... Well, just to come back on the subject and now that I think about it, there are some old churches (often classed as historical monuments), most of the time empty, that are very effective to bring back your feets on earth and your mind at peace in the same time. But some big ones (in Paris for exemple) even with a lot of people can be effective that way too. Those old stones are impregnated with all the vibrations they received through centuries, and they still spread these.
Nanner Split said:
Anchorhead said:
You seem to be under the impression that this is some sort of secret society where your neighbors show their true selves once they give the secret password to get into a weekly gathering.
This might be a side effect of his background as a Jehovah's Witness. Sean, I might be mistaken, but don't they basically have a neighborhood watch going on during the week?
Well see(if I remember this correctly). The Jehovah's Witnesses usually have 2 hour gatherings at the Kingdom Hall maybe about 2 days of the week. On Wednesday they have one hour services and go out door knocking. What I went through is no different what any other indoctrinated kid went through. They just shunned my family afterwards and because just wanted to leave.
And no I don't think there is some kind of secret society. I'm just curious.
I'd definitely get some dark sunglasses, a trenchcoat, and maybe a fake mustache.
IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!
"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005
"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM
"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.
My suggestion:
Sluggo said:
Warbler said:
I, for one, do not believe that the Levitical laws were inspired by God. They just don't make sense. Callings a woman's menstrual cycle, something they can't avoid doing, a sin??? An all knowing all powerful god would not be that stupid.
I wouldn't say that the text goes as far as saying it is a sin, but rather that it is uncleanliness. To keep the people of Israel in a state of Holiness, which is what the Levitical laws were for, the impurity of blood and menstruation must be dealt with.
Maybe you would call it semantics, but the difference seems clear to me.
to me, if you are making a SIN offering, it is because you have sinned. and what about the killing you kid if he curses thing?
That's the problem with established Christianity.
The Messiah is promised by the same generations that came up with (or were given) those laws.
The teachings of Jesus (which are very palatable and rarely followed by Christians of any colour) owe their authority to a bunch of writings that most sensible Christians would be appalled by but are frequently selectively pointed to by less sensible Christians.
Which is why the warning on the picture a few pages back makes a lot of sense and should only cause offense to people too attached to the idea of it being the literal word of God.
Warbler said:
Sluggo said:
Warbler said:
I, for one, do not believe that the Levitical laws were inspired by God. They just don't make sense. Callings a woman's menstrual cycle, something they can't avoid doing, a sin??? An all knowing all powerful god would not be that stupid.
I wouldn't say that the text goes as far as saying it is a sin, but rather that it is uncleanliness. To keep the people of Israel in a state of Holiness, which is what the Levitical laws were for, the impurity of blood and menstruation must be dealt with.
Maybe you would call it semantics, but the difference seems clear to me.
to me, if you are making a SIN offering, it is because you have sinned. and what about the killing you kid if he curses thing?
Dude, YHWH gives permission to kill EVERYONE.
I can imagine Jesus giving the beatitudes and such, and some guy heckling him with passages from Leviticus, and Jesus being all "Sheesh, what was I thinking!? My bad."
TheBoost said:
Warbler said:
Sluggo said:
Warbler said:
I, for one, do not believe that the Levitical laws were inspired by God. They just don't make sense. Callings a woman's menstrual cycle, something they can't avoid doing, a sin??? An all knowing all powerful god would not be that stupid.
I wouldn't say that the text goes as far as saying it is a sin, but rather that it is uncleanliness. To keep the people of Israel in a state of Holiness, which is what the Levitical laws were for, the impurity of blood and menstruation must be dealt with.
Maybe you would call it semantics, but the difference seems clear to me.
to me, if you are making a SIN offering, it is because you have sinned. and what about the killing you kid if he curses thing?
Dude, YHWH gives permission to kill EVERYONE.
he does? I must of missed that part of the Bible.
I noticed that a mother of an old friend of mine recently blocked me on Facebook. She blocked me because I was a vocal Atheist. It was ok when she tried to convert me, promote her ministry, and constantly preached to her Facebook friends, but when I talk about my non-beliefs I get blocked. Because that's what Jesus would do.
That's technology leading to progress in action.
You got blocked on Facespace.
In the past 'blocking' would have taken the form of torture and death.
Well done interwebs!
Lets hope this this Mytwitbook thing takes off in the West Indies and the Middle East where they still use the old fashioned methods.
Whoa! Such heavy knee-jerks, I am surprised you manage to stay in your chair, Bingo.
Not surprised, Sean. A lot of Christians get really offended at the suggestion that their God may not exist, yet they roll their eyes when people of the exact opposite view get offended for being wished a "Merry Christmas" or told "God bless".
I think both sides are quite ridiculous. Having the blessing of a God you don't believe in wished on you is not going to do you any harm. And hearing alternative points of view on the origin of the universe is something no Christian should fear. If they are sound in their faith in God, then familiarity with the opposing views will only stand to make them more informed. If they are not sound in their views and hearing Atheist thought makes them doubt, then maybe they ought to take measures to strengthen their faith, rather than follow it ignorantly and blindly. If after taking a serious look into both sides of the spectrum they cannot justify their faith in light of these other views, then maybe they need to seriously rethink their views.
"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape
Warbler said:
TheBoost said:
Warbler said:
to me, if you are making a SIN offering, it is because you have sinned. and what about the killing you kid if he curses thing?
Dude, YHWH gives permission to kill EVERYONE.
he does? I must of missed that part of the Bible.
Well not EVERYONE. Just foreigners, rude children, all members of other religions, any of the people on Earth he doesn't think is good enough, Egyptian babies, folks who argue with priests, brides who aren't virgins, people who work on Sundays, and a few others.
C3PX said:
Whoa! Such heavy knee-jerks, I am surprised you manage to stay in your chair, Bingo.
Not surprised, Sean. A lot of Christians get really offended at the suggestion that their God may not exist, yet they roll their eyes when people of the exact opposite view get offended for being wished a "Merry Christmas" or told "God bless".
I think both sides are quite ridiculous. Having the blessing of a God you don't believe in wished on you is not going to do you any harm. And hearing alternative points of view on the origin of the universe is something no Christian should fear. If they are sound in their faith in God, then familiarity with the opposing views will only stand to make them more informed. If they are not sound in their views and hearing Atheist thought makes them doubt, then maybe they ought to take measures to strengthen their faith, rather than follow it ignorantly and blindly. If after taking a serious look into both sides of the spectrum they cannot justify their faith in light of these other views, then maybe they need to seriously rethink their views.
I don't mind what anyone says really. Preach what you want to. Just don't get mad when people preach things differently then you.
C3PX said:
Whoa! Such heavy knee-jerks, I am surprised you manage to stay in your chair, Bingo.
Not surprised, Sean. A lot of Christians get really offended at the suggestion that their God may not exist, yet they roll their eyes when people of the exact opposite view get offended for being wished a "Merry Christmas" or told "God bless".
I think both sides are quite ridiculous. Having the blessing of a God you don't believe in wished on you is not going to do you any harm. And hearing alternative points of view on the origin of the universe is something no Christian should fear. If they are sound in their faith in God, then familiarity with the opposing views will only stand to make them more informed. If they are not sound in their views and hearing Atheist thought makes them doubt, then maybe they ought to take measures to strengthen their faith, rather than follow it ignorantly and blindly. If after taking a serious look into both sides of the spectrum they cannot justify their faith in light of these other views, then maybe they need to seriously rethink their views.
I don't mind what anyone says really. Preach what you want to. Just don't get mad when people preach things differently then what you do.
"My religion is getting high and looking in a telescope. I'll go to church with you, if you get high and look in my telescope with me."
-Joe Rogan
"God has no religion"
- Common sense
How is that common sense? To me that is actually the lack of common sense, and the thing that irks me about religion. If there is an all powerful being who created mankind, his lack of presence in his creation is kind of lame. And if he is revealing himself to only a select few, and telling them to either go annoy the crap out of people by pounding on their doors while they are trying to eat dinner or by blowing people up, in the name of spreading his kingdom, then that is pretty lame too.
Common sense to me says that if there was a God who created the universe, he wouldn't have just created it and left his creation to be confused and go about hating each other in his name, he would be involved in it (a religion), and that instead of just revealing himself to crazies and those who are lucky enough to be blessed with believing parents to start them on the straight path, he would be slightly more equal opportunity and reveal himself to the rational skeptical sort every now and then, thereby making himself known and preventing people from slitting throats/interrupting dinner in his name.
I don't think a "hit-and-run" God would be a very commonsensical one.
"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape
There are plenty of hit and run parents, the universe we see is pretty much an internal one so such parents create a universe existing inside an individual which may prosper, may not prosper (in much the same way that an attentive parent might) so why not with a creator of a larger physical environment?
Gods (if they do exist) may see their creation in the same way that a kid playing Animal Crossing sees the world existing on the their memory card.
There may be a burst of interest followed by a long period of abandonment, followed by deletion or a fate on Ebay, a charity shop or the tip.
C3PX said:
How is that common sense? To me that is actually the lack of common sense, and the thing that irks me about religion. If there is an all powerful being who created mankind, his lack of presence in his creation is kind of lame. And if he is revealing himself to only a select few, and telling them to either go annoy the crap out of people by pounding on their doors while they are trying to eat dinner or by blowing people up, in the name of spreading his kingdom, then that is pretty lame too.
Common sense to me says that if there was a God who created the universe, he wouldn't have just created it and left his creation to be confused and go about hating each other in his name, he would be involved in it (a religion), and that instead of just revealing himself to crazies and those who are lucky enough to be blessed with believing parents to start them on the straight path, he would be slightly more equal opportunity and reveal himself to the rational skeptical sort every now and then, thereby making himself known and preventing people from slitting throats/interrupting dinner in his name.
I don't think a "hit-and-run" God would be a very commonsensical one.
I think any talk of 'common sense' is fairly out of place in a talk about religion.
I'd go so far as to say 'common sense' as an expression is fairly useless in any discussion, but even moreso with religion.
*sniped long post*
C3PX said:
I don't think a "hit-and-run" God would be a very commonsensical one.
http://twister111.tumblr.com
Previous Signature preservation link
I think babies could be better described as agnostics.
Sorry, agnostics (which is what I am) choose to be agnostic.
In reality they are nothing with regards to this discussion since they don't choose anything (including atheism), but I enjoy the point regardless.
sean wookie said:
Preach what you want to. Just don't get mad when people preach things differently then what you do.
That statement perfectly demonstrates why I almost never enter discussions of religion. My beliefs are my own. They're based on what I've read, seen, experienced, etc. However - they are personal, so I never preach, witness, scold, etc, etc. Other people's views are not my concern, nor should they be.
Because of that, I have little tolerance for athiests who constantly beat their chest over how smart they are - people like Bill Maher or George Carlin.
They're no different than the Christians they make fun of. Neither side appears to be terribly confident they've chosen the right path or they wouldn't need to constantly try to validate & confirm it.
For the record, I generally like Maher's show and find the format interesting. However, when he goes off on one of his religious bends, I turn it off. For him, there is only his view and everyone else's wrong one. Thinking that is fine, but he can't keep from being condescending about it.
Someone here said it best in another thread once - and I'm sorry I can't recall who because it was perfectly stated - both sides are taking an equal leap of faith because neither knows the truth. Unfortunately, that respect and tolerance seldom, if ever, comes through in religious conversations.
I totally agree with you about Carlin and Maher.