Would you convert into a different religion just to learn a certain style?

[roughnready]

I have seen many schools that won't let you join unless you coverted into their religion. Do you think this is fair and why? I don't think it's fair at all.

[MonkeySlap Too]

Often it has to do with a peculiar tendancy of religions to preach tolerance and peace among thier own members, but outsiders, well THEY ARE JUST NO GOOD ARE THEY.

Both the Old Testament / Torah and the Koran are filled with admoishments against non-beleivers or stories about mass killing of non-beleivers by the 'righteous'.

Religions tend to be political movements first, spiritual matters second. It is only in the secularized west that we have gotten away from this sticky fact.

From what I have read (and I am still finding texts on Zoastrianism, so I cannot speak to it) out of the major religous streams that have survived to this day, only Jainism and Buddhism do not espouse some sort of militancy against non-beleivers in thier religous texts. (Although hinduism, the religion at the 'root' of those two has the Bhagavad-Gita, which is essentially a war epic about the virtues of dispationate behavior.)

Now, this is only a hobby of mine, so if someone can correct me, please do so.

Also note - I am not seeking to offend anybody here. But I've read the religous texts and it's all right there on the page, not too far from admonishments about 'changing' or 'not following' the religion properly. Them's the apples. They often get overlooked.

Oh, and I'm not much of a joiner. There are plenty of martial arts that don't require me to acquire more imaginary friends.

[Black Jack]

Monekyslap, good post.

Stated much more straight to the point of the matter than my own spew would of been.

[GunnedDownAtrocity]

i would pretend.

if i ever wanted to quit i would be creative in commiting the worst legal herasy before all of them.

then i'd rape the teachers puppy.

[GunnedDownAtrocity]

black jack . .. yeah his was ok, but mine was better.

[Ryu]

"There are plenty of martial arts that don't require me to acquire more imaginary friends."

Was good up until this point. If you're trying not to offend people you probably shouldn't use wording like that as it sneakily enforces your "spiritual" beliefs upon them. ;)

Regardless what I think of the issue, there are MANY intelligent and logical philosophers, doctors, scientists, etc. who make quite convincing arguments about the possibility of those "imaginary friends." Just because someone is based in reality does not mean they are void of religious thinking. Just my 2 cents.

But I don't think ANY martial art has the right to have say what religion if any it's practitioners follow (unless of course it's something obviously harmful... going out and killing people ritually or something :D )

Ryu

[Xebsball]

IMHO if they make you convert to learn kung fu they basicly suck, leave them ****ers. Throw **** on their front door.

[PaulLin]

Originally posted by roughnready
I have seen many schools that won't let you join unless you coverted into their religion. Do you think this is fair and why? I don't think it's fair at all.

That counts high-pressured organization, it is too dangerous to join, too much like a cult.

[MonkeySlap Too]

RYU - the imaginary friend crack goes back to my college days when the fundamentalists were all over campus. See, you can read it two ways 'hey - he thinks my religion is imaginary' or 'yeah,yeah THOSE guys have the imaginary god(s)'.

Someday I'll tell the tale of how I created the illusion that there was a huge fundamentalist aryanist religous revival on campus.

"Heimdall has been struck by a misseltoe arrow and the serpent of midgard is lose. Ragnarok is near! Come to our prayer meeting and fencing practice in room 842."

Of course the rooms on the eigth floor on each building (notice I did not say which building) all stopped before 42. Heh heh.

[MonkeySlap Too]

Also to Ryu. Note that I did not discount spiritual beleifs. Just what people do with them.

Frankly, I find most of the worlds religions really scary, as there are a lot of things tucked in there that 'give' the 'beleivers' the right or duty to abuse or kill non-beleivers.

These aspects may be downplayed in the modern day, but the basic programming is written into the software. or so to speak.

Frankly, I am oppossed to anyone telling me what I should beleive or practice, and religions that feel the need to subject people of other religions should go pound sand.

So there, now you made me tell off three billion people. :D

[Royal Dragon]

I have no problems with ordained Monks who historically practice a certain art teaching their art and religion side by side, especially if it is traditional for them to do so. HOWEVER, if some "Celestial Grand Master" requires me to become a Christian to learn an art founded by Budhists or Taoists, I'm outta there!!!

[Ryu]

Someone's gotta tell 3 million people off, right? :D

I do agree with you though on what people do to religion. That's what makes me kind of cringe when people blame Religion (with a capital R) for the things that human beings do with it. Even if religion is completely man made and fictional, the ideal of it is worth respecting IMO.

BTW, :D
"fundamentalists were all over campus."

Ugh... I understand now. :D

Ryu

[Budokan]

To answer the original question: NO.

'Nuff said.

[Black Jack]

Poor Ryu, j/k

I thought the imaginary friend bit was right on the ball.

How did these "intelligent" men of logic almost get you to come to the consideration that there is a mythological ****phobic toothfairy in the heavens who has coprohilic tenedencies and a serious voyeuristic fecal fetish, who of course is coupled with a inferior to women complex??

Just curious:D

[Braden]

LOL at RnR's remarkably creative trolling recently.

MonkeySlap Too

As a curious reversal on the theme, Christianity started as a purely spiritual movement, and only became political centuries later. It made up for lost time though. But since you mention holy books, the early emphasis is clear in their scriptures.

[Shadow Dragon]

I have seen many schools that won't let you join unless you coverted into their religion. Do you think this is fair and why? I don't think it's fair at all.

Huh, come again. When, where, how and WHY.
If that is the state of MA in the US, I am worried VERY worried for you Guys.

Martial Arts traditionally were practiced a Spiritual centers as those centers were the centers of learning & knowledge.
This does NOT mean that the MA is specifically linked to that Religion or belief system.
Granted they were influenced and maybe adopted some ideas.

Lets see most Religions are against unnecessary blood shed and violence, and on top of that most Priest/monks are not allowed to spill blood.
Hence maces and culbs for Christian priest, and no bladed weapons for most worshippers.
Still smile at the image that many have of Shao-Lin priests wading through a river of blood and broken Bones, they are Buddhists.
Most of the warriors at those shrines were laymen and not priests, most religions had some sort of Warrior monk.

Nuff said.

[Black Jack]

"And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight. And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Isreal eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them." (Ezekiel 4:12-13)

Is poop nutritional? Do they serve that now instead of fake jesus flesh?

"But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that htey may eat their own dung, and drink their own **** with you?" (II Kings 18:27)

Ummmm-yummmmy poop and pee.

"If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the LORD of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings:yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to your heart. Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it." (Malachi 2:2-3)

What is a day without some curses and some feces smeared on your face.

[Chang Style Novice]

That's one heck of a post #666, Blackjack.

[Black Jack]

Chang-:D

Sorry, its the mean spirited atheist in me.

[Chang Style Novice]

No need to apologize to me. I'm pretty much of the opinion that if there's anything that can be called a god, it doesn't give a rat's ass about morality, prayer, or any of the rest of that stuff. And it's a lot more likely that there's nothing that can be called a god, short of delusion-fed figments.

[Ryu]

BJ,
Mostly because these philosophers and scientists do not talk in terms of "men in the sky" or "tooth fairies" or "ever present loving superlords who love all, but kill you if you make them angry" :D

The spiritual component that I have seen in many scientists (including even Albert Einstien) seems to move more towards a naturalistic type of spirituality, where what you do definitely matters in terms of "good and bad" etc. Religions such as Buddhism and Taoism for example easily fit in with scientific discoveries about our universe, time, cause and effect, etc. Notions about "God" can actually do the same, but unfortunately, too many people have instilled the thoughts of actual "people living in the sky."
My comment about "imaginary friends" was merely saying that the notion of "an order to things" might not be as far fetched as some believe. Do I personally think there is an "invisible man" in the sky? I highly doubt it. However, when people discuss things about religionI tend to listen anyway. :cool:

Ryu

[MonkeySlap Too]

"Lets see most Religions are against unnecessary blood shed and violence"

What that usually translates to is don't kill fellow beleivers, everyone else though is pretty much okay.

Don't beleive me? Go read your Bible or Koran. Ask what happened to the Caananites. You know the people who lived in the 'holy land' when GOD gave it to the israelites?

Convert or die. Wheee, gimme some of that old time religion.

While it is true that Byzantine soilders were refused sacrements during war time and other similar abberations, the black and white texts of most middle eastern religions encourage a considerable amount of violence against non-beleivers.

Oh, and I'm not singling out the 'people of the book'. The culture around the Zoastrian lands is the culture that gave us the Burkha and other oppressive traits now so lovingly associated with Islam.

Just leave me alone, is all I ask. I don't want to convert, and I don't want to have to send you to your god in self defense.

[MonkeySlap Too]

For the record, I know a silat group that uses silat as a means to convert practitioners into muslims. I had a big row with these guys.

Not to be confused with some guys like Gerakan Suci, who happen to be muslims, but don't push it on you one bit. (Sufi's actually)

[Shadow Dragon]

MonkeySlap Too.

You are right of course. Christianity, Islam, etc have often been hijacked for political/economical purpose.
But don't confuse the teachings with what their followers do.

But I can't really see a KF school asking a Studet to convert to either Christianity or Islam. Which would be a good Joke in the West indeed.

Most of them will ask for Buddhism, Shintoism or Taoism, or a subsect/home cooked version thereof.

Which again is funny as most of those have the rule I mentioned and further funnily enough you can be a member of either belief system and STILL belong to another religion.

So, pls, try to think b4 you make a mute point just to be heard.

Have a nice day.

[Ryu]

"it doesn't give a rat's ass about morality"

See that I would disagree with because "morality" in the sense of some kind of universal ethics and compassion for one another seems to play a big part in the lives of human beings. "It" being a physical thing doesn't really give justice to the notion of Ethics as they stand because to me that sounds like ethics are simply a byproduct of a "God" who doesn't have to follow them "himself." That makes no logical sense to people. Hence these kinds of arguments. If you ask me (and no one did :D ) I really think Ethics is a key role in understanding what is harmonious and what is not. I am starting to believe that there very well could be a natural "ethic" for the way things work. Though I'm not sure how to develop that concept at this time... ( :( I think I'm turning into a Taoist!!)
Basically my point is this. Ethics (as in Universal Ethics that all cultures must share in preventing access pain and suffering, helplessness, etc.) should be a major point in human relations and notions of "religion" of any kind. The motivations behind actions should be understood. If "God" can simply turn around and break the "ethics" "he" prescribes, it makes ethics and any of "his" words obsolete. There is no point. :)
So in that sense, that is why I say what I say. My notion of "God" is much different then most would think when they heard the word. But that's just the Buddhist in me I suppose.
Wish I could talk more, but the friend I'm working out with will be here in the next couple minutes, so ....last post for tonight probably.

Take care,
Ryu

[Black Jack]

Ryu,

Just messing with ya, I do believe there is a difference between philosophy and religon dogma, the only thing I like about religon is the tax beneifts, give me some of those, maybe I can start a buiness...I mean cult...I mean religon and start saving some greenbacks.

Maybe whorship a tactical folder, or a retractable baton, or a plunger or maybe those two creepy siamese twins that I saw singing on springer today.

[Ryu]

I had to make one last post because........


:D A religion based on a tactical folder might lure me in for sure.

[greendragon]

Who were these people ? enquiring minds want to know. Jhoon Rhe and the Moonies perhaps ? Church of BOB ?

[ReverendTim]

Finally, a thread I know something about, and here I miss the whole thing playing Ghost Recon.

Just to address a couple points:

1. Christianity was indeed political from the very beginning, in that it was a Jewish sect, a radical Jewish sect (in its way), and the Jews were quite wrapped up in dealing with their Roman overlords. All men being the same in God's eyes is a profoundly political position to take against a system that thinks that slaves are okay and the Emperor is a god.

2. I think one of the greatest crimes organized, fundamental religion (including Catholicism, especially the pre-Luther flavor) has perpetrated on humanity is forcing rational, intelligent, otherwise spiritual people into choosing a comic book God in the sky or atheism. I have so many friends who are totally cut off from their spiritual side because too many people have tried to cast God as an old dude with a beard that keeps score. That's not God...that's Santa.

Me, I prefer mystical Judaism's way of explaining it: God is a verb.

I also like the Hindu practice of the God that is me bowing to the God that is you. I prefer to think (and I'm not alone, here) that all of us ARE God, and that simply by existing, we create God as we go.

Must...stop...talking...religion...and...hit...hea vy...bag...

Seriously, I could talk shop all night long.

--
Rev. Tim

[Braden]

MS T - Did you see my post?

The Rev -

"Christianity was indeed political from the very beginning, in that it was a Jewish sect, a radical Jewish sect (in its way), and the Jews were quite wrapped up in dealing with their Roman overlords."

You are mistaken. "Give unto caesar what is caesar's" is one of the quotes we have directly from Jesus. His philosophy was that religion had nothing to do politics - you do your religion thing, and you do your politics thing. This was directly opposed to Jewish beliefs, and specifically directly opposed to Jewish beliefs in what a messiah should be - which is exactly why Christianity was not a Jewish sect.

"I think one of the greatest crimes organized, fundamental religion (including Catholicism, especially the pre-Luther flavor) has perpetrated on humanity is forcing rational, intelligent, otherwise spiritual people into choosing a comic book God in the sky or atheism."

I'm incredibly confused about your 'pre-Luther' comment. Luther rejected the power of 'faith' (ie. belief; general religious character), the power of the 'sacraments' (ie. practices to empower direct and personal communion with the divine), and the power of 'good works' (ie. doing good stuff for people). In their place, he put the power of 'the word' (ie. reading and direct belief in the word of the Bible). This seems opposite to the kind of claim you are making.

P.S. Real men use OICW without the GL.

[GunnedDownAtrocity]

"I prefer to think (and I'm not alone, here) that all of us ARE God, and that simply by existing, we create God as we go. "

you're a satanist!

[Royal Dragon]

1. GOD exists
2. GOD made everything
3. GOD does not care about anything you do so long as you don't harm others.


All else is made by man to controll other men.

[Gabriel]

:D

So Braden..


"You are mistaken. "Give unto caesar what is caesar's" is one of the quotes we have directly from Jesus. His philosophy was that religion had nothing to do politics - you do your religion thing, and you do your politics thing. This was directly opposed to Jewish beliefs, and specifically directly opposed to Jewish beliefs in what a messiah should be - which is exactly why Christianity was not a Jewish sect. "

You are not looking back far enough my intellectual friend. Say, in the time of Cain and Abel.... Cain and his people, the agriculturists, and Abel and his people, nomadic herders were at odds. Cain's people began...let me see...oh yes.."The tillers of the soil were watering their fields with the blood of semitic herders".

Another interesting thing is the sacrifices of Cain and Abel. According to the text, God only excepted Abels offering(sacrifice). Why would a religion that ultimately served Cains brood say that Abel was the only one blessed by God. It doesn't make any sense. However, if the story of Cain and Abel were war propaganda from the Semites(people of Abel), it would start to become more clear. The Semites told this story amongst themselves. "We are the only ones blessed by god, curse those murdering soil tillers!". Now, why wasn't this story stomped out by Cain's followers you ask? Because the semites were never completely overrun, and their ancestors, who turned more to the way of Cain(ie. soil tilling and settlement) were the Hebrews...and..well you know how it goes from there. Political, yes?

GUHAHAHAHAHA Take a few theology courses and Im a leg up..expept maybe with you Rev. ;)

D AMNED SOIL TILLERS! Doh, forgot to take my pill......

[Braden]

Gab -

None of that is Christianity.

RD -

Interesting reasoning. Are you interested in discussing it?

[Gabriel]

Cain and Abels story is in Genesis, which is in the bible, i fail to see how that is not Christianity...

[GunnedDownAtrocity]

my daughter just stole my dinner.

da mn kids.

worse than dogs.

[MonkeySlap Too]

Someone back there told me not to confuse what people do with a religion with the religion.

Not interested - I'm referring to whats in the good "books." That is where I find all the scary stuff. Often what people have done with it is much more noble than the source material.

Do not beleive me? Read it. Not just the pretty sounding parts. All of it.

And yes, originally Christianity was a branch of Judaism - a fringe one for sure - but Judaism none the less. It was the Roman civil war that divided families and created the final break between the two.

Heck, originally Christianity was only for Jews and a few stragglers. It was only when one of the disciples noticed some of the mystery cults in Greece that it started to open up.

All middle Eastern religions are politics. Heck, as far as I can tell only Buddhism isn't. Maybe Taoism - some sects.

The fact that we have lost this realization is really scary.

[Braden]

Gab -

The Old Testament, as I'm sure you know, is the holy word of the Jewish people. The New Testament, as I'm sure you know, is the message of Jesus. If you have read the two of them, you will undeniably note that they are very different messages. It should fall, both intuitively and rationally, from the above that, where the messages differ, someone billing themself as a follower of Jesus (Christian) would side on the message of Jesus.

That's the simple response.

If you want the complex response - Jesus came with [at least what people interested in such things would call] an important message. One of Jesus's "big ideas" was that he had not come to replace or refute any aspect of society. He had this big message about how everyone and everything could be ok. If you look at the name of what was the first and primary school of his teachings, Catholic, you will find that it means 'universal' - and, pervsions which arose over time as it became popular aside, is no accident. What you have to keep in mind about Jesus and his message is that it did not, historically occur in a vacuum. He was born a Jew, in a Jewish culture, and he was preaching his message to Jews. It is no accident then, that he used Jewish metaphors to spread his message. You don't walk into a Jewish culture and use a Sumerian mythos to talk to them, it just wouldn't make any sense. So, Jesus came with a message, and it so happened that he was telling this message to Jews, and therefore in a Jewish way, and in addition he told them they didn't have to stop being Jews in order to follow his message (which, btw, is an overriding theme which should be kept in mind, in general for this whole discussion). However, you should not mistakenly conclude from these facts that the Jewish message is an integral part of Jesus' message - indeed, to conclude that would be in exact opposition of these facts.

[Royal Dragon]

Braden, sure, I'll discuss it, but after being raised Catholic and sending my daughter to Lutheran schools all her life and my own personal observations for the last 34 1/2 years, I think I've just said it all.

Gabriel, NO Christanity starts with the NEW TESTAMENT. Genisiss is PRE Christian writtings.

[ReverendTim]

Braden...

Jesus was a Jew, his follwers were Jews, and they identified themselves *as* Jews. They were indeed a Jewish sect *initially*. Obviously, they evolved out of Judaism eventually. And I maintain that any group that stresses the community over the hierarchy and goes around knocking over money-changers' tables is behaving in a political fashion. I agree that Jesus was saying not to confuse the laws of men with the laws of God, but I think even that sentiment IS political. Governmental, maybe not, but fundamentally political? Absolutely.

As far as quotes we have directly from Jesus...historically speaking, we don't know that we have any. We have some good guesses as to which he might have said and which others might have attributed to him. That is, unless you're hoarding the Q gospel somewhere. ;)

And you misunderstood my "pre-Luther" comment. I was trying to say that the Catholic chuch from its inception has perpetuated the "old guy in the sky" model of God, especially when it didn't have any competition (ie Protestants!).

Notice how I'm much less verbose after a heavy-bag workout?

--
Rev. Tim

P.S. Downloaded the GRM4 mod yet? REAL men use a mortar!

[Braden]

MonkeySlap Too -

"Do not beleive me? Read it. Not just the pretty sounding parts. All of it."

Give an example.

"And yes, originally Christianity was a branch of Judaism."

The Jews say it wasn't. The Christians say it wasn't. Many of it's beliefs are in direct opposition to Jewish beliefs. In light of this, I'd think you'd have to offer at least some reasoning to support this claim.

"Heck, originally Christianity was only for Jews and a few stragglers."

Really? Again, some support for this would be interesting. I can think of early church fathers who came directly from the Greek philosophical heritage.

"All middle Eastern religions are politics."

So a direct quote from Jesus, from the holy book of the religion, saying "This religion is not politics" isn't enough to convince you, huh?

Taoism isn't politics!? I gotta say, that just confuses me completely.

[Braden]

Rev

"And I maintain that any group that stresses the community over the hierarchy and goes around knocking over money-changers' tables is behaving in a political fashion."

The money-changers thing, as I'm sure you know, was an entirely spiritual concern. It was most certainly not an attack against 'money-changers' in the sense you're suggesting.

" agree that Jesus was saying not to confuse the laws of men with the laws of God, but I think even that sentiment IS political."

If every possible stance on anything is political, than I am forced to agree he was being political. I'm not sure what meaning such a definition has though.

"As far as quotes we have directly from Jesus...historically speaking, we don't know that we have any."

We have that quote, with all it's baggage and inaccuracies. If we can conclude nothing from it, then we can't have this argument at all (ie. you can't conclude they WERE political any more than I can conclude they're NOT). In other words, we can either argue about the facts we have (with all their limitations) or we can't argue at all.

"I was trying to say that the Catholic chuch from its inception has perpetuated the 'old guy in the sky' model of God."

Where are you getting this idea? I've actually read alot of the writings of the early, early Catholic thinkers, and I get the exact opposite idea. Indeed, many of these writings have been deemed aprocyphal for this exact reason.

[TaoBoxer]

Many styles profess religous or philosophical underpinnings, but which styles are truly religous?

Shorinji Kempo comes to mind. At 4th dan, you become a monk (which is why there are a lot of 3rd dans in America!!).

Another would be the Bagua taught in Taiwan by the students of Wang Shu Chin who pretty much require membership in the I Kuan Dao to reach higher levels of Chi Kung, etc.

I know in some Indonesian styles, there is a heavy Muslim influence, but I have never heard of Converting being required. Much the same for the Muslim system of Hsing I.

Indian Sihks were historically known as bad-ass warriors and required by their religon to carry a blade at all times. I know they have an "official" yoga-like workout, but I am not aware of a specific martial art.

I think with some arts, the religon might not be required so much as the art is taught in an ethnic vaccuum. Kallayarapayut for example is taught around Calcutta, India. Most if not all practitioners would be Indian, probably Hindu, and speak Punjabi(?). Doesn't mnake it a requirement, just means that that is the social norm. Also, true or not, many people believe these arts to be too dangerous to be taught to amoral students, and long term membership in a religon may go toward proving your character to the Teacher.

just my .02

[Gabriel]

No disrespects meant dispite my evil laughing last time..I simply still do not understand..

Ok. To me, there are three VERY vital points of religion:

Explains how the world and universe came into being.

Details how one should live their life on a day to day basis.

Outlines what happens when you die.

Ok, i think beyond the Old Testament the last two points are addressed. However, the first point, which is kind of important to a religion, is addressed by the old testament. Curious. Are you guys honestly saying that Christianity doesn't have its own explanation of the beginning of things? I think christianity excepts that whole seven day thing. story of cain and abel..moses...noah..Well, as immortalized by an unknown frenchie..What Ze Fock. Now you guys are telling me that you don't use this stuff? Come on. Er...you do too! Old testament or no, you guys use it to the hilt, telling children the Ark story, cause its cushy and has animals..Adam and Eve is big too. Oh, and the parting of the red sea, c'mon guys, I remember this stuff from church school for chrissakes. And yes, I went to a Protestant church.

[ReverendTim]

Braden,

Anything that upsets the balance of *power* is political. I'm not saying that every action is political, but I am saying that politics is deeper than who's in charge of collecting taxes. If Jesus' message isn't political, how come liberation theologists keep getting assassinated by Central American dictators for preaching it?

You're right when you say that the money-changers incident is intended to teach a spiritual lesson.

Your claim that the quote in question is directly attributable to Jesus is erreoneous insofar as it's difficult to substantiate, historically, *any* verbatim teachings of Jesus. Scholars postulate the "Quelle" gospel, which is theoretically a collection of sayings more directly attributable to Jesus, but I don't know that it's a sure thing that Jesus actually spoke those words. I also dont' know that it matters. Whether he said it or whether some later writer came up with a really good turn of phrase, the message is equally important.

And of course there have been great Christian mystics who conceived of God in a particularly evolved (and some would say Jewish) way. But that's not what the local parish priests and monks were teaching the rank and file. If you're using the metaphor of a big pi$$ed off guy to scare 99% of your followers, then I think you have to own that dogma. Prior to the Council of Nicea, there were lots of great Christian gnostics whose thinking was downright Eastern and/or mystical (Gospel of Thomas comes to mind)...but they didn't make the cut and ended up being destroyed as heresy. That doesn't speak to a particularly evolved church to me. Plus, just the symbolism of calling God the "father" reinforces the notion.

I prefer those who stress that what makes the divine the divine is our inability to label, quantify, or really conceptualize it. If you can describe it, it ain't God.

I'm just yapping here...I hope no one's taking what I say too seriously. I just dig talking religion...not trying to pick any fights or insult anyone's beliefs.
--
Rev. Tim

[Braden]

Gabriel -

"No disrespects meant dispite my evil laughing last time"

No worries, we're all friends here. We should all have a game of Ghost Recon some time. :)

"I simply still do not understand.."

What?

"Explains how the world and universe came into being."

This is the domain of metaphysics, not religion.

"Details how one should live their life on a day to day basis."

This is the domain of morality and/or ethics, not religion.

"Outlines what happens when you die."

Again, metaphysics and ontology, but not religion.

Religion, very simply, has to do with your relationship to the divine. Because religion occurs within a cultural context, and cultural contexts have metaphysical and moral heritages, these fields often get confused. In most cases, you will be able to realize they are seperate fields when you see one being explained in terms of the other. For instance, you will often hear a statement about your relationship with the divine followed by a remark that "because..." and then a statement about metaphysics. Beyond that, there are some cases when metaphysical, ethical, or other statements are actually religious statements, but it's important to be able to determine when they are not - which is most often the case.

"Ok, i think beyond the Old Testament the last two points are addressed."

Exactly, which makes sense from my argument that the Old Testament is the cultural context within which Christianity happened to have happened. See above where I call those points issues of cultural context. I didn't plan this... at the very least you have to admit my view is internally consistent. ;)

As far as all that "Do you believe..." about the seven days, Cain and Abel, floods, and everything else. Considering it the way I do actually makes these points very salient. All of the things which you asked about are points of history. My belief in a flood, or in two familial heritages has absolutely nothing to do with my relationship [or even lack thereof] to the divine [whatever that might be]. But confusing this is exactly what you are doing.

[Royal Dragon]

Thought Shall not Kill
Though Shalt not steal,
Thought Shalt not covet other's wives
Thought shalt not lie

God only cares about the big 4, all the others are controll freaky additions.

[Tvebak]

The Sikhs have a weaponbased system of combat called Gatka, i belive their nienth guru told them to practise it as a part of their religion.
I dont belive that sikhs generelly are required to carry blades, but i think the Kahlsa, their sort of priests, are.
Gatka is way cool, i wisit my local sikh temple for a lesson tommorow, they are really glad that an outsider wants to practise their art:)

[Braden]

ReverendTim

"Anything that upsets the balance of *power* is political."

It has been remarked that the single most overwhelming dictate of power in 'ancient' cities was water. If there were neighboring cities in a power struggle, and one recieved a strong rainfall over the course of a year, while the other did not - the balance of power likely would be severely upset. Would you claim that humidity levels and air flows in the atmosphere are political?

"If Jesus' message isn't political, how come liberation theologists keep getting assassinated by Central American dictators for preaching it?"

The point, I hope, has now been clearly made that non-political things can affect politics, and similarly politics can affect non-political things. Moreover, I haven't the faintest problem agreeing that the message has been misused [mis- in the sense that it's being used contrary to it's original spirit] in political matters - of course, this is of wide-scale and repugnant magnitudes regardless of your thoughts on the original message.

"Your claim that the quote in question is directly attributable to Jesus...whether some later writer came up with a really good turn of phrase, the message is equally important."

I'm happy with that reasoning. As an aside, check out 'The Gospel of Thomas' if you are interested, re: the Q gospel.

"Prior to the Council of Nicea, there were lots of great Christian gnostics..."

Sweet, you allready have. ;) My point is that, prior to this, the gnostic or mystic interpretation was NOT held by isolated mystics, but was in fact the overwhelming message of the entire movement. One of the greatest gnostic thinkers was practically pope for goodness sake. As the movement got bigger, and as it got more political, you saw this interpretation going from being THE message, to being the majority, to being the minority, to being outlawed. If you look at what is actually said in the New Testament (even after they kicked all the gnostic scriptures out) it's ALOT more consistent with the gnostic worldview than with the political / big church of europe / scare you with our big god view (which, despite your allusions to jewish mysticism, is alot more consistent with judaism / old testament ). I would argue that the reformation and counter-reformation were, if anything, the final nails in the coffin of the original message. (just, as an aside to your remark about Luther)

"That doesn't speak to a particularly evolved church to me."

I never, ever made any positive remarks about the church (in the sense of the political institution).

"Plus, just the symbolism of calling God the 'father' reinforces the notion.".

Ah! You need to go back to Thomas. :) There's a very good reason to call it 'the father' and it has nothing to do with masculinity.

"If you can describe it, it ain't God."

I'm very happy with that reasoning.

[Braden]

Royal Dragon That's Old Testament. Remember what Jesus said when they asked him about it?

[Braden]

P.S. SA80 + hand grenades is also an acceptable choice. Everything else is smut though.

[Royal Dragon]

Didn't he say something to the effect of the old testament not being valid anymore as he was here to correct things?

Still, the big 4 are all GOD cares about. Even the don't take the Lord's name in vain thing is irrelevant to him.

I mean he's supposed to be an all knowing all intelegant being, you'd think he'd be beyond that silly ego stuff, right?

I'm tellin ya, God, Alla, Buddha and Santa Clause are all up ther shaking their heads going "They just don't "Get it" do they?"


God is NOT all powerful and I have logic to prove it.

[ReverendTim]

Ha! "Smut." Bravo. And I mean it, that GRM4 mod is the bee's knees. You want a challenge? There's a pistol and hand grenade kit that ought to appeal to you.

As to the rest of it...I would as a general note assert that if the people with the swords and the jails think you're being political, you're being political, regardless of what you're *trying* to do. As to the politics of humidity (which would be a good album title), I thought we were talking about human actions. Jesus was a profound thinker, but I don't think he had a weather machine.

I'm glad we agree on the gnostics, and I think we also agree that the world might be better off (or at least vastly different) had their interpretation "won." Actually, I think that was my original point. That it's a great spiritual crime that their (and others like them) religion got hijacked by either more literal (fundamentalist) or more controlling dogmatics, thereby leaving people like my father-in-law in a bind because no one ever told him that there are ways of interpreting the divine that don't require you to check your brain at the church door. To be honest, he was raised Catholic, and it was his experience that made me cite them in particular in the first place.

So basically we agree on the big questions. The divine, the Gospel of Thomas, and the SA-80.

Not a bad day.

--
Rev. Tim

[chingei]

Originally posted by Royal Dragon
1.
3. GOD does not care about anything you do so long as you don't harm others.





whoa! where did this one come from?

[MonkeySlap Too]

Someone above asked for samples. I can go on all day, as I've pretty much read all the major religous texts of the world. I make no pretentions of being a scholar, but I've found that the Bible is replete with intolerant, viscious conduct toward non-beleivers. In fact, it encourages it. Here are some samples:

"Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the Lord's side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him. And he said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor. And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men" (Exodus 32:26-28).

"And they found Abonibezek in Bezek: and they fought against him, and they slew the Canaanites and Perizzites. But Abonibezek fled; and they pursued after him and caught him, and cut off his thumbs and his great toes. And Abonibezek said, Threescore and ten kings, having their thumbs and their great toes cut off, gathered their meat under my table: as I have done, so God hath requited me" (Judges 1:5-7).

"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods . . . thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people . . . If thou shalt hear . . . Certain men . . . have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods . . . Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants ofthat city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword" (Deuteronomy13:6-15).

I could do the Koran too, but no one asked for it.

My apologies to my Jewish and Christian friends, but this IS what says in the holy book that no one actually seems to read.

[Braden]

Rev

I'd agree strongly with all of that.

[MonkeySlap Too]

Most priests / ministers / rabbi's will tell you the people trounced in god's name were just bad people. I guess the American Indians were just bad people too, huh? Needed trouncin'

Just remember history is written by the victors - or assumed by the victors.

[Braden]

MonkeySlap Too Once again though, none of that is Christian.

"Most priests / ministers / rabbi's will tell you the people trounced in god's name were just bad people."

What point is this addressing?

[guohuen]

Saw a great bumper sticker today. It read
JESUS IS COMING
look busy

[Royal Dragon]

It came from simple observations on the workings of the world.

[Shadow Dragon]

You Guys got it all back to front.

Read "Good Omens" it will open your Eyes to Christianity and the world.

Hehehe.

[chingei]

Originally posted by Royal Dragon
It came from simple observations on the workings of the world.


perhaps a bit heavy on the 'simple' part.

[Royal Dragon]

Simplicity is the nature of the world, complex is nothing more than misdirected focus.

[Braden]

"Simplicity is the nature of the world, complex is nothing more than misdirected focus."

Cool.

[chingei]

Originally posted by Braden
"Simplicity is the nature of the world, complex is nothing more than misdirected focus."

Cool.


I ate a whole pizza once and then barfed it all over the floor. it looked really cool.

[Royal Dragon]

In the end, it meant nothing.

[Braden]

Ching - Arguments by analogy are only viable if there's something other than the analogy holding them up.

[MonkeySlap Too]

Hey Braden - I've been working, and will need to get back to you on New Testament quotes. While I do not agree with some of your conclusions, I do agree that the new testament is fairly revoloutionary in terms of middle eastern theology.

It'll be fun.

For anyone who was offended by my statements, I meen you no discomfort. Just keep an open mind and don't beleive everything people say to you. Read, study, ask the uncomnfortable questions.

[wufupaul]

You know, I was gonna stay out of the religious chat, and just sit back and laugh as usual, but this caught my attention:

"If you can describe it, it ain't God." - Rev

I'm very happy with that reasoning. - Braden

Would either of you like to explain how you can believe in something that you can't describe? I'd be interested to hear the answer.

[Ryu]

I can't describe a black hole, or the realms of our universe.

Informative posts, everyone. :)

[Braden]

Let's say I have never had an orgasm. And you have. Let's further say that you are a world-renowned urologist - in fact, you specialize in human male sexual activity, and you have achieved absolute perfection in your field. What could you possibly say to me which would 'describe' an orgasm sufficiently that I would then understand what it was to experience one?

[Shadow Dragon]

Originally posted by Braden
Let's say I have never had an orgasm. And you have. Let's further say that you are a world-renowned urologist - in fact, you specialize in human male sexual activity, and you have achieved absolute perfection in your field. What could you possibly say to me which would 'describe' an orgasm sufficiently that I would then understand what it was to experience one?

Need to remember that one for the next Qi Thread.

;) :p

[Serpent]

Qi is an orgasm that you've never had!

LOL!

:D

[wufupaul]

Let's say I have never had an orgasm. And you have. Let's further say that you are a world-renowned urologist - in fact, you specialize in human male sexual activity, and you have achieved absolute perfection in your field. What could you possibly say to me which would 'describe' an orgasm sufficiently that I would then understand what it was to experience one? -Braden

I could attempt to explain, but I'd just tell you instead to go have an orgasm. Belief in a god is different. You can't have someone "experience" belief in a god; they believe, not sure, or they don't. An orgasm is a physiological response to certain stimuli, of course it's different for all people, just like religions are. But back to the original question, how do you know that something(a god) exists if you can't describe it? If you can't descibe it, then how can you experience it?

[Braden]

"If you can't descibe it, then how can you experience it?"

Didn't you agree at the beginning of that paragraph that you can experience things you can't describe, like an orgasm?

[wufupaul]

Well, you can try to have an orgasm, maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't, who knows. I understand your point, that you have to experience something before you can describe it. I can try Christianity, Islam, or Judaism, but if I couldn't experience or have access to a god, which I obviously don't believe exists, it would seem kind of pointless, wouldn't it? At least with an orgasm, I could try to exprience that. I can't think of any ways to experience a god if you don't believe in it. Let me ask another question; what's the point of believing in something you can't experience or describe? What good would come out of it?

[Braden]

I just wanted to hear you say you can experience things you can't describe, that's all. :)

You CAN experience god. In fact, just like an orgasm, there's physiological machinery designed to do exactly like that. Religions were NOT designed to sort people into believers and non-believers, based on faith. They were designed to give you practices to experience for yourself. It's remarkably unfortunate that they've been perverted from this goal.

[Volcano Admim]

I would apreciate if you boys tried to stay on topic

[scotty1]

To answer the question "Would you convert to learn a certain style?" My answer is no bloody way.

Apart from that, I've forgotten what the point of all this religious discussion is. But I do remember agreeing with Gabriel when he said this:

"However, the first point, which is kind of important to a religion, is addressed by the old testament. Curious. Are you guys honestly saying that Christianity doesn't have its own explanation of the beginning of things? I think christianity excepts that whole seven day thing. story of cain and abel..moses...noah..Well, as immortalized by an unknown frenchie..What Ze Fock. Now you guys are telling me that you don't use this stuff? Come on. Er...you do too! Old testament or no, you guys use it to the hilt, telling children the Ark story, cause its cushy and has animals..Adam and Eve is big too."

And then Braden's reply:

""Explains how the world and universe came into being."

This is the domain of metaphysics, not religion.

"Details how one should live their life on a day to day basis."

This is the domain of morality and/or ethics, not religion.

"Outlines what happens when you die."

Again, metaphysics and ontology, but not religion. "

Now we may agree that these three topics are not within the realm of religion, BUT they are addressed in the Bible and explained by means of God, and the Bible is accepted by (most)Christians as "the truth".

How the universe came into being is the realm of metaphysics, not religion, I agree, but in the Bible this very topic is explained with the seven days "let there be light" etc. And if Christians accept this as part of their religion, which I know a lot of them do, then you cannot refute an argument with "if its Old Testament its not Christian."

The above are the realms of science, not religion, true in my poinion, but that doesn't stop the writers of Bible having a go at them does it?

Christianity surely cannot pick and choose which parts of the Old Testament it wants to adopt?

The point of this BTW is that somebody refuted an argument of Gabriel's with ""if its Old Testament its not Christian." Which by the reasoning above is not always true.

[Braden]

scotty1 - I argued explicitly to these exact concerns. If you think I'm wrong, why don't you address my arguments?

BTW, I'm clearly not advocating picking and choosing.

[scotty1]

Er, I thought I did.

"Religion, very simply, has to do with your relationship to the divine."

OK

"Because religion occurs within a cultural context, and cultural contexts have metaphysical and moral heritages, these fields often get confused."

Right, but in this case (the 7 days of creation) the explanation in the bible is religous, not metaphysical. Thus the Christians accepting it as part of their faith is not due to the cultural context
of it, it is part of their religion. The Adam and Eve explanation of the beginning of creation did not exist before the Bible was written, it is not part of any culture, it is part of a religion.

So, if Christians accept this as part of their religion, and it is of the Old Testament, then does that mean that the Old Testament is part of Christianity?

If it does, then you cannot refute arguments with "if its Old Testament its not Christian."

Especially if you don't advocate picking and choosing.

[apoweyn]

roughnready,


Originally posted by roughnready
I have seen many schools that won't let you join unless you coverted into their religion. Do you think this is fair and why? I don't think it's fair at all.

define 'many.' a rough estimation: two? five? ten?

i've never seen this before and i'm curious.


stuart b.

[Braden]

"Right, but in this case (the 7 days of creation) the explanation in the bible is religous, not metaphysical."

This statement is incorrect. Whether or not something is metaphysical has to do with it's topic, not with the answer provided.

"Thus the Christians accepting it as part of their faith..."

This statement is also incorrect. The issue in question is not one of the things which Christians are asked to accept as an article of faith.

"The Adam and Eve explanation of the beginning of creation did not exist before the Bible was written, it is not part of any culture, it is part of a religion."

This statement is also incorrect. The Bible was not originally a book which was written. For the most part, the Old Testamen is an recording of the oral history of the Jewish people. The New Testament comes from a variety of sources; in many cases, for instance, letters written from one person to another.

[wufupaul]

People, don't argue with Braden about religion, or anything for that matter. He could argue about ravioli with you, and make you run home crying to your mommy all confused. Arguing with Braden is kinda like swimming in a pool of blood filled with sharks; sort of amusing, but mostly painful. After constructively arguing with Braden last night, only one quote comes to mind; "My brain hurts, my brain hurts today"-Screeching Weasel They must have gotten into an argument with you at some time, didn't they? :p

[scotty1]

""Right, but in this case (the 7 days of creation) the explanation in the bible is religous, not metaphysical."

This statement is incorrect. Whether or not something is metaphysical has to do with it's topic, not with the answer provided. "

Ok, so the topic is metaphysical but the answer is religous. So even though it is a metaphysical topic it is not explained, in the bible, or "oral history of the Jewish people" in a metaphysical manner. It is explained in terms of God's will and so on, so it is now a religous topic.

""Thus the Christians accepting it as part of their faith..."

This statement is also incorrect. The issue in question is not one of the things which Christians are asked to accept as an article of faith. "

Would you or would you not agree that *most* Christians accept the creation story in the Bible as the truth and as part of their religion?

If you do, then that cuts straight to the heart of what we're talking about, becuase I'm saying that you cannot have part of the Old testament as your faith and then refute other parts as 'not being Christian'.

Which would mean that Gabriel's argument (whatever it was) would still stand, instead of being countered with 'the Old testament is not Christian.'

""The Adam and Eve explanation of the beginning of creation did not exist before the Bible was written, it is not part of any culture, it is part of a religion."

This statement is also incorrect. The Bible was not originally a book which was written. For the most part, the Old Testamen is an recording of the oral history of the Jewish people. The New Testament comes from a variety of sources; in many cases, for instance, letters written from one person to another."

Whether the book was commisoned by a Rabbi or pieced together over centuries the fact remains that the creation story was not a part of anyone's culture before it was a part of their religion.

[ReverendTim]

Don't you people sleep? 2 more PAGES since I went to bed. Young ba$tards.

Wufupaul...my point about not being able to describe the divine is basically that what *makes* it divine is that it defies the boundaries of the mundane. If it fits within the borders of some sort of conceptual framework, then it's limited. It's constrained. If it's limited and constrained, by definition, it's not divine, because the divine is that which transcends limits.

I've come to believe (and this is firmly in the realm of IMHO) that God (or the divine) can really *only* be experienced. I don't think you can think your way to God. I think that belief in the divine has to come from experience...some sort of transcendent event that thought and language can't do justice.

I can describe my feelings about it, what I think I experienced, what it meant to me, what I did about it...but if I tried to describe the actual divinty with which I came into contact, I would come up short.

And Scotty, I think it's dangerous ground to try to talk about "most" Christians. Unitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses and Catholics are all technically Christians, but there's not a lot of overlap.

--
Rev. Tim

[Braden]

Scotty

"Ok, so the topic is metaphysical but the answer is religous... even though it is a metaphysical topic it is not explained in a metaphysical manner. It is explained in terms of God's will and so on, so it is now a religous topic."

No. There are metaphysical questions, not metaphysical answers. Just like if you asked me what I just played on the guitar, and I answered with the pitch of the last note I played, we would still be talking about guitars and not physics.

"Would you or would you not agree that *most* Christians accept the creation story in the Bible as the truth and as part of their religion?"

I would not agree.

"If you do, then that cuts straight to the heart of what we're talking about..."

And even if I did, I have never put myself in the position of arguing about relativistic belief of the majority.

"Whether the book was commisoned by a Rabbi or pieced together over centuries the fact remains that the creation story was not a part of anyone's culture before it was a part of their religion."

It was part of someone's culture for quite a long time before the religion we're discussing ever existed. But, for the sake of trying to clarify my point... there was a cultural concept in the western tradition of the Earth being the center of the universe, which was recorded in religious texts and cross-polinated religious issues ni the exact same manner the Jewish creation myth did. Fast forward a couple hundred years and we find people who are not religious maintaining this belief, and people who are religious rejecting it. This just goes to illustrate the practical distinctions between metaphysics and religion which hopefully is easier to understand than the Jewish creation myth, as it's in more familiar territory.

Rev

Sleep is for the weak.

[Royal Dragon]

wufupaul

Braden don't argue with me, 'cause I'm right.:D

[Braden]

About this:

"1. GOD exists
2. GOD made everything
3. GOD does not care about anything you do so long as you don't harm others.
All else is made by man to controll other men."

??

[scotty1]

I'm respectfully bowing out, Braden, you wear me down.:)

And besides, I think I see your point.:eek:

[Royal Dragon]

1. GOD exists
The universe s to ordered to have just "happened"

2. GOD made everything
Someone had to, and I call that one God, but you may call him Alla or George for that matter. Names don't mean jack to the all powerfull one, that's a man made thing.

3. GOD does not care about anything you do so long as you don't harm others.

He doesn't care, if he did drug dealers couldn't shoot little kids.

All else is made by man to controll other men.

Read the bible and study religion, most of it is contrlol freaky jibberish.

If you sort through the worlds religions, and examin the core belifes you will find (With few exceptions of course) that it all boils down to "Don't hurt others and play nice, the all powerfull one is watching"

[Repulsive Monkey]

Martial arts are not founded on religiosity, and therefore any art thsat requires you as a prequisite to take orders of a particular religious faith should be frowned upon. Religious proclivity will not not necessarily improve your art.

[apoweyn]

royal dragon,


1. GOD exists
The universe s to ordered to have just "happened"

this argument has always seemed backward to me. it's not as if we, humanity, had a concept of order. then a world came along that fit that concept, suggesting the hand of a higher power at work. our concept of order is based on how the world is. how we've always observed it to be. if it had somehow turned out differently, then our sense of order would be different.


stuart b.

[scotty1]

good point ap.

Whatever the world had turned out like we would judge it as ordered, because it is all we know, and for any system to be it has to have some kind of order, surely.

[Merryprankster]

Ap,

The reason that argument is intellectually unfulfilling is because it is teleological in nature:

It's essentially like saying God exists because the bible says so and the bible is infallible because it's the word of God so therefore God exists.

Just change the words around a bit and you'll see what I mean:

God exists because the universe is too ordered and only God could create such order so therefore God exists.

It starts with a set of **** poor assumptions: An all powerful being is necessary to create the universe with such order. Well, not necessarily. There is no difference in effect in this case, between A SUFFICIENTLY powerful being and an ALL Powerful one, so this argument doesn't prove anything.

Not only that, but order can come out of chaos. Certain fractal patterns are created by complete randomness bound by a certain set of rules carried out over thousands of iterations. Using this idea you might even say it's inevitable that over time, order emerges from the chaos. Can't predict the individual event, but you can predict the pattern---electron clouds, and the heisenberg uncertainty principle anyone? :)

[apoweyn]

merryprankster,

that's about the size of it, yeah.

personally, i'm inclined to believe in a divine of some sort. but that particular argument is about as satisfying as a steven seagal movie. (and that ain't very satisfying.)



stuart b.

[apoweyn]

cheers scotty.

i think there are probably two sorts of order. order we perceive and order we create. our sense of perceived order is based on how things have always been. so that would be radically different if things had always been a different way.

and our sense of created order, well regardless of what the world was like, wouldn't that instinct be the same? for us to establish order in chaos?

not sure, obviously. but that's my guess.


stuart b.

[Braden]

Royal Dragon -

"1. GOD exists - The universe is to ordered to have just 'happened'"

Wouldn't this assertion support point two (below) rather than this?

"2. GOD made everything"

"All else is made by man to controll other men. Read the bible and study religion, most of it is contrlol freaky jibberish."

I think we should be careful about making such wide-scale statements. It's not so hard to believe that at some point someone had something honest to say. It seems to me that the root of all religious movements (keeping in mind the formal definition of religious I have argued for) is in mysticism - which is to say, in direct and personal experience of that which is called religious. In this sense, there is a very important message being passed along, which is neither control freaky jibberish, nor cultural context - and that is, how to have that experience for yourself.

Regarding 'The Problem of Evil' which you alluded to when you mentioned he must not care if he created everything and many things are bad... The Christian (and many other) gnostics have an interesting view. God, in the sense which you mean here, to them is not a/the creator. Just cause I like pimping this site so much, if you're interested, check out http://www.gnosis.org/gnintro.htm for an account of this.

[Black Jack]

Royal,

I and a lot of others have a problem with that kind of a concrete blanket premis on what is and what is not, in this regard to creationism and the existence of any supernatural creature or divine being.

I don't know what your definition of logic is but the Concise Oxford Engilsh Dictionary defines it as follows-"the science of reasoning, proof, thinking, or inference".

A premis is a core assumption that a arguement is built on, if I can not agree on the premis, since in this case I know the premis to be of a false statement, the arguement is really dead in the water to begin with.

That is the one thing theists need to understand, conditional blanket statements just don't fly for everyone, some people choose to use science, logic, commonsense and reasoning instead of a occult creationism dogma or blind faith to lead them through life.

Royal, no offense intended for your personal views, just making a point of blanket statements based on the supernatural, I am pretty militant on my beliefs so again no offense, though I don't really hold back to much when in comes to this type of stuff.

Cheers,

Since somebody was talking about orgasms, here is a passage in the bible on the very same thing.

"And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him. And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto brothers wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his: and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also." (Genesis 38:7-10)

The term onanism, from the name Onan, has come to stand for masturbation which has suffered a fate similar to sodomy in the sense that it has evolved to have a meaning far different from its original use.

Dicitionaries define onanism as male masturbation or uncompleted coitus. According to the wacked out fanatsy land of the bible, Onan removed his ***** from his partner's vagina before he ejgaculated so that his seed fell onto the ground. This displeased the peace loving energy ball in the sky so much that "he" killed him.

Maybe if the fiction writers who wrote this crap took the time to understand the Jewish law of those days was that any child born to the wife of the eldest son died without heirs-and if his wife had no children sired by a relative of her dead spouse-the dominance would pass to the second son-which means that poor old Onan stood to lose a great deal if he complied with his fathers order to impregnate his brothers wife.

At the very least they could of given Onan some super natural ****ing ability like this dude. There is nothing like the flatulent passing of gas from the bowels of a prophet to wake you up.

"Wherefore my bowels shall sound like a harp for Moab, and mine inward parts for Kirharesh" (Isaiah 16:11)

[ReverendTim]

Man, if some of the knuckleheads from the Underground could read this thread, there'd be heads exploding all over the country.

"Teleological? I think he just called me a f@g!!! Quelle gospel...what the...metaphysic...POP!!!"

--
Rev. Tim

[guohuen]

Sorry, The idea of a gnostic bishop is as ludicrous to me as chan literature. Sort of supports Royal Dragons viewpoint in my opinion.
"Don't follow leaders, and watch the parking meters."-Bob Dylan;)

[Braden]

Guohen - What, exactly, is wrong with having a formal structure in place to facilitate the spread of information and encourage interaction in the general sense?

[KC Elbows]

OK, I can't stay away from this thread any longer.

I am not a particularly religious person. What beliefs I do have are based upon my experiences and the experiences of those before me and around me, and on points those beliefs have parallels within the religions of the world, but to date, I have yet to find a religion that doesn't have some points I find unrealistsic.

Therefore, if someone wanted me to convert to a religion in order to study an art with them, I would probably say "You've proven your martial skill, that's why I'm here. You'll have to prove the merits of your belief system to me before I even consider such a thing", but I probably would just try to attempt to dissuade them from the need for converting me if I really want to learn from them.

Some points I agree with from religion(mostly surface stuff, no profound theological points from me, I'm afraid):

Christianity:

-Mystery as a tool- I can see the point of this, and its really not that different than the unrealistic view many have of their sifu's in the early parts of their training.

-The Golden Rule. Sure, it predates christianity, but its a good one, I can agree with that.

-Give unto Caesar. If I have to, why shouldn't the church?

-The power of confession- Its good to recognize your own faults.


Buddhism

-The Four Noble Truths. Great stuff. Not much more that I can say about that.

-Enlightenment is the goal.

-Suffering ends by ending it in ourselves.


Judaism

-I'm not particularly knowledgeable on judaism, but most of what I've seen has some really interesting stuff on the actual art of living.


Now, some of the stuff I don't agree with:

Christianity
-The inability to question the bible for fear of invalidating the important parts.

-The intolerance as put forward in the bible and carried out by some christians.

-The reliance on heaven as a goal and hell as a deterrent. I've always felt that many christians I've met were like the accountants of salvation, if they kept the books clean, then they would get the great tax return in the sky. I've met a great many of them through my folks(big catholics) who, on the surface, lived the good life as put forward by their interpretation of the bible, but just didn't seem like they did it for any other reason than to get to heaven/be god's favorite children. In otherwords, they didn't do it to be good people, they had ulterior motives.

-The permanence of heaven and hell-people are supposed to go there forever. What if a soul in hell finds redemption? Sorry, no luck. What if a spirit in heaven falls? Sorry again, couldn't happen. On a symbollic level, I can accept it, maening that the times you suffer remain with you forever, as well as the times you prevail as a person. But on a literal level, I don't buy it.


Buddhism
-I really dig buddhism. But I don't really agree with the reincarnation thing on a literal level. I can buy the endlessness of concepts. For instance, say GDA's testes finally pop, and he bites it. Somewhere out there, there'll be someone else posting who reminds us of GDA, not exactly the same, but enough to remind us. However, I don't think that's GDA. To me, reincarnation seems to be the element of buddhism that functions like heaven and hell in the christian religion. It's a motivator. However, if you're motivated already, do you even need the concept? I don't feel you do.


Judaism
-Too tied up in past glory and the promised land.

I've excluded a whole bunch of religions as these were more influential on me than others.

Anyway, it seems to me that spirituality is a devotion, not unlike kung fu or writing or building motorcycles or what have you. In this particular devotion, the goal is to gain skill at, for want of a real word, numinosity. In otherwords, to make yourself what is in your capacity in the "divine" scheme of things. In christianity, to match up to god's will. In buddhism, to be enlightened. To be more holy. Not more religious, but more holy.

So, if a teacher wanted to teach me MA, but also insisted I convert, I would expect him to convince me that he has something spiritually to teach me before I agree.

Hope I haven't offended anyone.


Sorry to the satanists, I wasn't able to include any pros and cons of satanism due to the fact that there's really no such thing, regardless of what that LaVey guy wrote. Just hedonism, and not very fun hedonism at that. Sex and big black robes just isn't fun anymore.

[guohuen]

Spreading information and encouraging interaction is a wonderful thing. Formal structure is the first step in becoming political rather than spiritual. This has been the demise of most religions. Religion-from the latin religios, meaning to be bound.

[Braden]

Structure doesn't equate to politics.

Let's try to **** people for what they've done rather than what we decide they're bound to do in the future, or what we can associate to them through word games - there's certainly enough reason to be jaded allready, without such efforts.

[Royal Dragon]

If God has always existed, what about matter? Did God make matter? or did it always exist and he just created the universe with it?

Also, for those of us who believe in creationisum, how do you explian evolution? Ther IS proof of it, so how can you believe in creation, and then deal with the evidance of evolution?? (shh, I have another super simple answer for this, just want to see what YOU think)

[Braden]

Er... who are you asking?

[Black Jack]

LeVay Satanism is basicaly atheism with a focus more on the flesh, on having carnal fun, I have found a lot of decent philiospohy in their, most of it taken from the Golden Dawn and other organizations.

They are just a valid a choice as anything else.

[Black Jack]

I am confused to,

Who are you asking, because right at the top of that sentance is a blanket statement, are you asking the religous people?

[KC Elbows]

LaVey did not actually come up with anything new, he just put a bunch of older stuff under the aegis of satan, and he didn't even really do that himself, the church already had.

My point was that its not really a religion as put forward by LaVey. Really, as you said, its a philosophy, and not a new one, and, IMO, is better served under the appropriate titles as opposed to calling it "satanism".

My other point is that I just don't really know of any practicing satanists, and I've known plenty of strange people. In my experience, the only people I've ever met who claimed to practice satanism were teenage girls who were into what would later become goth, and the guys who want to bang them, and neither group sticks with it, because its just a few philosophical ideas that really have little to do with god or satan or religion.

Have you ever met anyone who was a satanist for a long time, like ten or twenty years? I haven't. There's just not that much depth to it. Hedonism has its limits, just ask Siddhartha.

Also, I didn't mean to relate Crowley to that. The Golden Dawn people are another matter, not really the same discussion as the LaVey satanists, I was just saying that every single person I've ever met who threw out the catch phrase "satanism" had copies of Crowley's work(usually unread).



As for whether matter came before god, since matter and energy are supposed the be interchangeable, I guess it depends on whether it was energy. However, I'm more a cyclic thinker, so I don't believe in beginnings, at least not as absolutes.

And as for evolution vs. creationism, I don't care, just don't take science out of schools. :p Had to do it, its a sensitive topic in Kansas.

[Braden]

As an aside, I can't take anyone seriously who attacks Christian scripture for being intolerant in the same breath they uphold the virtues of LaVey. Not that anyone here necessarily did that, but it's been known to happen.

[ReverendTim]

Hedonism has its limits, just ask Siddhartha.

Or Augustine.

--
Rev. Tim

P.S. Just had to beat Braden to it.

[Royal Dragon]

You kids are so silly sometimes!!:p

[KC Elbows]

Reverend Tim,
Good point.

Braden,
I know you weren't pointing that at me, I just wanted to clarify that I don't think all christians are intolerant, just that the scriptures exist to support the intolerance for those christians who wish to be that way.

Geez, I have to read each of my posts six times before I post. I'm typing like Ralek today.

BJJ is Superiur!

[Braden]

In that case...

"If God has always existed, what about matter? Did God make matter? or did it always exist and he just created the universe with it?"

What sense of make and created do you mean?

Aside from the logical constraints of the argument up to this point, and for the sake of discussion... matter always existed by definition. Time is a property of matter. Without matter, there is no time. In other words, at no time did matter not exist. In other words, matter always existed. Did God make matter the way a smith makes a sword? No. Did he create the universe with it the way a smith makes a sword? No.

"Also, for those of us who believe in creationisum, how do you explian evolution?"

Just to confuse matters - why does evolution need explanation? Regardless of anything, we would see evolution (as has previously been argued by others in this thread for 'order'). The question is, what are the qualities that evolution happens to have? You must mean, then, how do you explain natural selection? But science tells us that natural selection is not the only law of evolution. There are many other laws. Sometimes things work contrary to natural selection. In many viewpoints it seems natural selection is the exception, not the rule. So what exactly are you asking us to explain? I'm not confusing the matters just for the sake of confusing them. I'm confusing them for the sake of illustrating how you have not asked an adequate question.

"so how can you believe in creation, and then deal with the evidance of evolution??"

All of the same concerns apply to your usage of the term evolution here. And an additional one - creationism (the sense that some divine power in some manner fashioned reality) is not exclusionary to evolution, in any of it's currently understoof forms (the sense that natural processes exert themselves over time to somehow fashion a dynamic state of reality).

Now... suddenly I feel bad because I've been arguing through logic instead of with opinion, which always used to drive me nuts because it seems so contentless. But really, arguing through opinion is also so unsatisfactory, so I'll try to mix it up a bit, in hopes of alienating everyone. One of the more appealing ways of rationalizing classical accounts of creationism and evolution is embodied in the following analogy, which I'll clumsily paraphrase: "Evolutionists will tell you that reality is summed up in the toss of a dice. Creationists will tell you God simply sets the dice down on the table how they should be. They are both wrong - the dice are weighted." I steal this, so ineptly, from Jack Sarfatti. Check http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/vigier/slides/vigier.htm and http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/pq/pq.htm .

[Braden]

KC E - In my readings, I've found the New Testament to be extraordinarily tolerant, to the extent that I would be confident in calling it a revolution in the way man deals with religion.

What people managed to do with it... that's a whole different matter.

[KC Elbows]

Braden,
I will agree with you to some extent on the new testament. However, when it is combined with the old testament, some scary ideas come about. And because the bible is held sacred by believers, both books must be accounted for. Christianity is not, at least by my understanding and what I've seen, merely defined by the new testament, but by the whole bible.

However, its all so malleable. What each person means when they say they're christian defines this argument so much.

[Braden]

KC E - It's a messy task on all fronts, but an essential one if you're after the real trust about something, to weed out the facets enforced by a social institution, and the underlying actual intentions. Gnosticism, although it certainly has it's own internal problems, is an extraordinarily valuable tool for applying this process to Christianity, as it gives us a view on the thoughts of early church thinkers which we've never seen before. Check out what gnostics think about the old testament - that most of the references to 'god' in it, in fact refer to the demiurge, the being determined to keep us enslaved, and whose primary tools are obediance to empty laws! A much more dramatic criticism than the arguments of logic I've supplied here.

[KC Elbows]

Yes, the Gnostics shaped a lot of my thinking as well, and made it possible for me to become more tolerant of christians, ironically.

I had forgotten about the demiurge. Interesting stuff.

[Braden]

Also a kick-ass Aeon Flux episode.

[Royal Dragon]

Are you a lawyer? (And thus is the sum of my argument)

[Braden]

Ouch. That hurts. ;)

Seriously though, you've got to sit back and boggle respectfully and humorously over a ridiculous conversation like this arising out of a ridiculous troll like the first post... on a kungfu board. We live in a strange and... well... strange world.

[DragonzRage]

I'd convert to Islam to learn the arts of hostage execution and blowing stuff up ;)

BTW, I'm just joking, so don't anyone take this too seriously.

[Royal Dragon]

And then counter convert once I was inside and close. By the time I got done with em, they'd all be worshiping ME as the one true God.:eek: :D

[Black Jack]

I think Braden was in reference to me,

I was not backing up LeVay, just saying his choice is just as valid as anybody elses, I was just stating his position is not really about demons and devils, those are just props for the show, from what I understand the LeVay group does not believe in a devil or a god, thus the atheism connection, the satanists I have met were never part of the true LeVay's group, just self-styled possers who gave it up later in life, so I can not vouch if he has a lot of adult memebers, though I am sure he does have a large following of lifers, I also believe that there may be family lines out there who practice satanism.

Most of his stuff comes from older material, catholic demonology, Enochian magick, Tantric sex magick, Aleister Crowley, S.L. MacGregor, A.E. Waite, Dion Fortune, Eliphas Levi, Golden Dawn, OTO, The Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor, maybe a bit o' Catharism, some stolen wicca.

[Braden]

Not at all BJ, just a general remark.

With the high magick stuff you mention, it's very interesting the way satanism and catholicism change places. "Back in the day" (tm) the idea seemed to be that if you were a holy person, then of course you could command around unholy things like demons! These days of course if you spoke about doing that, you'd be put in the league of those fell things. I'm not saying either opinion is right, just remarking on the interesting way things change. As far as those systems go, they're all interesting, but the Abramelin tome is the one that holds my attention.

[David Jamieson]

no

peace

[Black Jack]

I always found the Cathari religion a bit interesting due to its history of the time and its connection to the Inquistion, it was a movement in Montsegur France 1243, which attempted to regain some ancient golden path of enlightment, I believe even influenced by Zoroaster, in Cathari everything is seen as manifestations of one or two equal gods of good and evil.

The Cathars declared that the Christian god who created the world was the real evil God, and not the true spiritual one. Devotees foreswore the evil mortal world with rigorous and demanding behavior. They gave up sex and family, ate no flesh, refrained from all violence, and abandoned all worldly goods, there were those among them called the Perfecti who let themselves nealry die of hunger to prove their detachment from the flesh.

They were all killed of by the Church in a holy crusade, it was this time that the Dominicans became the organization of the Inquistion, from what I read Christian knights slaughtered commoners by the hundreds, all of them died in the castle of Monstegur, though not all by the knights hands but by jumping from the castle walls to a warm and fuzzy group death.

The crusade did find a small group inside, they refused to give up there beliefs, the men were decapitated immediately and the women and children burned at the stake.

They kind of remind me of that wacko cult in France called the Order of the Solar Temple. They have been busy burning themselves into cinders the last 5 years or so, trying to catch the big old comet in the sky.

Some books I would like to get my oddly small hands on, though I could never read them due to my lack of latin and old french-De Nigromanica 16th century A.D. by Roger Bacon they believe and Le Secret des Screts, ou le Veritable Grimoire which is attributed to Reboam, the son of Solomon-17th century A.D.

[Braden]

http://www.gnosis.org/library/cathtx.htm These guys?

[Black Jack]

Yea, though I don't see any info on that site about the actual Cathars of France, do you?

The Gnostics were philospohers whose belief depended upon knowing-gnosis-rather than in believing, or having faith. From what I understand is that there is no "one" Gnositc belief, Gnosticism can include beliefs which are in absolute contradiciton to each other.

Is that right??

Like other Gnostic heresies which were not peacefully absorbed by the Christian church, they were wiped out, save for those that fled underground.

My interest is more from the point of how those religons of old-those hunted down by the Christian church remind me of the lunacy still around today in one format or another-the fall of the Cathars sounds a lot like Waco if you think about it-or the control of how people think-such as prayer in schools, censorship pressure of the media, music and print industry, anti abortion, anti-women, anti-****sexual, anti-sex, bigotry, creationsim taught in public schools, separtion of church and state, stuff like that.

Not that the Cathars were good people, I don't like any religons that are based on a divine ya-ya spirit or energy, they were as dumb**** as the guys hunting them-IMHO the bigger business just outran a lot of the smaller guys.

[Braden]

"Yea, though I don't see any info on that site about the actual Cathars"

I seem to recall they've got some transcription of Cathar prayers or liturgy. It's more of a primary source site, than a site that summarizes different stuff. Here's the Catholic Encylopedia entry on Cathari for anyone interested: (it's actually a very useful reference so long as you keep in mind the obvious bias) http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03435a.htm .

"The Gnostics were philospohers whose belief depended upon knowing-gnosis-rather than in believing, or having faith."

Well, basically. Knowing isn't knowing in the contemporary sense though, 'direct personal experience' might be a more accurate translation. And as an aside, I think this must also have been the original definition of faith, as opposed to the much weaker contemporary definition of - believing in something you have no proof for. But... I'm just rambling. :)

"From what I understand is that there is no 'one' Gnositc belief, Gnosticism can include beliefs which are in absolute contradiciton to each other."

Yes and no. The word gets used in many contexts, rightly or wrongly as the case may be. It can be used to describe a slant or general approach to a matter; or any of a group of very loosely related movements; or to something very specific. The owners of that site are struggling against the ambiguity as gnostic in their sense refers to a formal set of beliefs and practices.

"My interest is more from..."

You lost me here. ;)

[scorp133]

Interesting read. I have to say the idea of converting to a different religion just to learn a certain style is appaling.
I really don't appreciate people taking verses from the Bible out of context, you're only proving you don't know how to interpret what is written, and on top of it if I'm not mistaken it seems that they are from the King James version, which I believe is the least accurate translation.

[ReverendTim]

Yeah, but the new edition of the King James had Nick Cave write the introduction to the book of Mark, so that makes it okeley-dokely-do by me.

--
Rev. Tim

P.S. Y'all heard the conspiracy theory that Mary Magdalene ran to southern France with Jesus's baby and that the bloodline of Christ continues to this day? Supposedly the Cathars were defending that knowledge, and that's why they got exterminated.

[Wu Wei]

There has been far too many different issues for me to address, although I would like to.
I'm going to clear up a few misconceptions, but I'm not going to bother arguing towards any specific thesis on my own part. I've learned that people CAN go to church for many years, and have al sorts of influences or degrees without at all finding the purpose of what they were so close to.

1)
For instance. It seems that some people have the incorrect belief that the bible is a single book written by a person or group of people to outline their beliefs in an elitist or non-elitist fashion. Nor was it a mysterious text translated by sages to teach to the chosen people. The bible was in fact written by different people over a span of about 1500 years.
Things such as the stories in Genesis are argued by some to be literal accounts, and by others, the are lessons that are told in stories. There is no evidence to prove either side correct. But the messages in Genesis are plain to see. These lesson are not taught to children as a history lesson(although some teaching may believe them to be so), they are in fact to teach of the nature of God, as it seems some people here have noticed to various degrees.

2)
The violence of the Jews which people are referring to, is nothing more than random acts of violence if one does not believe in God. If I did not believe in God, I could in no way justify some of what they did(both morally and logically). If one does believe in God, then they can easily believe in sin(from the proper christian perspective; not merely as a judicial system of right and wrong) and that is why God commanded the Jews to do what they did. The Jews weren't exactly the warmongers some people seem to think they were. Just read the bible. They wanted to walk away quite often. The OT is filled with examples of the Jews doubting and cowering. I would too if I was told to go take over a land inhabited by giants.
The exlusiveness to jews isnt as concrete as some may believe. They were Gods chosen people, not Gods "only peoples". Look at Rahab. Not a Jew? Thats right. Even more than that, she was a prostitute. But hey, look at who Jesus hung around. If thats elitism, I must not understand the word.

3)
There is also a huge misconception tied to some peoples views of Christ's teachings. He was concerned with political matters of the time, but not for poilitcal reasons. There is a huge difference between being political and dealing with the political. Jesus said that he came to "fulfill the law" not to abolish it. And he did. The reason 'the powers that be'... umm, 'the powers that were' wanted him dead was because he was holding people to the law. The pharisees and saducees were corrupt and he exposed their hypocrisy at every turn. No wonder they hated him. If one actually takes a look at the jewish customs and how they were being handled at that point in history, one would see the sort of corruption that is being complained about in this discussion(this thread).

4)
As for the violence of Christianity think of this:
"if someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also"
Luke6:29 (I suggest reading luke 6:27-36 for more detail)

5)
Another point is to never confuse a Christian for someone who isn't human. "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23
What I mean by this is that Christians are not to hold themselves above others. I can't find the location, but one should read about the parable of the lost sheep. The shepard rejoices more over the one lost sheep(when it returns) than he does over the other 99 who were not lost. If Christians do do things against non christians, why do they do it? You answered correctly if you said "they're sinners". that is, of course, from a Christian perspective. From and atheistic perspective, they are like any other human who lives in a universe without God. They arent all alike, they have different veiws on things, and ultimately, they have no clue what's going to happen to them after they die.

Just some things I thought of while reading. I can't speak for that which I do not know, that's why I only mention the bible and Christ's teachings.
These are just a few points I figured may help some people to understand some specifics of Christianity and it's history.
I think that if any school demand that you become Christian before you study there, then you are not dealing with christians. A muslim a buddhist and even a satanist is quite welcome to attend church any given sunday provided they dont intentionally desecrate, blaspheme or generally offend(i mean only obvious things like "there is no God so you can all just...").

God Bless, and as unlikely as it is, sorry to have offended anyone(hey, you never know). I apoligize for any and all spelling, grammatical and reference errors, as it is late and i am tired.

[Serpent]

S'funny how just about everyone posting has overtones of fact in their postings when just about every one of them is postulating on theories they hold to without any real evidence to back it up. Even the "facts" about the bible are at best educated guesses.

I have nothing to add, just thought I'd point out that amusing point.

At least, it amuses me.

:)

Hey Braden, you were the debating champ at school and never shook off the glory, huh!

***

How's this for an interesting hypotheses:

Premise: God is all powerful.

Question: Can God create a rock that he cannot lift?

If yes, then he is not all powerful, as he cannot lift said rock.

If no, then he is not all powerful, as he cannot create said rock.

Discuss...

[Leonidas]

Good question Serpent, it froze my brain for about a second there.

Anyway, to answer your question it seems to me that if he were God he could do both if he wanted to for whatever reason. That means initially creating the rock that he cannot lift and then creating the strength that lifts it or even possibly taking the 'rock' out of existance completely, but i'm not sure what or who God is and what his powers limits are. I dont actually think its possible for humans to comprehend what God (or the Universe for that matter) is. Even so, if there is a God and even if he can't perform such a task who am i to judge him because of it. He certainly is on another level from me. Besides, i think God has better things to do than lift giant unliftable then liftable rocks.

I guess it all depends on what your definition of God is and that is inherently flawed coming from human logic as you stated before. Same with trying to comprehend the Universe. For example, who or what created the matter and energy that makes up our Universe? Who decided the laws of physics, logic, morality, nature etc. that all living things are governed by? Does "God" or whoever created these laws live by them also? Did energy or matter even exist before THIS Universe was created? Are we all in a giant game of SimLife?

Lets all just admit that people believe what they want to and you can come up with dozens of logical explainations to support your ideas and refute someone elses.

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by Budokan
To answer the original question: NO.

'Nuff said.

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by GunnedDownAtrocity
i would pretend.

if i ever wanted to quit i would be creative in commiting the worst legal herasy before all of them.

then i'd rape the teachers puppy.

Don't like puppies though.

Or LeVay. Crowley. Christians, Jews, Moslems. Politicians. Or anyone really... Especially bigots :rolleyes: !

[Gabriel]

"Are you a lawyer? (And thus is the sum of my argument)"

LMAO. Dont mess with Braden. Hes in da zone!


"Seriously though, you've got to sit back and boggle respectfully and humorously over a ridiculous conversation like this arising out of a ridiculous troll like the first post... on a kungfu board. We live in a strange and... well... strange world."

True.

So Braden, I know I took a day or so off, and with a thread like this, thats a long time, but I think I get the general idea of what you told me.

You do except the Old Testaments views, except when those views happen to clash with the New Testament? How very convenient...

Whats your take on the Ten Commandments then? Valuable or no?

I still maintain that the three points I stated are major facets of religion. Talk your talk all you want..but ok.. Every religion that I know of has a code of conduct(so to speak)Like the 7 pillars of Islam or the Ten Commandments, , an ending, or a resolution of life and what follows death. (Heaven, Hell, Reincarnation, Nirvana, ect.) Also, a beginning of things is usually evident in religion.

To outline the above point of clarification of the process of death. This is a very comforting thought to many people. Instead of heading into an unknown, which people generally fear and loathe, everything is neatly described in a set of specific categories, depending on your actions in said life. Take..oh lets say born-again Christians for instance. Why do they go most their lives as atheists or something else?, in the case of my mother, she followed the Maharaji (sp?) in her hippie days, but now is a born again Christian. Anyway, I feel they convert because they are feeling the creeping hand of death sneak up on them, and need a little stability in the notion of life after death, that there will be a happy ending(heaven) instead of a void, or the unknown.

I would be interested to read your version of religion, if it doesn't contain my 3 points, what does it contain? Relation to the Divine you said, but Braden, to be honest with you, you're amazingly clear and concise and "nit-picky" when describing most things, but when it comes to this you're amazingly vague...hmm.. Clarification perhaps?

Gabriel


P.S. - Never played Ghost Recon. I keep hearing great things about it tho! I do know Clancy rocks, if you're into political thrillers. Ill probably end up buying it when I get Warcraft 3. :)

[guohuen]

Is it just me, or is this the most polite and informative thread on religion I have ever read?

[Braden]

Gabriel

"You do [accept] the Old Testaments views, except when those views happen to clash with the New Testament? How very convenient...".

I don't recall ever bringing to discussion what I personally accept or do not accept. *

If by "you" you mean a fictional character who's beliefs follow directly from the logic I have outlined, then yes. However, I don't see how this deserves a sarcastic remark about convenience. This fictional "you," even if it was a devout Catholic, would also accept views from the Upanishads, Zoroastrian Apocrypha, and latest McDonalds menu provided they don't clash with the New Testament.

"Whats your take on the Ten Commandments then? Valuable or no?"

I similarly don't recall arguing from personal opinion. *

Again, if you're asking about this fictional "you"... Then, the devout Catholic that he is, his take would probably be exactly what Jesus said it should be when asked this exact question.

"I still maintain that the three points I stated are major facets of religion."

They may very well by major facets of religion (def: a sociopolitical institution) but are, by definition, not necessary facets of Religion (def: the practice and/or study of man's relationship with the divine).

"To outline the above point of clarification of the process of death. This is a very comforting thought to many people."

This argument is based on the assumption that the purpose of religion is to protect us from things we don't like. Which simply isn't the case.

"I would be interested to read your version of religion..."

Again, I've never argued from my personal opinion here. *

"Relation to the Divine you said, but Braden, to be honest with you, you're amazingly clear and concise and "nit-picky" when describing most things, but when it comes to this you're amazingly vague"

I fail to see how 'metaphysics' nor 'morality' are amazingly clear and concise, whereas 'relationship to the divine' is amazingly vague. Perhaps you could satisfactorily argue this point.

* But I can indulge you as an aside if you're honestly interested.

"Never played Ghost Recon. I keep hearing great things about it tho!"

It's amazing. Very slow. Makes counterstrike and team fortress look like quake III.

[PaulLin]

I am thinking of that all internal arts would need some kind of believes to stablized the brain wave pattern so it would result in the building momentum of qi. However, it is only bad if the believe is like a cult or non-believe. So a good one shouldn't force any one to have a specific believe system as long as you have a healthy believe system.

In the meditation field, there will be a very heavy emphasis on the specific religious way, that is how the "shin fa" was passed down, a kind of coding. Once it was understood, it should be able to transfered into different religous systems just like language.

[Serpent]

Originally posted by Braden

"To outline the above point of clarification of the process of death. This is a very comforting thought to many people."

This argument is based on the assumption that the purpose of religion is to protect us from things we don't like. Which simply isn't the case.



I take it back, Braden. You're not a debate champ, you're a politician. Right!?

You make these comments, then don't actually back them up. You refute a point simply by stating that it is wrong, yet you never explain why it's wrong or what your grounds for disputing it are. If nothing else, it's d@mned annoying!

Please explain this point. Also, do indulge us with your personal beliefs, as I would certainly be interested to hear them.

[Serpent]

Originally posted by guohuen
Is it just me, or is this the most polite and informative thread on religion I have ever read?

Give it time! ;)

[Braden]

Serpent -

I try to back up everything I say with both logic and analogy. In some cases I feel some things are so self-evident that they don't warrant further elabortation. This was the case in the passage you quoted. Obviously, I was wrong in assuming this; I'll try to explain that argument.

Gabriel made several arguments in his post. This is the one in question:

To outline the above point of clarification of the process of death. This is a very comforting thought to many people. Instead of heading into an unknown, which people generally fear and loathe, everything is neatly described in a set of specific categories, depending on your actions in said life. Take..oh lets say born-again Christians for instance. Why do they go most their lives as atheists or something else?, in the case of my mother, she followed the Maharaji (sp?) in her hippie days, but now is a born again Christian. Anyway, I feel they convert because they are feeling the creeping hand of death sneak up on them, and need a little stability in the notion of life after death, that there will be a happy ending(heaven) instead of a void, or the unknown.

In the context of the overall thread, Gabriel had put forth the idea that a religion's primary characteristics were it's ethics and it's metaphysics. This was a position I disagreed with. In the passage quoted above, he puts forth a general concept - that being, religion's role counter the angst people feel over death. In terms of this context, he puts forth a variety of situations and questions intended to challenge my position on what religion is, and strengthen his position that it revolved around ethics and metaphysics.

My response was,

This argument is based on the assumption that the purpose of religion is to protect us from things we don't like. Which simply isn't the case.

I believe it follows quite naturally. Gabriel's saying, basically: look, these people are upset, they turn to religion, it is religion's metaphysics which calms them, therefore religion's primary charateristics must include metaphysics. However, I reply that this reasoning is incorrect, as it is not religion's purpose to comfort us from things we don't like. I don't like the smell of earth worms following a heavy rain, for example, and religion offers me no comfort to this particular ailment. What if we limit the case to 'comforting us from one particular thing we happen not to like, namely death'? I feel this is overly ambiguous a limitation to make, but will respond anyway. Consider the religion of the Sumerians - their afterlife was the same for hero, villian, king, and beggar: a colorless world with nothing to eat but dust and nothing to fill the days but being slaves to the gods. What kind of a comfort is that? Should we conclude that Sumerian beliefs about their relationship to the divine don't count as a religion? If religion's purpose is to comfort us against death, then we must surely conclude this. But I hope you're not comfortable with that! All of this argues as I put originally: it is clear that religion's purpose is not to protect us from what we don't like, therefore - even if a religion's metaphysics calm people against death, it is not proper to claim that metaphysics is a necessary quality of religion, since it's not religion's purpose to calm people against death. By analogy - even if I spill ice cream on my pants and it irritates me, it is not proper to claim that 'being irritating' is a necessary quality of ice cream, since it's not ice cream's purpose to spill on my pants.

Does this clarify my argument?

Also, do indulge us with your personal beliefs, as I would certainly be interested to hear them.

I have a vast many personal beliefs, perhaps you could be more specific?

[Maestro1700]

monkey slap..ive got a few points to make i hope you read this because ill have a few questions directed your way..

First off..im not even going to begin to try and convince anyone here that im right. and like ANY religion or set of beliefs/practices christianity has been corrupted, but the same can be and has been said for buddhists and whatever else you guys can dream up

another thing i should add is..i stopped reading this thread on page..6 becuase it was basically all the same ..god doesnt exist..i am god..and some quarcky posts no one cares about..

somewhere in there i read delicate say who where why and how or somethin about a MA school or sect or whatever making someone convert to their religion to train in the style

well the shaolin temple comes to mind..

"Many people, including some Zen students, may be unaware of the following two historical facts. One, all schools of Zen today issued from the Shaolin Monastery. Two, Shaolin Kungfu started as a result of Zen. Shaolin Kungfu and Zen, as well as Chi Kung, are intimately connected, although some kungfu instructors today may not know this connection, and therefore teach Shaolin Kungfu as a purely external art, deprived of its internal and spiritual aspects. At its elementary level, every kungfu movement involves energy control and mental awareness. At its advanced level, chi kung and Zen enable kungfu masters to develop abilities which other martial artists may not even dream of."

wong kiew kit

thats just something i wanted to add..most people here wont agree because they are ignorant and have admited not even practicing kung fu..its funny but whatever if they ever did some real research theyd find this to be true..i could give some examples like bodhidarma being the 1st patriarch of zen buddhisim in china(26 india..or from the buddha)

but whatever..i want to address christianity

for one thing ill ask monkey slap..you say youve read most of the major works of the worlds religions..ok great you like to read thats terrific..tell me how much of the bible did you read? did you read the whole thing? once twice or 10 times? because no matter how many times you read it if you dont understand it your not going to derive any of the teachings brought forth by the people who are involved/wrote the bible

personally i havent read the koran, so i dont know really anything about it..but from this thread i have made the assumption that monkeyslap and a couple others who say god doesnt exist bla bla dont follow any religion or follow any religious practices to cultivate their spirituality

it actually is really funny when monkeyslap address the "brutality" of the christian religion, because like every christian sect makes it clear the their(our) god is a jealous god(do you know why monkeyslap?) and he is a vengeful god(do you know why monkeyslap?)

alright forget all of that for a second, how bout the ten commandments, some of you say that there are 4 of them that are important and the others are just gods way of controlling people..well when i read that i obviously laughed, because your knowledge of the bible, god and the whole religion is so far off base it is funny.. tell me this have you ever heard of a thing called free will? because i know i have

real christians dont go looking for followers, or walk around condeming people to hell(do you know what hell is monkeyslap?) or judgeing people

anyone who does these things are usually one verse revolving revs, money hungry liars and blasphemers or just ignorant teenagers walking up to your house asking you if your "saved"

i think these posts have a limit to the # of characters you can use so i guess ill end my post there, and i really hope monkeyslap can read and understand my questions..but i doubt he will because from his vast "knowledge" it seems to me like it adds up to diddly squat

many people read the bible monkey, few understand it, the same goes for sutras and other religous works, if they were so easily understood, then everyone would be harmoniously peaceful bla bla bla

the fact is they arent, spirituality is a lifelong journey and its one that cant be sumed up on any forum or set of ideas

[Serpent]

Maestro

You really are coming across as a fanatic and that's the first way to be ignored!

You claim that you can read the bible but not understand it, therefore a person is not qualified to talk about it. How about a number of us who have read the bible, understood it perfectly well, yet fundamentally disagreed with it? Perhaps your lack of understanding is clouding your judgement. Don't jump to admonishments so quickly.

Also, we can agree with certain messages and lessons in the bible, yet disagree with what people have since done with their interpretations of those lessons. In many ways the church was the worst thing that ever happened to the bible.

Also, the details you present from Wong Kiew Kit and claim are facts are also just a matter of belief. For example, Zen is a Japanese development of Ch'an Buddhism, so not an undiluted result of Shaolin. The facts you have drawn from that are therefore subjective. And besides, wasn't WKK the guy that claimed he moved clouds with his Qi? Careful where you get your 'facts'.

And the thing that you claim which I disagree with the most is that you need religion to develop your spirituality. Simply not true. In many cases religion is the single biggest inhibiting factor in developing a true spirituality. Have a think about that and see if you can answer me as to why that might be.

---------

Braden

Thanks for your answers. I still think you're being rather selective with which parts of the arguments you are prepared to discuss and which you aren't, but that's likely just due to your paradigm. Fair enough.

In answer to your question, I want to know what you believe in. Do you have a religious faith? Do you have a belief in what happens after death?

Let's just start there.

[PaulLin]

A point of view form the physical qi aspect, I can say either you will be dissloved/digested by the infinitive all-existances or you can disslove/digest the infinitive all-existances around you and becomes limitless/boundaryless. In both case up on the end, you are considered dead by human.

[Maestro1700]

serpent..ummm no

Zen is a Japanese development of Ch'an Buddhism

no actually its not, zen is just another word for Chan Buddhism, dont even begin to educate me on this subject bro, because Chan or Zen buddhism did originate in india from the buddha, he being the first patriarch passed the teachings on in a heart to heart manner, along the line it reached bodhidarma who is the first patriarch of zen buddhism in china, and who taught the shaolin monks(bodhidarma basically founded shaolin) not only zen buddhism but he taught them 18lohan kuen, sinew metamorphosis etc

And the thing that you claim which I disagree with the most is that you need religion to develop your spirituality

no actually i never said that and anyone who practices buddhism or taosim knows that anyway

i was making a point about the bible in that post, and the point was that most people dont understand it, they read the words and think right off they have read and understood it, the fact is no you have not, i can barely understand it and i study it every day, you think you can understand it but thats like saying you read the heart sutra once and you completely understand it, which is such an ignorant statement

im not even a christian anyway, i study the bible that doesnt make me a christian i dont pray either, so im definately not a fanatic..but someone like you who seems to have understood the bible so well, you really like to jump to conclusions and are very quick to judge.

[Maestro1700]

you know what i just read back the posts id like to add something to this thread..

ok serpent you know so much about the bible? fine explain a few things to me:

explain in detail the 3 earth ages

what is the generation of the fig tree?

what is the mark of the beast?

what is the bible?

what is the present state of satan and what is his future?

who are the ten supernatural kings?

who are the 3 earthly kings?

explain to me the seven trumps

i understand all the answers to these questions, but compared to the vast wisdom the bible offers my knowledge pales in comparison

[PaulLin]

May we all benefit form our communication and gain more tao, love, and truth. God bless you all.

[scotty1]

PaulLin check out my thread on the Qigong forum, it's aimed at you.

[Braden]

Serpent

I still think you're being rather selective with which parts of the arguments you are prepared to discuss and which you aren't

Without you specifying what 'parts of my arguments' you weren't sure on, I typed up two pages of clarifications. Not sure what else you want. If you could specify further what you want me to elaborate on, I'd be glad to.

In answer to your question, I want to know what you believe in. Do you have a religious faith? Do you have a belief in what happens after death?

Yes and yes.

[Gabriel]

Ok alot of stuff bouncing around here.

Braden.

No biggie, I was just trying to see where you were coming from and what stance you were taking.


"This argument is based on the assumption that the purpose of religion is to protect us from things we don't like. Which simply isn't the case. "

Thats really based on what type of "like" or dislike it is. Are you really comparing the vast, overwhelming, and inevitable concept of death with the smell of earthworms or spilled ice cream? I agree that Christianity doesn't comfort an individual in all his dislikes, but certainly some bigger issues, like death and sin. Look at the guys on Death Row. A great many of them become devout Christians before getting zapped. Is this because they are truly repentent? Maybe. But they KNOW they are going to die (unless, of course the Governor gives a call). Reason they convert? Fear of death and what lies beyond, and the comfort that they can be forgiven in the eyes of God, have their sins lifted fromt them due to Jesus's sacrifice, and go to Heaven.

But whatever, that wasn't my initial argument, which I am being cleverly diverted from. My original point was most religions explain the process of death, and what happens afterwards. I used the Christian examples to back up this statement. Whether or not other religions besides Christianity have an aesthetic afterlife if proper conduct is practiced is irrelevant to my original argument.

So,


"Consider the religion of the Sumerians - their afterlife was the same for hero, villian, king, and beggar: a colorless world with nothing to eat but dust and nothing to fill the days but being slaves to the gods. "

This merely serves to illustrate my point. The religion of the Sumerians, while sucking totally, and being most unsweet ;), still has a concept of afterlife.


"Gabriel had put forth the idea that a religion's primary characteristics were it's ethics and it's metaphysics. This was a position I disagreed with."

Ok. so you disagree with it being ethics and metaphysics, so what is it?

Also I still want to explore this "relation to the divine" concept. Does not some element of metaphysics enter one's relation to the divine?


"Yes and yes."

Lmao. We'll get you yet! Don't pose yes or no questions against Braden. :D

Maestro


" which is such an ignorant statement "


"most people here wont agree because they are
ignorant "


"but i doubt he will because from his vast "knowledge" it seems to me like it adds up to diddly squat "

A word of advice. Avoid the use of Ad Hominems in debate and argument. This is referring to the person, as opposed to the issue. Ad Hominems reduce an intellectually stimulating debate into a shouting match. Stick to the issues and people will take you more seriously.

Gabriel

[MonkeySlap Too]

I'm afraid you grossly underestimate my education and from whom it comes. It was only after great soul searching and intensive study that the obvious hit me over the head.

I am painfully aware of the many interpretations of what is said in the bible. I am also painfully aware of the relativistic nature of idiom, semantics, translation issues as well as the diffeing meanings of words and phrases over time.

You can rest assured in your eltist POV that those of us that dare to question, are condemed to a horrible, fiery afterlife with no hope of reprieve. However, many other religions think the same of you, so good luck on your choice. I hope it works out for you.

Frankly, i have never expressed one way or the other wether there is or is not a 'god'. Being a good secularist, I feel this is a personal matter reflected in my conduct, and not something I should impose on others. I reject the concept of living with an elitist view. To me all life is sacred, from the most pious to the most miserable wretch. However, I do not feel fit to judge another based upon arbitrary, cultural patterns of behavior. Every generation in every culture tends to feel they 'have' the truth, and only if those ignorant savages over there would understand. And my point has been that this outlook often turns into: we better kill those heathens.

This does not negate the good that religions have done. But I'll bet that middle eastern religions are probably the #2 cause of death in human history - right after governments. Of course, the two are often hard to seperate.

[ewallace]

A word of advice. Avoid the use of Ad Hominems in debate and argument.
It's funny you mention this. Check out this thread:
http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10164&perpage=15&pagenumber=3

[Maestro1700]

I'm afraid you grossly underestimate my education and from whom it comes. It was only after great soul searching and intensive study that the obvious hit me over the head.

maybe someone should hit you on the head again.

for one thing monkey slap when i reffered to "hell" i wanted you to explain to me what it was to christians and from your pittiful explaination of my post and some minor details of the bible you obviously havent gotten a clue..does that sound like im judgeing?

no. it sounds to me from what you posted that it is true, and i dont underestimate you at all, i know exactly the kind of "knowledge" you have attained from reading the bible and that is none. all youve gained from it is not an idealist pov or a realist, but a negative dislike for the scripture/history of the bible and its followers..

now i didnt take offense to most of it, the only thing i did take offense to was when you said;

You can rest assured in your eltist POV that those of us that dare to question, are condemed to a horrible, fiery afterlife with no hope of reprieve

i did laugh to, but then i took offense becuase you obviously misread my posts, and its also apparent you do not have the understanding you claim of the bible to speak intelligently about it. btw you spelled elitist wrong.

the point is, if any of us here were christians and actually practiced what is preached in the bible we wouldnt be having this arguement, i never said i was a christian but i do understand a few points of the bible, and those few things i do truly understand, i know well enough when someone doesnt, its apparent in everything you say monkey. that goes for serpent and a few others that i doubt have taken more than a few moments time to look over the bible themselves instead of hearing by word of mouth, or from tv or whatever

i study the bible every day for an hour a day and i barely understand it and all its dimensions, you may think you do monkey and thats great youve overcome the great dillusion that terrorizes the entire world, you are a special guy and you deserve to be reveared for your great discovery of no such thing as spirituality..i guess we could all learn from your wise words.

the thing is monkey alot of religions share similarities, like you said they all think they have the "truth" and if you compare those practices and beliefs alot of them come very close to one another at the higher, more spiritual levels, all the commandments etc aside once you get past that and begin to cultivate you spirituality in most all the religions ive research they come together to mean basically the same thing, and all the stuff that comes before is just to prepare the individual for the long journey of spiritual cultivation..one which you seem to have no need for since you understand more then any of use that theres no such thing..

[ewallace]

This is a test of the Emergency Trollcast System. The trollcasters of your area in voluntary cooperation with the Federal, State and local authorities have developed this system to keep you informed in the event of a troll.









If this had been an actual troll, the Attention Signal you just heard would have been followed by official information, news or instructions. This station serves the KFO area. This concludes this test of the Emergency Trollcast System.

[DelicateSound]

Maestro = Dick Head.

[Maestro1700]

let the judgeing begin..thanx ewallace!

fact is i dont really care, for one thing i am right about almost everything i said on that thread, except for maybe some of the insults i flung around at various people..but like i said im not a christian and i dont practice christianity, im 17 and i get pi$$ed off just like anyone else, and the fact that those people can sit there and argue with me, turn around say the same if it not worse bs about me or whatever ive said, and then sit back and judge me and call me immature and make themselves out to be wisemen, well then..thats just something for the history books of the ignorant..

but like i said..let the judgeing begin and the topic drift away..thats the only thing that happens on these forums anyway, argueing about dumb **** that isnt even related to MA, but i dont care im 17 and you all are much older and i have time to waste..you dont, so thats the positive side of this..you all are so much more intelligent and well read, and interesting and great martial artist, yet you spend all your time on forums..hmm somethings missin...welp whatever ;) ill leave it at that.

ds = virgin crybaby

[KC Elbows]

I have learned that if you want to attract wingnuts, just post something to the extent of "Boy, we've kept this pretty civil", and a wingnut will come.;)

[chingei]

Originally posted by PaulLin
May we all benefit form our communication and gain more tao, love, and truth. God bless you all.


"gain" tao?

[DelicateSound]

It's OK people. Let the caring commence..........

[ewallace]

you all are so much more intelligent and well read
ill leave it at that.
Outstanding. That is the most intelligent thing you have said on this forum.

It doesn't matter what age you are. DS is around the same age. It boils down to intelligence and common sense. I have seen much displayed by DS, and very little by you.

I am not the only one that has pointed out the fact that the likelyhood that you have ever been in an actual street fight is very questionable. All you have managed to do is get into ****ing matches with many forum members, as well as issue personal insults. That generally qualifies as trolling. Your debate skills are poor at best, and you become very defensive about your age when it is brought into question in regards to your knowledge.

And I do have time to waste. I get my work done. I do not live with my parents either.

[KC Elbows]

KC[dialing number]

RINGRING

RINGRING

RINGRING

KC: Hello, God?

BALDUR: Nope, sorry, this is Baldur, you've got the wrong number.

KC: I thought you were dead?

BALDUR: Nope

KC: Well, what the hell, that's like a major story in the norse mythos, what's that all about?

BALDUR: Oh, that, it was a big PR thing, y'know. You really shouldn't believe the press.

KC: What!!??

BALDUR: You know, like "Paul is dead". Wasn't true, but it sure got the teen girls screaming.

KC: So the whole point of the mistletoe thing was to get the teen girls screaming?

BALDUR: Whatever. Anyway, I'm not god, so can I go now?

KC: But who is god? We've got a big argument going on here, and we need his input.

BALDUR: I've got it. Here, it's 3-3-3...3-4-5-6

KC: That's the movie phone guy.

BALDUR: Sorry, 5-8-8-2-3-hundred

KC: That's Empire carpets. Is this really Baldur?

Baldur: Nah, ya got me. Its Christ here.

KC: Really?

Christ: Would I sh1t you?

KC: You just did.

Christ: Wouldn't be the first time.

[ewallace]

That's Empire carpets
**** I haven't heard that since I moved here. Is that same guy still doing those commercials up north?

[KC Elbows]

They don't have Empire here. I'm not sure if he still does them in IL, but I wouldn't be surprised if he did.

[DelicateSound]

Cheers for the back-up ewallace. My "d!ckhead" comment wasn't trolling BTW - just pointing out fact. :)

KC - LOL!



And not only do I live with my parents, but I have redhair too, as KC likes to point out. :p

[KC Elbows]

Hey, nobody's perfect.:p

You know, one thing always cracks me up. Every time anyone trolls on these forums, they're always like "You spend all your practice time posting on here", but no one, to my knowledge, has ever said "You guys are lousy workers, you're always posting here", which might be closer to the truth.

So, to the new trolls out there, good forum member=lousy worker.

Now, I want to join in in the ol time religion, so here I go:

I read the bible all the time, and you guys all don't know anything about it, though I haven't read your posts very closely, and Monkey, why do nuns wear black?

C'mon everyone, join in the ad hominem madness!

[DelicateSound]

In my case good member = failing A-levels.

:(

[MonkeySlap Too]

KC - you are killing me. About nuns - I never thought to ask. But these days I stay away from Catholic jokes - way to easy of a target. Even the Chung Moonies try to compare themselves!


Maestro - I'm glad to see 17 year olds still know everything. I sure thought I did at that age. Good job. But I gotta tell you, wearing it like a badge just makes you look insecure. Stick your facts, avoid personal attacks, and you'll come across much better. You'll find the web a great place to practice, as no one can see you. Besides, I thought you were 12. -- To your argument, which of the dozens of interpretations of hell would you like? Do you REALLY think you know the one, true interpretation? Good luck. I've got theology proffessors galore that would love to talk to you. Are you talking about a fiery, torturous afterlife? Are you talking about not having knowledge of god while alive? Are you talking about being cut off from god's love in the afterlife? Are you talking about the garbage dump Gehenna? -- Well I could go on, but unlike you I'm not sure that I know the correct answer. As you grow up, my young troll, you'll find that you will want to run away from people who claim to truly have the 'right' answer. Of course, there is no shortage of them...

Braden where are you? I haven't had time to really pay attention to this thread, but you at least were an intelligent debater who didn't seem to concerned about what I thought about you.

Sheesh, I point out one - I think significant, negative aspect of the cultural impact of middle eastern religions, and I get teen wolf mad at me. Sorry. Want me to start posting about how the semetic (here I am referring to Jews specifically, as I understand Sumerians were semetic, as were Caananites, but neither religions offered laws that were 'above' the rulers.) views of the afterlife transformed human morality and introduced a rule of law that was not tyrant dependent?

I can say nice things too you know. I just don't want to live in the dark ages...

[PaulLin]

Originally posted by chingei



"gain" tao?

Humm....should I say improve more on the value of tao, love, and truth? excuse my English. Just trying to break up the unbenefitial personal ****S.

[chingei]

Originally posted by PaulLin


Humm....should I say improve more on the value of tao, love, and truth?

improve on tao?!

[Braden]

Gabriel

No biggie at all.

Are you really comparing the vast, overwhelming, and inevitable concept of death with the smell of earthworms or spilled ice cream?

You're right, there is an intuitive sense that this is silly. To spell it out, you're suggesting that there's something special about fear of death that makes it quite different than fear/dislike of other things. I think phrased this way, it's less 'given', but still an arguable point. So I'd be willing to concede that this is the case, and I was incorrect with my analogies. However, my historical point about the Sumerians still seems to stand in proving religion's purpose isn't to protect us from things we don't like, which 'protects me' from this angle at least. As you said though, this was something of an aside.

My original point was most religions explain the process of death, and what happens afterwards.

I think it's worth clarifying here, before we go even further with just disagreeing with one another (as good an exercise as that is :P), I never claimed most religions don't explain the process of death. My statement exactly was that 'metaphysics' and 'ethics' are cultural contexts which are usually (always?) associated with religion, simply because religion does not exist in a vacuum seperate from culture. But while they are heavily intertwined with religion, they are not primary characteristics of religion. Which is to say that, in a way, they are accidentals - things unassociated with the initial purpose which nonetheless get heavily associated with the topic due to their nature; like catching dolphins in tuna nets. On the specific case of afterlife - I am sometimes comfortable with saying a statement about the afterlife is central rather than accidental to religion. However, I'm not comfortable with it as a 'comfort.' Statements about afterlife can be statements about 'metaphysics' or statements about our relationship to the divine. Obviously, the latter I would be comfortable with. For example, if one were to make the statement that what we are are emanations from God, like beams of light from the sun, which happen to get encased on confused in this ball of matter, and when freed from it we rejoin him - this would be a statement about the afterlife, and while it has some metaphysical character, it is primarily a statement about our relationship with the divine. Thus, I would be comfortable accepting it as a "true religion statement", which is to say, one associated centrally with religion, rather than accidentaly via cultural context. On the other hand, if one were to make a statement that the 'afterlife' has 'three planes' with the following characteristics, each ruled by the following individual, and there is such-and-such a sorting process for incoming 'things'... this has some 'relationship with divine' character, but is primarily a statement about metaphysics. Thus, my argument goes, it would be an accidental religious statement, which is, one which got associated via cultural context rather than original intention.

All of this returns to where, I think, this argument started, which is the exclusion of the Old Testament as central religious text for Christians, which is to say - that it provides a whole whack of cultural context (which very well may be extremely important) and perhaps even an incredible wisdom, but is nonetheless not 'central' to the 'religion' as I have outlined these terms. If you follow this argument, I think you'll find that statements about the afterlife in the OT tend to be primarily of the metaphysical character (see above), thus my argument is consistent.

This merely serves to illustrate my point. The religion of the Sumerians, while sucking totally, and being most unsweet , still has a concept of afterlife.

So following my outline, I would call the statement made previously about Sumerian 'religion' a metaphysical statement, and thus 'accidentally religious' via cultural context.

Ok. so you disagree with it being ethics and metaphysics, so what is it?

Relationship to the divine. ;)

Does not some element of metaphysics enter one's relation to the divine?

Sometimes; possibly. I think I addressed this point above. You can often extrapolate some bit of metaphysics from statements about the divine and vice-versa, but I still don't think they're hard to tell apart.

Don't pose yes or no questions against Braden.

rofl. Ok, I was kind of being sassy. But, really those are tough questions to answer. The biggest concern is what 'language' / 'cultural context' do I use to answer? Words like 'Heaven' and 'God' and 'Hell' are purely driven by cultural context, which isn't to say that they have no meaning. But I don't want to assume what language to use, because I know using a certain language would make the reader conclude certain presumptions about my beliefs which are incorrect.

Monkeyslap Too

I'm here. Did I miss something? ;) I haven't been reading Maestro's posts, if you're wondering if I'm going to reply to them. As far as I could tell, he wasn't really making any points other than that he feels we're all ****s and he isn't. Which is his perogative. ;P And it's not that I don't care what you think about me, it's just that I don't take offense from religious debate. Anyone who does, I think, must be missing the point. Except when pointing out the grievous outrage men have commited in [perverting] the name of religion, which should be repugnantly offensive to everyone.

[Braden]

Serpent

Do you have a religious faith? Do you have a belief in what happens after death?

Since I have some time and disagreeing with everyone seems to be slowing down ;P I'll ramble in hopes of answering you.

I have alot of respect for the Christian religion; I was baptised Catholic and continue to practice in my own way. This doesn't currently include going to church, as I haven't been able to find, in many years, a single church which still knows what it's supposed to be about. Church these days is 1/3 listening to a priest tell you what to believe about sociopolitical issues, 1/3 singing modern praise music, and 1/3 shaking hands and smiling at people. The rest, people seem to be awfully confused about. Which is an utter shame, I think, because ritual is an incredible tool. Your mind is optimized for running from bears and collecting berries. It can do lots of other stuff, but that's what it's optimized for. You have to trick it a bit in order for it to do really different stuff. Ritual is the foolproof method of doing this. This is what mysticism, and (at the beginning) all religion was about - getting you to experience the divine for yourself. And that's what mass was about (especially the Eucharist, which remains one of the most powerful mystical exercises I know). Church-goers don't see it this way anymore though. Mysticism has long been utterly overshadowed by cultural context (although it's rewarding to see it continue to flourish throughout the ages, despite not just overshadowing but downright oppression - see the many great Christian mystics of the past millenia). I think the clearest message from Christian (specifically Catholic, as I'm not a fan at all of changes caused by the reformation, except to the extent that they addressed corruption) is about a personal relationship that every person has with the divine (which is perhaps why it has spawned so many mystics). As I think this is the primary characteristic of religion, it's natural that the Christian approach would be central to my beliefs. I'm happy to draw from other 'religions' though. Alot of people attack this as 'picking and choosing,' however I think they are sadly misled. Religions aren't a crapshoot - they are each culture's way of trying to understand a universal truth. If you believe that there is validity to this universal truth, I don't understand how you could believe anything else. Thus, I don't see how you could deny the wisdom in every approach. While I've outlined the main value of the Christian approach, I think the Hindus, for example, have the clearest dialog on what a soul is; I think the Buddhists have the clearest dialog on how to separate love from attachment, etc. This are important pieces to the puzzle, I think. Regarding Christianity (as I suspect this is mostly what you're asking about), I basically believe in exactly what Jesus said (amazingly, this seems to me to be a remarkable thing for a Christian). Regarding the Old Testament, I tend to side in the gnostics in believing that statements about god in it tend to actually refer to an archon (which is to say, some kind of lesser power who believes it is god and intends to restrain man from the truth to maintain this belief, metaphorical or otherwise, depending on how wierd you happen to be). The message of the Old Testament is very clearly one of a tribal god - which is a god dedicated to the salvation of a genetic line of people in opposition of their enemies. Anyone who claims otherwise, it would seem to me, clearly hasn't actually read the book. Or perhaps they skipped over the boring genetic line stuff, whose exact purpose is to provide specific and detailed methods of tracking this exact process. The OT is filled with references of a god which kicks ass for his people. In the New Testament, Jesus says there is a new covenent which is for all men; he even specifically disregards various seemingly really important parts of the OT, like the 10 commandments, when specifically asked about them. If one cannot see the immense difference between these two ideas about god, then again, I have to conclude one simply hasn't read the books. Now - what went on here? Did god change? I don't think anyone would be willing to conclude that. We he wrong for a while? Did he have a change of mind? Yeah right. Two things happened - either the OT was talking about someone else, or they were saying false things about god; either one pretty much results in the same conclusions. Do I believe in Hell? No. The definition of Hell is a place where souls can no longer, under any circumstances have contact with god. There's three ways this could happen: the devil destroys the souls of men, men destroys the souls of men, or god destroys the souls of men. The first two put the power of god in the hands of things lesser than god, which in Christian terms is blasphemy (surely the devil can't overpower god for something? contrary to popular misconception, Christian metaphysics does NOT describe a battle between equals); the latter possibility goes against exactly what we are told about god in the NT. Thus, there is no logical way hell could exist without throwing out more important Christian ideas. Do I believe non-Christians are screwed? No. Remember - all religions address a universal truth. God doesn't give a **** what people call him, how they worship him, etc - these are all the characteristics of a tribal god. These are all the characteristics of the old covenenat, which Jesus came, suffered, and died to replace. When I hear 'Christians' rant this kind of nonsense, I find it extremely offensive as they're using the name of Jesus to destroy his purpose for coming. There's a fun passage from the bible where it says 'if you do the devil's work in god's name, it is still the devil's work' I like to quote at them. (it tends to result in fights if they figure out what I meant though, so I'm trying to cut down). Do I believe in an afterlife? Yes. I know what it's like to be sans corpus, and what it's like to have your consciousness ordered along an axis other than space-time, so I naturally conclude from this that an end to the body is not an end to consciousness. What are the properties of the afterlife? I have no idea, and if I had an idea, I certainly couldn't convey it to you, as any 'language' I use automatically presupposes this reality (kind of like trying to explain in words to someone what non-linguistic thought is like). Moreover, I don't think it's incredibly important. Religion was never supposed to be about what's going to happen later. Especially since, once you have no body later has no validity as a concept. Any religious leader who tells you to save yourself up for later doesn't know a thing about religion. Listen to religious leaders and practice religious practices and read religious writings that make you a happier, healthier person right now, who is more able to share his happiness and health with others. If religion turns you into a bitter, hate-filler crusader now, you're going to be in for a terrible shock when you die and realize later doesn't exist. You might have conclude when I dismissed hell that I don't believe in punishment. But from this latter statement I hope you conclude otherwise.

[Black Jack]

Shucks, I came onto this post looking for a scrap with a bible banger, and the one getting beat up is poor MonkeySlap, though I have a idea that the guy can hold more than his own.

Ahhh, and whoever said that they did not like me misinterpreting the bible and how the King James Verison is not the best historicaly accurate translation, well all I have to say is that I take the bible as historicaly literal as a Harry Potter novel, it may be the best selling "book" of all time, but its marketplace is the fiction genre of fantasy, with a place right next to those crappy star trek novels written by ghostwriters, ghostwriters, hummm, sounds like those books have something in common.

King James or what have you, I am not going to care what the other competing christian cults think of one book to the next, hogwash is still hogwash, even if this hogwash never had any original writings in the first place, such as the old testament, except in the realm of scattered Cuneiform tablets, papyrus, and the famous Dead Sea Scrolls.

Its funny but in the middle ages the Catholic Church forbade the reading of the bible by its congregation for fear that the people would misinterpret the texts. What does that tell ya? Maybe that the old standby is true, knowledge is power and ignorance is bliss?

Christian religon has been the primer for the instigation of wars, racism, hatred, murder, anti-semitism, inferiorty of women, censorship, holding down of science, since its inception into power.

Here are some darker points from this lovely religon and its ****phobic god.

"Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wifes ravished." (Isaiah 13:15-16)

God inspired rape and genocide....nice....grrr baby.

"Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." (Numbers 31:16-18)

Boy, that Moses is one badass old ****, commanding roughly 100,000 young males and 68,000 helpless women to be hacked to pieces and the little girls to be carryed off for the enjoyment of devient sexual behavior.

What a playa, I bet all the priests of today are jealous, well may not as a lot of them like to hump the little boyz, I wonder if they jump over this passage in Sunday school.

"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remeber that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (I Samuel 15:2-3)

Wicked......the killing of suckling infants......sounds like an evil entity to me......that is if I believed in entity's.

This one IMHO sums it all up perfect and its a good note to end on.

"And the prophet, or the dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD of your God." (Deuternomy 13:5)

That stands for KILL ALL UNBELIEVERS.

Peace out-See ya latter.

[PaulLin]

Originally posted by chingei


improve on tao?!

The value of tao in you, how much you have? Having a lot of value of tao can make you rich in the tao's world, you know?

And the tao is the way, add with love, the meaning of life, and the truth, you will have Jesus.

[chingei]

Originally posted by PaulLin


The value of tao in you, how much you have? Having a lot of value of tao can make you rich in the tao's world, you know?

And the tao is the way, add with love, the meaning of life, and the truth, you will have Jesus.


:rolleyes:

oh, brother...

:rolleyes:

[Serpent]

Originally posted by Braden
Serpent

I still think you're being rather selective with which parts of the arguments you are prepared to discuss and which you aren't

Without you specifying what 'parts of my arguments' you weren't sure on, I typed up two pages of clarifications. Not sure what else you want. If you could specify further what you want me to elaborate on, I'd be glad to.

In answer to your question, I want to know what you believe in. Do you have a religious faith? Do you have a belief in what happens after death?

Yes and yes.

God@mmit! ;) So what are those beliefs!? Jeez, you're an obtuse person!

[Serpent]

Originally posted by DelicateSound
Maestro = Dick Head.

Yeah, but Maestro also = 17 years old according to his profile. We all thought we knew it all at that age. Ignore him and he'll eventually grow up.

[Black Jack]

Paul,

When Jesus is in your life, does he pay half your rent, or is he just bumming a place to hang, you know like that pro skateborder on the Osbournes.

Does he kick in for the bills, things like groceries, pot, the electric, water, heat, the cable, does he split the cost of the Playboy Channel, I bet he likes to watch Night Calls.

What about gas, you know, for the road trips, do you let him drive your car, is he on your insurance?

[Serpent]

Braden

You finally did answer, I apologise. I've just read to the end of this thread and I think my head will explode.

Funnily enough, I wasn't at all surprised by your answer! I agree on the ritual thing, but I'm far from a Christian, so you can use any language you like.

The one thing that's come out of this entire thread is:

No one has a bloody clue! No one knows for sure. So do what makes you happy, believe what makes you happy, as long as it doesn't adversely affect anyone or anything else.

You'll find out the truth in the end, I guess.

:)

[MonkeySlap Too]

Nah, you just look fun to debate with, but I've been too busy to read your posts and pick a fight.

[PaulLin]

Originally posted by chingei



:rolleyes:

oh, brother...

:rolleyes:

an object of ignoring.

[PaulLin]

Originally posted by Black Jack
Paul,

When Jesus is in your life, does he pay half your rent, or is he just bumming a place to hang, you know like that pro skateborder on the Osbournes.

Does he kick in for the bills, things like groceries, pot, the electric, water, heat, the cable, does he split the cost of the Playboy Channel, I bet he likes to watch Night Calls.

What about gas, you know, for the road trips, do you let him drive your car, is he on your insurance?

Jesus is in every one's life, all the time. It is just you know it or not. You will still go on and do all the things out of the best of you, it just the reason of living changed.

For all the things in this world, yes, all are given by God, you groceries, bills, even the air you breath, the light you see. Who determinded you have food, water, air, and you can live? The law of the universe did, and I called it tao, the way, a part of God.

And do not humanize Juses, it is we are similar to God, not God similar to us.

To me, by being the Jesus way, you must have the way, life, and truth. Human knows more way than animals, that is why we can invent things and have more control in the world. We can harmonize with other life that is what we living in society, not alone. We value the truth so we can improve ourself in the future.

Without way, you would have knowledge to earn your money and survive.

Without life, you will live alone and rejected by society.

Without truth, you will only worn out your resources and no improvements.

Do you remembered the 2 fishes and 5 loaves? They are actually yin-yang fishes and 5 circles of 5 elements. In Taoist, these are the all-producing causes that will never end.

My view will be very different form other Christians, I value the Universe itself more than Bible. I don't limit myself with man-made boundries of religon. If God have wrote a book, the truth direct writting would all that was created. You can tell me how many people and over how many thousand years to have a work of Bible wrote in human language, but compare to the Universe itself, it is too tiny.

Plus, I don't agree the idea of Playboy, the Sexual events sould not be tooken as entertainment. Our health, family, and society was havyly injured by this. This is just like drugs and tobacco problems. When we took things too unseriously, they will give us serious side effects.

[guohuen]

Good post PaulLin. I think Black Jack was railing against the phony fundies.

[KC Elbows]

Paul Lin,

"And do not humanize Juses, it is we are similar to God, not God similar to us."

If memory serves me correctly, the gnostics held that everyone could be like Christ, similar to buddhism, that he basically got in touch with the divine in himself, and taught others to do the same(Mary Magdalene chief among them, if memory serves me correctly).

Any thoughts on this?

[Black Jack]

Sorry Guohuen, my favorite Inuit knife fighting ex-marine uber assassin;)

I am an atheist. I don't believe in Jesus or God or any spiritual divine energy...in short I was trying to be an arsehole and troll for someone like PaulLin to take the bait.

You notice how they always skip over the posts about the atrocites commited in the bible, like in my post before the last.

PaulLin,

Another clear cut case of christian egoism and ignorance. It never ceases to make me sick.

Your christian occult nutbag bullsh!t does not fly over here my friend. I don't believe in fictional characters, you may think your world view holds sway over everyone, its a typical xitan trait, but you would be in for a big shock if you were to open your freakin eyes.

You said Jesus is in your life, which means he has a physical presence, I just asked if he chipped in for the bills. My bills and groceries are paid for by my job, not your ****phobic and murderous fake diety, how stupid does that freakin sound to you man, btw when was the last time you saw jesus?????

Did he make you waffles this morning for breakfest?

The air we breath and the light we see are all scientific aspects of our universe, proven aspects mind you, not malarky religous beliefs that have the emprical proven value of zilch, creationism is for those who are braindead.

Oh and on the playboy thing, how come that comment does not surprise me in the least bit, another stuck up-sexualy repressed-I would bet all for censorship-christian who thinks he knows how everyone should act based on his on twisted moral viewpoint.

I can list countless measures of rape, murder and torture that you guys have written down in your bible, I posted a few on a post a bit above. Lets just ignore that shall we:rolleyes:

Playboy is bad-sheesh-I bet video games and horror movies are the cause of violence in society to.

[KC Elbows]

Black Jack exudes a buddha-like peace to all around, and the forum is hushed in BJ induced nirvana.

:eek:

LET THE FIGHTING BEGIN!!!!!!!:D

[crumble]

Originally posted by Braden
I know what it's like to be sans corpus, and what it's like to have your consciousness ordered along an axis other than space-time, so I naturally conclude from this that an end to the body is not an end to consciousness.

Please say more. Does consciouness without object include a sense of being? Can there be an end to consciousness?

Very interested,

-crumble

[chingei]

Originally posted by Black Jack


I am an atheist.


No, you're not.

[chingei]

Originally posted by PaulLin


an object of ignoring.

like, totally dude.

[Black Jack]

:rolleyes:

Why am I not.

[chingei]

Originally posted by Black Jack
:rolleyes:

Why am I not.

oh, you wouldn't believe me...




:o ;) :p :cool: :rolleyes: :mad: :eek: :confused:

[ewallace]

FTR, I do believe in God, Jesus and the bible. I do not feel that it is right, nor do I believe that it is appropriate for me to go around and tell people that they are wrong in their beliefs, whatever those beliefs may be. Hell even if what I believe in does not exist, it still brings meaning, direction and morals to many people that may not have posessed these qualities otherwise.

However, there are far too many groups (Southern Baptist comes to mind) that see it as their "God-Given" mission to insist others are wrong, sinful and doomed to eternity in hell in order to convert people to their way of thinking. I believe this to be wrong. I could care less if you recite mantras while bowing to a porcelin african tree frog as long as you do not steal from me, rape my wife, abuse my child...etc. Most people need/want something to believe in, others do not. My general feeling about this and life is that in MOST situations, if people would mind their own dam n buisiness, the world would be a much better place.

Now if I saw someone turn water into beer at a party, I would be a firm believer and with that person I would await the arival of the mothership.

[KC Elbows]

ewallace, although you are almost always wrong, have a repulsive harelip, bad teeth, and a propensity for endless hours of viewing midget porn, you are correct.:p

[Braden]

KC Elbows -

The Christian gnostic message isn't exactly as you've outlined, as they do believe Jesus was a salvific character, in a fundamental existential sense rather than just a utilitarian sense.

BlackJack -

Don't knock all Christians. I've argued here, for example, beyond anyone's ability to use logic to prove me wrong, that the Old Testament (where all the scary stuff is) should not be a holy book of the Christian faith. It's not a belief unique to me. Also, for whatever it may be worth, Jesus is a historical not fictional character.

crumble

I believe: Yes, and yes although this is different from death of the body.

[Black Jack]

Blackjack putting on his Captin Kirk uniform, Ted Nugent's Wango Tango on the radio, prepares to do battle with Braden. j/k

Braden, I am not knocking all Christians, just Christian apologists who pretend there fiction of a supernatural savior who was born of a virgin, healed the sick, raised the dead, changed water to wine, walked on water, and rose from the grave as sober history.

btw, how can any grown up believe that with a straight face.

Thats my main beef, but here are two issues, the last I would like to debate with you.

Two issues.

1. The first is that I really don't believe that the old testament as pointed in my posts above was ever a concrete document, there was only a collection of Cuneiform tablets, leather etchings, papyrus, and of course the dead sea scrolls, two there is a LOT of scary stuff in the other versions, I have pointed out a few quotes of hatred and violence from the King James 1611 Bible in my thread a few above, which is just a small tidbit of info that I have.

I could post more.

2. The second is the one with which I would like to debate.

Give me emprical proof that Jesus was a historical character.

To start I will defend my viewpoint that I don't believe he was real, at least not in the light of what is believed today, for this discussion I will pretend that the premis is real, so we will have the same common ground.

Like Socrates, Jesus left no writings behind, everything he supposedly taught had to be preserved by the oral tradition. The Apostle Paul wrote the most about him, even though Paul himself never met Jesus, he was only converted 2 years after the Jesus cruifixion, Paul never speaks of his life & very rarely mentions anything Jesus said, which makes me believe it is more about ecclesiastical policy to organize a young church than anything of real merit.

This leads researchers to believe that the central figure of the gospels is not based on any historical individual. Put simply, not only is the theological "Christ of faith" a synthetic construct of theologians, like a symbolic "Unlce Sam" figure but that if one was to travel back in time to first century Nazareth, you would not find a Jesus living there.

Jesus realy is the typical worldwide Mythic Hero Archetype in which a divine hero's birth is supernaturally predicted and conceived, from where the infant hero escapes all attempts to kill him, demonstrates his amazing wisdom already as a child, receives divine commission, defeats demons, wins acclaim, is hailed as king, then betrayed, losing popular favor, executed, often on a hilltop, and is vindicated and taken up to heaven, as I am sure you know, this device can be seen in one format or another in many other mythologies, heroic myths and epics the globe over.

This plot formula pretending to be a biography can be seen in that of Hercules, Apollonius of Tyana, Padma Sambhava of Gautama Buddha, it often has lead a historian to conclude that a historical figure has been transfigured by myth.

The passion stories of the gospels also fit this bill, they are rehased tunes, of dying and rising savior pagan gods including Osiris, Tammuz, Baal, Attis, Hercules and Asclepius.

I have more but I will wait to see if you kick in to the question.

[Braden]

The first issue, of course, I absolutely agree with you on.

The second issue, I agree and disagree. I'm not a historian, so can't even begin to argue about history. All of the historians I've read seem to believe Jesus is a historical character, and I'm happy to believe this via method of authority, and because it tends to make sense - more sense than saying he was made up. On the other hand, you're quite right about how alot of the writings of him are 'regurgitations' of classic mythic themes. When I say he is a historical character, I don't mean that everything written about him is necessarily historical. Of course, like you argue, there's no historical proof, and bundles of common sense evidence against alot of the things said about him.

[Serpent]

Have any of you guys read this book?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1931412758/qid=1024460968/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/103-3402291-2408635

The Hiram Key.

It's about the roots of Freemasonry, but it actually breaks down the very beginnings of Christianity itself, right from the exodus of Moses from Egypt, to the forming of the original Christian cult. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but it's fascinating reading and it's certainly the best factually based study of ancient Christian history that I've ever read. I highly recommend it. (BlackJack, you'd love it! ;) )

Although the fanatic Christians will probably have an aneurism! You have been warned! ;)

[Black Jack]

Braden,

Makes sense, I am not a historian by any means either, there is a book and I forgot its name but it talks about how Jesus really was a patsy, a figure used by the Essene cult to gain and launch a religous movement, kinda figures into your post above, take a person, tie in some old pagan mythos, and you might have something that will get the poor commoners and outcasts to follow you, from there its up the ladder.

I still don't know though, I have my serious doubts on the realism of any historical Jesus, even if there was, he is lost to us, the result being that there is no historical Jesus available to us.

One thing to consider is that Christ is a fiction in that Christ functions, by this I mean in a unnoticed and equivocal way, as shorthand for a VAST system of beliefs and institutions on whose behalf he is invoked.

IMHO what this means is that when an evangelist or an apologist invites you to have faith "in Christ" they are in fact smuggling in a great number of other issues into your mind, using a trojan horse tactic to do so, this can be proven by the large number of Christian religons that think they have the copywrite on the word Christian and the correct theory of biblical inspiration and literalism.

This makes the psychological tactic of "in Christ" to become an umbrella for an unquestioning acceptance of what some preacher tell you to believe-kinda like a euphemism for the dogmatic party line of an institution.

Again all adding up to a imaginative visualization business tool.

[Black Jack]

Serpent,

I have always had a interest in Freemasonry, so the book looks interesting, both of my Grandfathers were very high ranking members in Scottish Free Rite, in Topeka KS.

One was 33rd level mason and the other I believe 31.

I once asked on here about becoming a freemason, to find if there are any members on board, my main concern is that as an atheist I don't believe I can become a member, the Wheaton chapter requires you to have faith in a creator, but again this is freakin Wheaton, the home of Billy Grahams alma matter.

One of the reasons I here this is true, this could be total bs, but at the higher levels they reveal that there is no creator, kinda a road of ritual for those of religous beliefs to come to the conculsion that they themselves are it, that is why they only take people who have a faith in a divine being, though again this is just a total rumor.

I still am not sure if I can become a part of the association or not?

[Serpent]

I'm not a Mason, so this is all conjecture. However, as far as I know, one of the few basic requirements to become a Mason is a belief in some greater divine/god, whatever that may be in the persons given religion. All Masons must be professional, self-supported men (i.e. have a job/income) and be 'god-fearing' (i.e. believe in a divine power greater than themselves). Then it's all silly aprons, funky handshakes and secrets!* ;) Of course, there is a female order of Masons nowadays, but that's just militant feminists who can't handle the idea of men having secrets that they'll never know! :eek: :D

As for the thing about the higher level revelation, I don't know for certain, though I seriously doubt that. You could always lie in order to find out! ;)

But do check out the Hiram Key. Not much info on masonry, but some excellent historical research.

-----------------------------------------

* That was mockery in good humour and not intended to offend any Masons, Mason sympathisers or their relatives, friends, pets or neighbours. Nor was it intended to offend the Shaolin Temple.

[Braden]

BlackJack - I think what you are saying is accurate in describing many people's approach to the religion. But there are some people improving themselves and doing good work, and there is a legitimate mystical underpinning - whether or not you'll find either at your local parish is unlikely. Regardless of this, it can still be a powerful tool for an individual capable of thinking for themselves to improve themselves and/or participate solely in the sacraments for their mystical value, in which case I think the 'truth' of the approach manifests all on it's own.

I've read the Hiram key and it's interesting. It was a while ago, but I don't recall anything in it that shook the foundation of Christianity, at least any more than what I've said in this thread - eg. his exposition on the two historical individuals named Jesus in that time and place, and their occasional confusion historically.

As far as freemasonery goes, they DO require you believe in 'a god' to join. One of the big conclusions from the Hiram key though is that you're not likely to find any secrets buried in the order.

[Serpent]

Braden. What you say about the Hiram Key is true.

However, for those that only know the Christian mystical version of the life of Jesus, and all the walk on water, loaves and fishes stuff that is easy to write off, this book gives a good, concise history of the real man (men? ;) ) behind the myth (at least, their version of it) and a nice, succinct account of the history of that time and place.

[Black Jack]

Braden,

I agree, IMHO if a person gets something good out of the religon then it is worth it, everyone finds help in different corners, even if those corners may be a little dusty.

I also believe that ritual is a good thing. Ritual is a prime aspect of our society, used throughout all of our lifes. When a man takes off his hat at the dinner table that is ritual, it conveys good manners by showing respect for the person who cooked the food, to the owners home and his grace, a simple ritual but the simple ones are often the best.

Serpent,

Do they have a women order now, it is seperate right.

One of the things I liked about freemasonry was the fact that it allows no women, not that having women in an organizaiton is a bad thing at all, just that men do need the ritual of bonding with other men, something that the radical fems can not get through there heads, they use the law to force there way in and f@ck up the heart of what the organization once was, take the Crucibel disaster for example.

In a pc time when men are losing less and less of what they once were it was a nice thought to know that at least one organiztion kept itself pure.

That was off base, but o' well.

Cheers

[Serpent]

Yeah man, the women's masons is entirely seperate. Guys need guy-only time, no question about it. Same way women need chick only time. They always go to the bathroom in pairs..... ;)

It's important that the genders have their own places. In Australia the Aboriginal people are completely comfortable with Secret Men's Business and Secret Women's Business, and sacred sites dedicated to each. No man/woman would ever consider imposing on the others' space/business.

Sadly lacking in modern society...

[PaulLin]

Originally posted by KC Elbows
Paul Lin,

"And do not humanize Juses, it is we are similar to God, not God similar to us."

If memory serves me correctly, the gnostics held that everyone could be like Christ, similar to buddhism, that he basically got in touch with the divine in himself, and taught others to do the same(Mary Magdalene chief among them, if memory serves me correctly).

Any thoughts on this?

We are in simi-limited, in wich we can divided inward infinitively but cannot expend outward the same. There is a way human can move up to the total infinitive level as God's level. In theroy, if one reatch it, you will not notice any thing existed nor your own existence since there will be nothing the you have excluded to show your existence. When you are totally harmonized with any thing, then it becomes true you. The true you is the one that you cannot detect the existance. Like eyes cannot see itself but only it's own reflection, ears cannot hear itself, tougue cannot taste itself.

So that is what I say, don't limit God with human limits, cause that is not correct.

the way/tao, is wisdom and knowledge, we cannot live without.

Harmonize, love, and life is what nourishs and make all grows.

Truth is what give people courage, and make possible for learning and improving.

No one can live without them. And only through these acheivement, one can reatch the infinitive level.

[PaulLin]

Originally posted by Black Jack
Sorry Guohuen, my favorite Inuit knife fighting ex-marine uber assassin;)

I am an atheist. I don't believe in Jesus or God or any spiritual divine energy...in short I was trying to be an arsehole and troll for someone like PaulLin to take the bait.

You notice how they always skip over the posts about the atrocites commited in the bible, like in my post before the last.

PaulLin,

Another clear cut case of christian egoism and ignorance. It never ceases to make me sick.

Your christian occult nutbag bullsh!t does not fly over here my friend. I don't believe in fictional characters, you may think your world view holds sway over everyone, its a typical xitan trait, but you would be in for a big shock if you were to open your freakin eyes.

You said Jesus is in your life, which means he has a physical presence, I just asked if he chipped in for the bills. My bills and groceries are paid for by my job, not your ****phobic and murderous fake diety, how stupid does that freakin sound to you man, btw when was the last time you saw jesus?????

Did he make you waffles this morning for breakfest?

The air we breath and the light we see are all scientific aspects of our universe, proven aspects mind you, not malarky religous beliefs that have the emprical proven value of zilch, creationism is for those who are braindead.

Oh and on the playboy thing, how come that comment does not surprise me in the least bit, another stuck up-sexualy repressed-I would bet all for censorship-christian who thinks he knows how everyone should act based on his on twisted moral viewpoint.

I can list countless measures of rape, murder and torture that you guys have written down in your bible, I posted a few on a post a bit above. Lets just ignore that shall we:rolleyes:

Playboy is bad-sheesh-I bet video games and horror movies are the cause of violence in society to.

I can sense that you have been hurt badly by these Fake-God-stuffs. Don't mistaken me for one. I am very scientifical. You don't have to call "jesus" as I have said, it is the spirit/coding behind it matters, not the human invented words. In TaoDeJin, it said the name we called is not really what we called. Words are only sound waves and inks on paper. It is what your relationship with the univers that counts. If you have no such relationship, no words can make you understand any thing.

If you don't think you have Juesus in you, let me ask this, do you live your life with the way, the tao, knowledge, and wisdom? Do you live your life with some one to love or loving any one? Do you recognize reality and improving yourself and learn? If you do any of the above, Juesus lived in you. Because that is what he said he is.

I don't buy fiction neither, but I don't really limit God with human logic too. What really matter is my relationship with the universe, not how much Bile I have read.

And I don't believe any thing just based on words unless I have found in the universe itself. I labled sexual should not be an entertainment, it is with more than moral support. Ask yourself if you would treat a second hand car as a new car and pay the same price for it? That is why people starts to dehumanize relationships between man and woman into a merchandise level. Don you think that will hurt the family and the society? Our qi must repeatingly cyclized process to make the energy pattern fit our body, and you tossed all that away just to have a sexual excitement? Don't you think you have better use of the prenatal energy that you wasted?

These are my kind of support, not some things like you thought it is.

[apoweyn]

shadow dragon,


Originally posted by Shadow Dragon


Christianity, Islam, etc have often been hijacked for political/economical purpose.
But don't confuse the teachings with what their followers do.

That's not really a question of confusion. It's a question of how you define a religion. Is it defined by the ideological framework or by the actual practice? Personally, I believe the practice has to place some part in defining the religion, as it plays some part in defining anything. And if that's the case, then the Crusades (just for starters) represented a huge amount of bloodshed in the name of religion.

Not that I'm bashing religion necessarily (and not that this is really the point of the thread). I do agree wholeheartedly with your characterization of this as a 'highjacking' of religion (i.e., to further political goals, etc.)


But I can't really see a KF school asking a Studet to convert to either Christianity or Islam. Which would be a good Joke in the West indeed.

Oddly, the only cases I've heard of kwoons pushing religion on their students have involved Christianity. I know that seems counterintuitive. But there you have it. Perhaps it's the nature of Christianity to push for conversion where it's not for Buddhism, Daoism, or Shintoism. I'm not sure.


Most of them will ask for Buddhism, Shintoism or Taoism, or a subsect/home cooked version thereof.

I don't believe that. See above. Said teacher might use concepts and terminology from those belief systems. But I doubt they push the religion itself on students. I could be mistaken though.


Which again is funny as most of those have the rule I mentioned and further funnily enough you can be a member of either belief system and STILL belong to another religion.

Yeah, exactly. Strange isn't it. We're on the same page now, I think.


So, pls, try to think b4 you make a mute point just to be heard.

This is needlessly condescending. And it's a 'moot' point. The irony of making a 'mute' point 'just to be heard' is great though.


Have a nice day.

Amen.


Stuart B.

[ewallace]

I am glad we are in agreement KC.

And FYI, midgets do not engage in sexual activities. All midgets work for the CIA and are forbidden to indulge in any kind of phyisical pleasure.

[KC Elbows]

Even Billy Barty?

[ewallace]

That would be covered in the "All" clause genius.

Wow, I didn't know there was a "g" in "genius". :)

[KC Elbows]

:eek: :D

That's the last time I whing at you!

Crafty midgets.

[guohuen]

To continue stirring the pot, there couldn't possibly be two jesus' because it's a made up name from the ancient greek ieshus. Apparently there was no concept of savior in the ancient greek language so the word ieshus, meaning save was used to call a man named yehoshua savior.

[guohuen]

A made up name sorta like shania twain.

[KC Elbows]

I think a religion where every church had a statue of Shania Twain crucified wearing only a loin cloth would do fairly well.

[guohuen]

I'd be there ready to drop a few shekels in the plate.

[KC Elbows]

ROTFLMAO at Guohen!!!:D

The "shekels" part made that one!

[Chang Style Novice]

Okay, more specifically.

Would you convert to Scientology to learn whatever it is Tom Cruise is doing in Mission Impossible?

[KC Elbows]

Of course.

Like you don't want to become clear.:rolleyes:

Once I went with a friend to this fair in St. Louis. There were all these stands set up, and the dianetics stand had this gigantic paper mache volcano at it, and they were testing people's "levels" with a probe.

Anyway, the volcano was brown with a big red spot at the top, and looked EXACTLY like a huge bloody turd.

Probes, turds...all part of a day at the L. Ron Hubbard institute for the worship of Xenon, the Galactic Overlord.

[Chang Style Novice]

I also wonder if Volcano Admim had to convert to study whatever it is (obviously not english comp.) that he's studying.

[ewallace]

I believe that would be chibonics CSN.

[Serpent]

There used to be a huge Scientology volcano on the main strip in Sydney. It caught fire and burned away to nothing! shame the whole Scientology movement can't follow suit.

Guohen. As for the jesus name thing, read the Hiram Key! You're only partly right about the nature of the name. I'm sure it's in other books too, but that just happens to be the only one I can recall at the mo that explains it.

Braden, you'll know. Come on in and disprove Guohen. He'll give you a shekel for the info, I'm sure! ;)

[PaulLin]

I would only agree the part of the book that fits the reality, the truth, the law of the universe. I woundn't throw out the whole book just for it has some parts that don't seems right though.

If there is a un-understandable part in the book, I would see that is it not the time for me to understand it, I must learn some thing else before, so I won't bother to pick up on it.

Any ways, I don't see the Bible as the perfect book, I do see alot of man-made, human intensions and logics, lots of them not fit the law of universe. But there are a lot of very important stuffs in it, so I don't really throw them all away.

By the way, how you interpreting it would make big different too.

I would only mind the part that I can see, feel, and make it work in life, the other part, are either the parts that is not my time to learn yet or they are just misleading words form whoever wrote it in the past.

[crumble]

Originally posted by Braden

crumble

I believe: Yes, and yes although this is different from death of the body.

Re: Yes - consciousness includes a sense of being.

Interesting. Do you find this to be an matter of faith? Or is it so **** blatently obvious that there is no doubt? I ask because my experiences have been fleeting and open to interpretation.

Re: Yes - there can be end of consciousness

Are you saying there definitively is an end of consciousness, or that there could be an end. I myself wonder if there can be any saying one way or another while conscious.

Thanks for the reply. If you want, you can take these questions offline by emailing me at shargrol @ hotmail. com

Thanks!

-crumble

[Braden]

Well, by definition any kind of consciousness must include a state of being. Whether or to what extent that being considers itself to have discreteness, or orders it's properties along time vs some other axis (or any of a number of other fundamental properties that we usually associated with being in the typical sense) is another question.

One of the big problems, I think, with doing this kind of research is teasing apart 'having had no consciousness' with 'not recalling the consciousness which was had.' I secretly believe there's no such thing as unconsciousness, except...

Yes, I believe there can definitely be an end to consciousness. I believe this to be it's own event though, independant of other sorts of deaths. I'm neither going on faith nor stating definite facts here, just going on my experiences. I'm inclined to say my experiences are minimal, but I honestly have no idea how much people play with this kind of stuff.