|
mdm posted:yeAH gently caress you jesus we don't need your kind, because you never kill anyone! true, though. what kind of man never kills anyone.
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 13:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 07:11 |
|
|
The Heliand (the source of the Warlord Jesus meme) is interesting because it tiptoes around Jesus' pacifism. IIRC the text does emphasize that Jesus could have killed anyone He wanted with His divine powers and that His disciples were willing to kill in His defense, but it can't get around the fact that Jesus didn't kill anybody. Reconciling a different culture's narrative with one's own cultural values is just one of the challenges the Heliand's author faced in translating the Gospel for a Saxon audience.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:warlord jesus I prefer Mormon Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Turtle Sandbox posted:I prefer Mormon Jesus. Space jesus seems like a cool dude
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Yeah, Space Jesus is fine... if you haven't seen Pirate Jesus!
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Yolomon Wayne posted:Jesus would be bad, cause he never kills anyone. The son doesn't need to, god the father kills everyone thru the angel of death
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Atheists are nerds. who cares about religion in tyool 2015
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Volume, you are truly doing the Lord's work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
ghlbtsk posted:Volume, you are truly doing the Lord's work. Agreed. Hail Satan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
The real Founding Fathers of America came to it in the 1600's and they were Bible-believing Christians in almost exactly the same way as is Kirk Cameron. The Founding Fathers that you speak of separated church from state in order so that Bible-believing Christians did not have their freedom of religion infringed upon by evil & ungodly government officials who might otherwise impose their evil forms of religion upon the population, as had already happened for centuries before in England with its evil Kings and evil Queens. This modern myth that people like you promote, that the Founding Fathers disliked religion and made their decisions on that basis, is a complete distortion and re-writing of history in order to pretend as if it was in line with your modern God-hating agenda.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:The Heliand (the source of the Warlord Jesus meme) is interesting because it tiptoes around Jesus' pacifism. IIRC the text does emphasize that Jesus could have killed anyone He wanted with His divine powers and that His disciples were willing to kill in His defense, but it can't get around the fact that Jesus didn't kill anybody. Reconciling a different culture's narrative with one's own cultural values is just one of the challenges the Heliand's author faced in translating the Gospel for a Saxon audience. but trinitarian christians (which iirc is most of them) believe jesus was an avatar of god, and god killed loads of people. like millions and millions of them in genesis alone, and millions more over the course of the rest of the pentateuch
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
Volume posted:The real Founding Fathers of America came to it in the 1600's and they were Bible-believing Christians in almost exactly the same way as is Kirk Cameron. lmao, kirk cameron isn't even really a christian, is he? he's part of some kind of idolatrous cult iirc. like he calls himself a christian but he also plainly and admittedly worships man-made idols which iirc is a pretty big no-no to basically all maintream christians.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
What happens if your spouse dies and you remarry. After everyone is dead and in heaven together for eternity, is it super awkward?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 08:46
|
|
|
Jesus gonna rawdog some athei$$$KKK$$$ts
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 09:26
|
|
|
Ether Drunk posted:What happens if your spouse dies and you remarry. After everyone is dead and in heaven together for eternity, is it super awkward? You just make sure that all the other people you marry are bound for hell.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 09:29
|
|
|
We are commanded to kill the enemies of Jesus (in Luke 19:27).
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 14:29
|
|
|
genesplicer posted:You just make sure that all the other people you marry are bound for hell. if you're a woman, that is. a man is allowed to marry as many women as he wants. just as long as none of them are already married to anyone else, or of a different ethnicity to him (unless they are pre-pubescent, then he can marry them and they get to be honorary hebrews)
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
Volume posted:We are commanded to kill the enemies of Jesus (in Luke 19:27). lmao this is a flat-out lie. Luke 19 is a parable about an apocryphal king; there's absolutely no indication that this is Jesus commanding his followers to murder people any more than it is him commanding his followers to invest in savings accounts (Luke 19:23).
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
I have always been wary of those aliens. People who have encountered them say they receive a telepathic message saying, "don't be afraid." Read somewhere that when they prayed to Jesus Christ, these "visitations" come to an abrupt end. Sometimes, they grudgingly hiss before they disappear when you pray to Jesus Christ out loud. Reports like these make me suspicious about the nature, rather, supernatural nature, of these "extraterrestrials."
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
Yolomon Wayne posted:Jesus would be bad, cause he never kills anyone. Um actually gold is the lifeblood of armies so Jesus would play hell with any logistical supply chain
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
I can get behind this kind of christianism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
My sister's cat has decided to not use the litter box anymore, and after praying the problem away didn't work she's gonna take the cat to a reiki-doer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
genesplicer posted:You just make sure that all the other people you marry are bound for hell. No you just keep building yourself a harem, kind of like the Zodiac Killer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
I teach both a college logic course and a college philosophy course, my freshmen and I have conversations along these lines quite often. You basically are asking me and everyone reading this to disregard the "rules" of knowledge, and also the basic tenets of philosophy. We start with the idea that there are certain things that can be said to be "known" and go from there. Hence, through gathering evidences and with these basic tenets in mind, I can say I know that Christ is Lord, and that God exists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Volume posted:I teach both a college logic course and a college philosophy course, my freshmen and I have conversations along these lines quite often. You basically are asking me and everyone reading this to disregard the "rules" of knowledge, and also the basic tenets of philosophy. We start with the idea that there are certain things that can be said to be "known" and go from there. Hence, through gathering evidences and with these basic tenets in mind, I can say I know that Christ is Lord, and that God exists. Another rock-solid, open and shut argument, yes sir.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
Volume posted:I teach both a college logic course and a college philosophy course, my freshmen and I have conversations along these lines quite often. You basically are asking me and everyone reading this to disregard the "rules" of knowledge, and also the basic tenets of philosophy. We start with the idea that there are certain things that can be said to be "known" and go from there. Hence, through gathering evidences and with these basic tenets in mind, I can say I know that Christ is Lord, and that God exists. God is always true. The Bible is the word of God. Therefore the Bible is true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
being religious must be exhausting to have to live with on a daily basis
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
Chinatown posted:being religious must be exhausting to have to live with on a daily basis It would seem less exhausting to adopt a lifestyle in which you defer all of life's mysteries to someone else's explanations, instead of having to work through it yourself with your own observations and logic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Volume posted:I teach both a college logic course and a college philosophy course, my freshmen and I have conversations along these lines quite often. You basically are asking me and everyone reading this to disregard the "rules" of knowledge, and also the basic tenets of philosophy. We start with the idea that there are certain things that can be said to be "known" and go from there. Hence, through gathering evidences and with these basic tenets in mind, I can say I know that Christ is Lord, and that God exists. one thing I've learned from talking to these people is that when someone says "evidences" that actually means something completely different from the word "evidence" see, creationists have their own dictionary, and in it, the word "evidence" doesn't mean "a fact or set of facts that can collectively be explained parsimoniously by only one option over all others available", it means "a shibboleth to distinguish fellow keepers of the favoured ideological doctrine and disrupt communication with people attempting to reason with that doctrine", and the plural of evidence is not the collective plural evidence, but the numbered plural "evidences". For example, a dead body with two gunshot wounds to the head, one post-mortem, is evidence of a murder. It can't be explained by suicide, since dead people don't tend to shoot themselves in the head. It's technically possible that it could have been an accident, or that someone discovered the scene of a suicide and thought they'd just shoot the deceased again, perhaps to protect family honour or avoid voiding a life insurance policy, but those explanations require assumptions of additional data we can't necessarily justify. Other details of the scene, like blood splatter or gunshot residue, might constitute additional evidence; for instance gunshot residue on the deceased's head and shoulder but not either hand would indicate that they did not fire the weapon. In the creationist dictionary, one commonly cited "evidence" for magical creation is the second law of thermodynamics. What does the second law of thermodynamics tell us about the world? That the amount of unusable energy in a system in thermal equilibrium can only ever increase. What does that have to do with creationism? Nothing. A fellow creationist will recognise what must otherwise seem like the schizophrenic association of completely unrelated ideas, while a skeptical inquirer will get confused and frustrated trying to understand your reasoning without realising that there is none. Another evidence would be the information system of DNA, which, of course, doesn't exist; DNA is a chemical, not mathematical phenomenon, and therefore obeys the laws of physics and chemistry, not the laws of information. A rationalist will get stuffed up trying to correct the misinformation, while a fellow creationist will gladly accept it since factual accuracy is irrelevant to your ideology, so both of these are great evidences for creationists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
5er posted:It would seem less exhausting to adopt a lifestyle in which you defer all of life's mysteries to someone else's explanations, instead of having to work through it yourself with your own observations and logic. right, that's why accepting science is so much easier than pretending all the experts are hosed up and coming up with your own whacky ideas about the real state of the world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
TacticalUrbanHomo posted:right, that's why accepting science is so much easier than pretending all the experts are hosed up and coming up with your own whacky ideas about the real state of the world. When you tell science you think it's wrong, you have to check your facts, have replicable phenomena for other observers, the responsibility is on you to provide either proof of your assertions, or proof someone else's assertions are poo poo. The tougher stuff will often require years of immersion in very complicated forms of education. When you tell religion you think it's wrong, you're advised that you're going to go to hell if you keep it up. You only get one apocryphal tome of information filled with crazy, magic stories that get no validation or replication in the real world. And that you get to live forever with everybody... after dying... but you just gotta not ask any more questions. The latter is only more difficult, if you've put your time in on the former.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
...Turn our thoughts, in the next place, to the characters of learned men. The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. Read over again all the accounts we have of Hindoos, Chaldeans, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Celts, Teutons, we shall find that priests had all the knowledge, and really governed all mankind. Examine Mahometanism, trace Christianity from its first promulgation; knowledge has been almost exclusively confined to the clergy. And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate a free inquiry? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes. [Letters to John Taylor, 1814, XVIII, p. 484] - John Adams http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/102964-turn-our-thoughts-in-the-next-place-to-the-characters
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
Volume posted:I teach both a college logic course and a college philosophy course, my freshmen and I have conversations along these lines quite often. You basically are asking me and everyone reading this to disregard the "rules" of knowledge, and also the basic tenets of philosophy. We start with the idea that there are certain things that can be said to be "known" and go from there. Hence, through gathering evidences and with these basic tenets in mind, I can say I know that Christ is Lord, and that God exists. No loving way are you a philosophy professor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
Mumpy Puffinz posted:No loving way are you a philosophy professor. Well no poo poo, if he wasn't willing to quote liars then we wouldn't have this thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
I'm actually a real life philosophy professor and I lecture basic level philosophy and logic classes as well. I also teach basic epistemology and touch on topics regarding the definition of knowledge and how classic philosophers thought they could know the existence of god. I'm atheist as hell though. If that dude being quoted by Volume really teaches epistemology and thinks he can know the existence of god he must be a really really lovely teacher.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
Kanthulhu posted:I'm actually a real life philosophy professor and I lecture basic level philosophy and logic classes as well. I also teach basic epistemology and touch on topics regarding the definition of knowledge and how classic philosophers thought they could know the existence of god. well, I've got some good news for you
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
TacticalUrbanHomo posted:Well no poo poo, if he wasn't willing to quote liars then we wouldn't have this thread. Ha ha. Fair enough
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
Kanthulhu posted:I'm actually a real life philosophy professor Nah
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 07:11 |
|
|
If there is no God, then any ground for regarding the herd morality evolved by homo sapiens as objectively true seems to have been removed. After all, what is so special about human beings? They are just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time. Some action, say, incest, may not be biologically or socially advantageous and so in the course of human evolution has become taboo; but there is on the atheistic view nothing really wrong about committing incest. If, as Kurtz states, The moral principles that govern our behavior are rooted in habit and custom, feeling and fashion, then the non-conformist who chooses to flout the herd morality is doing nothing more serious than acting unfashionably.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 02:55
|
|