 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Well, I take Darren's attitude as "Your /argument/ is crap because it is
> based on wrong assumptions; try again"; as long as he doesn't make any
> statement whether a religion not teaching universal love for each other
> is crap or not, his posting cannot be read as "God and any religion is
> crap"
His attitude is not his words, you're missing the point, Islam for
example teaches the purity of God's love and that we most promote this
among us, so he is wrong here, but I doubt he will admit this, since he
will say: exactly where? and I don't know exactly, is what I conclude
from the many Koran fragments I've heard or read in an unknown period of
time.
> , because all he wrote about was that your assertion that "mainly
> every religion preaches how God want us to love each other the best way
> possible" is flawed.
No he didn't, his attitude also speaks for him. And even if the
quotation is flawed is what we all need to do anyway, as one possible
way for a harmonious co-existence, makes sense to me.
> That's the difference between argument (Darren's posting), contradition
> (how you interpreted his posting), and being hit on the head (your
> posting [SCNR for the sake of the Monty Python quote :-)]).
since you missed the point of my post, Ill say this is a wrong assumption.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga schrieb:
> It turns out that The Davinci Code presents true facts about
> Christianity
Oh yeah? Does it? What makes you so sure?
> so yeah that would be a good argument to change your
> believes if your believes are based on manipulated facts, if you think
> is "just a movie" you have a poor judgment over it.
Note that I may doubt the alleged truths in "The DaVinci Code", and at
the same time also doubt the alleged truths in the bible.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>> Well, I take Darren's attitude as "Your /argument/ is crap because it
>> is based on wrong assumptions; try again"; as long as he doesn't make
>> any statement whether a religion not teaching universal love for each
>> other is crap or not, his posting cannot be read as "God and any
>> religion is crap"
>
> His attitude is not his words, you're missing the point, Islam for
> example teaches the purity of God's love and that we most promote this
> among us, so he is wrong here, but I doubt he will admit this, since he
> will say: exactly where? and I don't know exactly, is what I conclude
> from the many Koran fragments I've heard or read in an unknown period of
> time.
>
See, if you want to be this quote-mining and cherry picking, then you
are correct, every religion in existence suggests some concept of this,
once you cut out the other 90% of it, which turns around and says the
exact opposite. And I do include Christianity in that statement. Even
Jesus, if you bother to read something close to the original, which
almost no modern Bible contains, and certainly **not** the most popular
one, manages to come up with some things that we find, today, to be
absolutely stupid, and seem somewhat contradictory to what everyone
insists is his theme. One of the really big ones is the argument over
whether the, "Believe in him and serve him, and you will be saved.", is
the true message, or its what some of the apocryphal texts, early
writings from some of the church, etc. suggest, which is, "You are never
going to get any place, unless you keep trying to be good, because
simple belief isn't sufficient."
And again, the definition of "good" here includes a whole hosts of
things some people presume he didn't condemn, or did, wouldn't have
accepted, or did accept in his own parables, etc. The trick here being,
all of this assumes he *is* a god. If he isn't, then you have a much
bigger problem, because his own god was the Jewish one, and that god,
what ever he may have said on the subject, has his own record, and its
one of mass murder, schizophrenia, hate, prejudice, classism, etc. The
closest I have ever seen anyone managing to resolve this is to state,
"Its quite possible that the Old Testament god and the New Testament god
are not the *same* god." Ok.. So, does that mean the "no god but me"
rule applies at all anymore? And if it did, doesn't it mean a lot of
people are pissing off one nasty, evil, sociopathic, lunatic, who gets
real annoyed when people don't worship him? lol
So, Christianity, at least 90% NT versions of it, may be semi-unique in
managing to talk about a lot of nice things. Big deal. Its still a
bloody poor excuse for people to go around looking for inspiration from
the NT, while *claiming* to also follow and believe in the OT. They are
not Christians, which entail following all of it (and you would have to
have a serious mental disorder or chemical imbalance to even attempt
that), but Jesuits. Even that much of an admittance to the truth of the
matter would both a) garner them more respect from non-believers, who
could tell the fracking difference on sight between them and the
lunatics then, and b) clearly indicate who the brain damaged are, who
actually think they can "roll your own religion" from both parts of the
Bible, to create, "It says I can hate the people that creep me out, but
to love the ones I like, or just don't care much about. Its the perfect
book!" This being what you actually get, when people try to take Jesus,
who had some fair ideas, if borrowed from a few centuries worth of
philosophers, and shoe horn on the raving idiocy of a war mongering
loon, who might decide tomorrow that he didn't like cheese, and order
his followers the kill all the cheese makers in the world. Be honest,
the OT god **is** that crazy (or at least his priests have been, over
the years of inventing excuses for who they wanted conquered or killed).
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> You have said probably many truths here, but my point of view about the
> Bible I think is still valid and the same as I wrote in my previous
> post. A guide gets outdated and sometimes have some erroneous facts but
> have to cope with that and take the good and the truth and apply it to
> our life for constructive benefice which is basically what religions,
> governments and society in general strives for, right? unless you deal
> in absolutes, which I think this is a serious character flaw, and just
> take the flaws of the Bible or any other text as a pretext to deny them
> entirely; and AFAIK trying to follow a "perfect" path in life is just
> utopia, I think at the contrary we have to make constant but gradual
> changes in our life doing our very best.
>
So.. If a guide has errors, you print a new guide, without the errors in
it. You don't do the equivalent, which is what religion does, of taking
a map that showed Antarctica as an island in the middle of the ocean,
between Africa and South America, complete with rivers and lakes, which
someone made up, then reprint the *same* map, complete with location,
size, and shape, errors, while just removing the lakes, and some of the
rivers, sticking the word "ice" in the middle, then making some
notations along the edge, "not to scale". You print a new frakking map.
You don't, to use an actual guide (sort of) as an example, take a book
published by people who get nearly *all* of it wrong, then keep
reprinting new copies, with things like, "Oh, actually Hillery Clinton
wasn't the anti-Christ, it was Michael Jackson, or wait, no, it was Bozo
the Clown, or no, sorry, oops! It was Obama."
If a guide is *drastically* wrong, you sit all the bits that are
irrelevant on a shelf under "mythology", and laugh at people that used
to believe it, while printing your "guide" with *only* the stuff that
actually is relevant to what people are being guided to.
Religion does the opposite. It cherishes the mythology so much that they
just keep reprinting the same guide, over and over, sometimes changing a
word, or two, and maybe tacking on a whole mess of foot notes to
"explain" why the literal meaning of the words are not true, but they
really mean something else, **sometimes** the exact bloody opposite.
Lets be clear here. If someone sold you a "guide" to the wonders of the
world, and it said the pyramids of Egypt where in South America, the
Eiffel Tower was in New York, and that Micheal Jordan's shoes where one
of the great worders, and then someone came along and "fixed it", by
adding footnotes that said, "Actually, the first one is in Egypt, but is
actually toothbrushes, the second one is in England, and we made a
mistake on the later one, we meant Jordan Williams.", you would throw
the damn thing in the trash. The closest you get to "fixing" the Bible
is the Jeffersonian one, which deleted most of the OT, and anything
supernatural, and even then, you would still have to revise it to fix
all the stuff that archeology says is wrong place, wrong time, etc.
As a guide, its not the sort of guide anyone would look for, when trying
to find *accurate* information about *any* other subject. Rather, it
would be sitting on the shelf, next to the TAPS, FATE and Phact
magazines, and people would be looking in "referece" for the real guides.
> And I don't re member well but I think that the Bible/Jesus don't say we
> have to hate everyone including ourselves, but to deny ourselves meaning
> detach from intellectual, personal or any other kind of pride that will
> disable our capability of being ourselves: be in touch with our feeling,
> flaws, virtues, etc and won't allow us to be humble to learn, improve,
> find the better part of ourselves and greater good than what we think
> we're capable of. In short is a meditation not a literal advice.
>
> Cheers.
This is modern day interpretation, and *not* what the words of the book
actually *say*. And that is the problem really. You don't get to have it
both ways, not and then turn around and even *attempt* to say someone
got it wrong, since all they have to do is say, "Yes, but the literal
wording says the exact opposite." If you are right, you need to fix the
wording, but then you would just have one more "incorrect" translation,
which doesn't reflect the original wording, and people could,
reasonably, argue doesn't reflect the intent of the author. If you are
wrong, well, then its a damn stupid thing to look to for "guidance",
since it doesn't say what you insist it does in the first place. Either
way, you can't shrug off 2,000 years of idiocy, if right about it, or
keep it, while insisting that everyone else is a bloody fool for
continuing to read it *as written*. In neither case does it rise to the
level of being a useful guide to creating anything other than an
infinite amount of bloody confusion.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>> Saul Luizaga schrieb:
>> Um... sorry, but what would be the sense of discussion without reason?
>
> already explained in previous post.
>
>>
>> BTW, I had the same reaction to your posting as Chambers did: "Duh...
>> does that guy /really/ base his current attitude towards Christianity
>> solely on the "facts" presented in a /movie/ - especially one targeted
>> at people getting a kick out of conspiracy theories?"
>
> It turns out that The Davinci Code presents true facts about
> Christianity so yeah that would be a good argument to change your
> believes if your believes are based on manipulated facts, if you think
> is "just a movie" you have a poor judgment over it.
Isn't this a bit like saying that The Exorcist presents true facts about
what took place in someone's house, at least in the sense that they all
sat down and said to the professional paranormal con artist, "Heh, if we
have her float over the bed, how much more money do you think we will
make off selling this too you? I mean, we payed off the house with what
you already offered us for the rather weak story we started with, but I
want a bigger house!"
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Saul Luizaga schrieb:
>
>> It turns out that The Davinci Code presents true facts about Christianity
>
> Oh yeah? Does it? What makes you so sure?
>
> > so yeah that would be a good argument to change your
>> believes if your believes are based on manipulated facts, if you think
>> is "just a movie" you have a poor judgment over it.
>
> Note that I may doubt the alleged truths in "The DaVinci Code", and at
> the same time also doubt the alleged truths in the bible.
Doubt.. I doubt the Bible because there isn't evidence of most of the NT
happening at all, from any source but itself, and the old bits due to
the fact that much of it is wrong, and what it did get right is a bit
like taking Bugs Bunny cartoons as an accurate representation of the
history of WWII. The Da Vinci Code, is simply reject, on the grounds
that the few bits that are plausible are... well, not any more supported
than the NT itself, which isn't saying a whole lot, and the rest of what
its based off of is ***well documented*** as made up BS. I doubt it in
roughly the same way I doubt the events in Starship Troopers. lol
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> about basing a religious conversation on a work of text,
My bad, I meant *fictional* text ;)
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> about basing a religious conversation on a work of text,
>
> My bad, I meant *fictional* text ;)
>
> ....Chambers
Haha, sure dude, what ever you say...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>> Saul Luizaga schrieb:
>>
>>> It turns out that The Davinci Code presents true facts about
>>> Christianity
>>
>> Oh yeah? Does it? What makes you so sure?
>>
>> > so yeah that would be a good argument to change your
>>> believes if your believes are based on manipulated facts, if you
>>> think is "just a movie" you have a poor judgment over it.
>>
>> Note that I may doubt the alleged truths in "The DaVinci Code", and at
>> the same time also doubt the alleged truths in the bible.
> Doubt.. I doubt the Bible because there isn't evidence of most of the NT
> happening at all, from any source but itself, and the old bits due to
> the fact that much of it is wrong, and what it did get right is a bit
> like taking Bugs Bunny cartoons as an accurate representation of the
> history of WWII. The Da Vinci Code, is simply reject, on the grounds
> that the few bits that are plausible are... well, not any more supported
> than the NT itself, which isn't saying a whole lot, and the rest of what
> its based off of is ***well documented*** as made up BS. I doubt it in
> roughly the same way I doubt the events in Starship Troopers. lol
Hahaha, I hope you're joking because this is one of the most
outrageously ignorant statement about it. Believe me, there is a lot
much more to it than you state here.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Man, you don't even understand what I mean by mentioning the movie, your
appreciation is too shallow and deny complexity, plus is not well
informed about the History about Jesus: what non-religious experts
(Paleontologists, Historians, Anthropologists, Archaeologists, etc.)
have discovered and documented about it.
I suggest you see: Banned from the Bible, History Channel documentary.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
