spore vs jesus
- Started
- Last post
- 107 Responses
- flyingnowhere0
no one is right!
- designbot0
TBO,
"Sure. But to the Romans, the threat of Jesus and christianity was to violently overhthrow their exisiting interests and civilization."
Forgive me if you think I am taking this out of context. But Jesus and his disciples not only never used "subjective, immediate violence" but the bible has no sort of "systematic violence" either. Or at the very least this is completely subjective and based on your own opinion...one that I don't think any scholar would hold.
Jesus and his disciples message was so radical, that the Roman Empire feared it....they saw Jesus as a threat to their empire. Jesus and his disciples never used any kind of violence though, physical or systematic violence in the message they preached. Which is why it is simply amazing that they were able to over-turn an empire that basically had control of the known world.
The violent acts that were later embraced by the christian church as you claim is false:
"although christianity embraces that later in it's development"
Once again you are assuming that any act done in the name of "God" was actually committed by true followers of Christ, which simply fly's in the face of everything Jesus taught. So if someone claims one thing, but then commits an act that is completely contradictory to the teachings they supposedly follow, why would you believe their claim? Wouldn't it be more likely that they were lying altogether? The only other explanation is that they grossly misinterpreted the Bible and actually believed they were doing the will of "God".
- I'm saying that christianity, as a collective movement, was a source of violent uprooting of the roman world order...TheBlueOne
- ...irregardless of if the methodology was peace (given oneself over to slaughter) or violence...TheBlueOne
- ..it is still violence done to the order of things. Those that sit at the top of the order and have stakes in it, will react to that threat with subjective violenceTheBlueOne
- with subjective violence...TheBlueOne
- ..say the same way a bunch of riot cops spray and beat a protestor holding a flower.TheBlueOne
- ..the flower holder isn't violent, but represents a violent upsurption of the social order.TheBlueOne
- Jesus overthrowing the romans?!? hahahaahahahzarkonite
- TheBlueOne0
Ah fu*k it. I retire henceforth from all religious threads on QBN. Waste of my time. There is no way or space here for me to adequately convey what I am trying to say anyway. It's useless and a waste of the time the Almighty has allotted to me anyway, eh? You keep spouting the Jesus and dinosaur line teleos. Seems to be working out well for you. We part ways here. Rock on with the jesus man.
- ukit0
- ukit0
DON'T MESS WITH THE JESUS!
- mikotondria30
"Believe in god and believe in me or you will go to hell", is one of the basic teachings of christ is it not ?
Fuck that, noones going to bully me, and if it's not bullying, but a gentle and heartfelt pleading with me to do something or something terrible will happen, then fuck it, Im not playing that game..Damn me if you will, but I will take freedom over happiness everytime.
- designbot0
TBO, for the record I respect your (and others) opinion and views. You are one of the few people who can debate without taking cheap shots or name calling.
I agree time to get back to work, but hey I think both sides can benefit from these discussions......peace.
- You're trying to drag me back in :)TheBlueOne
- he 'respects' your view, apparantly, TBO - shame he doesn't undestand it. Clarify it one more time..mikotondria3
- haha...naw man :)
I don't take any of this stuff to a personal level. You seem like a cool dude.designbot - I don't take it personally, but I do take it passionately.TheBlueOne
- exactly. Honestly it one of the most stimulating things to do in life, I find - there arent many bigger topics.mikotondria3
- Same here man. I didn't one day wake up and decide I wanted to be a Christian, quite the opposite. I simply can't denydesignbot
- what I have experienced, but I don't blindly follow Christianity either.designbot
- We've been dancing around this particular mulberry bush for so long, name-calling's the only thing left to bother with.Nairn
- yeah miko, the topic def can't get much bigger than this.designbot
- erikjonsson0
That boy jesus is a weakling just like his father. You should adopted our religion instead. its more badass and attuned to reality.
- chaos at the foundary, what ?mikotondria3
- neighbor kingdom needs some maulingerikjonsson
- *cues some Norwegian black metal. grabs torchesTheBlueOne
- I just happen to be listening to Xasthur right now while reading this funny thread.defstro
- http://www.party-san…********
- teleos0
miko: The Bible teaches that hell is within each of us. It wells up within each person and grows like a fungus. When Jesus told the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus it is noteworthy that the rich man did not ask to leave the place, just that his tongue would be cooled. It is also noteworthy that he continued to order people around. Most interesting is probably that the rich man was religious. He knew the law and it governed his life. But his deepest need of forgiveness from his sin had never been dealt with. He had never laid his burdens at the cross. He never received freely what Jesus did for him on the cross. In a sense it is self-made, Hell is. It is the logical extreme of our individual narcissism. Jesus used a few metaphors for hell: flames of gehenna (a trash dump outside of jerusalem) and the "outter darkness". He communicated that it is a place where we are consumed by that which we choose over him. Like a consuming unrelenting fire. It should be kept in mind though that Christ experienced hell for us, on the cross. When he was separated from the Father. He did this so we don't have to. We can receive the gift of new life in Christ freely because of the cross. He paid it all there. That is why he said "It is finished". He satisfied the Father's perfect justice by living a sinless life in exchange for our sinful lives and taking the penalty we deserve.
So when a person goes it hell it is of their own choosing. God in effect says, "thy will be done".
- what does some fictional figure from 2008 years ago has to do with 2008 years later? There are photoshop to govern shit now.erikjonsson
- Luke 16:19-31 - that's the reference i was making about rich man and lazarus.teleos
- teleos0
blueOne: On the sources for history about the enlightenment climate and it "encouraged" naturalistic explanations:
The Secular Ark - Janet Browne
Darwin's God - Cornelius Hunter
Science's Blind Spot - Cornelius HunterI can get you more.
- How should science account for beliefs in the supernatural? Understand the problem yet?Mimio
- I never said it should.teleos
- "Cornelius G. Hunter, Ph.D., is an adjunct professor of biophysics at Biola University and is a proponent of intelligent design. Hunter is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute, hub of the intelligent design movement."TheBlueOne
- ...is a proponent of intelligent design."
What part of not a biased source did you not get?TheBlueOne - Genetic Fallacy. Evaluate the data on it's own merits.teleos
- Cornelius Hunter is widely discredited in cricles that don't believe in god =) that book is full of lieszarkonite
- might as well read Richard Dawkins to find godzarkonite
- erikjonsson0
i love a sentence like "science blind spot"
can you please in short give me an example? =)
- Theological Naturalism, which is the presupposition of science and therefore a bias.teleos
- i dont get it. are you getting back to darwin as the base of all science again?erikjonsson
- Then why try and make an appeal using science? (or ahem...pseudo-scienc...Mimio
- science has no pre-disposition, don't just throw big words out there. explain.zarkonite
- TheBlueOne0
"I didn't one day wake up and decide I wanted to be a Christian, quite the opposite." - designbot
Exactly. And I didn't wake up one day and decide to stop being a practicing Catholic. It was a process. One of lots of deep questioning, research, soul searching. I have the utmost respect for Jesus (who I believe to have been an actual historical figure), his message, and some christians, and believe it is an honorable way to live and approach a human life, if done with a true heart. My own core belief in christianity is pretty close to some of the gnostic gospels interpretations and some of the persecuted offshoots of christianity destroyed during the first Inquistions. As such, if I continued to call myself "christian" I would do so under the shadow of heresy. And although that appeals to a certain roguish and subversive aspect of my personality, I don't quite have a large enough victim complex to take up that particular cross, pun intended.
I have come to believe that the Kingdom of Heaven that Jesus spoke about is Here. Now. It's not coming later. It wasn't before in some other time. It is simply Here. Now. and we open the door to it through our actions. As I said above the I believe that the terrain of the Divine is found solely in my relation with others. That is the only place our relationship to whatever aspect of ourselves is where the spiritual can happen. Other human beings are the representation and terrain of our relationship to god/buddha/allah/divine spirit/whatever. We enter into the Kingdom that Jesus speaks about by playing on that terrain with love and humility and selflessness. And there is nothing in my reading of the New Testament that seems to disagree with that.
It's also pretty close to alot of other thoughts and practice that humans have developed across cultures. And if you really put alot of time into it and get to the whole kernel being "Be excellent to one another" and you realize how really really fucking hard that is for a human being to do. I mean really really really hard to do. That all this other BS about creationism and having people wear veils, or how many angels are on a pin or if jesus will return with multitudes to defeat the antichrist or whatever well is just, for me, tinsel. Shiny cheap baubles. It just serves as distraction form the really really hard work of getting to the Divine in the world in our reltionships. It's a distraction, a bunch of non-issues that only serve to divide and distract.
Help another human being, comfort one who is sick, hold someone that needs holding, give to someone more in need than yourself - attend to your duties so your actions don't make others lives more difficult than they need to be. Make Heaven real, here. Now.
Science has nothing to do with that - although it is pretty cool. But it has nothing to do with being the terrain of the divine in our lives.
And teleos pisses me off bc his apparent take on all of this is just baubles, tinsel to me. Superfulous. gramme - now gramme and I will disagree with lots of stuff about matters religious and spiritual, but he's a guy not distracted by baubles per se.
The baubles is easy. Sure argue about whether the dinosaurs were really the Old Testament "leviathans" or whatever. Its' a distraction from doing the really really hard work of the Divine - which is to remove the plank from our eyes about our nature as human beings.
Ug. OK. I'm done.
- excellent, that's just right.
You fucking hippy. :pmikotondria3 - hippy? Nah. I'd whack you over the head with a zen monk's thinking stick....TheBlueOne
- I would observe myself over-reacting and give you a chance to forgive me.mikotondria3
- excellent, that's just right.
- Mimio0
These conversations would be a lot shorter if you would just admit that you think science is inadequate as a method to understand truths/laws of the universe.
- I won't admit that. I just admit that science is driven by presuppositions we hold to.teleos
- You just said there is no objectivity to science.Mimio
- Which translates to: "I believe in supernatural entities not science."Mimio
- No it simply assumes that there are logical laws in the universe which make science legitimate.teleos
- and that even the atheist assumes these rules of logic and order.teleos
- Of course, show me something unnatural and then we can talk about science's inadequacies.Mimio
- Can you point to the part that's not logical? or supernatural?zarkonite
- erikjonsson0
nicely put mimio. man has only been on top of the foodchain for rougly 25 000 years depending on wich continent you look at. due to the gap in evolution between our strain of species and the others man gets oblivious to his own existence as its taken out of context when we dont have to fight for survival with other species. thus some strive to create a new meaning of life when we are void of the meaning that delivered us at the current top slot of earth.
- It is unscientific to think that chance + necessity got us here. The evidence shows that we are here by design.teleos
- here by design? more likely we are here because of how scientifical stuff like oxygen and carbon shaped this planet and us with it.erikjonsson
- the fundamental elements didn't generate the information, programming, machinery and qualia that makes us us.teleos
- makes us us.teleos
- designbot0
BTO,
I agree with you that most of this stuff is a mere distraction, a side-issue, or "baubles" as you say. The "meat" of everything can really be broken down to a few basic principles. In your words "Be excellent to one another", is indeed one of those basic principles.I do however still think that all religions are mutually exclusive. The idea that all paths lead to the same God, is basically a New-Age idea. No practicing religion will hold this belief. So the options are either they are all false, or one of them is true, but they cannot all be true simply based on their own teachings that vastly contradict one another. You might say they all contain "some truth" (forgive me if I'm putting words in your mouth) but this again would basically contradict the message of the Gospel (and other religious texts). It is an increasingly popular view that everything is relative, where all paths lead to the same God. But to me this leaves an ambigious, global "religion" where nobody is really accountable for anything. You in a sense, create your own religion. What can be said of this? People say hey "that works for you great, but my truth is.....xyz" This of course cannot be true by it's very definition....it is self-defeating. You can't create "truth", there simply has to some objective moral standard. For me, that is the Bible. For others that is the Book of Mormon, or whatever. That is where it takes alot of dissecting to really dig in and see the origins and if the book actually holds any weight.
When you say "I have come to believe that the Kingdom of Heaven that Jesus spoke about is Here. Now. It's not coming later. It wasn't before in some other time. It is simply Here. Now." you are doing exactly what I describe above imo. Great if you believe that to be true, but that does not make it true...and in fact again, I don't see any way you could get that message out of the texts. The gnostic gospels never made the final cut because they were never accepted by the church body. They were known from the begging to be either counterfeit or not part of the gospel message.
Anyway guess we will have to agree to disagree, but I wanted to at least respond to your well thought post.
- What they have in common is that they're all irrational man-made philosophies.Mimio
- By saying that you must be coming from authoritative position that has the absolute truth, no?designbot
- naked assertion. And arrogant as it requires the one who asserts be omniscient.teleos
- exactly, designbot. Its a position that assumes that which it tries to refute.teleos
- The jury isn't out kids, they're supernatural tales recorded by people.Mimio
- The Abrahamic religions that is...Mimio
- Anyway, the burden of proof doesn't lay with me.Mimio
- erikjonsson0
ironically religion in any fucking shape or color, no matter how ridiculously made up it is, keeps inspiring violence and all the major wars and conflicts is still fought over it. so why don't you just get over trying to be nice =)
- false. "The War on Terror" for example, has nothing to do with religion. Often wars are for resources or power.designbot
- "get over trying to be nice'
hahaa :)designbot - I definitely reinforces the "otherness" and animosity between cultures/groups.Mimio
- it's actually very heritable. It encourages large families. Darwin loves religion in that way.teleos
- And as I keep saying - more violence occurred in the 20th century alone by atheistic/materialis... regimes...teleos
- ...than in all prior centuries combined.teleos
- Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin's Gulags, etc... This is not complicated history to check up on, folks.teleos
- They didn't kill IN the name of atheism, it's like saying Hitler was bad because he was a vegetarian, or had a moustachmikotondria3
- Teleos: sorry to break it to you but the murder of all natives of north america in the name of jesus takes the crown for all time largest massacrezarkonite
- mikotondria30
@desingbot..
Not really - the god that jesus spoke of WAS the jewish god - jesus was jewish. The god that mohammad spoke of was the same thing..
They didnt just turn up and say "ok, the god you all talk about isn't the right one"...they spoke about different aspects, or understandings of that same god, certainly within the big 3 monotheisms, it IS the same god that everyone mistakenly prays to, talks about, kills in the name of etc etc..
Hindus have loads of crazy different muppet-style aspects of god with the wrong number of arms and bits of animals, and so on, so that's obviously wrong..and buddism is more a study of psychology and philosophy that a story of a big bloke in the sky like all the other fictions are. Witches and that are just stupid too.
- designbot0
Right, mohammad spoke of the same Jesus, but then went on to claim he received new messages from an angel of God (thousands of years after the Gospel). Unfortunately this message, contradicted those of the Gospel. Also the militaristic means by which Mohammad used to spread his word, were in stark contrast to the way which the Gospel was spread. So basically, I don't see in any way how it could have been from the same God or how the messages can be reconciled.
- sorry I didn't address everything you said...gotta act like I am working.designbot
- Have you read the Old Testament?Mimio
- Most of it.designbot
- Didn't that God instruct militaristic violence/genocide?Mimio
- that is often taken out of context...but yes. The difference is it was not to "spread the word" or "make believers"designbot
- It was a justification to steal and kill.Mimio
- It was judgement after years, upon years of wickedness.designbot
- I thought the "Judgments" resulted in sulfuric rain and raising water levels?Mimio
- Also judgements, yes.designbot
- mimio, I feel like you are a veteran in the common-sense unit, always there supporting us, its a pleasure to serve w/ umikotondria3
- TheBlueOne0
@designbot
"I do however still think that all religions are mutually exclusive."
Doctrinally speaking I wouldn't argue with you on that. However I will say this - I imagine that when one compares the legalistic orders of religions (priests, clerics, etc.) one will encounter much friction when it comes to discussion. I imagine that the more contemplative orders (monks and mystics for example) would probably get along pretty well across religious divides."The idea that all paths lead to the same God, is basically a New-Age idea. No practicing religion will hold this belief."
New Age as in idea expressed by the ancient greeks. They called it pantheism. Like most things the greeks were there first. Long before bad books about it were sold with rainbow colors in Berkley."It is an increasingly popular view that everything is relative, where all paths lead to the same God. But to me this leaves an ambigious, global "religion" where nobody is really accountable for anything. "
How are relativism and accountability mutually exclusive?
"What can be said of this? People say hey "that works for you great, but my truth is.....xyz"
Jesus himself said that,no? That the ways of the old testament are great, but this stuff I'm laying down is the new deal.
"You can't create "truth", there simply has to some objective moral standard. For me, that is the Bible. For others that is the Book of Mormon, or whatever. That is where it takes alot of dissecting to really dig in and see the origins and if the book actually holds any weight."
Exactly and what is the measure of this weight? I would argue it is measured in our actions on the only terrain of the deivine we have available - our relations with other humans.
"When you say "I have come to believe that the Kingdom of Heaven that Jesus spoke about is Here. Now. It's not coming later. It wasn't before in some other time. It is simply Here. Now." you are doing exactly what I describe above imo. "
I am also doing what is suggested in some of the rejected Gnostic Gospels, what the Cathar movement of 12th century france said about CHristianity and the whole side of the "iota" that got rejected at Nicea did for arguable political and practical purposes.
"The gnostic gospels never made the final cut because they were never accepted by the church body. They were known from the begging to be either counterfeit or not part of the gospel message."
Uh-huh another arbitrary judgement on what was in or out. ALthough I'll grant you soe of them were certainly counterfeit. Others however I think were just uncomfortable and uncontrollable for a young organizing religion consolidating it's secularpower.
Even most of the modern Protestant branch religions in the US,probably one you belong to, would be rejected handily by the same council of Nicea you say rejectedsomeof the gnostic gospels.
"Anyway guess we will have to agree to disagree, but I wanted to at least respond to your well thought post. "
Thanks. Same back at you.
- Thanks for the response TBO, I would respond but I really need to get back to work :Odesignbot
- chossy0
go to youtube type spore cock fucking hilarious :D