Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

MemesFollow

#152 Jun 09 2014 at 9:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
The Hebrew Zoroastrian concept of One God alone is unique in all of history.
FTFY Smiley: wink

Seriously, we're supposed to cite people when we steal their ideas. Besides they've been around longer than the Jews and have suffered in a similar manner over the years. Lots of people don't like them either.

Quote:
I am not saying that other tribes and nations in existence didn't have their own elaborate laws and belief systems.. but what I am saying is: look at the result.
I did, hence my rationalization comment.

Edited, Jun 9th 2014 9:12am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#153 Jun 09 2014 at 10:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
It not like Christians are rare around here by any means.

So this captive breeding program has just been for kicks? Smiley: mad
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#154 Jun 09 2014 at 10:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Jophiel wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
It not like Christians are rare around here by any means.

So this captive breeding program has just been for kicks? Smiley: mad
If you're getting kicked you should tie the legs up first. Smiley: schooled
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#155 Jun 09 2014 at 11:04 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
I just spent my whole morning going through redeployment physicals and paperwork and I come back to this mess. Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#156 Jun 09 2014 at 11:23 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
The Hebrew concept of One God alone is unique in all of history.

Please. How original "hey the most powerful thing in the universe, guess what? Just like me. Who would have thought!"

Monotheism is just lazy. I mean you can see the obvious appeal and why it's successful. Still astonishingly lazy.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#157 Jun 09 2014 at 11:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Much better for keeping the population in line though. No complicated hierarchy to explain, none of this inter-temple rivalry. There's just good guys, bad guys and people choosing sides. Even your run-of-the-mill pedophile priest can't ***** up that message.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#158 Jun 09 2014 at 12:21 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,053 posts
It's much more fun to have more then one God or Goddess to worship. Just look at the days of the week, each one is named after a different God or Goddess. If you're Catholic many of your older Saints were once worship as Gods and Goddess too. I just happen to worship Bridget, who became Saint Bridget, so my Irish family doesn't get too upset over my Pagan ways.

She is the patron Goddess/Saint of smiths and I call on her whenever I am having problems with soldering jewelry.
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#159 Jun 09 2014 at 2:30 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Kelvy wrote:
I don't prefer to try to prove your error here but if anything that I say here, Bijou, O my Brother in Christ, is somehow contrary to any scripture then I plead in you in all sincerity to point out the error of my way. Surely YOU a fellow Christian could not stand by and see Our Lord's Word be misrepresented by some unlearned fool like me. It's kind of your duty to do that.
Hence my suggestion you take some course(s) to better understand the Scripture and the actual history concerning The Way, from His time to ours.

Kelvy wrote:
I more and more suspect that you are one of those people that are nominally Christians simply because if safe to call themselves that in their particular environment.. like so many Americans that call themselves Christians simply because they are American. Boilerplate default religion. I don't know. I try to make no assumptions about people(and often fail) but I see no evidence to the contrary that you aren't just another smorgasbord Christian.. only picking out the bits that you like and ignoring the really hard questions.. but like I said. I don't know.
At the risk of sounding all pretentious and stuff I'm a staff member at a Christian Mission/Homeless Shelter, which I would think you'd know; most everyone else here does. I don't work there for the pay, believe you me. I work there because I was called to work there. You know what that means, right?

Kelvy wrote:
If we meet one day in glory I'll let you criticize my theological knowledge for a billion years over.
If my criticizing your theological knowledge now helps correct you and saves at least one person in the future then I feel I'm on pretty solid ground, Scripturaly speaking.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#160 Jun 10 2014 at 7:00 PM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
The Hebrew Zoroastrian concept of One God alone is unique in all of history.
FTFY Smiley: wink


The Zoroastrian God is not omnipotent. There's a pretty big difference between the concept of Uhura Mazda and the the God of Abraham. I debunked that even before I became a Christian when I actually sought out how many Monotheistic religions I could find that actually had a god without error or flaws and that was threatened by nothing.. It was pretty shocking that I could only find religions rooted from the God that spoke to Abraham. I falsely had assumed that the concept of a God that is actually omnipotent and omniscient would be all over the place as well.
If you know of another religion that has an actual God that have no opposite and no challenges I'd be delighted to know about it so I stop telling that story.
Zorastrastrianism isn't one of them. Neither is the god of Spinoza.




poli-Elinda wrote:
So in poli-speak you're about as compromising as the tea party.


Sure, like either party is will to admit(or recognize) any error in its ideology at this point unless it's to make themselves look good to independents..

I'm confused. How do I compromise in this case? You tell me you are a Panda-bear, I totally disagree with you. I should compromise and agree that I also believe that you are a Panda-bear? I respect your every right to think that you are a Panda-bear or to tell people that you are a Panda-bear and I would even respect your right to go on believing that Pandas were bears. I'm not going to try to force you to convince you but No, I'm not going to compromise and say "y'know, Elinda you actually MIGHT be a Panda-bear!".


Elinda wrote:

It's not just Christianity sunshine. It's any doctrine that preaches a 'better-than-you' ideology.


The only "better-than-you" that SHOULD actually be coming from The Word is that GOD is better than you.. I do not think I am better than you.. I probably think I am worse than you... It's not about that at all.. it's about understanding that GOD is better than you... and if you have a problem with GOD being better than you.. well.. that's on you.
and if Christians decide to misrepresent The Gospel (just as a Christian here has accused me of doing) then that is on them... but I'm telling you.. I would rebuke a Christian specifically for trying to either assert or to teach that Christians are supposed to be better than anyone else. The only difference between the "goodness/badness" factor between people is Forgiven or Not Forgiven.

Does a person informing another person that they are wrong suggest that the person doing the informing thinks that they are better than the other person? Is this the logic we are using in your judgement? Where have I claimed to be better other than to DARE to say that I am correct and other are incorrect?
I understand that some see the concept of God and religion a purely objective thing and that there is no right and wrong because it's all make-believe BS and whatever fantasy makes a person feel better- more power to them..
I agree that all religions are man-made. I agree that gods are man-made. I disagree that the God of Abraham was man-made. I don't see how stating that makes me any worse than you telling me I'm wrong. It's the simplest of disagreements.. and yet you act like I'm being a complete jerk simply for sticking to my guns rather than conforming to your Universalist viewpoint. I can't force you to believe. But if you continue to try to discredit what I am saying and convince me that I'm wrong; then here I stand.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#161 Jun 10 2014 at 7:11 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Kelv's already getting old and he/she/it hasn't even been very active recently.

The bible thumping doesn't work well outside the anti-gay topics. Save it for some of those...
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#162 Jun 10 2014 at 7:15 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
If you know of another religion that has an actual God that have no opposite and no challenges
Me.

Prove me wrong. Protip: You can't.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#163 Jun 10 2014 at 7:16 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
If you know of another religion that has an actual God that have no opposite and no challenges
Me.

Prove me wrong. Protip: You can't.


Bible says you are wrong. Point, God. Mind... BLOWN.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#164 Jun 10 2014 at 7:25 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
The Gita disagrees about the Bible's claim, which cancels both out. I'm still here.

Point: Your face.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#165 Jun 10 2014 at 7:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
stuff
Huh? Smiley: confused

Well I must of missed something there because I'm not sure why we're talking about being omnipotent. I can't imagine there's another God that has the exact qualities as the God of Abraham. My point was that there's analogous concepts in the religions in a broader sense.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#166 Jun 10 2014 at 7:40 PM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
If there was another god that had the exact qualities as the god of Abraham, he would have been assimilated and lost anyway, so...

POINTS: HARDWICK

ETA:

Actually, what about Santa Claus? Smiley: lol

Edited, Jun 10th 2014 6:42pm by stupidmonkey
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#167 Jun 10 2014 at 8:03 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Bijou wrote:
Hence my suggestion you take some course(s) to better understand the Scripture and the actual history concerning The Way, from His time to ours.


Well, I do thank you.
At the risk of sounding preachy here, though: His way never changes no matter what time we are in.
I'm not sure if that is what you meant by that.. the Word doesn't change with the times. What changes is the way that we try to manipulate what it means to suit whatever times we live in or whatever rationale we want.
As far as the history of the organized religion known to history as "christianity" is really not much different than the rest of history. Once John died you can see immediately where all of the various factions begin solidifying into all of the various proto-denominations that sprawl throughout history into what we know as christianity today as well.. a fractured mess just like it was from as soon as humans got their dirty little paws on it. It's a good thing that the Good News cannot be tainted despite of taint of those that touch it because in fact it touches them.
But yeah, I've been a connoisseur of history since a child and I try to be no less tenacious with my Christian studies.

Bijou wrote:
At the risk of sounding all pretentious and stuff I'm a staff member at a Christian Mission/Homeless Shelter, which I would think you'd know; most everyone else here does. I don't work there for the pay, believe you me. I work there because I was called to work there. You know what that means, right?


I have no idea where you are or what your situation is. That is surely commendable what you are doing however. Do I know what that means? If it means what I think it means then it means that like Jeremiah or Jonah you have a burning desire inside of you that you believe is from God that is compelling you to so this thing.
Either way, your outreach shall be in my prayers.

If your real problem is with my attitude or whatever.. I indeed don't think I would come here if people didn't seek to truly speak their minds toward opposing viewpoints. I think I try to make at least an attempt these days to not be unnecessarily insulting to anyone. I don't know what you would expect from me unless it be like most other Christians that I have seen here that actually speak their minds about it and start arguing using scripture and clearly not having the biblical understanding enough to hold up to the scrutiny. As a result, yes, I don't expect you as a Christian to try to actively discuss the Good News here in this environment.. if the spirit doesn't hit you to do that then I don't think that I'm being a better Christian than you because of that at all.
That being said: I don't feel it to be un-Christian like to actively challenge another Christian here in any particular discussion whether it be theological in nature or not. In saying that I suspected that you were a certain 'kind' of Christian.. I will openly admit if I am mistaken or speaking out of turn because it would delight me to be proven wrong in such cases.. and it seems to me that people that truly believe that a man was raised from the dead shouldn't have any problem with such challenges.. Keep in mind please I mean in the context of this particular message board...I do not run around at work bringing up Jesus in every conversation.. If the subject comes up.. great. but I don't try to force such things out the "the world". Now if I am at work and I hear another Christian say something like "I believe that Buddhist can get to heaven without Christ" then I will probably respond my feelings honestly and wherever it goes from there.. Clearly there would be some point where the crux of the disagreement would mean a judgement call on how far to take the conversation.
Here, I like to think that people are a little more thick skinned than our HR department.
But really, there is no reason to instantly believe that anyone that says they are a Christian is actually a person that truly believe that they are Saved by the resurrection of "The Anointed One" Ha'mashiach.



But I don't try to discriminate with my opinions.
I recently told a bunch of people at church that I thought that the "Pharoah"(Great House) of the Plagues was actually the Grand Vizier Rekhmire during the reign of Amenhotep II.. O the looks I got were pricelessSmiley: laugh
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#168 Jun 10 2014 at 8:20 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
stuff
Huh? Smiley: confused

Well I must of missed something there because I'm not sure why we're talking about being omnipotent. I can't imagine there's another God that has the exact qualities as the God of Abraham. My point was that there's analogous concepts in the religions in a broader sense.


Of course. Like Smasharoo said, like Plato said, like I said back when I was 15.. The basic concept of God is very simple to come up with if you really try to break it down...
This is actually quite fascinating to me, to see that you view it like this.. regarding the very definition of what "God" actually means and what it doesn't mean.. and it all being relative.

Clearly where we greatly differ is that early along the line I took a leap of faith that you did not... simply that there could be a "OneGod"... but anything that could be would be 100% unknowable to us therefore we are stuck in the sandbox and it didn't really matter....
But that idea of "OneGod" however murky still had some criteria.. All-Knowing and All-Powerful being that criteria.
I didn't really see that reflected in any religion until I actually tried to look at the Christian God beyond my preconceptions.

All-Knowing meaning that it can learn nothing new and it can make no mistakes.
All-Powerful meaning that it can have no opposing force and is completely in control of all things at all times.
All of these things mean that it is also outside of our entire complex of space and time.. not of it or in it.

If someone has an idea of an actual Creator of Creation God that isn't those things then they have been working with some bad equations.. to say the least..

Edited, Jun 10th 2014 10:24pm by Kelvyquayo
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#169 Jun 10 2014 at 8:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Clearly where we greatly differ is that early along the line I took a leap of faith that you did not... simply that there could be a "OneGod"... but anything that could be would be 100% unknowable
More like when you said "one God" I thought "monotheistic religion" not "monotheistic religion with one God who is also all-knowing, all-powerful, something else, other criteria, etc." I'm not quite sure what a miscommunication has to do with a leap of faith.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#170 Jun 10 2014 at 9:05 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Clearly where we greatly differ is that early along the line I took a leap of faith that you did not... simply that there could be a "OneGod"... but anything that could be would be 100% unknowable
More like when you said "one God" I thought "monotheistic religion" not "monotheistic religion with one God who is also all-knowing, all-powerful, something else, other criteria, etc." I'm not quite sure what a miscommunication has to do with a leap of faith.


To clarify: Perhaps if you would have taken the leap of faith enough to consider the reality of God enough to explore it enough o develop the criteria to make any judgement on the matter.. because as I said.. the only that criteria would make sense.. and since you seem to be a logical and analytical person I assume you would have come up with that criteria yourself.
I personally don't even consider Zoroastrianism truly monotheistic.. but that's a whole other matter..
and that's one out of how many again?
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#171 Jun 10 2014 at 9:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Clearly where we greatly differ is that early along the line I took a leap of faith that you did not... simply that there could be a "OneGod"... but anything that could be would be 100% unknowable
More like when you said "one God" I thought "monotheistic religion" not "monotheistic religion with one God who is also all-knowing, all-powerful, something else, other criteria, etc." I'm not quite sure what a miscommunication has to do with a leap of faith.


To clarify: Perhaps if you would have taken the leap of faith enough to consider the reality of God enough to explore it enough o develop the criteria to make any judgement on the matter.. because as I said.. the only that criteria would make sense.. and since you seem to be a logical and analytical person I assume you would have come up with that criteria yourself.
I personally don't even consider Zoroastrianism truly monotheistic.. but that's a whole other matter..
and that's one out of how many again?
What leap of faith? That part still has me confused. I see a correlation, I see similar concepts between the religions. I have no problem believing they very likely borrowed ideas from each other. I'm obviously using looser criteria than you are. I fail to see how that's going to change if I "consider the reality of God," though quite frankly I have no idea what you mean by that in the first place.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#172 Jun 10 2014 at 9:55 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Clearly where we greatly differ is that early along the line I took a leap of faith that you did not... simply that there could be a "OneGod"... but anything that could be would be 100% unknowable
More like when you said "one God" I thought "monotheistic religion" not "monotheistic religion with one God who is also all-knowing, all-powerful, something else, other criteria, etc." I'm not quite sure what a miscommunication has to do with a leap of faith.


To clarify: Perhaps if you would have taken the leap of faith enough to consider the reality of God enough to explore it enough o develop the criteria to make any judgement on the matter.. because as I said.. the only that criteria would make sense.. and since you seem to be a logical and analytical person I assume you would have come up with that criteria yourself.
I personally don't even consider Zoroastrianism truly monotheistic.. but that's a whole other matter..
and that's one out of how many again?
What leap of faith? That part still has me confused. I see a correlation, I see similar concepts between the religions. I have no problem believing they very likely borrowed ideas from each other. I'm obviously using looser criteria than you are. I fail to see how that's going to change if I "consider the reality of God," though quite frankly I have no idea what you mean by that in the first place.


Perhaps I'm being a bit flippant, but I presume that you are an atheist or agnostic. Therefore you likely have come to view the existence of God a priori: perhaps as "I have never seen God, no one has ever proven God to anyone else, therefore I don't have to place myself in a position to explain these things as there is nothing to explain". It doesn't require faith to study and learn about religions and philosophies.. but the leap of faith comes from believing that there actually is an answer out there and that we can find it. You are first assuming that there is no God and based on that foundation your view of all religions is based on that and any study of those religions would likely never bring you closer to ever deciding if one was true or not. Pretend for a moment that there actually is a sentient force that created everything, if that were true, without the leap of faith that this may be true would you ever just happen to stumble upon the fact. By automatically not taking that leap of faith then we are truly limiting our ability to process what we are studying.
It could still be like it seems.. people still borrow ideas from each other which pan out from there.. but in my studies: every instance of man-made religion that I have found simply caters to purely human desires or presumptions. This makes total sense because indeed human develop their own culture-laced explanations that become merged and mutated.. Despite all of that - the God of the Bible is the only one that actually meets the logical criteria that countless philosophers have agreed God must have. Total Perfection.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#173 Jun 10 2014 at 10:07 PM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Perhaps I'm being a bit flippant, but I presume that you are an atheist or agnostic


No, he lives in Portland Oregon, so he is a pot smoking Goddess worshipping hippy.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#174 Jun 10 2014 at 11:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Perhaps I'm being a bit flippant, but I presume that you are an atheist or agnostic.
Well there's our problem.

I've been a Christian for over 25 years. I've mentioned it a few times here, though looking back not anytime in this thread it seems, oversight on my part I suppose. What you were saying was coming across similar to a Lutheran telling a Catholic "If you'd just read the Bible you'd convert to our side!" which was sounding a bit presumptuous.

To be fair I certainly take science seriously though (you'd hope so given my profession), and will freely reconcile belief with discovery. So for example I have no problem believing the world is 4.6 billion years old and that the Bible is the word of God (I mean really, if someone tells you 1,000 years and a day are the same thing it's a strong hint not to take their numbers literally right?). Or in this case, the idea that we borrowed concepts from other religions doesn't really affect my faith any. I also have no problems poking fun at the various absurdities of our religion, as you may have guessed. There's ample ground for humor there.

I'll just take this as a sign I play the devil's advocate part a little too well. Smiley: lol
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#175 Jun 10 2014 at 11:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Perhaps I'm being a bit flippant, but I presume that you are an atheist or agnostic


No, he lives in Portland Oregon, so he is a pot smoking Goddess worshipping hippy.
This too. Smiley: cool
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#176 Jun 11 2014 at 1:02 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Kelv's already getting old and he/she/it hasn't even been very active recently.

The bible thumping doesn't work well outside the anti-gay topics. Save it for some of those...
I'm sure you could turn this thread gay if you wanted to.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 250 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (250)