In between in numbers are some to which Christians should pay attention, because they carry a valid criticism.
Militant atheists are as bad as far-right deists.
Not as bad, but certainly as annoying.
This thread will upset many people. Awesome. ..|(!)
If your head was anymore up your ass i'd swear you were a creationist, oblivious and yet so sure at the same time.
Kinda funny. At least funnier than some of the pics(though I think I laughed hardest at Topher's second one on this page).
See, there's a later section called "the Prophets", where God makes plain that justice and mercy are what count. Then there's a later section where God tells the church that all those old rules are gone; just don't kill people, be promiscuous, and a few other things.
So your statement is false, because it's based on a false generalization, and your defense is false, because it does exactly what you accuse me of.
If you're going to criticize something, at least get a cursory knowledge of what you're talking about. Being able to look up some verses and pounce using them just shows you have no idea what you're talking about.
BTW, you know that word translated "abomination"? It used to be rendered as "unclean". And God himself tells Peter (the alleged first pope) not to call unclean anything God has made.
I leave the conclusion as an exercise for the student.
how turn wata inta snow
_ ******** _
$ awww da preturee $
I sighed at Topher's second one. If Tebow and other Christians actually read their Bibles, they'd thank God just as much for getting sacked, for having to call a locksmith and pay $80 to get into the car after losing keys . . . and for not having enough money to put food on the table for their kids.
The only time special thanks are due is if you asked God for a specific thing and it happened.
To render the first relevant Bible verse into colloquial English, "He sends good things, and makes shit happen". The second: "He makes everything work for good, for those who love Him". So when shit happens, it's for the Christian's good -- and God should get praised.
I'll believe Tebow's piety is real when I see him on the field praising God for having gotten his face smeared in the mud and the ball knocked free to be recovered by the other team.
Kulindahr, in your mind, "pumpernickel" may be what most of us would commonly refer to as a bobsleigh, perhaps with some etymological precedent found in some long-forgotten dusty library, secreted away in another land. And perhaps you're happy to take the pumpernickel down the track at 150 km/h in a latex catsuit.
But when you begin speaking with the larger public, it is helpful to at least acknowledge that a different meaning is not only top-of-mind for many people, but also not without foundation.
To most people, particularly gay people, "christianity" is defined by a more expansive track record than just the theology of a few inoffensive thinkers who might happen to share your creed. Christianity is as christianity does, and it has not always been a pretty picture.
Since Crash did exactly what he always does(act superior, try to give me a lesson on the meaning of the terminology I used against him, then lowered himself to using "net language" in an effort to try and "insult" someone), no response needed to his bullshit. If I thought atheists were supposed to be a group, i'd be offended by his existence... thank hell that's not the case.
Oh, and university boy, I do know what militant means. :)
Damn. Guess that qualifies as a response to him. Ah well, never said I was perfect.
Satire is both intellectually challenging and culturally delightful. It has been a necessary part of civilization for centuries if not millennia.
Designed to provoke, inspire, challenge, or simply amuse, it does not require the approval of those whose sense of humour cannot manage it. It's a damn funny thread with no requirement of inspiring a rational discussion. Though I daresay it lends itself to it.
Some people are bound to be hurt by some of the pics in this thread in exactly the same way some gay people are bound to be hurt by the anti-gay images the Phelps use.
Some of this borders on intentionally hurting people's feelings, just as the Phelps' signs are beyond the pale.
Criticism, satire and discussion in the realm of such a fractious and heartfelt topic is appropriate.
Ridicule is puerile and shitty.
The dead christians in the dumpster is perhaps a step beyond ridicule. It reminds me of other very controversial images that do little to make us understand one another.
Too many posts in a row without a cartoon....
BTW, I cracked up at the dead Christians one, because I recognized the name on the dumpster as a business name, and saw the pic as satire on how the English language puts words together with unintended meanings.
This one I love because creationists don't realize that they're reading a hard book:
It's the old problem of the letter and the spirit, and that's how theology and discussion about morals has been going on for centuries: you "pick-and-choose" one part of the book and forget about the rest that denies it. In the case of Islam that is accounted for as further proof of the Wisdom of the Almighty: but that looks at the real mystery in the religion credo. It's true that they are both hard books exposing a bigger problem than the squaring of the circle.
well, I've enjoyed giggling at some silly pictures in this thread. While I am a christian I can see the funny side, but being a public arena I expected there to be drama.
This thread needs more fuzzy kittehs though.
^^:=D: someone gets it, and this is not a spiderman thread now, but a kitteh thread.
Most modern historians no longer refer to it with that term, as it is a bit simplistic, but the basic idea that the level of advancement civilization saw in ancient Rome seriously regressed over the next several centuries is completely accurate.
Anyone who picks and chooses isn't doing theology. That's one reason I will have little to do with churches where the preacher/pastor/priest decides what to preach on every Sunday; give me the ones with systems for reading and preaching the whole Bible (except maybe the 'begats', which don't tell anyone much of anything), whether it's a one-, two-, or three-year system (three gives better coverage with shorter readings to work with).
Religion is organized and vertical: it's not about people's feelings or the search of truth, is about the spreading of and commitment to, by the force if necessary, of an ideology leaded by a few to cynically parasite people's minds and bodies as much people as possible.
If you want to read the "whole Bible", you just need to learn Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.
Where do you get that "the Church... had ... opposed everything in the old system, science and healthy habits of every time included"? I've taken three different courses that covered the collapse of Rome, and never ran into any indication of that.
Not a lot of technology from Rome was lost. The problem was that the integration of that technology was lost, the application to a widespread system. The Church was instrumental in preserving a great deal of it; the problem was that they weren't interested in spreading it around or restoring it where it had been lost. The part of the Church that preserved it, and even advanced it, was the monastic arm -- but for a long time they tended to keep it, including their innovations, to themselves. Overall, the technology level only dipped briefly after Rome collapsed; what dipped was the universality of the availability of the technology. But that's historically true any time an empire collapses, of technology not directly available to individuals: what takes organization gets lost.
THis old classic is still good:
Theology is the examination of the teaching of religion. Religion with theology is claptrap.
That's another reason I have little to do with the kind of churches I mentioned: their idea of "using" Greek and Hebrew is to read their English, look at what some guide says the Hebrew or Greek mean, and stir that into what they were going to say anyway; I was taught that you're not using Greek and Hebrew until you're consulting contemporary sources in those languages, not just looking at the original and referring to your English translation.
It's so much more fun that way, anyway -- there are rather profound things in those original languages that no one has ever translated and published. Though it's rather anticlimactic to take a facsimile of a recently uncovered ancient document and start working on it only to realize it's a servant's task list for the day -- insightful for daily life at the time, but disappointing.
This is just twisted:
This one shows a sad truth: Christians came in and stole the Intelligent Design concept:
Our Intelligent Design bunch in college had people who had come to various faiths, including agnosticism and deism, because of science, and reference to holy books as authoritative was forbidden.
I'm not sure what this is making fun of, but it's hilarious:
There is a myth about the Church preserving and even "advancing" learning: the church was as closed in itself as could be, taking its authoritative syllabus of fairy tales as their only guide in all the rich and challenging world that they tried to deny (as far as the bellies and even lower parts of their proud and righteous leaders allowed) and only took a couple (virtually literally a couple) of Latin authors manipulated so that they could serve the purpose of teaching rhetoric without the danger of being set as an example of pagan "values". Whatever was recovered and "advanced" came from either foregin peoples (like the Greek or Arabic-speaking world) or from those whom they considered heretics and devils. When they couldn't fight the reality of Creation any more, the "C"hurch just followed that trend and tide, as keeps doing it today, admitting and adhering what once fervently opposed in the past because not fitting in the procustean bed of the "S"criptures.
What we understand as "technology" in society is precisely the general usage and availability of it that gives it some purpose: otherwise it is not technology, just an item of luxury or a mere oddity. Rome had been sinking from the IIIth century under its own weight (as we have the privilege of witnessing since a few decades in our own civilization), but the bully and narrow-minded intolerance of the Christian churches of the era didn't help precisely in the opposite direction, let alone in sustaining anything that might have been left after the demise.
Some interesting data about those myths relating the transition from Late Antiquity to... what came after can be found in Ward-Perkins' The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization: I said "data", not "brilliant book".
Yes, belamo. I've heard the same argument recently also. "But the church existed during the enlightenment! Therefore it was responsible for it!"
Similarly the Politburo existed during the time of Solidarność. Surely we don't assume the politburo is responsible for that. It makes no more sense to give credit to the church for the advances of the enlightenment than it does to give credit to Louis XVI for masterminding the French Revolution.