Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Canadark

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 33
121
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Misinterpreted - Jesus a Soldier
« on: June 04, 2010, 06:51:10 PM »

Babs hit the nail on the head but I just want to reiterate his point.

Wow Canadark and I agree. yeah win win.



Dios mio  :P

122
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ask a Christian anything.
« on: June 04, 2010, 06:49:45 PM »
So he made the world all fucked up so that the world would need him to come in and save it?

Hath not the potter power over the clay to make one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour?

123
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Bible..
« on: June 04, 2010, 06:26:42 PM »
The Bible was written at a time allegorical literature was incredibly common, and just to top it off:

Jesus died in 33AD
The first Gospel written, Mark i believe, mentioned an event in 70AD
So the four Gospels of Jesus' life had to have come after 70AD, probably much later.
All we know of 30-70AD comes from Paul the Apostle, who wrote down much of what we know of early Christianity
Paul never mentions what we know of the life of Jesus: he only knows of the death and resurrection.
And these he doesn't believe happened on Earth. like the other religions of the time, Jesus lived in a purely mythical realm.


Where do you get this stuff from?  Completely unfounded and not researched.
  • Mark was NOT the 1st gospel written - Matthew was.  Matthew covered the time period of 2 B.C. to 33 A.D. and completely finished his writing around 41 A.D.
  • Mark covered time period between 29 - 33 A.D. and finished around 60-65 A.D.
  • Paul wrote 14 different books of the bible, and the reason he wrote after Christ's death, was because he was not originally a Christian, (but a Jew) and killed Christians.  He was not one of the original 12 apostles.  Once he converted to Christianity he was known as an apostle of the nations.



We evidently have very different sources.
Mark is clearly the first written; if you read them, the other three are clearly derived from it, though they tell the same basic tale. Mark specifically makes a mention of an event that occurred in 70AD, the destruction of a temple I think though I'm not positive, so it has to come after that.
And a chapter in Hebrews I think, it's been a while since I heard the information but I'm pretty sure on the premise, says if Jesus was on Earth, he wouldn't have amounted to much at all. Something like that.

Mark was written first, because Matthew and Luke were based in large part on the gospel of Mark as well as what is now believed to be a lost narrative of Christ known among scholars as "Q".

The dates themselves are difficult to place, but the order they were written in is a bit more obvious. However, all were written in the decades after Christ's death and resurrection.

EDIT: This is only one theory but it is the one I've heard most often.

124
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Obama hates black people.
« on: June 04, 2010, 03:31:55 PM »
This topic is bullshit gibberish, nothing is being said...

Isnt the comparsion the same?

Katrina came through, devastated the coastal Louisianans, Bush did nothing and was called a racist.

BP mucks up the Gulf, devastating the coastal Louisianans, Obama does nothing so he must hate black people.

You cannot deny the correlation. 

I didn't realize that the oil spill killed over 1400 people.

125
Of the wounded, eight remained in hospitals Thursday, with four in stable and four in "comfortable" condition, police said.
From the article...

I doubt those four are truly comfortable.
[/quote

Maybe they were shot in the buttocks.  I saw a movie where this guy got all the ice cream he wanted after being shot in the buttocks.

Was it Forest Gump by chance?

126
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Misinterpreted - Jesus a Soldier
« on: June 04, 2010, 03:25:25 PM »
This has come up once before in another thread, but still seems to be a question on people's minds, so since it's been about 6 months I'll try again.

I would say that there are a couple of  lines which might paint the big J as a soldier "I bring a sword, not peace" is, I think one line and when he comes riding in during Revelation his mouth is 'like a double edged sword'   Don't ask me for the exact references, I'm not in a position to find them at the mo. 

No Jesus was not a fighter, or a warrior and the whole sword thing  - again that too is taken out of context or misinterpreted.  Jesus was a peaceful, kind, and caring person.  He not only was peaceful with people but also at peace with himself, and taught others to be peaceable with all men.  There are scriptures on that.  The scripture about the sword is in more than one place, but in reference to this statement above, then the best ones are in Luke 12:51-53 which talks about not bringing peace but bringing division.  It is also mentioned and more detailed in the account of Matthew 10:32-39, with verse 34 talking about not peace, but a sword.  I will summarize but you should read the whole thing for complete understanding. 

Basically in Matthew,  (Jesus speaking) and saying everyone that is in union with me...

That's pretty much how I interpreted it, coming not to bring peace but to bring divisions. I am in the firm belief that we should be looking at bridging divisions where possible not burning them down for the sake of a celestial despot.

Babs hit the nail on the head but I just want to reiterate his point.

Your interpretation is incorrect, plain and simple.

It stands in direct contrast to what Jesus said at other times and places (He who lives by the sword will die by the sword), as well as the examples of the many disciples who went to their physical death by preaching the word with the intention of redeeming the lost. Even if you are the most passionate atheist in the world, you as least have to acknowledge that even if Christianity is just a big scam, Jesus would have at least made sure that the ideas he put forward were internally consistent.

Jesus knew that his message would cause division and resentment, but that is not its ultimate aim. Christianity at its core is extremely offensive to the world, and quite frankly if "bridging divisions" means compromising the values that he taught us, then I want nothing to do with it.

127
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Israel vs. Turkish Sea vessel
« on: June 04, 2010, 03:18:57 PM »
I know it has been said a million times, but everybody involved in this incident it seems acted moronically. The Israelis should never have boarded the ships, or at least not with military commandos but on the other hand if there are people landing on your ship with machine guns, you don't start hitting them with clubs.

128
Man, you guys aren't even trying anymore.

129
Canadian Universal Health Care FTW.

Call me a communist all you want, I don't care so long as little kids can go to the hospital and their parents don't have to worry about mortgaging the house to pay for the bone marrow transplants.

130
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ask a Christian anything.
« on: June 04, 2010, 11:57:13 AM »
Mattew 15:11 Jesus states, after an altercation with some pharisees regarding hygene, that whatever goes into a man's mouth does not defile him, only what comes out (words).  He appears in this chapter to call the pharisees hypocrites for not honoring another of the old laws, namely stoning disobedient children, which given what he states in verse 11 he seems to condone that act (since disobedient children would count as something coming out of the mouth, not going in).

My question to Christians, do you agree with Jesus here that disobedient children should be stoned?  Just FYI, stoning historically was to the death, so in other words, he is condoning killing disobedient children in my mind.

I know I have brought up these verses before pointing out that Jesus was condoning that act, however I never really got a response regarding what Jesus appears to be condoning here.


The problem here is that you are interpreting this verse to mean that Jesus condoned the stoning of sinners which we all know he did not (on a side note the verse actually states "Anyone who curses"; this has nothing to do with a child disobeying his parents). He was using the verse against the Pharisees in order to to illustrate a flaw with their interpretation of the Mosaic Law. Pharisees said that somebody could withhold giving honour to their parents if they wanted to give that honour to God instead, something that Jesus was calling them out on.

So in other words, no, he does not condone stoning children, he doesn't condone stoning people who curse their parents either. To interpret the verse like that is to miss the point of what Jesus is trying to do here.

Why was there ever Mosaic law? God knew he'd have to change his mind at some point, all-knowing after all, so why bother introducing a barbaric law involving stoning children to death, killing homosexuals, simple misogyny etc, when he was just going to undo it a few thousand years later?

I'm not entirely sure, but the way I see it is that God knew that he would eventually send his son as an atonement for the sins of humanity from the very beginning. Therefore the purpose of the Mosaic Law was to create the eventual social and political conditions necessary for the Messiah to come and also to showcase man's depravity and complete inability to justify himself by his own means.

This is my guess, I could be wrong but that is how I've always seen it.

132
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Is religion a Need?
« on: May 31, 2010, 04:10:17 PM »
Agreed. I wouldn't waste my time with religion if I didn't believe in the spiritual aspect of it.

I'm sure you don't, and obviously the discipline involved in religion isn't the reason you're religious.  Whatever you think your motivations are, it's likely simply that you were born into it.  But that doesn't change the fact that your religious lifestyle likely led you to be disciplined from a very young age, whereas your average secular humanist child merely has the occasional timeout to accomplish that.  The reason why children are unruly and crime is so prevalent in modern society is that we have, on the whole, lost touch with the roots that have kept us grounded as a society.

Can't argue with that.

133
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Flight of the Wolf
« on: May 31, 2010, 02:18:03 PM »
Sounds like a lot of conspiracy theory bull-crap to me.

134
I think we're overlooking the big problem at hand here. Every day across America, hundreds of millions of people wear mixed-fiber clothing to work and around the house. They even wear it in churches, the degenerates! Haven't they ever opened a Bible?

Surely, this is the true abomination.

 ::)
Heard it all before...

Galatians 5:1-6

" We have freedom now, because Christ made us free. So stand strong. Do not change and go back into the slavery of the law. Listen, I Paul tell you that if you go back to the law by being circumcised, Christ does you no good. Again, I warn every man: If you allow yourselves to be circumcised, you must follow all the law. If you try to be made right with God through the law, your life with Christ is over -- you have left God's grace. But we have the true hope that comes from being made right with God, and by the Spirit we wait eagerly for this hope. When we are in Christ Jesus, it is not important if we are circumcised or not. The important thing is faith -- the kind of faith that works through love. "

135
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 20K Grant for Cross
« on: May 31, 2010, 01:50:52 PM »
What do you mean by Biblical literalist?

136
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Is religion a Need?
« on: May 31, 2010, 01:47:27 PM »
people don't need religion for discipline they just need beliefs. beliefs don't need to be supernatural. belief that what you are working for are the right thing.

Agreed. I wouldn't waste my time with religion if I didn't believe in the spiritual aspect of it.

137
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Texas' Curriculum Change
« on: May 18, 2010, 07:34:45 PM »
Uh, Franklin and Canadark, sorry to have to do this to you, but CR90 is actually right.  The phrase "separation of church and state" never actually appears in the Constitution.  It has only been interpreted as such.

I know.

138
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Texas' Curriculum Change
« on: May 18, 2010, 07:29:02 PM »
I am seriously contemplating calling David Bradley to get autism research $1000 dollars.

I considered doing that myself, but the problem is that he has no intention of paying, no matter what anyone shows him.  Even if in the middle of the Constitution it read "CHURCH AND STATE ARE TO BE SEPARATE", he'd still almost definitely refuse to follow through.  Enemies' promises are made to be broken.

In no place on the constitution does it directly read "separation of church and sate" that was a coined term from like the 60s (I think).
I wasn't aware Thomas Jefferson was alive in the 60's.

I think he means the 1760's

CR90, tonight when you say your prayers, thank God for everything he has blessed you with including the American tradition of separation of church and state. Though it is not expressly written in your constitution it is without a doubt one of the central pillars of a free democratic society and a vibrant compassionate church. Never in the course of human history has the political institutionalization of the Christian Church been either beneficial to the church or the state.

139
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ask a Christian anything.
« on: May 18, 2010, 07:19:33 PM »
Nope.

Let me ask it differently: According to the Bible, what is the purpose of evangelism?
Because God told us to
       \

That is not even a valid answer to the question I asked.

This thread is called "Ask a christian anything" not "A Christian asks a question and then gets uppity until you say what he wants to hear"

That is not even a valid answer to the question I asked.
God tells you to spread the Good News and evangelize. Surely you're not questioning God?

This thread is called "Ask a christian anything" not "A Christian asks a question and then gets uppity until you say what he wants to hear"

God does tell us to evangelize, but he didn't answer my question, I asked, "what is the purpose of evangelism?" to which the volcano answered "because God tells us to". His reply didn't even make sense.

The purpose of evangelism is to make people into disciples of Jesus Christ.

140
On the others behalf and not on the researchers of Plato, i take on the following question: Why are you still fighting us. The land of the Academy being your flat earth societal purpose on stealing, in trying to prove the Academy on globality; It is not as the days go by, becoming a matter on simple ethics. You are proving on military attack, and on what i have to again tell you off. Continue on the globality of the Academy as the management team of the site. I have told you my relation to your ethics. I too remain legitimate wherever i live. Are you still trying to take our lands. Is the infinity of the earth not ever enough and for you. I only remain involved to the ignorant members of this society. I have told you again! Fight to take others land not enough to prove on your own....

Didn't your ESL teacher tell you to stay away from Babelfish?

141
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ask a Christian anything.
« on: May 18, 2010, 11:17:38 AM »
Nope.

Let me ask it differently: According to the Bible, what is the purpose of evangelism?
Because God told us to
       \


That is not even a valid answer to the question I asked.

Is it because Jesus can't come back until everyone on earth has had the chance to accept him as their lord and savior?

Good guess, but no.

142
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Texas' Curriculum Change
« on: May 18, 2010, 07:14:58 AM »
American..... it takes all types. Many times I fell quite embarrassed when some of my Europenas friends ask questions about my country. They make me feel ashamed, especially the British.

Just politely remind them that the UK would never in a million years elect a black man named Barack Hussein Obama.

I know enough Americans to know that you cannot classify them all along a negative stereotype, just like not all Brits are hooligans with cockney accents voting BNP. By and large Americans are just as kind and generous as anybody else in the world.

143
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ask a Christian anything.
« on: May 18, 2010, 07:08:55 AM »
Nope.

Let me ask it differently: According to the Bible, what is the purpose of evangelism?

144
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ask a Christian anything.
« on: May 17, 2010, 07:58:26 PM »
Any other takers?

We have repeatedly established within this interpretation of scripture that the purpose of evangelism is not to get as many people into heaven as possible.

What then is its purpose?

145
we've already accomplished things like The Sims games

LOL  ;D

I know, right? Dwarf Fortress is a much more accurate representation of a world simulator.

Dragons, giant cave spiders, elephants, and murderous schools of zombie carp.

Dwarf Fortress FTW.

http://lparchive.org/LetsPlay/Boatmurdered/intro.html

146
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Socialism
« on: May 17, 2010, 03:26:48 PM »
Ok, point.  Taxes are expensive for large corporations and are a larger expense than the employees alone.

It's still cheaper to produce goods in another country with low taxes AND low wages than just low taxes.
lol, well, of course.
I was trying to highlight the fact that minimum wage laws are just one (small piece) of the outsourcing puzzle.  When you're thinking about companies that are large enough to send operations over seas, and still maintain market share domestically, you're talking about billion dollar corporations.

If you care about domestic jobs, and don't want to enrich the corporations and banks large enough to send jobs over seas, then you should support floor-level taxes and zero minimum wage laws.  You'd see an economic explosion (of a good kind) in the US.

I don't care about domestic jobs if it means that I have a crummy standard of living.

Tell me what you imagine would happen if the your country adopted floor-level taxes and threw labour laws out the window.

147
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Intelligence Standards
« on: May 17, 2010, 02:35:57 PM »
Or as Chris suggested as a possibility, if we had specialized departments where those who understood the most about particular issues were the ones who had the most political sway on those subjects, far better decisions could be made than those made by professional politicians.

We could call it a sofa, or maybe a cabinet... Which one do you guys like more?

148
Incorruptible bodies which retain flesh and give a sweet odour even many centuries after death constitute a tangible proof of the existence of this spiritual state. 

This is all new to me...

149
So why is this man venerated as the great father of philosophy?

That's like saying, "Why is Jimi Hendrix venerated as the greatest guitar player when Jack White can play circles around him?"

That is true, Michael. Aristotle was also a globularist, which shows how far off the mark he actually was.

*washes hands* Well I guess that's that!

150
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill
« on: May 17, 2010, 10:54:33 AM »
The firm would be directly financially responsible to all property owners who suffered losses due to their negligence, just like anything else.  To mitigate the losses, it's surely cheaper to clean up than to pay up.
Here's a fun activity:  Why don't you try to imagine a situation where the free market could take care of the disaster?  Or just expand upon what I've said above, and see what you come up with.  Put your freethinking skills to the test.

Are you assuming that the United States government is more prepared to deal with the oil well leak than BP?

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 33