call something a lifeform if it relies on the mother to survive?
After taking history and knowing about how people dealt with unwanted children in the past, from infacide, leaving the child out in the elements, throwing the baby out with the trash, selling the child into slavery, taking various herbs and potions to force a misscarrage, and even hitting the woman in the stomach to kill the baby... I'd perfer the safe, legal form of abortion. And before you say only pagans did these things, I know for a fact Catholics and Christians did some of them as well.
Also, if I was a baby, and I knew my mother was a teenage whore, and my dad's my uncle and a 40 year old truck driver, I'd abort myself!
-
Frodo would actually be more Jesus like, since Gandalf never personally set out to endure hardship for salvation of everyone. Frodo figured he was going to die on his quest, especially towards the end, and that's why he left to the west at the end of the world, because he felt he did die, therefore didn't belong there anymore.
How fucking dorky is this? The movies kicked ass, though.
-
I can draw parallels to samwise being Frankenberry but the point is the author came foward and said all this means nothing more than it is.
-
IDE, will you bear my children?
Doug, I have two small mammals in the next room who could out-reason a lot of larger mammals, like humans. And, since you depend on your mom for damn near everything, you are not a life-form by your definition.
-
IDE, will you bear my children?
500 OF'M! (http://www.compfused.com/directlink/305/)
-
And that addage is flawed, because it is a conditional paradox.
I would say it's flawed because God wouldn't do something so stupid...the whole "do not tempt the Lord thy God" thing rears up.
The Bible was written after the fact by religious zealots. Who's to say what is really going on. All the contradictions don't make it that reliable. Why is John more important that the children of Fatima?
This is a common complaint against the Bible, which means the one saying it can conveniently ignore what it has to say. Try naming some contradictions...any conceivable "contradiction" can be either logically debunked or countered with a more sensible position that agrees with what the Bible has to say. The fact that it had been agreed upon many years prior to the establishment of the Roman church and that so much textual backup can be studied that robs it of any pre-eminence means that I can rely upon what it has to say on matters of Christian faith.
John is reliable because what he had to say did not contradict any doctrine presented elsewhere in the Bible. The fact that he was one of the eyewitnesses of Christ also gives him credence. The children of Fatima are unreliable because they were bowing to an idol...which is expressly condemned in the Old and New Testaments. Christians are not to consult with spirits. Plus, they echo what many other Marian witnesses had to say, which in turn echoes what many occultic religions have to say about God and religion.
Never heard that argument. It fails considering the great lengths his people would have made to preserved Jesus's writings. I've read and studied the Qumran scrolls, and Jesus wasn't the Jewish messiah, he was something else. The proof is in the pudding, and things attributed to the Messiah never happened with Jesus.
You've never heard the source theory? It's pretty basic. And lack of old works is not uncommon with that period...there are references to many such non-existent works in ancient literature. But in any case, it's unimportant, as it's just conjecture...the fact remains that the books weren't written "too late" to be considered authentic. The last one came sixty years later...which is pretty good, considering the only people of that day who even had biographies written about them were the caesars, pharoahs, etc.
And if you've actually studied the DSS, you'd realize that they're in almost verbatim agreement with the Masoretic text of the Hebrew scriptures. And anyone who's ever seriously studied Biblical prophecy will note that most of it is dual in nature, pointing to either two separate fulfillments or partial fulfillment with a followup. Besides, the fact that there's a time limit presented in Daniel means Messiah has already come or the God of the Bible's a liar/fake/non-existent/take your pick. And one only needs to read what Jesus has to say about Himself to realize what is going on with His purpose. That's why the New Testament is there...but you apparently have discounted it in any of your studies.
Tell that to all the Muslims in the middle East, because they would say you're wrong and that is happening. Religion is fun, isn't it?
The Muslim take on apologetics is "everything in your Bible is corrupt, read the Qur'an instead...in Arabic, if you want to know what it really says". It forgets that the Qur'an in earlier surahs honors both the Bible and the Jews and Christians as "people of the book". That's one of numerous problems with the Qur'an...see also the creation of man, religious compulsion, the first Muslim, is drinking good or bad, etc. So where is it correct? Muslims are on no stronger theological ground than Mormons or JWs...people are just scared to confront it because of the Salmon Rushdie factor.
The fallacies in the bible extend well beyond what alot of people think is in there. The Bible is the word of man, not God. If it were the true word of God, every civilization on Earth would posess it, it would be written in the stars. The development of cultures over time has produced thousands of religions, and despite western powet, Judeo Christian beliefs are not as big as some other heavy wieghts like Hinduism, the varied local tribal beliefs that continue to exist in many countries, and Buddhism.
The celibacy issue is outdated, you should have read my other posts on it.
The Catholics and the Protestants are both wrong in many ways, and any 'wrongs' the Catholics did in the past is compounded with the wrongs the protestants have done and are doing now. Some people can accept religion and not care, others turn it into their lives, and that is a dangerous thing for humanity. America's founding fathers knew it, and they would be astonished to see the state of the world currently. I am a Catholic Deist and I accept all other religions as aspects of God. ^^
Have you read the LotR stuff in relation to JudeoChristian structure? The Gnostic dualism in it is quite nice. I only read LotRs recently because a professor was using it to discuss dualism and modern views on Christianity.
The Bible was written by man...in fact, around 40 men over a period of 1600 years. Yet is remains consistent and agrees with itself throughout. You talk about fallacies, but present none. You cite the fact that not everyone in the world has the Bible, but ignore that the same God that inspired the Bible also created the world and thereby revealed Himself. I've already addressed this and won't reiterate. And we see how well the societies who've fully adopted Hinduism and Buddhism fare. They're very blessed, all right.
I won't disagree that wrongs have been committed by Catholics and Protestants...Christians are no more perfect than any other person. But I'm neither Catholic nor Protestant, so I don't carry any guilt over their corporate transgressions. Not that you could legitimately lay the faults of any groups former leaders at the feet of all those who happen to share general beliefs. But anyway.
You can give yourself whatever label you like...but a "Catholic Deist"? That's like calling myself a "Baptist Agnostic". You're not in good standing with your affiliated church, and under its decrees, you must adhere to its teachings or risk losing your standing within it. Or at least having it burned out of you in purgatory. As for "turning religion into your life" being dangerous, your religion is just a feelgood sentiment if it has no bearing on your life. The world works on morals, and everyone has them in some form...as much as some would like to have it otherwise. Yes, I've read LotR, as well as Silmarillion and History of Middle Earth. But it's not a commentary or exposition or whatever...it just uses the writers personal beliefs to form a structure to build off of. Tolkien himself said that any other application one finds within it is just their way of looking at it since nothing was intended to be taken from it. People just try to read way too much religious meaning into it, just like they do in the documents of the Founding Fathers. Guaranteeing religious freedom was of great importance to them, which is why they used more universal terms in those documents. It's not because they worried about people getting "too religious"...they didn't want government to establish its own.
have trouble accepting your argument because you're religious and that usually makes people biased against things like abortion.
You realize that you just admitted you can't overcome your personal bias to hear what someone of an opposing opinion has to say.
For one thing, I'm pro-choice. It's between the Mother, the Doctor, and whatever God they believe in. Second thing, you're thinking that children have the capability to reason like an adult while in the womb, where in fact, the child has mental capabilities comparable to a small mammal, at best. The way I see it, the mother has every right to get rid of this fetus as long as the fetus is in her body and not surviving on it's own outside of the womb. How can you call something a lifeform if it relies on the mother to survive?
So you are calling children nothing but a parasitic life form. Bravo! Show that motherly love!
After taking history and knowing about how people dealt with unwanted children in the past, from infacide, leaving the child out in the elements, throwing the baby out with the trash, selling the child into slavery, taking various herbs and potions to force a misscarrage, and even hitting the woman in the stomach to kill the baby... I'd perfer the safe, legal form of abortion. And before you say only pagans did these things, I know for a fact Catholics and Christians did some of them as well.
I don't care who did it or what methods they used to accomplish it. The point is that I don't feel it should be done. The fact that Christians would do it makes me question the seriousness of their faith.
Also, if I was a baby, and I knew my mother was a teenage whore, and my dad's my uncle and a 40 year old truck driver, I'd abort myself!
It sure would have saved me the trouble of commenting on this ;)
-
Jesus christ, hold old was that? MOVE ON MAN!
-
But Christianity is timeless. Christianity and the pencil skirt.
-
This thread is about bitch impregnating me now.
-
As if your barren uterus could ever bear her a child.
-
My awesome penis more than makes up for it.
-
I'm not jealous, I said! Leave me alone!
-
My penis is weak compared to the awesome powet of Bitch's.
-
So's Ron Jeremy's, in comparison.
-
I'm remembering my mother telling me that she was against abortion, so I'd better damn well not make her have to take me to have one! :lol:
And, yes, she was serious. She probably would have taken me in the trunk under cover of darkness so the neighbors wouldn't see. My dad was a rather well-known interior designer, and there was no way in Hell a bastard child would have been risked. This attitude isn't unusual amongst people who feel that their social position could be jepoardized by such, hence many entires in the "only moral abortion is my abortion" files.
Funny - with that attitude, you'd think she would have been happy to find out about my high school girlfriend. But noooooo..... :P
-
That is so hot.