And you end with pretty much the point I'm talking about. "You can all go fuck yourselves" - intolerance for no reason
QuoteYou mean victory to the atheist scientists.
i assumed that i was rejecting christian scientists by the use of "scientists" by definition, but yes - many thanks for the clarification.QuoteCry some more bitch.
tears of joy at another victory over the ignorant masses.
where is your god now?
QuoteINTERNET VICTORY. Man your life must be pitiful.
it is so shallow and hollow, i don't know how i wake up each morning without Gods divine blessing :(
what happeend to hollywood's well thought out replies? suddenly they have degraded to "u r a loser"
what happeend to hollywood's well thought out replies? suddenly they have degraded to "u r a loser"
+ sin causes cancer, and if there was no sin, there would be no cancer
+ miscarriages are caused by one partner not loving the baby enough
+ deaths in your family are caused by premarital sex
+ science is fraud and is designed to destroy the truth (i.e. the catholic faith)
If Jesus ever comes back, he'd better learn how to troll otherwise that wimpy motherfucker is gonna get schooled.
If Jesus ever comes back, he'd better learn how to troll otherwise that wimpy motherfucker is gonna get schooled.
Dude, if Jesus is reading this thread right now he's gonna go all second coming on your ass.
QuoteJesus, is that what unfiltered Catholicism is like? Makes me glad that I was mostly educated by Jesuits, who were pretty awesome to me and actually told me some good things.
my wife had to stop me from walking out - she's from a Portuguese catholic family, but i was pretty much absolutely enraged.
the funniest part was the final "mass" part - where we had a full 2 hour service, and just as we got to communion, the priest pipes up with "you can only receive communion if you have not had premarital sex"
of the 16 couples, only 1 couple went up and it was this french couple who were pretty much fucking eachother in the church (which caused everyone to laugh).
It was amazing, we then got a 1 hour shouting lesson on why we were all sinners and how we would burn in hell.
I was already detached from the church, but by the end of this farce i was pretty much of the opinion that they are so far removed from the modern day person that they are basically completely irrelevant.
I mean, my ex has cancer, i have friends who have had miscarriages - i wanted to shout at someone by the end.
and his big proof of God? again... laughable
> "who believes life could exist on another planet?"
>> i put my hand up along with several other people
> "why do you believe?"
>> because it's statistically likely in an incredible large universe that somewhere there is a small tiny microbe
> "yet there is no evidence yet you believe"
>> yes, becuase statistically it i....
> "yet why do people not believe in God?"
... at this point, it was unwise to say "because there is zero evidence?" as i could not get married in the church of my wifes choice if we didn't get a certificate of GOD WORTHINESS so i had to shut my mouth.
:/
most depressing two or three days of my life, i got taken aside at the end and got a 30 minute lecture on how weak and stupid i was. I was fucking seething.QuoteMaybe back in dcharlie's dayhold your horses here!
this was taught to me in 2006!!!!!!
Premarriage cana.
the irony is i went to a Roman Catholic school, was taught by nuns and priests who actually said "it is unrealistic for the catholic church to expect young Christians to abstain from premaritail sex" and that was in 1987 or so.
Did he make you read Longfellow and paint tribal signs on your hairless pre-pubescent chest?
I thought you got taught this in school. I think all those premarriage things are to create Catholic families with a dozen children so the Church has fresh young blood.QuoteMaybe back in dcharlie's dayhold your horses here!
this was taught to me in 2006!!!!!!
Premarriage cana.
the irony is i went to a Roman Catholic school, was taught by nuns and priests who actually said "it is unrealistic for the catholic church to expect young Christians to abstain from premaritail sex" and that was in 1987 or so.
I thought you got taught this in school. I think all those premarriage things are to create Catholic families with a dozen children so the Church has fresh young blood.QuoteMaybe back in dcharlie's dayhold your horses here!
this was taught to me in 2006!!!!!!
Premarriage cana.
the irony is i went to a Roman Catholic school, was taught by nuns and priests who actually said "it is unrealistic for the catholic church to expect young Christians to abstain from premaritail sex" and that was in 1987 or so.
Like TVC said I think it depends on the parish/diocese and priest.
I thought you got taught this in school. I think all those premarriage things are to create Catholic families with a dozen children so the Church has fresh young blood.QuoteMaybe back in dcharlie's dayhold your horses here!
this was taught to me in 2006!!!!!!
Premarriage cana.
the irony is i went to a Roman Catholic school, was taught by nuns and priests who actually said "it is unrealistic for the catholic church to expect young Christians to abstain from premaritail sex" and that was in 1987 or so.
Like TVC said I think it depends on the parish/diocese and priest.
The carnival is over
The carnival is over. I do hope cynicism wasn’t the dominant note struck by my blogs during World Youth Day week.
The so called “ecclesial movements” like the Neo Catechumenal Way, soon to be performing at a western or northern suburb near you, did an efficient job of cheerleading.
How many members of these cashed-up, highly trained motivated and deployed troops infiltrated WYD? There must have been thousands.
Good on them for managing to get the next WYD booked for Madrid, Spain. That’s the place where both they and Opus Dei were founded. So it’s off home to the land of extremes to confront the secular humanist state on its own inherited blood stained patch. Bone up on the history of the Iberian Peninsula and see what I mean.
As the WYD final weekend of finery unfolded, finishing with the latest Australian envoy to the Vatican, Tim Fisher, kissing the Pope’s hand, little catholic churches all around the world read the gospel of the “weeds and wheat”.
“Let both grow together”, said Jesus. “None of your business to become weed terminators.” Weeds and wheat share the same natural environment. The Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us. Catholics must become flesh and dwell amongst the general population. Jesus is really and truly present in the bread of the Sacrament. But He is also really and truly present in the minds and hearts of individual humans and collective humanity.
The commissioned pilgrims, hopefully, found what they came to find, the sacred in the secular. Now let them spend what’s left of their youth finding the sacred in their secular homelands, most of which are as blood stained as Spain, lest we forget.
I pray that each and every pilgrim will have stashed in his/her boogie board, the Aussie vaccine to the global virus of contaminated religion of whatever brand.
QuoteLook at all the tiny little atheists, think you've got it all figured out.
atheists? we are scientists bitch.
all our work has evidence - i assume as a god botherer you are basing your ballsy attitude on the big black work of fiction and the fact there are millions of other scared people hoping that there is a happy place in the clouds with some blonde haired christ figure once we die?
according to the bible,
+ sin causes cancer, and if there was no sin, there would be no cancer
+ miscarriages are caused by one partner not loving the baby enough
+ deaths in your family are caused by premarital sex
+ science is fraud and is designed to destroy the truth (i.e. the catholic faith)
I can't believe so many people here still believe in god - a magical being used by primitive humans to explain things they just didn't understand. Get with the evolving.
Except that's still the same thing. It's pretty much used to explain how we got here, why we act the way we do, what happens to us after we die, etc. It's just different and more complicated things we can't explain. The basic element of religion is the same.I can't believe so many people here still believe in god - a magical being used by primitive humans to explain things they just didn't understand. Get with the evolving.
That's a bit of an oversimplification.
While preaxial beliefs were essentially an explanation of nature, the more "modern" faiths (Buddhism, Abrahamic religions, modern Hinduism, etc.) are much more based on the concepts of salvation and morality. Those belief systems had cultural foundation in the idea that there is a supernatural, but instead of focusing on "nature god is angry, give him our crops or animals to make him happy so we can survive," they were created on the concept that "following ethical guidelines derived from god/higher power can effect meaningful improvement of the human condition." Miracles and other supernatural feats are part of the culture, so they remain present, but they're basically used to establish that the higher power/god holds power over the universe and therefore is capable of fulfilling those promises of salvation.
Rational Satanism wins again 8)
And for the record, I don't believe that Evangelicals actually are Christian; they are purely Old Testament, with a Christian cultural heritage. Nothing in their actions suggests otherwise. "Jesus" is simply there to give it a neat presentation of goodness and forgiveness, but that's not what these people are about.
Except that's still the same thing. It's pretty much used to explain how we got here, why we act the way we do, what happens to us after we die, etc. It's just different and more complicated things we can't explain. The basic element of religion is the same.I can't believe so many people here still believe in god - a magical being used by primitive humans to explain things they just didn't understand. Get with the evolving.
That's a bit of an oversimplification.
While preaxial beliefs were essentially an explanation of nature, the more "modern" faiths (Buddhism, Abrahamic religions, modern Hinduism, etc.) are much more based on the concepts of salvation and morality. Those belief systems had cultural foundation in the idea that there is a supernatural, but instead of focusing on "nature god is angry, give him our crops or animals to make him happy so we can survive," they were created on the concept that "following ethical guidelines derived from god/higher power can effect meaningful improvement of the human condition." Miracles and other supernatural feats are part of the culture, so they remain present, but they're basically used to establish that the higher power/god holds power over the universe and therefore is capable of fulfilling those promises of salvation.
Hell, basically a futher expansion of the Hades fire and brimstone charactacure passed down through the ages prior to Catholicism , vs. the eternal paradise of heaven (again, not a new idea)
Of course it's different. Science began to take hold and we learned why the rivers flood. We started asking ourselves different questions that we could not explain.Except that's still the same thing. It's pretty much used to explain how we got here, why we act the way we do, what happens to us after we die, etc. It's just different and more complicated things we can't explain. The basic element of religion is the same.I can't believe so many people here still believe in god - a magical being used by primitive humans to explain things they just didn't understand. Get with the evolving.
That's a bit of an oversimplification.
While preaxial beliefs were essentially an explanation of nature, the more "modern" faiths (Buddhism, Abrahamic religions, modern Hinduism, etc.) are much more based on the concepts of salvation and morality. Those belief systems had cultural foundation in the idea that there is a supernatural, but instead of focusing on "nature god is angry, give him our crops or animals to make him happy so we can survive," they were created on the concept that "following ethical guidelines derived from god/higher power can effect meaningful improvement of the human condition." Miracles and other supernatural feats are part of the culture, so they remain present, but they're basically used to establish that the higher power/god holds power over the universe and therefore is capable of fulfilling those promises of salvation.
Not really. The only "explanations" that those beliefs offer aren't explaining anything, but are proposed answers for metaphysical questions: "what happens when we die," "is there a soul," "is there a universal moral code," etc.
It's distinctly different from "why does that river flood," in that it doesn't provide an explanation for events in everyday life which can be explained by science.
You can cite certain things from "modern" faiths like Genesis and the Vedas in which the world is created by supernatural means, or epic stories filled with supernatural occurances like those of the early Jewish prophets, or the adventures of Hindu gods' avatars, but those are ancient stories which are only attached to the rest of the belief because of their cultural relationship, adapted from their ancient sources to impart some kind of moral while entertaining and using culturally relevant concepts such as gods, spirits, and demons.
And for the record, I don't believe that Evangelicals actually are Christian; they are purely Old Testament, with a Christian cultural heritage. Nothing in their actions suggests otherwise. "Jesus" is simply there to give it a neat presentation of goodness and forgiveness, but that's not what these people are about.
Religious expression is ultimately subjective and there will always be interpretative differences between groups, sects, and individuals. Consequently, the talk of real Christians or true Muslims is nonsense.
Wow, lord of the Xbots is a Godless heathen.
Surprise, surprise.
There is no talk of "real" Christians. These guys are, as is evident by their actions and founding beliefs, not Christians. Unless of course by "Christians" you mean people who believe that Christ was the Son of God, but view the actual teachings as merely good stories, that may or may not be all that important to faith and a Christian life. The Old Testament, however, that's The Truth. Verbatim.
They're very much different kinds of religions than what once existed within mythology, but it's there to answer questions anyways. Most people aren't content in not knowing what happens after we die so they latch onto a religion that gives us a fleshed out answer filled with an entire process of judgement and punishment/reward. It's still answering questions, just different ones.
And people were pulling answers from the Bible long ago that can be explained by science. People believed for a long time that the Earth was the center of the universe because God said so. So many of those have just become debunked that it's become a game of semantics and most hardcore faiths latch onto the unprovable metaphysical questions.
It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.
-The Literal Interpretation of Genesis
But the ambiguities of metaphorical words, about which I am next to speak, demand no ordinary care and diligence. In the first place, we must beware of taking a figurative expression literally. For the saying of the apostle applies in this case too: “The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” For when what is said figuratively is taken as if it were said literally, it is understood in a carnal manner. And nothing is more fittingly called the death of the soul than when that in it which raises it above the brutes, the intelligence namely, is put in subjection to the flesh by a blind adherence to the letter. For he who follows the letter takes figurative words as if they were proper, and does not carry out what is indicated by a proper word into its secondary signification ; but, if he hears of the Sabbath, for example, thinks of nothing but the one day out of seven which recurs in constant succession; and when he hears of a sacrifice, does not carry his thoughts beyond the customary offerings of victims from the flock, and of the fruits of the earth.
-The City of God, Chapter 5, "It is a Wretched Slavery Which Takes the Figurative Expressions of Scripture in a Literal Sense."
You're basically saying that if people don't practice Christianity the way you do or would practice it, they're not a not Christians. Honestly, this sounds like something a fundie would say. When people believe in God, believe his son walked on the Earth, and call themselves Christians, take their fucking word for it. There is no platonic ideal of religious worship. Religious expression is subjective.
This sums up my views of religion::rofl :rofl :rofl
[youtube=425,350]JOZQsuLDqBk[/youtube]
You're basically saying that if people don't practice Christianity the way you do or would practice it, they're not a not Christians. Honestly, this sounds like something a fundie would say. When people believe in God, believe his son walked on the Earth, and call themselves Christians, take their fucking word for it. There is no platonic ideal of religious worship. Religious expression is subjective.
I agree with you in principle, but there are some limits. If a person believes in God and Jesus, but also believes that Jesus was an invisible pink unicorn or teapot floating in space (lol irony) who died to alleviate His own boredom, and calls themselves Christian, are they still? Obviously there are very few, if any, examples of this in the real world that are anywhere near as unorthodox, but you get what I mean. The First Church of Invisible Pink Unicorn Jesus could call themselves a special sect of Christianity, and I'll take their word for it that they honestly believe that, but still I can't help but think that they're somehow "doing it wrong." Not to say it's less "worthy" of a religion, but it'd a bit of a misnomer to call it Christianity.
bwahahahahahahahahahaThis sums up my views of religion::rofl :rofl :rofl
[youtube=425,350]JOZQsuLDqBk[/youtube]
There is no talk of "real" Christians. These guys are, as is evident by their actions and founding beliefs, not Christians. Unless of course by "Christians" you mean people who believe that Christ was the Son of God, but view the actual teachings as merely good stories, that may or may not be all that important to faith and a Christian life. The Old Testament, however, that's The Truth. Verbatim.
You're basically saying that if people don't practice Christianity the way you do or would practice it, they're not a not Christians. Honestly, this sounds like something a fundie would say. When people believe in God, believe his son walked on the Earth, and call themselves Christians, take their fucking word for it. There is no platonic ideal of religious worship. Religious expression is subjective.
I never said it was bad. I simply said it serves the same purpose as previous religions.They're very much different kinds of religions than what once existed within mythology, but it's there to answer questions anyways. Most people aren't content in not knowing what happens after we die so they latch onto a religion that gives us a fleshed out answer filled with an entire process of judgement and punishment/reward. It's still answering questions, just different ones.
Of course it's answering questions; that's the point of philosophies and beliefs. But just because it provides a metaphysical answer to a metaphysical question does not mean that it's bad.
I think you're taking offense where there wasn't meant any. I have nothing against religion or the people who worship. But it's meant to answer questions just like anything else. And despite what the Church is doing now, for hundreds of years people did use the Bible as a scientific reference. You'll also find that even people that worshipped Greek and Roman God's began to take it all as a metaphor rather than literal word when their own religions came under scrutiny. The same change has happened to Christianity. The majority of worshippers took the text literally for hundreds and hundreds of years.And people were pulling answers from the Bible long ago that can be explained by science. People believed for a long time that the Earth was the center of the universe because God said so. So many of those have just become debunked that it's become a game of semantics and most hardcore faiths latch onto the unprovable metaphysical questions.
Those "answers" were usually extrapolated from older stories. In the Bible, God never says anything like "this is the center of the universe," people just assumed it because it made sense to them that THE earth was central to creation. Scientific knowledge and reason were used to the best of their ability in such a time; people worked with what they had, and in the days before an established scientific method, that usually amounted to reading various histories, essays, philosophical treatises, and other literature (yes, including the Bible) and trying to interpret an answer that seemed to fit.
It's not as though the idea of Biblical non-literalism was invented by moderates as a response to the Scientific Revolution or Enlightenment. St. Augustine wrote this in 408AD:QuoteIt not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.
-The Literal Interpretation of Genesis
And in 410AD:QuoteBut the ambiguities of metaphorical words, about which I am next to speak, demand no ordinary care and diligence. In the first place, we must beware of taking a figurative expression literally. For the saying of the apostle applies in this case too: “The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” For when what is said figuratively is taken as if it were said literally, it is understood in a carnal manner. And nothing is more fittingly called the death of the soul than when that in it which raises it above the brutes, the intelligence namely, is put in subjection to the flesh by a blind adherence to the letter. For he who follows the letter takes figurative words as if they were proper, and does not carry out what is indicated by a proper word into its secondary signification ; but, if he hears of the Sabbath, for example, thinks of nothing but the one day out of seven which recurs in constant succession; and when he hears of a sacrifice, does not carry his thoughts beyond the customary offerings of victims from the flock, and of the fruits of the earth.
-The City of God, Chapter 5, "It is a Wretched Slavery Which Takes the Figurative Expressions of Scripture in a Literal Sense."
Not to suggest that Augustine and other Christian doctors and writers didn't try to extrapolate scientific answers (which were obviously flawed) from the Bible; in City of God, Augustine also tries to argue that the earth is only around 6000 years old by pointing out contradictions between "pagan" Greek and Egyptian historical documents which referenced pagan deities, and concluded that by faith in the Bible as being God's Word, it must be most accurate. But as said before, that was the best they could come up with, equipped only with a bunch of texts varying in age from thousands of years to a scant few centuries. They were trying to be scientists by taking data and interpreting it with reason and experience, but didn't have the tools or methods.
Ah well, science is a self-correcting process that grows from its mistakes; errors and revisions are an indispensable part of the procedure. That's why the Vatican has had scientific academies and institutions for a long time, to improve understanding and make sure that it becomes more and more unlikely that such thinking will repeat; despite the embarrassing debacle with Galileo* at around the same time there were Vatican astronomers writing papers supporting heliocentricity as a valid theory, the Church has gotten a lot better. The current Pontifical Academy of Sciences, for example, doesn't care whether its members are Catholic, or even Christian, or even believe in God (Heck, Stephen Hawking is a member and one of the priests working there considers Richard Dawkins a friend), but only wants to aid in the furthering of science, to both increase the wealth of human knowledge and to keep the Holy See informed so that it doesn't make decisions based on outdated ideas.
*spoiler (click to show/hide)The "offense" was more about how Galileo seemed to claim that knowledge of the universe was capable without divine aid (remember that the scientific community at the time was mostly Church-run or sponsored), that he seemed to state his results as empirically proven, and he that accidentally came across as mocking of geocentric views during a section featuring a hypothetical debate between a helio- and geocentrist; he had done that before when he and a Jesuit got into an argument over comets which grew into a debate of Science, eventually ending in Galileo writing a scathing parody where he tore the Jesuit a new one... and wrote some things which made a lot Jesuits feel pretty insulted.
Honestly, that the Vatican was very interested in the debate, and Pope Urban VIII liked Galileo's work, even the one where he made fun of the Jesuit (he thought it was great). But Urban was more inclined to heliocentricism (remember, this was the 1600s when there was no definitive evidence either way, merely conjecture based on observations), and when Pope Urban asked that his views be put into the point-counterpoint section of the book, Galileo made heliocentrists (and by extension, the Pope) look a little stupid.
Not defending the Church for going wayyyyyyy out of line, getting butthurt, and bringing Galileo to trial; that was stupid and it's a damn good thing that they finally stopped doing stupid crap like that, and that John Paul II finally apologized for it.[close]
I'm really not trying to convert anyone here, say that religion is faultless, or that modern faiths are wholly original; obviously there are a lot of imagery and ideas that aren't exactly original, and I am well aware that there is an ocean of human error and folly involved in their development. I'm just really interested in how religions developed and how they continue to develop with changing cultures and advances in science.
It just bothers me when a very simplistic view of the history of religion (which is complicated and nuanced, like all history) is put forth like something out of Zeitgeist, citing superficial similarities, mixing up different concepts, and making very general and flawed statements based on ignorance. I don't care if you're an atheist or not, but saying something like "Well, the concept of Heaven is obviously taken from the Greek Olympus, they're both cloudy places ruled by old guys with beards," or even something pro-Christian (but still false) like, "Jesus was the first to preach loving others before oneself, that means He was Son of God!" and I get peeved. It's like saying that the American democracy is basically stolen from Greek democracy, or that America is the best because it was the first country with representative government.
There is no talk of "real" Christians. These guys are, as is evident by their actions and founding beliefs, not Christians. Unless of course by "Christians" you mean people who believe that Christ was the Son of God, but view the actual teachings as merely good stories, that may or may not be all that important to faith and a Christian life. The Old Testament, however, that's The Truth. Verbatim.
You're basically saying that if people don't practice Christianity the way you do or would practice it, they're not a not Christians. Honestly, this sounds like something a fundie would say. When people believe in God, believe his son walked on the Earth, and call themselves Christians, take their fucking word for it. There is no platonic ideal of religious worship. Religious expression is subjective.
I don't believe a person that preaches hatred and intolerance is a Christian, no. I also don't believe that a person who considers it his or her duty to raise soldiers in the name of God is a Christian. Neither is the person who considers it his or her duty to blow up abortion clinics, attack people of "wrong" sexual orientation (either directly physically, through community "efforts" or through legislation).
The modern Evangelical movement is a shameful blotch on what is, according to their own guidelines, a faith of tolerance and enlightenment. They are Old Testament freaks, and even that is in many ways questionable. They use religion (which is really just tradition) as a cover for acute intolerance and, honestly, a fundamental inability to reason on any level above that of a stubborn, jilted and self-centered child. They are the least enlightened. Fascist savages.
I tolerate Christians, despite them basing their entire world view on some good stories, something I personally consider ludicrous. The reason I tolerate it is because hey, that's their choice, and it does me no harm. If it helps them in their lives, then that's great. But if certain "Christians" can show no tolerance for other cultures or lifestyles, because it's supposedly invading and harming what is theirs (again, quite self-centered people), why should those characters be tolerated?
If you're not a seventh day adventist, good luck calling yourself a christian.
If you're not a seventh day adventist, good luck calling yourself a christian.
http://www.wetotallyheartponies.com/glue/01%20Heavens%20Above!.mp3
Just because someone is morally flawed, doesn't mean he or she isn't a Christian. Everyone is morally flawed, some more than others. Depending on how high a standard we want to use, we can say that there are no Christians.
This goes well beyond being "morally flawed" though, it's an absolute disconnect with the whole point of their beloved Gospel.
There is plenty of cruelty and intolerance in the Bible. Specifically, in the Old Testament. They can label themselves Christians, and a community of like minded will of course empower this notion that they are, in fact, preaching the truth and spreading the good news, as opposed to the hate mongering that I see. The only thing New Testament about this movement seems to be in the words they preach, but tend to fail to practice.
If this convenient label that almost automatically awards them a sense of righteous pride would be taken away, leaving nothing but the people and their actions exposed, what would you be looking at? Tolerance, forgiveness, people keen on sacrificing and less keen on collecting (or fiercely safeguarding, at the cost of someone else's life) what's theirs?
I don't at all think Christianity has to follow a single, "correct" line. But the disconnect between what their book preaches and what they practice is in this case quite obvious, don't you agree? It is, however, not so disconnected if you remove the New Testament from the equation.
I don't at all think Christianity has to follow a single, "correct" line. But the disconnect between what their book preaches and what they practice is in this case quite obvious, don't you agree? It is, however, not so disconnected if you remove the New Testament from the equation.
I'm not honestly offended and I'm sorry I came off as "excited," I'm just in a really talky, thinky, typy mood today and had an hour or so of boredom to fill. :loloh make love to me then.
- a world with religion is, i believe, a better world than that without religion. A sense of belonging, community, ethics, morality - the human subjectivity,
Hypothetically, if the religion turns out to be false after we die, what do we lose? We'll just endure an eternal lifeless abyss if there truly isn't an afterlife. And while an afterlife can't be proven, the lack of one can't be proven either, so the possibility is certainly still there.
Hollywood is just a wrestling fan. You shouldn't group him with Christians.
Fuck all of you, nobody gives a fuck about any of you.
I give a fuck about you, Malek.
What I don't understand is that a large number of atheists give themselves this "cause" for being assailants of Christianity and the like. They believe that they are "fighting" for a better world. If you ask me, subconsciously...this "cause" is just an excuse for them to get in my fucking face and blab about how much I am holding humanity back. They fight for the sake of it, and they just need some sort of justification to be an asshole.
Fuck all of you, nobody gives a fuck about any of you.
As a follower of atheistic scientism and rational satanism, Aleister Crowley is my only Jesus.
QuoteWell, you'd have lost all that time praying to a fictional god, going to church, and worrying about engaging in certain activities for fear of eternal retribution.
Would I honestly care? I'd be an inanimate corpse completely devoid of consciousness. It wouldn't matter.
what if you are trapped in your body in the coffin for eternity, still conscious, but cant get out...
oh there we are!
[youtube=425,350]CRSL03fCwLM[/youtube]
http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=CRSL03fCwLM
Not a worry for metaphysical naturalists. Brain death = no more consciousness
QuoteWell, you'd have lost all that time praying to a fictional god, going to church, and worrying about engaging in certain activities for fear of eternal retribution.
Would I honestly care? I'd be an inanimate corpse completely devoid of consciousness. It wouldn't matter.
this "cause" is just an excuse for them to get in my fucking face and blab about how much I am holding humanity back.
"There have always been Christians but they were not always called such"
if i get to heaven and get double penetrated by a unicorn i'll know who to blame