Religion

blue · Post by **blue** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:58 pm

Hoblit wrote:I love you starfinger

On that note, I'm SO glad I stayed out of this thread for this long.

pussy.

Kill Me Sarah · Post by **Kill Me Sarah** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:33 am

Kweep wrote:
starfinger wrote:here's a little trick for you:

eros never appears in the bible.

-craig
That is absolutely true for the New Testament... but, my point was that both words are translated into english as love... I should have gone with phileo and agape because they both DO appear in the New Testament and can be translated as love... prime example:

John 21:15-17

15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love (agapao) me more than these?"
"Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love (phileo) you."
Jesus said, "Feed my lambs."
16Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love (agapao) me?"
He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love (phileo) you."
Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep."
17The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love (phileo) me?"
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love (phileo) me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love (phileo) you."

-----

Since Peter had just betrayed Jesus (the whole cock crowing incident) he couldn't honestly say he "unconditionally loved" him so he chose the "I love you like a brother" word. Now, is that a big difference? I think so. If you taught your kid that version instead of the one that makes your kid ask, why did he ask him the same thing three times?... wouldn't it make more sense?

Then you need a better translation

My Bible reads:
15: When, now, they had breakfasted, Jesus said to Simon Peter: "Simon son of John, do you love* me more that these?" He said to him: "Yes, Lord, you know I have affection for you#." He said to him: "Feed my lambs." ...etc.

*"Lit., "are you loving." Gr., a-ga-pais'."
#"Lit., "I am having affection for you." Gr., phi-lo' se.

Mogosagatai · Post by **Mogosagatai** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 5:37 am

Yay for semantic arguments! Yay for missing points! Yay for bullshit!

If you think this might apply to you, it probably does.

Different point altogether: I have a lot to say, but I rarely get to spill it all out, because people just can't seem to comprehend what I'm saying. Maybe I'm a bad communicator, or maybe most people are bad receptionists, and most likely both. Well, this night/morning, I climbed up a fence and serenaded some giraffes, and they seemed to love it. The whole experience was extremely fulfilling, and I somehow think I reached those giraffes in a positive light. Dumb animals that they are, they were able to comprehend my main points, without tripping over all the bullshit details.

Well, that was pretty beautiful. That's my main point.

starfinger · Post by **starfinger** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 6:42 am

Mogosagatai wrote:Yay for semantic arguments! Yay for missing points! Yay for bullshit!

Well, I don't think I was missing any points, even though my 'eros' comment probably could lead someone to believe that I was.

I do think it is probably a good idea to affirm that nobody has to read the New Testament wondering if God really feels erotic love towards them.

Also, I still think the fact that 99.99% of us rely on translations is not really a big deal, considering the thoughtful presentation of language complications in a lot of them.

I believe that the Bible rewards deeper study, but the innocence of childish faith is something special too. I'm not sure how this translates to other christian sects that think there is more to salvation than just believing.

-craig

Dan-O from Five-O · Post by **Dan-O from Five-O** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 9:19 am

Sven wrote:
Dan-O from Five-O wrote:EDIT: And in the end all you need is Pasta anyway.
You have been touched by his noodley appendage too!?

Rrrrr me matey, indeed I have Sven. Like others, I tried other belief systems but found their organizational structures and teachings left me feeling cold and confused. They all seemed to have discrepencies that required some leap of faith to embrace a Diety you couldn't touch. FSM is there, with us. You can see him in the pictures. I like having things simplified for me like that. Other religions may have better looking places of worship. But FSM has pirates on their side.

You can't beat pirates. Just ask Spud.

Kweep · Post by **Kweep** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:21 am

the video is awesome! http://www.venganza.org/images/fsm-spotting.mpg

Märk · Post by **Märk** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 12:19 pm

Kweep wrote:the video is awesome! http://www.venganza.org/images/fsm-spotting.mpg

Now THAT is what I call concrete proof of His Holy Noodley-ness' existance.

Has anyone ever videotaped this so-called god of the Christians? No. They have not.

Kweep · Post by **Kweep** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:23 pm

sorry sven, mel gibson was all over that...

Dan-O from Five-O · Post by **Dan-O from Five-O** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:27 pm

Kweep wrote:sorry sven, mel gibson was all over that...

Yeah but you're talking about an actor portrayal. We're talking about hard factual evidence proving the existance of an all powerful pasta diety.

There's really no comparison once you've looked at the facts.

Märk · Post by **Märk** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:30 pm

I tried going on a pasta diety for a while, but it constipated me.
(a gentle reminder that it's spelled 'deity')

Kweep · Post by **Kweep** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:33 pm

Dan-O from Five-O wrote:Yeah but you're talking about an actor portrayal.[...]

What? no, i'm not... i'm talkin about 'the passion of the christ'. dude, that's as real as it gets. did you see all the blood... you can't fake that. and they were talkin' funny not english stuff... noone doesn't talk english no more.

Dan-O from Five-O · Post by **Dan-O from Five-O** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:37 pm

Sven wrote:(a gentle reminder that it's spelled 'deity')

Ooops, sorry. I should probably go say 10 Hail Noodles or Our FSM's or something.

Mogosagatai · Post by **Mogosagatai** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 5:48 pm

starfinger wrote:
Mogosagatai wrote:Yay for semantic arguments! Yay for missing points! Yay for bullshit!
Well, I don't think I was missing any points...

I don't think you were either.

Kweep · Post by **Kweep** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 6:02 pm

Mogosagatai wrote:Yay for semantic arguments! Yay for missing points! Yay for bullshit!

If you think this might apply to you, it probably does.

Yay for semantic arguments! = ME?

Yay for missing points! = K_M_S?

Yay for bullshit! = Religion?

Did I get 'em right and is there a prize involved?

*edit - i just wanna point out that i said religion and not faith, spirituality, belief, etc. thought i should make that clearer

pegor · Post by **pegor** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:47 pm

starfinger wrote:
pegor wrote:Why couldn't Jesus have sneezed for our sins... I donâ€™t get the connection? where is the cause and effect?
way edited :

This is a huge question, and there are a few parallel answers.
- First of all, Jesus's death was entirely for our benefit. ....
- Secondly, it was the culmination of the Jews culture of sacrifice....
- Thirdly, it paved the way for Jesus's resurrection (happy easter). This triumph over death shifted the focus from our mortal bodiesto our eternal spirits.

So, I was really REALLY hopiing someone else would point that out these are symbolic gestures and not anyway related to the cause and effect realities people deal with every day. It could never be intrepreted as logic or proved (proofed) as science but I was hoping for at least psuedo science. Hay I haven't given up on Bigfoot or Nessy.

Clearly Starfinger has belief system that results in kindness and compassion ( in him, at least for now). I like that. Observable behaviour is really all we can judge each other by.

BUT the reason for the passsion/crusifixion still seems like an affectation that could have been replaced with a sneeze. The God(s) decieded to die painfully just like every suicide since day one. Even if you believe in god you have to acknolege the cusifixion was a PR stunt that deserves no more sympathy then the guy holding a gun to his own head telling the police to back off.

Is it warm in here or is it just hell?

Mogosagatai · Post by **Mogosagatai** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:20 am

The story as I see it:

Humans: Rarrr, we are ignorant in our ways and falling into sin! Look at us as we steadily devolve in our moral behavior!

God: Aw, poor little things. They're ignorant in their ways and falling into sin. Look at 'em devolving morally! Well, I love 'em too much to let this go any further. I guess I'll send an incarnation-type-thing of myself down there to set a good example for them to follow. Of course, they'll inevitably misunderstand it and end up killing it, but I bet that when they kill it, that'll really drive the point home, and they'll realize that they should've followed it all along. Sweet!

Later...

Jesus: Hey guys, it'd be pretty awesome if we all just treated each other nicely.

Humans: In our ignorant ways we cannot fully comprehend your wisdom. If indeed it is wisdom! We are scared of you and therefore shall put you to death!

Jesus: Sigh. Alright, but keep in mind, I'm just letting y'all do this 'cause I love ya.

Humans: Kill this weird and unsettling motherfucker!

Shortly thereafter:

Humans: Oh shit, he really meant it! Like, I can't believe he let us do that, just to drive the point home! He must have been really seriously committed to his philosophy. And now we can see the light, thanks to his well concerted efforts. What a badass.

Whether you believe the story is real or not (I think it's a little irrational to adhere to it as more than just a powerful story), the important thing here, or one of them, is that it took the killing of Jesus, by the hands of humankind, to make humankind realize how committed he really was to his philosophy. Pegor, your sneeze argument seems to really just be an argument against fundamentalism: If we're taking these symbols so damn literally, then why not a sneeze instead of a crucifixion, since either one could cause some magical transformation process? Well that's all fine and good, but cause and effect has nothing to do with empty symbols.

Man, y'all should really watch "Jesus Christ Superstar", Christians and non-Christians alike.

WeaselSlayer · Post by **WeaselSlayer** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 9:53 am

Movie Niiiiight!

erik · Post by **erik** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 10:45 am

Was the crucifixion a PR stunt? I suppose, if you think that the only point of sending Jesus to Earth was to erase our sins. And that's part of it, but I think God sent Jesus to Earth to remind us how much he loves us. And Jesus sneezing is not going to drive that point home to people 2,000 years after the fact.

There is some very powerful stuff in the fact that Jesus is both God and man, because as a man it means that he had free will. He could have ganked up the whole thing. I like to think that God sent Jesus to Earth as a test, to see if the human race was worth saving. Telling him that it was his destiny to die is some pretty heavy stuff, and by looking around he might have come to the conclusion like "Y'know what, I've hung out with people and travelled around and crap, and alls I know is that people are bad and evil and fuck all them bitches." But basically he came to the conclusion that humanity was decent beneath the surface, and that even though we had all kinds of sin dripping all over us, that we should be saved. So he died in a bad way, because death and suffering are the only things that we really take seriously and pay attention to.

P.S. I am a big ol' athiest.

Me$$iah · Post by **Me$$iah** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 11:14 am

Ive stayed out of this thread for so long, but I just cant bite my tounge any longer.

Anyone who claims to have read the whole bible (as indeed I have) and claim that there are no internal contradictions, hasn't read the bible. They've maybe had it read to them, by an apologetic pastor, but they aint read the bible. Not honestly and openly. If they had they would see all the blatent errors, contradictions and BS
Just what was Josephs lineage? Hmmm

For a start Gen1 and Gen2 have entirely different creation stories. This is obviously wrong as surley there can be only one (Nur Ein as they say) And thats just the begining. The scientific errors that occur are also blatent to anyone that has read the bible. From the very first line
"in the begining God greated the heavens and the earth"
Even that is scientifically wrong. So from the very first line we see problems

How is this wrong? Well the universe 'began' 15 billion years ago that was I guess the begining.. the earth was only formed 4-5 billion years ago, so that aint the begining, there was like 10 billion years in between.

And then theres Issiah's famous 'circle of the earth' A round flat earth with a huge dome of the firmanent roofing it. The bible writers believed the earth was flat, theres no denying it.
The weight of evidence that the old testament is a collection of ancient stories, is overwhelming. And every region of the world has similar stories pertaining to their local gods. Its just the development and 'evolution' of human culture.

But more to the point Im really interested in asking the believers about inherited sin
Are the sins of the father passed to the son?

Tho I would like to invite everone here to come andkiss Hanks asswith me (wat, dont cha want a million dollars)

blue · Post by **blue** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 7:14 pm

erik wrote:There is some very powerful stuff in the fact that Jesus is both God and man,

belief.. or.. truth.

WeaselSlayer · Post by **WeaselSlayer** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 9:53 pm

Badasses don't use emoticons. Clint Eastwood never used an emoticon.

Mogosagatai · Post by **Mogosagatai** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:01 am

Me$$iah wrote:Anyone who claims to have read the whole bible (as indeed I have) and claim that there are no internal contradictions, hasn't read the bible. They've maybe had it read to them, by an apologetic pastor, but they aint read the bible. Not honestly and openly. If they had they would see all the blatent errors, contradictions and BS

I haven't read the whole thing. But anyway...

I'd be careful about taking things too literally. Fundamentalism works on both sides of the fence, and it's bad both ways.

I bet there are contradictions in it. But also, I bet if you read it in a certain light (cherry-pick it, perhaps), you could still get a lot out of it without any contradictions at all, and not in an irrational way. As far as I can tell, Starfinger is evidence of this.