|
So what's the deal? I get that it's the (fake) day of rest for you guys, but you spar for 6 hours straight and then disappear when I ask my question.site posted:having been clinically dead for a couple minutes but not seeing any heaven or hell or anything (was pretty much like being unconscious, conscious before and then just waking up in the hospital), I'm curious as to whether there is some kind of minimum time you have to be dead before you can experience the wonders of the supernatural realm. What's your answer?
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 20:00 |
|
|
Sorry again for the delay, it was stupid of me to post this thread when I had something to do shortly afterwards. Now there's tons of posts, but I'm going to try to select from them.Captain_Maclaine posted:Remind me Kyrie, do you believe in literal demons and witchcraft, or am I confusing you with another zealot? Yes, and magic is real. Hieronymous Alloy posted:If the only thing that matters is Jesus Christ, why does the Catholic church spend so much effort on the veneration of Mary and the various church saints? Don't things like this distract from the pure worship of the Lord? All are relevant only in their connection to Christ, who is God. Venerating saints does not distract from God but rather is a form of honoring God. CommieGIR posted:Prove it. Claims of salvation and damnation without sufficient supporting evidence make little sense. How is Jesus our only salvation versus, say, the flying spaghetti monster? Why is his claims to deity-ship more valid than any other religions claims? The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a silly joke that nobody believes in, whereas our religion built around Christ is the last and only hope of every person. Millions have died with Christ's name on their lips, and our species has been completely and permanently altered by his presence. He is the most important thing that has ever happened, and will be remembered for the rest of time. Nothing else even comes close. My Imaginary GF posted:The figure of jesus in christianity is one of tribal mythology, merged together as an attempt to explain the destruction of the Jewish state without damning one's ancestors to an unsavory afterlife. Jesus was ultimately more popular amongst gentiles than Jews. The Jews have their own explanation for the destruction of Judea (and the earlier Kingdom of Israel), which is essentially the same as Jesus's explanation: divine punishment for infidelity to God. They just don't see the connection between their betrayal of Jesus and the subsequent destruction of Judea. My Imaginary GF posted:Why not use the method of islam, and declare that the earlier a revelation from jesus was received, the more weight it holds and less corrupted it was by human interests? Islam is a major revision from well after the original Christian story was known, so they do not really uphold this standard. Also, my understanding is that interpretation of the Quran is the opposite... later "revelation" is considered to supersede earlier. emfive posted:I bet a lot of 4th century Romans would be pretty amazed that somebody would be flaunting an unshakable belief in all that Christian stuff here 1600 years later. (They'd probably be more impressed with TV or microwave popcorn I guess.) They would be delighted. quote:A thing that for serious puzzles me is how a non-Christian normal person undergoes "conversion" nowadays. I mean, to just decide to start believing a bunch of stuff that somebody explains, no matter how weird it sounds, and then to just accept it as real, well it seems odd and I honestly wonder what sort of experience that would be. A person becomes convinced of the truth of Christ. It seems to become more obvious for many people as they get older, and the more people study the issue with an open mind. Ardennes posted:Wait why is we taken the Roman word on the issue before all others? We should at least give equal voice to Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria. Also the Armenians and Georgians of course. I believe the Roman church has always encouraged unity amongst the church and and cohesion in their doctrine, and I think these are important virtues. Nessus posted:Kyrie, why should I believe in your established religion, when I could instead get in on the ground floor of a more compelling religion - say, Crowley's stuff, which was founded just last century and could presumably be considered more "up to the minute," a new law that supercedes the old, much like the one Jesus brought? In choosing religion, I wouldn't choose one because it is "more modern" but rather "more true"... if you do an honest comparison of their tenets, Christianity is the correct and superior religion. What the other religions get right is also present in Christianity, but the things they get wrong make them lesser. Jesus's law does not really "supersede" the old, rather it is the actual true law which was in place for all time, and will be for all time, whereas the "law" he was correcting contained moral and logical mistakes introduced by human error. quote:Can you structure an argument in this favor that does not rest on either mystical experience (though I feel that that experience can be valid) or on the implicit threat of punishment? Buddhism manages it. The actual "argument" for Buddhism is that by following Buddhist teaching you will be liberated from the endless cycle of reincarnation and your soul will be at peace. "Life is suffering," is what they teach, so essentially the act of being alive is itself a continual Hell for the Buddhist. So, there is an implicit threat that you will "continue to live" and thereby, "continue to suffer." Christ, on the other hand, promises eternal life in place of death. quote:On a lighter note, what do you think of the parallel growth of monasteries in Buddhism and Christianity? I suppose I'd never really thought of it before. Going to stop here just to break things up a bit, but I'll continue reading through the thread and writing replies to posts that interest me in another post.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
Does god speak to you through your action doll collection?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
Kyrie, thank you for posting responses to questions I asked and assertions I made. I asked this in the middle of the dumb atheist vs. christian stuff a few pages ago, but I think I would prefer an answer from you on the topic, since you're posting in what appears to be good faith (lol). How would you describe the distinction between the conversation a devoted atheist might have with a Christian friend about changing the friend's beliefs, as contrasted with how a devoted Catholic might speak to an atheist friend with hope to convert that friend? I mean, objectively, aside from your ironclad belief in your faith, how do you think those two hypothetical conversations are different?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:
Now, explain why this bit is true without using circular logic. This is the only part that actually matters. But just to be picky: Also how do you deal with the really obvious fact that Christianity began as an end-times religion and Jesus was very clearly stating that the end was nigh? You just deny it through a string of really improbable explanations that all the stuff about how quickly things were going to end and how everyone should give up everything, including leaving their families, that was actually meant in a long-term allegorical way even though there isn't anything that Jesus says that would ever give that impression?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
Have you seen someone cast a spell
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
Caros posted:The suggestion in your reply is that if I am a good man then you believe I can still end up in heaven by virtue of the forgiveness of god. Your initial post however clearly states that if I attempt to save myself by any method that ignores, bypasses or otherwise denies christ it is going to fail. So if I am a muslim who lives a good, pious life but still deny that Christ is the child of god, according to you I am going to end up in hell, but I am also likely to be forgiven by god. So I'm confused. It is the official teaching that we are not certain who is saved. Christians are obligated to "hope" for the salvation of all, but to trust in God's righteous judgment. The path we recommend for greater assurance of salvation is following the commandments set out by Jesus, which includes rites such as baptism. quote:More important to this I think is the arbitrary nature of god as you're discussing him. Will I end up in heaven? Maybe, depends on what god's mood is that day I suppose. God's final judgment will be perfect and permanent. Caros posted:Yeah, that is basically my view on it. When I was young a friend of mine committed suicide after she had a miscarriage. If you would say that an unwed pregnant teenager who killed herself would probably end up in hell, then I'd simply say that god is some malicious force no different from an abusive parent on a universal scale. While suicide is considered a sin, there is still no certainty that the person will go to Hell. The Church prays for the souls of those who commit suicide. ThirdPartyView posted:The best analysis of Christianity is the final scene of "There Will Be Blood". It merely confirms that Eli was a charlatan. A Winner is Jew posted:Jesus the person was a cool hippie, but the only "christian" that I've ever known to actually follow his teaching was Fred Rogers, who was also cool. He was a good man. CommieGIR posted:The thing about miracles, is that they either tend not to exist, or have an actual natural explanation. This has happened time and time again, there has never been a 'verified' miracle. I believe that the existence of nature itself, or of our conscious minds, both qualify as readily available examples of "miracles". Both are staggering in their majesty. As for other miracles, such as turning water into wine or healing the sick, or intercessory prayer through a Saint helping someone, or the Resurrection, or miracles such as receiving wisdom or strength or other gifts from God, are "worthy of belief." McDowell posted:I don't think this thread is good for Debate and Discussion, OP. You might be right, actually, the pace was faster here than I thought. quote:But I disagree strongly with any Earthly church being the one true faith. True Christianity is about rejecting the material and embracing selflessness to the mortal extreme. Any church that encourages people to live a full life on Earth is serving Earthly interests, not celestial. I'll let the most recent incarnation of the being you know as Jesus Christ explain further: That man is selling rationale for suicide to those who want to believe in suicide. Christianity teaches that life is good, and that things in life are good, but also that suffering is noble and just. The Church rejects asceticism as a teaching, instead taking a moderated position. CommieGIR posted:I think you don't understand why its an ethnocentrism. Christianity opposes "ethnocentrism" as a core argument, with examples such as the good Samaritan, or its initial appeal to gentiles. Judaism is an ethnocentric religion. Today, Christianity is less popular in Europe but still popular in other places such as Latin America and parts of Asia and Africa. It is the most ethnically diverse religion that exists, and probably the most culturally and ethnically diverse organization of any kind. But I realize you were using ethnocentrism to really mean, a prioritization of humanity over other creatures. Christianity does not teach that humans are superior to hypothetical alien species and I'm sure the Church would try to foster good relations with them if we were achieved contact. Rather, the Church teaches that humans are a corrupted and fallen species who need to be saved by the mercy of God, who has incarnated himself as a human out of his love for us, and to show us that a sinless life is possible with the support of the Father. McDowell posted:Early Christians willing went to their deaths to demonstrate their faith to the Roman world. Heaven's Gate emerged at the height of the Pax Americana and demonstrated their faith similarly. Planet Earth's recycling has begun. The early Christians were heavily persecuted and put to death by the Roman government. Heaven's Gate were a bunch of suicidal people that reinforced a bunch of religious mumbo-jumbo amongst each other to make their collective suicide easier. Zeno-25 posted:Without a literal belief in the Genesis creation story, there is no such thing as original sin, and thus no reason for Jesus. Without original sin Christianity collapses as a coherent belief system. There did have to be a first human. Original sin is our base human tendency to sin which we "inherit" just simply by being born into this species; you could consider it analogous to genetic behaviors if you like. Christianity acknowledges that we need forgiveness for our tendency towards sin, and spiritual and communal assistance in stopping particularly grave sins. OK, will move through the replies a bit quicker now, want to get caught up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Also how do you deal with the really obvious fact that Christianity began as an end-times religion and Jesus was very clearly stating that the end was nigh? You just deny it through a string of really improbable explanations that all the stuff about how quickly things were going to end and how everyone should give up everything, including leaving their families, that was actually meant in a long-term allegorical way even though there isn't anything that Jesus says that would ever give that impression? Watch the Heaven's Gate video. He was telling people to give up everything because human activities sustain the lower forces that are limited to Earth-like planets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
To what sect do you belong, Kyrie?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Heaven's Gate were a bunch of suicidal people that reinforced a bunch of religious mumbo-jumbo amongst each other to make their collective suicide easier. Romans would have said the same thing about Christians, who at the time were a splinter group of the suicidal Hebrews.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:That man is selling rationale for suicide to those who want to believe in suicide. Christianity teaches that life is good, and that things in life are good, but also that suffering is noble and just. The Church rejects asceticism as a teaching, instead taking a moderated position. Are we talking about the Catholic Church? Why is the Church's position relevant? The Church is an institution of men, one which has spent large periods of its history as an agent of horrific evil and political self-enrichment, and has generally done a hilariously terrible job at advocating Christ's brand of good deeds. Why is their moderate stance relevant? Warning your followers away from asceticism seems like a stance of convenience meant to placate an audience who believes, but doesn't believe hard enough to break a sweat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
Is kyrie eleison that guy who believed that because even a perfect safety net could never match the Glory of the Lord we should slash all taxes and eliminate the welfare system?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
Ah, thanks for the reply.Kyrie eleison posted:In choosing religion, I wouldn't choose one because it is "more modern" but rather "more true"... if you do an honest comparison of their tenets, Christianity is the correct and superior religion. What the other religions get right is also present in Christianity, but the things they get wrong make them lesser. Jesus's law does not really "supersede" the old, rather it is the actual true law which was in place for all time, and will be for all time, whereas the "law" he was correcting contained moral and logical mistakes introduced by human error. To me it seems like Christianity has strong, emotionally moving moral arguments which are wrapped in an excellent narrative core, but are also connected with profound dedication to several arbitrary-seeming doctrines. These doctrines then seem to be so profoundly and deeply wedded to the root of the religion that they make the entire thing seem like a farce. The doctrine of Hell is rather disgusting but is at least consistent; however, to me at least, the strange weirdness of the Trinity (and the insistent that despite this, it's a monotheistic religion) and some other details. Were these mere questions of medieval philosophy which were held to be true but irrelevant to the daily work of salvation, it would be one thing, but these appear to be key tenets of faith even into the modern day. quote:The actual "argument" for Buddhism is that by following Buddhist teaching you will be liberated from the endless cycle of reincarnation and your soul will be at peace. "Life is suffering," is what they teach, so essentially the act of being alive is itself a continual Hell for the Buddhist. So, there is an implicit threat that you will "continue to live" and thereby, "continue to suffer." Christ, on the other hand, promises eternal life in place of death. It would also seem that Christ promises eternal life for some people - not for all people - while the Buddha is held to have worked for the relief of suffering for all sentient beings. What's more, it would seem to be easy to frame Christ's words as saying "The best thing you can do for people is compel them into this religion, because what would - say - a year of torture and agony be compared to the eternal blessings of Heaven."
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
emfive posted:What's the philosophical framework that leads to Christianity (or any faith) being something that must be disproven as opposed to being demonstrated as factual? There is no proof aside for the testimony of early Christians, the success of Christianity itself, and any subsequent miracles. We believe that miracles occur at every Mass, as the bread and wine is transubstantiated to the Body and Blood of Christ before our very eyes. Any scientific analysis will reveal it to have all of the properties of bread and wine, but in a similar way, we have Dr. Manhattan giving his opinion on the materially inobservable nature of life itself:  And yet, the spiritual effect the consecrated Eucharist has on a believer is substantial in a way simple bread and wine are not. Rodatose posted:Jesus was a thug traveling with a gang who made their own thug culture. People want to glorify his death but he was no angel. Look at his rap sheet, it's filled with uppity defiance of the authorities and vandalism/blatant disregard for property rights. Jesus said that theft is wrong in Matthew 19:18, reiterating the Ten Commandments. His "disregard for property rights" in the Temple was not theft or even destruction, but rather a sign of his anger for the profaning of a holy place. Not once did Jesus advocate for any physical violence or destruction. WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Christianity is a false religion that has abandoned God's commandments as faithfully passed down through the generations by his chosen people. In Mark 2:23-27, Jesus is confronted by Pharisees (who are the ancestors of the Talmudic rabbis) about people picking grain on the Sabbath. Jesus quoted Scripture back at them, referencing a time that David himself, in his hunger, had eaten consecrated bread which was only for priests to eat. And yet, we would agree that David did nothing wrong in that circumstance, as he was a holy man and was very hungry. Jesus's conclusion is that "Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." Sabbath is meant to be a day of rest and a holy day, but orthodox Jews take it to an extreme level which violates the intent. Generally speaking, Jesus favors the "spirit of the law" over the "letter of the law". My Imaginary GF posted:How can you reconcile 'Holy Spirit' with the 2nd and 3rd commandments? The Holy Spirit is not a purely Christian invention, but is referenced in the OT as inspiring holy men such as the prophets to speak with the voice of God, and the prophets did often speak as if they were God himself condemning and warning those around them (for which they were largely despised by others). But the prophets were right! I'm assuming you mean the 1st and 2nd commandments by the Catholic numbering. The Holy Spirit is not something other than God, nor is it a graven image, nor is it taking the Lord's holy name in vain. CommieGIR posted:Please. This is really poor thinking, even if we accept that many people in the West accept the findings of science on faith alone, the science itself is still testable and falsifiable in the end. This is the entire reason for peer review, so that others can demonstrate the validity or invalidity of a hypothesis. Its also why many scientists and scientific groups push for open access, so that the public CAN verify the science for themselves without the need for their own lab. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says of science: quote:159 Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth." "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are." Mistreatment of Galileo is regrettable, but a Catholic priest was the first to propose the Big Bang Theory, and the Church has been active in science throughout much of history, and considers science and religion compatible. There is some reason to question the "peer review" sort of scientific "orthodoxy", though, which is not as certain or uncorruptable as many of its adherents would claim. fade5 posted:Nah, there's a religious Ask/Tell thread that I read/post in that Kyrie poo poo up/trolled a while back, was probated for, and then later came back into the thread and apologized. Well I was just being too ironic and nasty but none of that is really necessary. I'm trying to behave myself reasonably well in this thread. site posted:Anyways, having been clinically dead for a couple minutes but not seeing any heaven or hell or anything (was pretty much like being unconscious, conscious before and then just waking up in the hospital), I'm curious as to whether there is some kind of minimum time you have to be dead before you can experience the wonders of the supernatural realm. Not to question your experience, but there are others who have other experiences. But it is safe to say that you were not actually dead, since you are still alive. emfive posted:How would you describe the distinction between the conversation a devoted atheist might have with a Christian friend about changing the friend's beliefs, as contrasted with how a devoted Catholic might speak to an atheist friend with hope to convert that friend? I mean, objectively, aside from your ironclad belief in your faith, how do you think those two hypothetical conversations are different? An atheist can quite rightly challenge beliefs professed by their Christian friend, for a Christian should be aware of proper theological answers to questions, hopefully not only through conversing with atheists but because of their own studies. A Christian should not fear religious discussion. Talking to an atheist constructively is mostly about trying to convince them to accept the mere possibility that a more positive understanding of human existence is possible or morally acceptable to believe, as they generally hold rather despairing views of about humanity, life, and spirituality. It's kind of like trying to cheer up a sad friend. Also, correcting widespread misconceptions about Christian teaching or history. Obdicut posted:Also how do you deal with the really obvious fact that Christianity began as an end-times religion and Jesus was very clearly stating that the end was nigh? You just deny it through a string of really improbable explanations that all the stuff about how quickly things were going to end and how everyone should give up everything, including leaving their families, that was actually meant in a long-term allegorical way even though there isn't anything that Jesus says that would ever give that impression? The traditional view is that Jesus was prophesying multiple events: the Second Coming (aka the parousia), which of course has not yet occurred, but also the imminent destruction of Judea at the hands of the Romans. He was trying to avert this outcome, only to be refused by his people. It is true that people were killed off and scattered from Judea, and the Temple destroyed, within a generation of Jesus's death. Kyrie eleison fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Nov 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:In Mark 2:23-27, Jesus is confronted by Pharisees (who are the ancestors of the Talmudic rabbis) about people picking grain on the Sabbath. Jesus quoted Scripture back at them, referencing a time that David himself, in his hunger, had eaten consecrated bread which was only for priests to eat. And yet, we would agree that David did nothing wrong in that circumstance, as he was a holy man and was very hungry. Jesus's conclusion is that "Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." Sabbath is meant to be a day of rest and a holy day, but orthodox Jews take it to an extreme level which violates the intent. Generally speaking, Jesus favors the "spirit of the law" over the "letter of the law". hahaha jesus is making poo poo up dog
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Yes, and magic is real. Ah, good. Thanks for answering me. Now, what specifically led you to believe that magic exists, as well as literal demonic possession and witchcraft as a something other than the empty practices of flaky Wicca types?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison, how do you square the belief that yours is a just and loving God with the Book of Deuteronomy? Let's refer specifically to 20:10-18KJV posted:10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. and Deuteronomy 21:10-14 KJV posted:10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her. These are the parameters Jehova Himself hands down to his chosen people as their laws of war: when you take a city by siege slaughter the military-aged men, enslave the women and children, take their cattle and goods for yourselves. He even specifically allows for the rape of particularly comely female war captives, provided their captor holds them against their will for a month first. And Let's not forget the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, hivites and Jebusites, whom God orders this horde of bronze age warriors to extirpate to the last squalling babe in arms. Do you believe your God issued these orders to His people, through His prophet, as the Old Testament records? If so, what do you have to say about them? How do you grapple with the idea that Jesus, who is God, ordered the Hebrew warriors to commit rape and massacre?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
great now I'm getting flashbacks to Victor and his genocide apologism on the other hand he hasn't posted since (at least not in D&D about religion) so maybe that was finally the thing that triggered a crisis of faith for him
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:great now I'm getting flashbacks to Victor and his genocide apologism He just got banned. I've heard he'd since claimed to have come around, but also that we supposedly never really understood what he was saying, so I tend to doubt it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
aw, that's too bad. now I'll never know if his database of posts and algorithm assisted posting was real or not. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:The Catechism of the Catholic Church says of science: Nobody ever said science and peer review are uncorruptable, but that is the purpose of peer review, to ensure scientific enedeavors are kept to a strict adherence of transparency. But lets be honest: You are holding up the catholic church as a better example? This is the same church that won't even prosecute pedophiles in their midst without intense and decades long scrutiny. They praise people like Mother Theresa who LITERALLY forced people with disease and illness to suffer to 'bring them closer to god'. The same church that refuses to acknowledge that birth control and sex ed would do more than abstinence only sex ed in fighting STDs. Talk about pot calling the kettle black. Also: Magic is real? Seriously? Please get help. Also: The Dr. Manhattan quote is hilarious because its not really helping your argument. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 06:22 on Nov 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
Yeah nice handwave, but I'm a little confused. You're saying that being able to be resuscitated means that you weren't dead in the first place? I think the medical profession would like to have words with you. What does that mean for Jesus and his whole "rising from the dead after three days" thing? Was he really alive the whole time, chilling in his cave eating chips watching porn until the heat died down or something? Doesn't that make the Easter celebration a sham? I don't get it. Please tell me why I didn't get to see the afterlife. Even if I was on Santa's naughty list I should've been sent to hell, right? E: forgot, this goes back to my original question: how long do you have to be dead to have your soul be released and sent to wherever. 5 minutes? 10? An hour? Day? Week? A year? Is it supposed to be immediate? Why didn't that happen to me? What's up? site fucked around with this message at 06:38 on Nov 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
Kyrie you had hosed off back to despising yourself by the time I posted this in the last thread but I think you'd do well to understand it:SedanChair posted:However, just about everything tacked on in addition to Q was the ravings of a desert Steve Jobs and his apocalyptic cult. All the real heirs of the Master who understood the meaning of his teachings (like those who wrote Didache) got rubbed out before the Catholic Church came on the scene. The Church is the legacy of the cult, not of the Master, and has all the moral wisdom and coherency of the Nation of Gods and Earths.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
Why, when I asked you two questions, one of which I said was really the important one, did you instead go with the one I said was 'nitpicky'? Again: Explain how "if you do an honest comparison of their tenets, Christianity is the correct and superior religion" without using circular logic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
I don't know about all this philosophy stuff, seems sort of pointless speculating about things you can't know whether they exist or not, but the Catholic Church seems pretty lame. It doesn't really seem like a very good institution to build your life around if you have a choice. It's retention rate seems pretty bad too, I know a lot of lapsed or faithless Catholics. Hell, my parents were both raised Catholic and simply dropped the religion as adults before I was born. Also I'm not a Muslim, but Mohammed seems distinctly more impressive than Jesus, so I don't know why you wouldn't just become a Muslim if you wanted to worship that kind of god.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
Periodiko posted:I don't know about all this philosophy stuff, seems sort of pointless speculating about things you can't know whether they exist or not, but the Catholic Church seems pretty lame. It doesn't really seem like a very good institution to build your life around if you have a choice. It's retention rate seems pretty bad too, I know a lot of lapsed or faithless Catholics. Hell, my parents were both raised Catholic and simply dropped the religion as adults before I was born.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 07:28
|
|
|
I know this is a troll thread, and yes I know that I will probably be ridiculed relentlessly, but I don't fallow God because Kyrie Ellison says I must. I fallow God because I know that there is a better world than what we live in, I know that despite what ever I face I can always know that there is something waiting for me. I know that the Universe has a purpose besides being either the creation of two Branes, or somehow the darkness of everything randomly generating a event. I know that helping people is what is expected if me beyond all else and that I should not stop in the face of adversity in helping people, even if I see intentional roadblocks like has been seen in cesspits of iniquity like Ft Lauderdale, or Las Vegas. For that is how it is suppose to be. Do I however think that means you all should fallow? No, you have to come to such a conclusion by yourself, do not come to God, and Jesus unless you can see the truth. Also Kyrie is obviously trolling you all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 07:33
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I know this is a troll thread, and yes I know that I will probably be ridiculed relentlessly, but I don't fallow God because Kyrie Ellison says I must. I fallow God because I know that there is a better world than what we live in, I know that despite what ever I face I can always know that there is something waiting for me. I know that the Universe has a purpose besides being either the creation of two Branes, or somehow the darkness of everything randomly generating a event. I know that helping people is what is expected if me beyond all else and that I should not stop in the face of adversity in helping people, even if I see intentional roadblocks like has been seen in cesspits of iniquity like Ft Lauderdale, or Las Vegas. For that is how it is suppose to be. Do I however think that means you all should fallow? No, you have to come to such a conclusion by yourself, do not come to God, and Jesus unless you can see the truth. Also Kyrie is obviously trolling you all. What's wrong with Ft Lauderdale?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 07:38
|
|
|
Pilate said "what is truth?" and Jesus couldn't think of poo poo to say
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 07:42
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:What's wrong with Ft Lauderdale? http://patch.com/florida/sarasota/3rd-arrest-90-year-old-man-who-feeds-homeless-0 Ezekiel 16:49 posted:
J.C. himself posted:31 i“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, jthen he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him kwill be gathered lall the nations, and mhe will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates nthe sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then othe King will say to pthose on his right, ‘Come, you qwho are blessed by my Father, rinherit sthe kingdom tprepared for you ufrom the foundation of the world. 35 For vI was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you wgave me drink, xI was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 vI was naked and you clothed me, yI was sick and you zvisited me, aI was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And bthe King will answer them, c‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these dmy brothers,6 you did it to me.’ http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/11/nation/la-na-nn-homeless-feeding-bans-20120611 edit; Oh I forgot, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V664eLKjSxY Praise Jesus. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 07:52 on Nov 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 07:43
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:What's wrong with Ft Lauderdale? It's all a mediocre at best pale imitation of Miami, that's what. Nice airport though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I know that helping people is what is expected if me beyond all else and that I should not stop in the face of adversity in helping people. Good for you, and I mean that seriously. I think we all (well, most of us, anyway) try to do the best we can. Some of us just try to help other people for reasons that have little or nothing to do with religion. edit: on Jesus and the homeless: quote:Some in the community disagree with the message the statue sends. "Jesus is not a vagrant, Jesus is not a helpless person who needs our help," Cindy Castano Swannack, who called police after seeing the statue, told WCNC. "We need someone who is capable of meeting our needs, not someone who is also needy." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/17/homeless-jesus-sculpture-davidson_n_5167418.html But, then again, quote:The most high-profile installation of the bronze Jesus on a park bench will be on the Via della Conciliazione, the avenue leading to St. Peter's Basilica — if the city of Rome approves it. Schmalz traveled to the Vatican last November to present a miniature to the pope himself. http://www.npr.org/2014/04/13/302019921/statue-of-a-homeless-jesus-startles-a-wealthy-community Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 08:02 on Nov 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 07:56
|
|
|
This corroborates it? The priest gives him food which, according to the levitical law, only the priests are supposed to be able to eat (Leviticus 24:9). This violates the letter of the law for a higher purpose. Jesus was very well educated in scripture and cited it often. Captain_Maclaine posted:Ah, good. Thanks for answering me. Now, what specifically led you to believe that magic exists, as well as literal demonic possession and witchcraft as a something other than the empty practices of flaky Wicca types? It just seems possible for me that things can happen due to spiritual or demonic influence which go against the natural order of things. zeal posted:Kyrie eleison, how do you square the belief that yours is a just and loving God with the Book of Deuteronomy? Let's refer specifically to 20:10-18 I can tell you the real answer, but you probably won't like it. God regularly condemns entire peoples and uses other peoples to wipe them out. This scenario effectively plays out in reverse later when the Kingdom of Israel is totally destroyed by neighboring kingdoms, who are believed to be acting as agents of God to punish Israel. There's methods people use to hand-wave this stuff, but it's there and it's a recurring theme throughout the OT, so I'll just tell you the truth about it. The way things play out here is that peoples who are loyal to God and have strong, faithful societies are going to survive whereas those who are disloyal to God are going to be annihilated. And Jesus, in withering the fig tree, continues this sort of divine judgment. In essence, the religiosity of a society is the greatest predictor of its cultural and military strength. The values that accompany religious belief also accompany strong societies. At the time God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham asks God whether God would destroy the city if ten righteous people still lived in it. God replies that no, he would not. This means that the peoples destroyed in this time were despised by God, even their women and children, who the Bible notes are frequent victims of such conquering; look to the book of Lamentations to see how the Israelites respond to Jerusalem being treated in the same way. If this seems overly harsh, please consider God's perspective as the infinitely wise creator and final judge of humankind. The OT tells a story of the Israelites being powerful conquerers blessed by God, and finally being conquered themselves due to their infidelity. They then try to rebuild afterwards with a stronger and more lasting spiritual foundation. I think this is an insightful look at how civilizations rise and fall throughout history. site posted:Yeah nice handwave, but I'm a little confused. You're saying that being able to be resuscitated means that you weren't dead in the first place? I think the medical profession would like to have words with you. I'm saying you were not dead, yes. The resurrection of Christ was a miraculous event that occurred three days later, I'm not convinced that's a good analogy for your resuscitation. Only death is death. But actually, since you're asking about when a soul is judged, that's an interesting question. The Catholic church holds that the soul is immediately judged after death and then sent either to Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory (which leads to Heaven). Calvinists and some others argue for "soul sleep" in which souls lie dormant until the Last Judgment. Given the non-temporal nature of the afterlife I think it is possible that one could die and "immediately" find themselves at the Last Judgment. CommieGIR posted:But lets be honest: You are holding up the catholic church as a better example? This is the same church that won't even prosecute pedophiles in their midst without intense and decades long scrutiny. They praise people like Mother Theresa who LITERALLY forced people with disease and illness to suffer to 'bring them closer to god'. The same church that refuses to acknowledge that birth control and sex ed would do more than abstinence only sex ed in fighting STDs. I will give you three sentences in response to your three sentences: (1) The Catholic church is human and not without corruption, but on the whole does believe in forgiveness. (2) Suffering is considered a spiritual pursuit and people willingly went to Blessed Teresa's hospices for a spiritual death, not medical assistance. (3) The Church views sexually depraved culture as the source of STDs (and other consequences) and so does not wish to encourage it. Obdicut posted:Why, when I asked you two questions, one of which I said was really the important one, did you instead go with the one I said was 'nitpicky'? Sorry, I have a lot of replies to sort through, and this question is complicated. But Christianity I think is best because it has the full package. It has excellent wisdom and moral truth, it has the Creator, it has Jesus, it has the afterlife. Buddhism, I see as almost nihilistic (which is probably why it is popular with nihilists). Islam I see as a parody, offensively denying the crucifixion of Christ. Judaism I see as denying Christ, and a racial club that doesn't want me. I've studied the other religions, but none seemed as good as the one I grew up with. However, I did change denominations when I realized the supremacy of Catholic theology.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:It just seems possible for me that things can happen due to spiritual or demonic influence which go against the natural order of things. Like what? Periodiko fucked around with this message at 08:21 on Nov 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 08:11
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Pilate said "what is truth?" and Jesus couldn't think of poo poo to say Pilate asked "What is love?" And Jesus replied "Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me no more. "
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 08:17
|
|
|
Periodiko posted:Like what? Homosexuals and interracial marriage and people liking Spawn.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 08:18
|
|
|
What is sin?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
Belief in God is a useful byproduct of the human ego. It allows emotional comfort in knowing that one will live forever and that one is so important that they have a personal, loving relationship with the supreme creator of the universe. Belief in God is a useful metaphor for the internal conversations people have with themselves. When you catch yourself speaking to yourself ("Oh, there's my keys") know that you are speaking to God. When you say "I believe in God" what you're really saying is "I believe in myself." Asshole Businessman fucked around with this message at 08:25 on Nov 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:I can tell you the real answer, but you probably won't like it. God regularly condemns entire peoples and uses other peoples to wipe them out. This scenario effectively plays out in reverse later when the Kingdom of Israel is totally destroyed by neighboring kingdoms, who are believed to be acting as agents of God to punish Israel. There's methods people use to hand-wave this stuff, but it's there and it's a recurring theme throughout the OT, so I'll just tell you the truth about it. As for your theory of religious belief and its values, despite your cruel words of Islam - did not the Muslims conquer huge swaths of territory within several generations, while it took the Spanish hundreds of years to merely, just, take back Spain? If religious values equal military and cultural strength, this would imply that Islam, at least, can match Christianity in its cultural effect; even if you're going to say that Spain was impious and therefore was occupied by Muslims for centuries, the opposite case could probably be made, i.e. Islamic kingdoms were founded and eventually collapsed. Alternately, you're boiling down an incredibly complex socioeconomic and cultural factor into a single overall trait, which only makes sense if it's supposed to be your reputation score with God. In which case I would ask, what determines the outcome of conflicts between other civilizations, in the areas which had the severe misfortune to not be ancient Israel? quote:Buddhism, I see as almost nihilistic (which is probably why it is popular with nihilists). Islam I see as a parody, offensively denying the crucifixion of Christ. Judaism I see as denying Christ, and a racial club that doesn't want me. I've studied the other religions, but none seemed as good as the one I grew up with. However, I did change denominations when I realized the supremacy of Catholic theology. On Buddhism you seem to have a tautology. 'It's nihilistic, so it's popular with nihilists.' Have you taken a look at the A/T Buddhism thread? If nothing else, there's certainly more scope to this than you seem to be adding. That said, Buddhism is certainly a very different religious outlook as opposed to Christianity, Judaism, Islam and perhaps vague ideas of some Greek and Roman pagan beliefs, which are probably what you get exposed to in the West. I'm certainly not going to blame you for not knowing, but it might behoove you to look at their stuff, if only for the curious parallels that exist in a lot of material. On Islam, why is this offensive? I can say as a non-Christian that the focus on the torture and death of your central figure is kind of creepy. I understand why it's important, but it seems as if Jesus's life and teachings are less important than his agonizing death. Islam does not, I gather, question Jesus's moral teachings, and in fact I believe in their apocalyptic scenarios, Jesus has a starring role - larger than Muhammad! On Judaism, what do you think about the historical treatment of the Jews by Christians?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 08:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 20:00 |
|
|
Hey theists/christians of this thread. What would it take for you to stop believing? And this is coming from a guy who used to post on the rr-bb message boards in earnest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 08:54
|
|
