Hanged?

Error message

Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).

Pages

AuthorTopic: Hanged?
Thuryl
...b10010b...
Member # 869
 written Wednesday, February 15 2006 17:14 Profile Homepage #50
quote:
Originally written by Desert Pl@h:

Anyway, it's too bad the Kurdish genocide was over slowed or done for the most part by the time Bushie got around to his whole presidency thing.
What, you'd rather the Kurdish genocide had continued for longer so that the US could have done something about it?

[ Wednesday, February 15, 2006 17:15: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Ephesos
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
 written Wednesday, February 15 2006 17:40 Profile Homepage #51
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

What, you'd rather the Kurdish genocide had continued for longer so that the US could have somehow made it worse?
Ah, that looks so much better.

--------------------
Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice.

I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion.
Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00
The Immortal
BANNED
Member # 4
 written Wednesday, February 15 2006 17:49 Profile Homepage #52
Oh, come now.

The kurds are our allies. Which is why we're planting retail outlets all across their glorious province, and why we made a constitution that would make Kurdistan essentially one big, giant super-state able to amalgamate massive numbers of communities.

--------------------
*
Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Najosz Thjsza Kjras
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
 written Wednesday, February 15 2006 18:49 Profile #53
A few things:

quote:
Originally written by Dintiradan:

Anyway, I think we all need to be reminded of the idea of Realpolitik. The United States may have invaded Iraq because of the cited ultimatum. They also did so to gain a second foothold in the Middle East. Not that I disagree the need for the war, just the reasons that were cited (having a strong hand in the turbulent Middle East and stopping the Kurdish genocide are good reasons; WMDs are not only a bad reason, but also hypocritical).
Realpolitik is a terrible and inhumane political concept which serves only those interested in power for its own sake. It has no place in a democratic society, which must act on its ideals.

quote:
Originally written by ef:

If an unmarried woman can fight off her attacker, she will only come free, if she can prove that he wanted to rape her. Otherwise, death by stoning. If she comes free, honour killings are reported, because she has shamed her family. A married woman will be considered an adulteress in any case, death by stoning. Should a woman accidentily kill her attacker, she is charged with murder in any case, death by hanging.

Well, it's not your gender that's being made to pay, young Jumpin'. That may explain your generosity.

Sorry, but I feel hurt.
In a way you wouldn't if a man were the victim? Now that's chauvinism; at least he seems to be concerned with the woman as a human being, not because he has some kind of self-centered connection with her.

quote:
Originally written by ef:

I don't think companies could make a difference, even if they cared. Islamic law is based on the Quran. It is therefore somewhat open to interpretation, but not much. An eye for an eye is the basic rule and that is unchangeable.
Balderdash. Mohammed preaches mercy and tolerance as well, it's just that, like the parts of the Old Testament and New Testament portraying God as merciful were ignored for a millenium, political forces find those parts of the Qu'ran untenable.
quote:

There is a fundamental difference between the Quran and the Old and New Testament of the Bible. Judaism and Christianity both differentiate between the message and the messenger, who is not seen as perfect and sacrosanct. Prophets and apostles tell us of God's/Jesus' teachings, and how they do that is seen as related to their own cultural background and time. So there's space to adapt their teachings to changing times.
More balderdash, unwashed islamophobia typical of the grotesque, paranoid bigotry now ubiquitous in Europe. Prophets are viewed with extreme relevance in Christianity and Judaism, to the point of being nearly gods themselves. Criticism of them is taken very poorly on a historical level; the only reason it happened at all is that there happened to be an atheism fad in the 17th and 18th centuries.
quote:

This is different in Islam. The Quran is understood as the direct teaching of God via the archangel Gabriel, who makes Muhammad aware of God's wishes for men and of God's law. That makes it an absolute message, infinite, unchangeable. There's not much space for interpretation. Also, as the Quran is younger than the Bible, it is seen as the final version of God's will. Islam has no trouble accepting the Bible, as we would accept the first edition of a book and then the second edited one. After that comes the third and final publication, and that covers all aspects of life, mundane and spiritual, private and public.

Changes to Islam, if at all possible, can only come from within, through its own scholars and clergy, through its own people.
Fundamentalist Christians - and orthodox Jews - believe the Bible is a perscription for mortal law passed down directly through Moses and the Prophets in the case of the Old Testament, and passed down directly through the Apostles in the case of the New Testament, and is too infinite and unchangeable. You are comparing a liberal and recent strain of Christianity to a reactionary and ancient strain of Islam, and that is both astoundingly unfair and completely bloody typical of a Europe that is no longer interested in any voices but its own.

quote:
Originally written by Student of Trinity:

Problem is that economic leverage is limited. Sanctions took decades to effect change in South Africa, and: I bet sanctions were only part of the cause of change; Iran sells mostly oil, which is a tough commodity to boycott; otherwise Iran's trade is mostly buying, and money is even tougher to boycott; and apartheid wasn't (quite?) a religion.

Historically, I think the only sanctions that have had serious teeth have either quickly led to war, or had harsh effects on citizens that were comparable to those of war. It used to be that the United States could drop a big hammer by refusing to export oil to rogue nations. Those were the days, perhaps; then again, that was what provoked Pearl Harbor.
Incompletely correct. Unfortunately, what one must remember about sanctions is that they only work under certain circumstances. They worked against apartheid because blacks were already separate from the South African consumer economy; in Iraq, they only succeeded in killing Iraqi children. (And the disgusting part is that the strongest voices against sanctions now were the ones whose preferred solution was immediate invasion.) In all cases except those where one group is radically and unconditionally excluded from society - a status Iranian women do not exist in to the extent South African blacks did - the overall effect of sanctions tends to be punishing an oppressor by wounding his victims, and thereby somewhat nonsensical.
Agreed, at least, re. Pearl Harbor.

quote:
Originally written by Dintiradan:

By ef:
quote:
There is a fundamental difference between the Quran and the Old and New Testament of the Bible. Judaism and Christianity both differentiate between the message and the messenger, who is not seen as perfect and sacrosanct. Prophets and apostles tell us of God's/Jesus' teachings, and how they do that is seen as related to their own cultural background and time. So there's space to adapt their teachings to changing times.
Not all Christians think that the Bible should be evaluated based on time. The authors of the Bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and thus the words are timeless. Granted, Christians no longer have to follow the Levitical law, but that is because Christ fulfilled it (for more on this topic, read the Gospel according to Matthew and the letter to the Hebrews).
The belief that Christ fulfilled the Mosaic covenant is more than a little lame, and fairly shaky when you consider most of those who believe this also, conveniently enough, consider certain parts of Leviticus (no homosexuality, for instance, and no non-vaginal sex) sinful anyway.
quote:

(Sorry for the rant. After months in a sterile university environment, I need some theological release)

And on the topic of sanctions: these rarely work on an authoritarian country. The leaders simply take more resources from the populace, and incite anger against the countries responsible for the sanction.
Has it occurred to you that when a foreign country is responsible for you being unable to eat, you probably don't need your leader's prodding to get angry at that country?

quote:
Originally written by Desert Pl@h:

quote:
Originally written by Dintiradan:

Perhaps it's just me, but I don't associate economic policy with foreign affairs.
?

Anyway, it's too bad the Kurdish genocide was over slowed or done for the most part by the time Bushie got around to his whole presidency thing.
You know, to be fair, there's no clear evidence Bush gave a crap one way or another about the Kurds, any more than he did about the Darfur blacks. He only started saber-rattling towards Iraq once 9/11 gave him a pretense to act bellicose, and his saber-rattling mostly related to Iraq's preposterously fabricated WMD capacities. The Kurdish question was a secondary or tertiary matters as causa belli go.

quote:
Originally written by Prometheus:

[quote=Dintiradan]
The authors of the Bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and thus the words are timeless.
I am inspired by the Holy Spirit to pee all over you.
Now you come up with a decent counter-argument before I give you a golden shower. No, really.[/QB][/quote]Well, he meant that the words are inspired by the Holy Spirit, but this is a fair argument against the divine intuition that is all too popular with the idiot American evangelical nowadays.

quote:
Originally written by Ephesos:

quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

What, you'd rather the Kurdish genocide had continued for longer so that the US could have somehow made it worse?
Ah, that looks so much better.
Typical underinformed little-Englander knee-jerk anti-Americanism. The Kurds are the only ethnic group that profited from the US invasion; everyone else has been suffering in some degree or another. If we had stopped at the borders of Kurdistan, we truly would have been welcomed as liberators.

[ Wednesday, February 15, 2006 18:51: Message edited by: Belisarius ]
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Jewels
Agent
Member # 3364
 written Wednesday, February 15 2006 19:50 Profile Homepage #54
quote:
Originally written by Prometheus:

[quote=Dintiradan]
The authors of the Bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and thus the words are timeless.
I am inspired by the Holy Spirit to pee all over you.
Now you come up with a decent counter-argument before I give you a golden shower. No, really.[/QB][/quote]LOL!! There must be something wrong with me, cause you really do tickle my funny bone sometimes.

*clears throat*

That said:
*sarcasm detector on*

What are you talking about? You can't be inspired by something that doesn't exsist.

*sarcasm dectector off*

--------------------
"Even the worst Terror from Hell can be transformed to a testimony from Heaven!" - Rev. David Wood 6\23\05

"Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as you ever can." - John Wesley
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Tuesday, August 19 2003 07:00
The Immortal
BANNED
Member # 4
 written Wednesday, February 15 2006 19:58 Profile Homepage #55
Oh, I assure you, there is a pissgod.

I know, since I am the dispenser of his divine urine.

--------------------
*
Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Dintiradan
Guardian
Member # 6670
 written Wednesday, February 15 2006 20:11 Profile Homepage #56
By TM:
quote:
I am inspired by the Holy Spirit to pee all over you.
Now you come up with a decent counter-argument before I give you a golden shower. No, really.
I'd be careful, TM. My God can beat up your god.
(Not a decent counter-argument, I know, but there happens to be the absence of a good argument)

By Belisarius:
quote:
Realpolitik is a terrible and inhumane political concept which serves only those interested in power for its own sake. It has no place in a democratic society, which must act on its ideals.
I didn't mean to defend Realpolitik, I just meant to point out that the cited reason for the war wasn't the only motivation. Stopping the genocide from getting worse was a good reason (strangely, never mentioned much at the time), destroying WMDs wasn't. The gain of territory in the Middle East was just a 'fringe-benifit'.

quote:
The belief that Christ fulfilled the Mosaic covenant is more than a little lame, and fairly shaky when you consider most of those who believe this also, conveniently enough, consider certain parts of Leviticus (no homosexuality, for instance, and no non-vaginal sex) sinful anyway.
You are confusing the Levitical (or ceremonial) law with the moral law (such as the Ten Commandments). Morality has not changed; it is not relative to time
(I have never, ever, read anywhere in the Bible that non-vaginal sex, with a married partner at least, is prohibited. Maybe it's in the 'Catholic Canon', or you heard it from some TV evangelist. Always go back to the source.)

By Jewels:
quote:
What are you talking about? You can't be inspired by something that doesn't exsist.
Ah, the heart of the matter. If you want to, we can start a new thread debating the existence of God; this one wasn't originally meant for such debates.

EDIT: Sorry Jewels, I misread your post. I've got to stop these late-night posts...

--------------------
Epiphanies occur only to those who didn't get the concept in the first place.

[ Thursday, February 16, 2006 10:37: Message edited by: Dintiradan ]
Posts: 1509 | Registered: Tuesday, January 10 2006 08:00
The Immortal
BANNED
Member # 4
 written Wednesday, February 15 2006 20:54 Profile Homepage #57
First off, jewels is a fundamentalist. She is a fundamentalist to the extent that it is literally physically revolting. She is the intolerably ignorant, hyper-christian american that the rest of the quasi-civilized world loves to hate.

quote:
I'd be careful, TM. My God can beat up your god.
(Not a decent counter-argument, I know, but there happens to be the absence of a good argument)
If you can't provide a reason for why the bible is the inspired word of god (rather than a dung heap), then don't go prancing around singing its praises without expecting retribution.

quote:
The gain of territory in the Middle East was just a 'fringe-benifit'.
Keeping the minimum wage well below the poverty line is a sure-fire way to guarantee competitiveness in the job market and allow employers to award employees based on their individual merits. Earning the rich such inordinate amounts of money that they could buy god is just a 'fringe-benefit'.

quote:
You are confusing the Levitical (or ceremonial) law with the moral law (such as the Ten Commandments). Morality has not changed; it is not relative to time
(I have never, ever, read anywhere in the Bible that non-vaginal sex, with a married partner at least, is prohibited. Maybe it's in the 'Catholic Canon', or you heard it from some TV evangelist. Always go back to the source.)
I'm going to point out that you and Alec are actually agreeing on this point.

--------------------
*
Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Thuryl
...b10010b...
Member # 869
 written Wednesday, February 15 2006 21:09 Profile Homepage #58
quote:
Originally written by Jewels:

What are you talking about? You can't be inspired by something that doesn't exsist.
Ah, well, it's not that simple, is it? You've inadvertently touched on one of the philosophical problems of intentionality -- namely, in what sense can statements refer to the idea of an object, regardless of whether that object actually exists? When we say, for example, "A unicorn has one horn", there is a sense in which what we say is obviously false, since unicorns don't exist. But there is also a sense in which what we say is obviously true, since by definition a unicorn has one horn.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Kelandon
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
 written Wednesday, February 15 2006 21:13 Profile Homepage #59
quote:
Originally written by Dintiradan:

You are confusing the Levitical (or ceremonial) law with the moral law (such as the Ten Commandments). Morality has not changed; it is not relative to time
Um, bad example. Check out that Fourth Commandment (or the Third for Catholics, apparently) again.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
The Immortal
BANNED
Member # 4
 written Wednesday, February 15 2006 21:41 Profile Homepage #60
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

When we say, for example, "A unicorn has one horn", there is a sense in which what we say is obviously false, since unicorns don't exist. But there is also a sense in which what we say is obviously true, since by definition a unicorn has one horn.
Semantics. When we say "unicorn," it's also understood by the definition of a unicorn that it doesn't exist. Given that, the sentence "A unicorn has one horn" isn't obviously false anymore.

(Furthermore, if you want to interpret the sentence as a universal generalization, it becomes true anyway even without the semantics I'm talking about.)

--------------------
*
Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Jumpin Salmon
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
 written Wednesday, February 15 2006 22:38 Profile #61
Hopefully Jewels is happily snoring away now. After a drink of water of course. When I read her little bit about proof, it was in the context of TM's piss god. She wasn't questioning her god at all. To make a funny, she'll be damned before admitting that he doesn't exist. The piss-god, may all his decisions be final, does not necessarily have the wide acceptance of biblical god.

*this message sponsored by the makers of advil*

--------------------
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Well, I'm at least pretty sure that Salmon is losing.
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Student of Trinity
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
 written Thursday, February 16 2006 00:10 Profile #62
quote:
Originally written by Belisarius:
[a finite set of statements]
"Incompletely correct."

Alec, do you have to ride such a high horse? You said nothing that contradicted my remarks, yet you cast your response as a schoolmasterly correction. And your response to me was your mildest.

Your articulacy, erudition, and analysis often seem to attain academic standards. More than one has a right to expect from a message board. But perhaps you could also bring the attitude up to match?

--------------------
We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty.
Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
The Immortal
BANNED
Member # 4
 written Thursday, February 16 2006 00:28 Profile Homepage #63
...you do know that an "academic attitude" would involve him literally molding his feces into little balls and hurling them at you, right?
Just pointing that out.

--------------------
*
Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
ef
Guardian
Member # 2476
 written Thursday, February 16 2006 02:01 Profile #64
quote:
Alec:at least he seems to be concerned with the woman as a human being,
That's precisely the message that didn't reach me and what triggered my response.
quote:
ef:An eye for an eye
Alec:Balderdash. Mohammed preaches mercy and tolerance as well, it's just that, like the parts of the Old Testament and New Testament portraying God as merciful were ignored for a millenium, political forces find those parts of the Qu'ran untenable.
Could you elaborate a bit on this? Not the mercy and tolerance part, of course I know that, but that it is more political than religious voices that insist on the 'eye for eye'-policy, and how to use the Quran to argue against it?
quote:
Alec:You are comparing a liberal and recent strain of Christianity to a reactionary and ancient strain of Islam,
If that is so, could you point me to some more recent and more liberal interpretations of the islamic faith and its interrelation with other faiths?

--------------------
Polaris
Rache's A3 Site reformatted 2/3 done
Rache's A3 Site, original version
Posts: 1828 | Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00
Thuryl
...b10010b...
Member # 869
 written Thursday, February 16 2006 02:52 Profile Homepage #65
quote:
Originally written by ef:

Could you elaborate a bit on this? Not the mercy and tolerance part, of course I know that, but that it is more political than religious voices that insist on the 'eye for eye'-policy, and how to use the Quran to argue against it?
Considering that most of the Middle East doesn't really go in for the whole separation-of-church-and-state thing, the religious voices and political voices belong to the same people. The real question is, are they motivated by political or religious considerations? Well, I suppose the answer to that depends on how much of a cynic one is -- although in this case, the cynical answer is the optimistic one.

[ Thursday, February 16, 2006 02:53: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Arancaytar
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
 written Thursday, February 16 2006 03:59 Profile Homepage #66
quote:
Originally written by ef:

If that is so, could you point me to some more recent and more liberal interpretations of the islamic faith and its interrelation with other faiths?
Many adherents of such liberal interpretations can be found online, both on their websites and in forums (I haven't got any specific examples right now, though). From what I've seen, the fundamentalists are actually in the minority on the internet, but like with Christians it is a very loud and very angry minority.

[ Thursday, February 16, 2006 04:00: Message edited by: Arancaytar the Grey ]

--------------------
Encyclopaedia Ermariana • Forum Archives • Forum Statistics • RSS [Topic / Forum]
My Blog • Polaris • I eat novels for breakfast.
Polaris is dead, long live Polaris.
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair.
Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00
Jewels
Agent
Member # 3364
 written Thursday, February 16 2006 06:58 Profile Homepage #67
quote:
Originally written by Prometheus:

First off, jewels is a fundamentalist. She is a fundamentalist to the extent that it is literally physically revolting. She is the intolerably ignorant, hyper-christian american that the rest of the quasi-civilized world loves to hate.
You really think so? Really, really?? Why... *sniffs* thanks, TM. That's the nicest compliment anyone's ever given me. (Sorry Syn, but 'Hated by the World' trumps 'Sweetest of the Sweet' hands down, no contest.)

Back to your pissgod, it is knowing that you have no belief in the statements you have made that I claim that they are insubstantial. Everyone here knows you're just blowing smoke and that you believe in your statements just about as much as you believe that cyanide isn't toxic. Now... if say, Ben had made the statement, there would be more to argue because there would be a much bigger chance that he actually believed he was given this directive. And believeing that one actually recieved a directive (as opposed to blatantly lying) would be the first qualifier to making an argument whether or not said directive is true.

quote:
Originally written by Jumpin' Salmon:
She wasn't questioning her god at all.
Not at this time, no. That doesn't mean that I never have. On numerous occasions I have questioned and rebelled and tried living like He isn't real. I drew the same conclusion every time. There was something missing from my life, something that was only satisfied when I humbled myself to admit that God is real and the Bible is true. Those naysayers who want proof only need to open themselves up to recieve it. In reality, I, or any other Christian, can not offer any unbeliever enough proof to change their mind. Only God can give someone the proof they desire, and then it's up to them to believe in it. For the sake of those who are new I will explain again my personal proof, which is a physical reaction of euphoria occuring when I worship with my whole heart. There's no way I can really proove it, but I am not alone in my experience.

Final thought; "Reason Can Begin Again by Recognizing What It Can Never Know", the catchy title of a book written by Blaise Pascal. Not that it really ties in with anything, but I found it today and liked it.

[ Thursday, February 16, 2006 13:08: Message edited by: Jewels ]

--------------------
"Even the worst Terror from Hell can be transformed to a testimony from Heaven!" - Rev. David Wood 6\23\05

"Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as you ever can." - John Wesley
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Tuesday, August 19 2003 07:00
Arancaytar
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
 written Thursday, February 16 2006 07:18 Profile Homepage #68
quote:
In reality, I, and no other Christian, can offer any unbeliever enough proof to change their mind.
From the context, a negative is missing somewhere in that sentence...

---

Also, since I like to be devil's advocate (and I myself am agnostic): How can we know whether TM is sincere in his belief or not? Apart from educated guesses, what would be the deciding difference between the possibility that TM does not actually believe in a pissgod and is just lying, and the possibility that he is in fact believing in it?

That's the kind of thing we had to debate in Theory of Knowledge... :rolleyes:

--------------------
Encyclopaedia Ermariana • Forum Archives • Forum Statistics • RSS [Topic / Forum]
My Blog • Polaris • I eat novels for breakfast.
Polaris is dead, long live Polaris.
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair.
Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00
Or else o'erleap.
Law Bringer
Member # 335
 written Thursday, February 16 2006 08:25 Profile Homepage #69
I'm actually quite interested in how the non-Muslim political voices can despise the Qur'an as a document that inspires violence and terrorism when, as Alec points out, the holy Judeo-Christian word of God has inspired its own fair share of that violence and terrorism.

In the same vein as Aran, where can the line be drawn between religion and psychology? If you experience physical euphoria from worship, is that a gift from God or a gift from biochemistry (or both)? What if I don't feel anything is missing from my life and in fact feel most uplifted when I can face a room full of the devout and tear apart the tenets of religion and belief in God? What if that makes me euphoric?

—Alorael, who would further like to know what makes physical euphoria evidence for the God of the New Testament when the Old Testament works just as well. Or, for that matter, how about those who hold entirely different religious faiths and who also experience religious ecstasy?
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Desert Pl@h
Lifecrafter
Member # 1768
 written Thursday, February 16 2006 08:47 Profile #70
tThuryl and others: I said that statement about the Kurdish genocide wrong, I suppose. What I was wishing was that the world had acted faster when it did happen back in the 1980s.

About the God discussion: I can't see all of it, (due to a campus blocker that blocks the STRANGEST things), but it looks like TM's a bigot towards bigots and also towards non-bigots.

--------------------
"Oh, North Wind, why frighten others?
In Nature's family all are brothers.
Puff and blow and wheeze and hiss;
You can't frighten Shingebiss.
Bring your frost and ice and snow;
I'm still free to come and go.
You can never frighten me,
One who never fears is FREE!"
-Shingebiss, the mighty duck
Posts: 830 | Registered: Tuesday, August 20 2002 07:00
Jewels
Agent
Member # 3364
 written Thursday, February 16 2006 14:11 Profile Homepage #71
Line has been fixed, Aran.

The deciding factor in whether or not TM really believes would be if he has suddenly become clinicly insane. Other then that there is no chance he really believes in the pissgod which he only made up in response to my post. Previously he attributed his inclination to the Holy Spirit of the christian god. TM's a smart guy, and I'm offended that you would lend to the idea that he is not. :P

Alo- There is no room for 'if's' with this kind of experience. Either you have it or you don't. Either you feel something is missing or you don't. It's like asking 'What if pigs could fly.' Come back when they do and we'll talk about it then.

There is no difference between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament, only the way we relate to him has changed.

I read a book years ago about missinaries going out to the remote tribes of the amazon and bringing them the gospel and one of the cheifs that they visited had said, 'We've been worshiping him all along. We just didn't know his name.' It is possible to worship God even when you haven't heard the gospel. But, as I have said before, if a person has any doubt in their god or the way they worship and they do not flesh it out and seek the truth (even among chritians) then they will have to answer for it to the god that really made them.

John 4:23,24-"But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."

[ Thursday, February 16, 2006 14:14: Message edited by: Jewels ]

--------------------
"Even the worst Terror from Hell can be transformed to a testimony from Heaven!" - Rev. David Wood 6\23\05

"Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as you ever can." - John Wesley
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Tuesday, August 19 2003 07:00
Khoth
Post Navel Trauma ^_^
Member # 67
 written Thursday, February 16 2006 16:14 Profile Homepage #72
quote:
Originally written by Jewels:

There is no difference between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament, only the way we relate to him has changed.
These days, he waits for people he doesn't like to die before he beats them up?

quote:
I read a book years ago about missinaries going out to the remote tribes of the amazon and bringing them the gospel and one of the cheifs that they visited had said, 'We've been worshiping him all along. We just didn't know his name.'
How do you know it's not you that's been worshipping his old god all along?

quote:
Originally written by whoever it was:

Moral law (ten commandments) has to be kept but we don't have to follow the ceremonial law because Jesus zebnuched them
1. Of the ten commandments, the first four are ceremonial, not moral.
2. There's no mention in the ten commandments of things like homosexuality, which most christians are against.
3. And before you say, "Ah, but Paul said..." to point two, Paul also said that women shouldn't wear jewellery, and most christians seem happy to ignore that one.

I don't believe that anyone gets their morality from the Bible (with the possible exception of Jack Chick). It's heavily filtered by selective reading and accumulated (highly mutable) tradition of dubious provenance. And I am very glad of that (the fewer Jack Chicks, the better).

I'm always amused when people say things like "Islam is an inherently violent religion. The Koran says {thing which is mild in comparison to much of the Bible}"

--------------------
Barcoorah: I even did it to a big dorset ram.

desperance.net - Don't follow this link
Posts: 1798 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00
The Immortal
BANNED
Member # 4
 written Thursday, February 16 2006 16:57 Profile Homepage #73
Giz is still an idiot who likes to ignore arguments outright.

Plah is still an idiot who likes to ignore arguments outright.

IMAGE(http://www.medjugorje.org/img/mh01.jpg)

--------------------
*
Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Dintiradan
Guardian
Member # 6670
 written Thursday, February 16 2006 17:22 Profile Homepage #74
By Alorael:
quote:
Alorael, who would further like to know what makes physical euphoria evidence for the God of the New Testament when the Old Testament works just as well. Or, for that matter, how about those who hold entirely different religious faiths and who also experience religious ecstasy?
I have a name for faith based on self-inflection alone: "warm, fuzzy religion".

By Khoth:
quote:
These days, he waits for people he doesn't like to die before he beats them up?
Actually, we all deserve to be 'beat up'.

quote:
1. Of the ten commandments, the first four are ceremonial, not moral.
Let's see (I'll render it into monosyllables):
1: I'm the only God.
2: Worship me in the right way.
3: Show some respect towards me.
4: Set aside time to worship me and get spiritually fed.
Ceremonial? The way I've always thought of it was this: 1-4 is how we relate to God, 5-10 is how we relate to those around us.

quote:
2. There's no mention in the ten commandments of things like homosexuality, which most christians are against.
True (unless you intepret the seventh flexibly). In fact, they don't mention a lot (not strange, considering their length). This is why the Bible is a book, and not a pamphlet. As for the cited example: the practice of homosexuality is condemned in both the Old and New Testament, and never condoned.

quote:
3. And before you say, "Ah, but Paul said..." to point two, Paul also said that women shouldn't wear jewellery, and most christians seem happy to ignore that one.
Since I'm not writing this at home, I can't look up that passage with my handy-dandy concordances to put it in context. I can think of another passage: Paul once tells women of one church to avoid braiding their hair. Why? It was in vogue for the prostitutes at that time.

I'm sure you'll find other passages that "many Christians" don't obey. Don't fall prey to an Inductive Fallacy.

quote:
I don't believe that anyone gets their morality from the Bible (with the possible exception of Jack Chick). It's heavily filtered by selective reading and accumulated (highly mutable) tradition of dubious provenance. And I am very glad of that (the fewer Jack Chicks, the better).
Gah! I'm denied the right to exist! Mostly, I agree with you. Sola Scriptura.

quote:
I'm always amused when people say things like "Islam is an inherently violent religion. The Koran says {thing which is mild in comparison to much of the Bible}"
The Koran preaches pacifism. So does Catholicism. But look at the Crusades. I think it's more of a problem of separation of church and state. Inevitably, both get corrupted.

- Dintiradan (also known as "whoever it was")

PS: Thanks a lot for the title of the Pascal book, Jewels!

--------------------
May he without komi place the first stone.
Posts: 1509 | Registered: Tuesday, January 10 2006 08:00

Pages