• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari

EADD Theology Megathread - Book II - Exodus

Status
Not open for further replies.
He's saying that you're a filthy ColtDan dupe, and he's also implying that SummerSerenade is really Shambles dressed up as some vapid mephskank.
 
raas_2012 said:
That has got to be, the most astoundingly ignorant comment against Christianity I have ever heard...

The equivalent to me saying, "Leah betts died as a teenager, fuck your drugs. fuck you druggies!!"
Click to expand...

Well, not quite eh Raas? You're comparing someone dying from the effects of taking in too much water through lack of education and prohibition to, er, an ORGANISED part of your religion that closely follows the Bible and therefore believes babies born out of wedlock are committing some sort of 'double original sin' and should therefore be left to die of starvation along with their mothers.

Take that ridiculous analogy out of your arse and throw it in the bin.
 
I was talking to raas, never amazes me the lengths people will go to arguing about theological beliefs, but it was a (rather well rehearsed one suspects) good defence.

Just try and do the next right thing, there's no more to it than that for me, I'll leave the rest to the winds of time.
 
Me neither owen,

NSFW:
20131028-081403.jpg

NSFW:
7OB.jpg

NSFW:
ThomasPaineCountryIsWorld.jpg
 
Raas, you skirt around the gayz issue too much.

It seems to me like you didn't have a problem with homosexuality before Christianity. Which is sad, because your religion claims to be about love and inclusion. I would respect your religion more if it was the other way around "I used to have a problem with people being gay but now that I'm a Christian I don't feel that way. Jesus would love everyone the same, regardless of who they sleep with".

I kind of understand where you're coming from with part of it, that it's "fornication" that you're against. I wildly disagree right enough. How can shagging be a sin? If I want to do something, and you want to do something, and it doesn't affect anyone else but us, how can it be bad? Ride me Raas.

With regard to your lesbian pal, she probably banged on about being a lesbian because for a long time she felt she had to hide it. The whole 'out and proud' thing isn't just gay people trying to be annoying, to me it's a direct reaction to 'in & ashamed' (in my opinion, I'm trying not to speak for something I can't fully know about).

lurching said:
He's saying that you're a filthy ColtDan dupe, and he's also implying that SummerSerenade is really Shambles dressed up as some vapid mephskank.
Click to expand...

Hahahaha
 
A delusion held by one person is a mental illness, held by a few is a cult, held by many is a religion.

- Robert Todd Carroll
 
Yeah, I never got what was wrong with morality as derived from first principles:

1. I have a good idea of what I do and do not like being done to me.
2. Other people aren't all that different from me.
3. Therefore, if I would not like something done to me, I probably shouldn't do it to anyone else either, as they probably won't like it.
4. Exceptions to (2) can be learned and memorised; this is part of the more general process of "growing up".

Game Theory (a branch of mathematics) also demonstrates that for gregarious predators (which includes humans) in times of plenty, a generally co-operative strategy with transgressions punished immediately and then forgiven and forgotten is the most viable.
 
PTCH I really admire the way you debate. I've been reading your posts for awhile and you're actually quite intelligent, the way you put things. Have you ever completed a degree. Believe it not I've a psychology degree and post graduate certificate in Weight Management

Back on topic the way you discuss this religious stuff is very interesting and I like how you phrase and word things to explain your reasoning. For instance;

"It seems to me like you didn't have a problem with homosexuality before Christianity. Which is sad, because your religion claims to be about love and inclusion. I would respect your religion more if it was the other way around "I used to have a problem with people being gay but now that I'm a Christian I don't feel that way. Jesus would love everyone the same, regardless of who they sleep with".

This illustrates nicely your reasoning for not accepting raas' his issue with homosexuality.

Please keep on writing because I like reading :)

Evey
 
Care to address the point of my post rather than ill-conceived semantics?

You know.. the point where i posted a whole list of parts from the New Testament which are blatantly copy-cat, clever works of plagiarism?

You say this is because Jesus was a prophecy come true (Answering only the sub-heading of that section of my Jesus Fesus, rather than the content).. so i give you a huge list of passages which are clearly NOT prophecies but are clearly the original frame-works, foundations and actual texts of the story of Jesus and your only defence is to focus on the choice of wording I used.

There are some things you can't even perform mental gymnastics to justify your beliefs without being certifiably delusional*.. This blatant plagiarism of ancient Jewish scripture is one of them.

*Which you seem to be:
raas said:
you have your own agendas of opposition and are constantly blind to sense.
Click to expand...
 
rickolasnice said:
Care to address the point of my post rather than ill-conceived semantics?

You know.. the point where i posted a whole list of parts from the New Testament which are blatantly copy-cat, clever works of plagiarism?

You say this is because Jesus was a prophecy come true (Answering only the sub-heading of that section of my Jesus Fesus, rather than the content).. so i give you a huge list of passages which are clearly NOT prophecies but are clearly the original frame-works, foundations and actual texts of the story of Jesus and your only defence is to focus on the choice of wording I used.

There are some things you can't even perform mental gymnastics to justify your beliefs without being certifiably delusional*.. This blatant plagiarism of ancient Jewish scripture is one of them.

*Which you seem to be:
Click to expand...

rickolasnice I'll go have a look at your posts, if you don't mind. brb. Back. Rick you're posts are very juvenile and like you're in the playground trying to score point. Oh hang on. ===ONE MOMENT PLEASE==== thinking, >>>>> CONTINUED THINKING >>>> Yep, got it!!!! ---->>>> "this is just the Internet" you're not really arguing ---> it's just pretence ----> continue!

Evey
 
Last edited:
@Raas - As usual you seem to have cherry picked what to reply to in my post(s), and only answered that bit with some dubious reading into what jesus meant by 'not one letter' (see, you can interpret) - do you want to try the hard bits now? ;).

To change the subject: Anyone here heard of Teillard de Chardin? He's a christian i'd have loved to debate with. Here's some interesting waffle sort of about him i came across yesterday:

"Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was a visionary French Jesuit, paleontologist, biologist, and philosopher, who spent the bulk of his life trying to integrate religious experience with natural science, most specifically Christian theology with theories of evolution. In this endeavor he became absolutely enthralled with the possibilities for humankind, which he saw as heading for an exciting convergence of systems, an "Omega point" where the coalescence of consciousness will lead us to a new state of peace and planetary unity. Long before ecology was fashionable, he saw this unity he saw as being based intrinsically upon the spirit of the Earth:

"The Age of Nations is past. The task before us now, if we would not perish, is to build the Earth."
Teilhard de Chardin passed away a full ten years before James Lovelock ever proposed the "Gaia Hypothesis" which suggests that the Earth is actually a living being, a collosal biological super-system. Yet Chardin's writings clearly reflect the sense of the Earth as having its own autonomous personality, and being the prime center and director of our future -- a strange attractor, if you will -- that will be the guiding force for the synthesis of humankind.

"The phrase 'Sense of the Earth' should be understood to mean the passionate concern for our common destiny which draws the thinking part of life ever further onward. The only truly natural and real human unity is the spirit of the Earth. . . .The sense of Earth is the irresistable pressure which will come at the right moment to unite them (humankind) in a common passion.

"We have reached a crossroads in human evolution where the only road which leads forward is towards a common passion. . . To continue to place our hopes in a social order achieved by external violence would simply amount to our giving up all hope of carrying the Spirit of the Earth to its limits."

To this end, he suggested that the Earth in its evolutionary unfolding, was growing a new organ of consciousness, called the noosphere. The noosphere is analogous on a planetary level to the evolution of the cerebral cortex in humans. The noosphere is a "planetary thinking network" -- an interlinked system of consciousness and information, a global net of self-awareness, instantaneous feedback, and planetary communication. At the time of his writing, computers of any merit were the size of a city block, and the Internet was, if anything, an element of speculative science fiction. Yet this evolution is indeed coming to pass, and with a rapidity, that in Gaia time, is but a mere passage of seconds. In these precious moments, the planet is developing her cerebral cortex, and emerging into self-conscious awakening. We are indeed approaching the Omega point that Teilhard de Chardin was so excited about.

This convergence however, though it was predicted to occur through a global information network, was not a convergence of merely minds or bodies -- but of heart, a point that he made most fervently.".....

from... www.gaiamind.org an article by Anodea Judith
Click to expand...
 
Eveleivibe said:
rickolasnice I'll go have a look at your posts, if you don't mind. brb. Back. Rick you're posts are very juvenile and like you're in the playground trying to score point. Oh hang on. ===ONE MOMENT PLEASE==== thinking, >>>>> CONTINUED THINKING >>>> Yep, got it!!!! ---->>>> "this is just the Internet" you're not really arguing ---> it's just pretence ----> continue!

Evey
Click to expand...

If that is all can we carry on with the thread at hand?

K thanks.

Apologies for the harshness in my previous post though, raas.. Was rather drunk, tired and cranky :\
 
Last edited:
Vurtual said:
@Raas - As usual you seem to have cherry picked what to reply to in my post(s), and only answered that bit with some dubious reading into what jesus meant by 'not one letter' (see, you can interpret) - do you want to try the hard bits now? ;).

To change the subject: Anyone here heard of Teillard de Chardin? He's a christian i'd have loved to debate with. Here's some interesting waffle sort of about him i came across yesterday:
Click to expand...

Virtual, you're one of the more open-minded opponents to Christianity I've encountered, so please don't fall to quickly into cynicism.

I did start off by saying "--Got my hands full a bit here, probably missing a few posts but forgive me tons to respond too"

Remember, as a Christian I am in the minority in this forum. So when I am trying to respond to you, rickolasnice, evelievibe, StoneHappyMonday, Partime_crackhead, Sammy_G and others inevitably it all becomes a bit time consuming to write detailed responses to every post.

I hadn't forgotten your questions and actually had prepared answers that I just haven't had time to detail into words. I am not cherry picking.

As for the point I did raise, the post I showed you shows how Jesus defied and taught against the OT time and time again, so substantially proves the verse in question was not meant to the authenticate the entire OT. There's also many sites which expound further on this issue, perhaps better than I did, which go into detail in differentiating the moral law (which Jesus was referring too) and the ceremonial laws which the NT states we are free from.


I'll follow up this post in a couple of days to address the posts I didn't find the time for.
 
Alright Raas i know you're in a minority here - though you're not the only christian, just maybe the only one prepared to argue in detail (cheers for that). For the sake of argument i could be a christian in this thread really - i wouldn't have much problem in that label if it was as a Quaker or a Liberation Theologist (or a Teillhard de Chardin-ist (after Tipler)). The point being there's much more to christianity than the literalist version that you think is 'the way'.

...

Augustine was sent to britain by the pope to convert the savages at the end of the earth. When he got there, he found a vibrant celtic christian tradition, in some ways more sophisticated and with better christian 'pedigree' than the romans (they were certainly as good with latin). This was too embarrasing so they just ignored it in the record. Later the venereable bede (in the augustine tradition) tried to cover this awkwardness by saying the english came from anglo-saxon invasion as pagans, and augustine converted them (but archaeeology suggests there may have been no physical invasion, just culture/fashion adoption). The point is, celtic christianity is considerably closer to the original jesus' message than the roman (and later anglican) version - if you want to be a proper christian, i'd aim for that (Coptic christians are from a similar branch to celtic).
(more on this here: Britain AD Ep 3)
 
Last edited:
parttime crackhead said:
You do that all the time, then skip the proper points.

You've still to respond to Rickolas stuff about the Jesus story blatantly being stolen from previous stories.
Click to expand...

I do not skip the "proper points", I discussed the current topic (Christianity stance on homosexuality) in depth quoting all over the bible, before that I extensively reviewed rickolasnice's essays as requested, and I've already stated in my last post, "wait a day or 2 when I have time i'll address the posts I didn't have time for in the last uber-post" (More homosexuality, misogyny, OT plagiarism)

This is why I say arguing is a waste of time with you, you invent these accusations as it serves your anti religious agendas.

Now stop being impatient, sit back and maybe tonight or tomorrow you get to read another uber-post addressing all the posts I didn't get round too (That includes your own)


virtual said:
The point being there's much more to christianity than the literalist version that you think is 'the way'.
Click to expand...


Can we just deal with the literalist version before looking into the histocracy, I've enough over-due homework for this thread as it is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top