|
Is heaven where all the shebears and donkey emissions come to fruition? Also Jacobs Ladder is a really fun movie.
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:11 |
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Quite simply, Heaven is a place on Earth. I was going to go with In Heaven Everything is fine You got your good thing And I've got mine
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Do you know what that's worth? If it seems to be real, it's illusion. For every moment of truth, there's confusion in life. Love can be seen as the answer, but nobody bleeds for the dancer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens. So its Hotel California?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:So its Hotel California? Its hard to imagine that nothing at all could be so exciting, could be this much fun. What is the nature of heaven though? If a gay dude represses himself forever and gets into heaven on those merits, does he get to finally have relationships with men in heaven? Or is that "impurity" stripped from him, thereby changing him into fundamentally someone else--and why couldn't that be done for somebody who does act on their Sinful Impulses?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Its hard to imagine that nothing at all could be so exciting, could be this much fun. Well a century ago he wouldn't be going to heaven but now things are different that he'd going through angelic seminars. He might clone himself to please the old school saints so that the clone could burn forever in heaven, the other one go through gay counseling to please the not so old saints, and then the last one would just be accepted for who he is with regular counseling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Its hard to imagine that nothing at all could be so exciting, could be this much fun. Well, all sex other than dick in vagina for babby sex is sinful, and I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to have kids in heaven, so my best guess would be he still can't have sex, but good news nobody else can either?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Torah is closest man can get to replicating heaven on earth. I'm referring to something specific here
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:I was going to go with Rodatose posted:in heaven, everything is fine. you have got your good things, and I've got mine. that's the new web lingo for if you fall into a trap that someone has done. someone spread this message.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:landmined Don't spread this message. Proselytization can have negative consequences and comes at a cost of social capital so it should only be done if it has demonstrably positive material consequences
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
I bought a copy of Bonhoeffer's Letters and Papers From Prison and I can't wait to read it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:Don't spread this message. Proselytization can have negative consequences and comes at a cost of social capital so it should only be done if it has demonstrably positive material consequences on the contrary, i feel that by doing so we would only be making things right, because we'll never be wrong,
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
When I get stoned I like to think of the different religions completely out of context, so like as these secretive cults from a sci-fi movie or something and they suddenly become cool. Like if nobody actually believed in catholicism and people realized it was all just made up it would actually be pretty cool from an artistic standpoint, like an interesting series of books or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
It'd be cool if we ever figure out was really up with the Mithraic mysteries.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Well, all sex other than dick in vagina for babby sex is sinful, and I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to have kids in heaven, so my best guess would be he still can't have sex, but good news nobody else can either? So, if there's no sex, what makes heaven the greatest place ever? Is God just gonna hook us up to a spiritual morphine drip the moment we get there? I'm pretty sure Aldous Huxley wrote a book about that, and it didn't sound so great.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:So, if there's no sex, what makes heaven the greatest place ever? Is God just gonna hook us up to a spiritual morphine drip the moment we get there? I'm pretty sure Aldous Huxley wrote a book about that, and it didn't sound so great. you will spend the rest of eternity praising the cosmic overtyrant, and He will remake you so that you will enjoy it
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:So, if there's no sex, what makes heaven the greatest place ever? Is God just gonna hook us up to a spiritual morphine drip the moment we get there? I'm pretty sure Aldous Huxley wrote a book about that, and it didn't sound so great. quote:Just as far as your eye could reach, there was swarms of clerks, running and bustling around, tricking out thousands of Yanks and Mexicans and English and Arabs, and all sorts of people in their new outfits; and when they gave me my kit and I put on my halo and took a look in the glass, I could have jumped over a house for joy, I was so happy. “Now this is something like!” says I. “Now,” says I, “I’m all right—show me a cloud.”
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
I imagine heaven as like real life, except everyone is permanently high as gently caress on molly. Also the praises and hossannahs are currently in D&B, but tomorrow is Hendrix Night.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:What's funny is, other gods as you say actually offer something real. Money is power, reason gives you knowledge about the real world, fame is recognition, but God offers nothing. You can pray all you like but you will receive nothing. Might as well worship the gods that offer tangible rewards, the ones closer to D&D than the bible. Other gods offer nothing because they do not exist. God offers you the best possible things: eternal life, bliss, understanding, happiness, satisfaction, wisdom, strength, absolution. I receive things from prayer every single day. WhiskeyJuvenile posted:It's not enough for the bread to be consecrated for it to be reserved for the sons of Aaron; it needs to be actually used in a ceremonial purpose as well, by placing it in the tabernacle. WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Lev. 24:8-9 Consecration is a big deal. The only bread that is consecrated is used for ceremonial purposes in the tabernacle. Those verses (which are the same I linked before) do not support your claim that there is some other sort of "lesser" consecrated showbread found in Leviticus. mdemone posted:I'm certainly aware that this is the prevailing theory. Mostly I just find it suspicious that Paul never sees fit to refer to Jesus as having really existed, if just in an offhand manner, not even once. However, that is not evidence for mythicism -- but neither can Paul be used to support historicism. (The historiography of Pauline text is very interesting on its own merits, but again that's not really relevant here.) Paul never met Jesus in his life. But it is obvious from the writings of Paul that he believed that Jesus was an actual man who preached, was crucified, and resurrected. For someone who seems to stand up for the position of "the scholars," you should accept that Jesus actually existing is a nearly unanimous position amongst them. I decided to do a cursory look to find some examples of Paul's quotes regarding the actual existence of Jesus. I didn't have to look very far. Here is the opening to the Book of Romans, the first book authored by Paul in the Bible: "Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised previously through his prophets in the holy scriptures, the gospel about his Son, descended from David according to the flesh, but established as Son of God in power according to the spirit of holiness through resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord." As you can see he was "descended from David according to the flesh." This means Paul believed Jesus was a man of flesh and blood. quote:If Jesus had so many followers and met so many people during his ministry, why do we not have any contemporary sources? The answer must be 1) they never existed because nobody wrote anything down, which I find a barely-tolerable assertion, 2) they were destroyed, which doesn't make sense for a church that would prize historical proof of their founder, or 3) they never existed because Jesus never existed. If we adopt #1, things start to get pretty sketchy because there are a few decades in the late 1st century (after the war) where not only do we not know what was happening, we don't know who was in charge of the Christian church, what they were teaching, where they were traveling, or what they thought of Jesus himself. Only afterwards do we start to see written Christian texts, and that is a major red flag even if it's not dispositive for any particular claim. We have tons of contemporary sources. They are called Christians. That they did not write things down until their later years when death was approaching is perfectly understandable. That earlier documents might have been destroyed is also totally understandable given the destruction of Judea and the absolute persecution of Christians by both Jews and pagan Rome. quote:No, the problem is that the Roman records burned twice during the first century, well before Tacitus began to write. Neither he nor Pliny the Younger would have primary records of Roman Palestine before the Neronian war, and very likely this means there was no way for him to have that information about Chrestus from a neutral source. Again, we have many surviving commentaries on Tacitus, and none that were written before the 4th century quote his mention of Chrestus, whereas the ones written during and after the 4th century do quote the text at issue. This fits with the timing of other known redactions that can be traced to the 4th century, which doesn't prove anything but certainly doesn't help Tacitus look any more pristine. His work is probably compromised, and/or almost certainly founded on hearsay. Why do you not mention Josephus, the earliest non-Christian source to write about Jesus? And just what is your proposed alternative theory for how the New Testament and Christianity came about, if not a man named Jesus? And, finally: what documentation do you have from the time to support your alternative theory? quote:Edit: I want to say that no one should take my posts as being combative or polemical. I could just talk about this stuff for days because it's so drat interesting from a historiographical perspective. It makes no difference to me whether Jesus existed or not; as a strong atheist I am certain that even if he did, he was not divine, but "merely" a good guy with great ideas who was also maybe just a little kooky about his god. It's the rise of Christianity throughout the first millennium that is such a powerful topic, for me. Really? It makes no difference to you whether Jesus existed or not? ShadowCatboy posted:One of these influences was Platonic idealism. As you guys might remember from high school philosophy, Plato held that the primacy of reality lay not in material things, but rather was rooted in their related concepts. For Plato, ideas were not mental representations of objects. Instead, objects are flawed instantiations of ideas. This led to a hierarchy of being in Plato's worldview, where ideas stood at the top (the idea of a chair, which was eternal), objects stood beneath them (a particular chair, which will suffer dents and scratches, break, and eventually rot away), and depictions of objects stood lower still (a painting of a chair is a mere representation of a chair, which is itself a mere representation of an idea. Two steps removed from the ideal reality). Sadly, the vast majority of people here in America have never studied Plato, as we do not have "high school philosophy," though I wish it were otherwise! quote:This logic naturally leads to a certain sense of asceticism, and is likely what was responsible for one of the iconic elements of Christianity: the sense of stark metaphysical dualism between body and soul, the material and divine, as well as the denigration and disdain for material life. Whereas Judaism was more concerned with daily life and ways of living, Christianity was about purifying oneself of base material needs to merge with the divine (a form of Platonic asceticism). Here you make assumptions, though. I would not accuse Plato of being an ascetic. He was a man of prestige and aristocracy, and never once preached asceticism in his works. Instead, he taught the importance of fitness and excellence in life. He did teach that the "golden souls" should not be too wealthy, and receive a public stipend, so as to avoid corrupting them with greed, but this is simplicity and humility, not asceticism, which is rather extreme. Anyway, early Christianity had a bit of a debate about asceticism, and the ascetics lost, and for good reason, as Christ was not an ascetic, but "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.'" Most of the ascetics ended up being gnostics who believed the material world was evil, created by the Demiurge, not God; they are not Christians. quote:Christianity then is just Judaism interpreted through a Greco-Roman lens. This becomes more obvious as you look at other elements of the Catholic church as it evolved: the Papacy itself is just an extension of the Roman Imperial system, whereas Sainthood is just a version of Roman polytheism and apotheosis. I will make a better argument than you have for your case. Plato, in The Republic, condemns the Greco-Roman religion as a bad influence on society, and says it needs to be replaced. The religion he describes in the book is nearly identical to Christianity in its core principles. There is one God, he is the source of all good, and humanity is the source of all evil. It is no surprise the neo-Platonists saw Judaism and thought they might be able to kill two birds with one stone: create a new religion based on Judaic origin, and isolate the Jews from it simultaneously. And one surely must expect Jesus knew about this, given how important Greek oppression of the Jews was during the Second Temple period, as observed in the Maccabees, where Greeks go around forcing Jews to convert to Greek religion/philosophy and building gymnasiums everywhere. No, one can't accuse Jesus of ignorance; he was a man of his time and place, and the New Testament is written in Greek. More to come.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 07:18
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:So, if there's no sex, what makes heaven the greatest place ever? Is God just gonna hook us up to a spiritual morphine drip the moment we get there? I'm pretty sure Aldous Huxley wrote a book about that, and it didn't sound so great. I thought the future he described sounded pretty good because there were no wars and almost everyone was happy and even if you were the type to be not satisfied with that lot you were given the choice of living on your own on one of the islands of rugged individualists. The vast majority of the population was removed from suffering while nowadays, as in the past, the majority of the worldwide population are forced to spend most of their waking hours working for the enrichment of others without the others' regard for their well-being, leaving the masses to fend for themselves in freeing themselves from suffering. I think huxley wanted people to be upset that all of the beloved parts of the european culture he grew up loving (he was born into a family of elites after all) were gone. But him saying "shakespeare and christ are gone and they replaced it with this mass-produced shlock as entertainment for crowd control" doesn't really spell out how his shakespeare and his christ are inherently better as mass-culture since it doesn't point to the irreproducable qualities his cultural darlings have. He would have to prove the existence of the soul in those things in order to show the superiority of Old Culture and why it's worth all of the suffering that comes with it. Since he can't he takes the easy way out and kills his second protagonist to try to make you feel sorry for him. Brave New World is the scribe of a guy liking old culture over new culture because 90s cartoons had something meaningful to say while todays cartoons are mass produced trash. I mean this quote from BNW talking about history as almost entirely that of greek, roman and judeo-christian empires doesn't mention all of the slave labor and war those places were built on: quote:"You all remember," said the Controller, in his strong deep voice, "you all remember, I suppose, that beautiful and inspired saying of Our Ford's: History is bunk. History," he repeated slowly, "is bunk." Though if you mean by 'it didn't sound so good' that it wasn't very well written then yeah. Both structurally and stylistically it's bad. (his idea for instruments in the future are "hyper-violin, super-cello and oboe-surrogate," which sounds like something someone in a college freshman creative writing class would come up with) Rodatose fucked around with this message at 07:53 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens. Heaven is where all the bad people are when they had a deathbed conversion out of fear. Hell is where god damns good people to burn for eternity for the crime of being good to other people and dying satisfied that they led a good life. Edit: I mean it's probably not boring, what with Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot hanging around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:You're Catholic, you've got scholasticism in your tradition. Texts have multiple meanings. Yes, my Catholic Bible explains this in the introduction, but I still don't buy it. It seems a bit like modernism creeping in out of fear of critique. But we should not fear Scripture. I like to take the text as it is written, out of respect for its authors. The Deuteronomist is typically treated as an individual, not a group; and in our modern scholarship it is considered that he wrote the books of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings... in other words, the entire history of the Kingdom of Israel. To doubt his words on Joshua is to doubt his words on everything else. And honestly, I don't see any reason, not a bit, why Joshua couldn't be an honest record. Are we to believe it was simply beyond the Israelites to commit genocide, due to their closeness with God? Please. They were the people of God, going to the promised land, killing off the resident giants, by command of God himself. To say otherwise seems like "whitewashing the wall," and an injurious skepticism. quote:It's an state origin myth. How/why origin myths are used and formed, I personally think that's much more interesting and useful to understanding the world right now. And do you believe the Kingdom of Israel never existed, that David and Solomon never lived? (how common it is to believe such things these days!) quote:Here's the thing. Christian does mesh with neo-platonism quite well. But then again it meshes with Aristotelianism quite well (see the Catholics). But then again it meshes with existentialism quite well. It's content is independent of the philosophical vehicle. Hell there are even examples of positivism meshed with Christianity. same. mdemone posted:Acts is an apologetic fiction in the guise of an historical document, according to most modern scholarship. See the following, among others: Oh, God, here we go. quote:The MacDonald work is especially instructive. He works out the detailed parallels between Homer's Odyssey and Paul's shipwreck, in a way that makes the conclusion impossible to avoid: Acts is a literary creation without historical value. Points of comparison include, but are not limited to: Really now. An angel appearing in acts is evidence it is a copycat of the Odyssey. In addition to this, the protagonists are both two-armed human beings on a mission. Peter escaping from prison couldn't be an event because Homer once wrote a story about someone escaping. Anyone who has ever been on a boat is suspect. quote:In each of these cases, there are actual Greek words and phrases that appear identically in both Homer and Acts. This is not a coincidence, and it likely wasn't meant by Luke to be read as one. He also uses Greek vocabulary from Euripides and the book of Ezekiel, but the Homer rip-offs are the most obvious ones. Actual Greek words and phrases being in common between two Greek texts? Amazing. quote:As Burton Mack said regarding the hundreds of Jews that supposedly converted after the Pentecost sermon: "No Jew worth his salt would have converted when being told that he was guilty of killing the messiah." Simply insulting. Paul was a Jew, Peter was a Jew, lots of early Christians were Jews. Lots of them accepted that they were responsible for killing the Messiah, like they had killed so many prophets before them. It's all prophesied! "They have pierced my hands and feet..." If there is one thing the prophets of the Old Testament makes abundantly clear, it is that your typical rank-and-file Israelite has absolutely no loyalty to God, and loves to persecute those who do, because they threaten their comfort via their warnings.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 07:53
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:I thought the future he described sounded pretty good because there were no wars and almost everyone was happy and even if you were the type to be not satisfied with that lot you were given the choice of living on your own on one of the islands of rugged individualists. The vast majority of the population was removed from suffering while nowadays the majority of the worldwide population are forced to spend most of their waking hours working for the enrichment of others while left to fend for themselves in freeing themselves from suffering. I'm pretty sure that his point is that a life of reflexive obedience and consumerism is ultimately one of a grown-up child. It's just a happier 1984, and more realistic in that it argues that dystopia might seem pretty great for the people near enough to the top of the system. At least as long as they don't question the party line. Even the lack of harsh punishment for that is sinister- even your wrongthink is part of the system and absorbed before you can make the slightest impact.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 07:56
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDEfQq56ebc
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 08:12
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:I'm pretty sure that his point is that a life of reflexive obedience and consumerism is ultimately one of a grown-up child. If a system works so effectively, of course you would want to stop the elements that would disrupt such a system. There weren't any signs given in the book that society would fall apart any time soon and lead to the widespread suffering of a failed state. What's the problem, that there are no Great Men who can stand up and take a claim to a glorious revolution? Or is it that people's sense of purpose was satisfied in a simulated way? Because if it's the latter, then you'd have to look at "purpose" itself. What people's purpose in life should be is not something that has a verifiable answer. Philosophies and religions are ways to give a 'good enough' answer to the idea. Purpose itself is something people make up. it's like that coyote says, human intellect (in addition to being a gift) is a curse that makes us make things as more than they are. The brain we have which allows us to see multiple uses and interpretations for things that gave us enough adaptability to succeed evolutionarily also makes us think the lives we have to be something more than just being a fancy animal in clothes. e: besides, huxley's writing was pretty indicative of a life of reflexive obedience and consumerism. His writing obediently followed the social script of a high society type that says to cherish and protect our Civilizing Culture from being degenerated by the rabble and his message was to consume the old high culture that touts shakespeare for shakespeare's sake (even though shakespeare's writings about the foibles of kings and nobles going through rich people problems is irrelevant to most people's lives centuries later). Rodatose fucked around with this message at 08:35 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 08:19
|
|
|
You seem to have missed that "the masses" are chemically engineered to be too stupid to question their place, and hypnotically programmed to prefer their lot in life to any other. Their actual life is as degrading and menial as any other slaves'. And they are slaves, they are just actually inferior because they were given brain damage in utero to ensure it. The middle to upper classes are allowed to be intelligent, but kept too emotionally and intellectually immature to question their programming, or the system as a whole, and kept isolated from meaningful contact with the lower classes. An since the lower classes are literally subhuman and are programmed to love the system, all the upper classes who do encounter them see is a bunch of barely-human lobotomy patients I suppose if you're cool with oppression as long as the underclass is kept actually inferior by chemical poisoning and the rest of society incapable of understanding that their lives are supported by the labour of degraded and literally dehumanized people as long as everyone is kept in a state where they cannot even conceive of questioning the system, it's pretty cool. Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 08:47 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 08:44
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:You seem to have missed that "the masses" are chemically engineered to be too stupid to question their place, and hypnotically programmed to prefer their lot in life to any other. Their actual life is as degrading and menial. That's why I brought up the point of people being no more than fancy animals with clothes. Like, if you break it down, 1.3 billion people today, many of them at subsistence level, get their livelihood through livestock and animal husbandry. Animals are exploited for meat and animal products. If you had two cows being milked and one had sapience while another didn't, would they be equally oppressed and exploited? Would it be better if animal meat was produced in a way engineered without any pain involved? And would you say that an animal's suffering is equal to a human's? (Would it be better if the people who live off livestock died of hunger?) the society in brave new world isn't ideal because it doesn't get rid of class structures. But it's better than the society today and the one Huxley was arguing for that gives people a hypocritical illusion of free will while still subjecting them to an exploitative superstructure. So I guess when I said "it's pretty good" I meant comparatively. It doesn't make sense to call it a dystopia from the POV of a worse society. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 09:28 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 09:07
|
|
|
Well, being a socialist, I think Huxley was arguing that in our "worse" society, the oppressed can and should rise up and create a better society. I'm not sure our society would be better if we lobotomized the poor so that they are cattle, which is what you seem to be arguing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 09:27
|
|
|
Like I said, it's not ideal because it doesn't get rid of class structures, but if the domination of one class were to be so complete that no chance of reordering were to be available, at least they leave some accommodation for the underclasses so that they aren't constantly suffering. I know that in that case, I'd rather not be conscious of my own death and suffering. e: like, if you got born into a bad position in life at least you wouldn't have to constantly worry about food insecurity or about various fearmongering propaganda telling you you need to act now to not die, or be tricked into get-rich-quick schemes that make you worse off playing off false hopes of social mobility. You could just be on The Drugs all day every day, while at work, not even aware that you are working. There might not even be a 'you', because the self is a construct dependent on awareness according to others, so there might not even be a problem. Animals are born, they eat and gently caress a bunch, they die. a rabbit doesn't care about its identity, or whether its interactions are meaningful, or whether it has the correct understanding of its actions. It does the things it likes to do and avoids the things that cause it discomfort. I do the things I like to do and avoid the things that cause me discomfort. Kylie does the things they like to do and avoid the things that cause them discomfort. Why does it matter whether the underpinning reasoning for that rabbit's, my, or kylie's happiness or discomfort is based on a false consciousness or lack of consciousness or a true consciousness?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 09:30
|
|
|
Lord, I am grateful for the ignore list.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 10:01
|
|
|
Why would you rather one thing than another? Preference is a capacity you are proposing be given up, at least beyond a programmed preference for your own place in society. From this perspective, the only problem with oppression is that we are able to understand that we are oppressed. Except you also seem to be arguing that since we don't have free will (quite the assumption itself) that intelligence itself is a harmful illusion which only causes discontent. At any rate, your position seems to argue that we are animals, and therefor we should be okay with being brain damaged animals which are less functional than an actual, non-human animal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 10:03
|
|
|
So you believe that God exists, does that mean that he allows other religions to exist prior to his own one? Even Judaism (the root of Christianity) is, on the historical scale, not as old when compared to areas such as Ur and the veidic plain civilizations. If that is the case why did God only reveal himself to a very small number of people? Alongside that what is your opinion on "Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet?" Is that a true sentiment or a description that should provoke horror? And what is your opinion on the current Pope?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 12:40
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:Is it oppression if there isn't any perception of oppression? Unequivocally yes. Oppression is oppression, it's frikken' tautological for chrissakes. How is this even a question?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 14:18
|
|
|
Why has God never healed an amputee in the whole existance of human history? Like actually made the hand or leg grow back. Not loving one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
Kyrie what's your evidence for saying other gods are false? I mean in the old testament they seem to think they are real enoughRodatose posted:Animals are born, they eat and gently caress a bunch, they die. a rabbit doesn't care about its identity, or whether its interactions are meaningful, or whether it has the correct understanding of its actions. It does the things it likes to do and avoids the things that cause it discomfort. Kyrie eleison posted:Lord, I am grateful for the ignore list. Because rabbits can't be assholes about their false consciousness.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
Any god but God is false by definition because God is the truth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Any god but God is false by definition because God is the truth. Makes sense to me
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Any god but God is false by definition because God is the truth. Inshallah
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:11 |
|
|
Miltank posted:Any god but God is false by definition because God is the truth. No Scotsman other than this one is Scottish, because this one is the True Scotsman.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 16:05
|
|