The Horrors of christianity

Did you bother to look them up?

It is interesting how I'm offering only "opinions" but you are being so "factual".

Where have I said that they didn't happen?

No, It is not my opinion. It is the opinion of Jesus Christ, which you would know if you would even bother to look up what has been cited.

Great, they felt like real Christains but did they act in a way that showed the were Christian? No they did not.

I didn't say it was up to me, if a person wants to be a Christian, they have to act like Christians, by their fruitage you will know them, not by what they call themselves.

Actually true Christians don't disagree that much about what being a Christian entails.

If a person show the fruitage of being a Christian, I have no bias toward them at all.

Matthew 5:43-48; 7:12; 7:15-20; 21-23; 19:18-19; Mark 12:28-31; Luke 6:31 Try reading them this time.

Yes, according to them but not according to those that will hold an accounting, God and Jesus.

Are you really that dense? When the Bible plainly states, just as YOU want men to do to YOU, do the same way to them and then people say that means to be a good Christian I can kill and persecute others, are you really saying that their "interpretation" is correct? A person doesn't need some kind of "special insights into the bible" to see that those people don't have it right and are not Christians.

:smilielol5:Let me get this straight; you "presented facts from history, made a statement concerning them, and asked for other peoples opinion on them" and now you're upset because "all" you "get is opinion on top of opinion". That's just funny

That is what I have been doing but you fail to address them.

See, even when someone gives you the facts from the Bible, you question the validity of the Bible to give the requirements of what is necessary to be a Christian.

Don't you even bother to read what has been said to you?

I have never denied what you say is historical fact, it happened.

The trouble lies in whether these things were done by Christians or by people that were just calling themselves Christian.

Call it what ever you want but you seem to be just dodging having to actually respond to the points I'm making.

The plain and simple truth, the facts if you wish is if a person is not producing the fruitage of Christianity they are not Christian, no matter what they call themselves.

People who are like this are not Christians:
The works of the flesh are manifest, and they are fornication, uncleanness, loose conduct, idolatry, practice of spiritism, enmities, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, contentions, divisions, sects, envies, drunken bouts, revelries, and things like these. As to these things I am forewarning YOU, the same way as I did forewarn YOU, that those who practice such things will not inherit God’s kingdom. (Galatians 5:19-21)

Whereas people are like this show they are Christians:
The fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control. Against such things there is no law.(Galatians 5:22-23)

Now tell me the ones who did your horrors, were they Christians or did they only call themselves Christian?

 

You should pop into the psychedelics section now and again.
Alan Watts is very well known among that group and often brought up. :sunny:

 

thedope:

Why can't you say which things? Who is it you want me to meet?

So...we find what we look for, always, except if we suspect we might not find it? Is that what you suspect? You'd put everyone under suspicion of themselves and eachother looking for that, er, I mean finding it. :-D

lol I must be drunk reading this! :-D If I was hearing it, I'd be off my face! Do you think there is a shortage of reality?!

So this is what you mean by saying we only see the past. You think the body is a machine. You've also said before it is not alive. That's just great. But the end of the world is soon upon us! Two days! May god deserve us, or at least you and the others in His whatever it is. :-D

 

OWB:

LOL What about the "fruitage" (lol) of being a loving human being? Does it count? :-D

 

I did. Now, if you would add your reasoning why they are pertinent, then that would be a logical conclusion and we could build on that. Just quoting scriptures that have been interpreted, reinterpreted, and in some cases considered false, means nothing. You claim to be answering what I say, but all you do is throw out opinions and quote scripture that is questionable as to whether it is even related, since they can be interpreted to mean different things in different contexts.

Ok, if you want to go the smart ass route, we won't be having any kind of discussion at all.

Don't deliberately misunderstand what I said, I asked you a direct question, "is that what you are saying" is a question. If you don't want to answer it, then don't. If you are unable to, then be honest and say so.

Like I said, I did look them up, and have read them before regardless. The problem is, just quoting scriptures is meaningless until you add your rational as to why they are relevant. If you want me to take you seriously, then you need to do more than just preach, you need to tell me why you think they pertain to the topic, and how.

Like I said, they felt (believed, since you seem to want to take it in another way)that they were acting in accordance with the tenets of your church, christianity. Your opinion, again, is not enough. Please explain why you think they did no act as christians. History tells us that they were christians, and acting in accordance with what the church allowed. Just because you disagree with what history says answers nothing.

Yes, you did, and you just did it again. You are making the claim that a person has to act like a christian, you are making a judgement call that people who don't act in accordance with what your view of christianity is, then they are not "true christians".

A "true christian" of course, is only the one who believes as you do. None of the other people who call themselves christians and believe they are acting in accordance with their views of the bible are "true christians". Here again, you are assuming some sort of special power to determine who is or is not a "true christian".

You side stepped the comment again. You would only agree that christians who think as you do would be "true christians" You haven't bothered to identify which of the thousands of christian sects you belong to, so I have no way of knowing what you believe is a "true christian".

Like I keep saying, merely quoting scripture is meaningless. You need to add your rational as to why you think they apply. Mindless scripture babbling is pointless.

So, again, you appear to be speaking on behalf of these entities, can you provide your credentials for this? Do you have some special dispensation from them to determine what they will or won't do? If you want to spount scripture again, please quote the relevant parts, and add your rational as to why they apply.

Actually, that part in bold came from before your bible, Confucious said it during his lifetime 551 to 479BCE "What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others."
You are dodging my comment again. In a pretty petty way too, by the way. The issue was that you seem to think that only your opinion of the bible is valid, and that others who find a different conclusion are wrong, just because you say so.

Evidently you didn't bother to read what I said here, or you choose to ignore it. Read what I said again. I said the only way to resolve the matter is through facts and logic. If you are going to continue intentionally misunderstanding what I say, and being a smart ass about it, then we just as well stop talking.

No, you have given neither. Like I said earlier, quoting scriptures without explaining why you think they are valid means nothing. Preachers at least offer their views of what they mean when they do it, why can't you? You haven't offered any facts at all. A logical conclusion would explain why something you quoted or stated means what you said it means. You have done neither.

You don't give facts from the bible, you merely quoted some passages. If you understand anything at all about your religion then you would have to understand that what it says is not a settled matter. If you want them to be taken seriously, you need to explain why you believe they are relevant, and in what manner. If you cannot, then please stop quoting them and asking me to believe they are facts.

Of course I do, but you seem determined to ignore what is being said to you.
Again, you seem to think that the people who did those things are not christian, by your reasoning. That's fine, if you prefer to see things only from your point of view you are certainly entitled to be that way. But please stop asking me to believe what you say, since you are unable to support any of it. Quoting some scriptures here won't help you either, since it is clear you are relying on your personal interpretation of those scriptures, and nothing else.

You haven't made any points yet, just quoted some bible verses and expect me to extrapolate your meanings from them, and claim that any other person who doesn't agree with your version of christianity is wrong. And in case you haven't noticed, I am responding to each and every sentence you make, asking that you provide your reasoning for saying what you did.

I'm not following your use of the term "is not producing the fruitage of christianity". Are you trying to say that those who do not act like christians are not christians? Since it means "to bear fruit", your usage seems out of place.
And I have to disagree again, if a person professes a belief in christianity, follows the tenets of one of the thousands of different sects of christianity, then they are a christian. By the same logic, any person who professes to be a christian, but thinks you are wrong, can easily say you are not a christian either.

So then, all those christians here who do drugs are out of the kingdom, I can think of at least one that is into that from here. The christians here who intentionally stir up problems by the manner in which they make fun of others trying to have a discussion would be out. I would have to say this would include you, since you prefer to belittle or ignore what I have said.
So, I guess that means you really are not a christian, huh, fancy the logic in that, a guy who posts proof that he is not what he says he is.

Where does it say that this only pertains to christians? It is saying that there is no law against people who conduct themselves in this manner. Nothing there about that meaning people are automatically christians because they are that way. If that were the case, my wife would be a christian, and she will tell you in no uncertain terms that she is not.

Ok, one more time. They were christians. They were acting on behalf of the christian churches. They were following christian doctrine as it was interpreted at that time, and in this time. They were following the christian church leaders. The christian church leaders interpreted the christian bible and said it meant they had to do the things they did. They professed a belief in the christian church and its doctrines.
Your two quotes say nothing about them relating to christianity, they merely represent the carrot and stick approach of christinianity, which is, do what we say and you get the carrot, don't do what we say and you will get the stick. That would be the christian construct of hell, by the way. The carrot being the fanciful "heaven", that christians believe exist.

 

BINGO!:2thumbsup:

 

Because they are arbitrary things and they are whatever dark and distasteful thing emerges from your vision of the world.

I have no tasks for you. I dispute your claim for everyone on the basis of insufficient sampling

Not everyone under suspicion, what would we be suspicious of, that water runs downhill?

If you claim to not to have found what you are seeking as a fact of history that cannot be changed you haven't been honest about your desire/effort to find it.

No, I think there is a plethora of confusion about simple things.

You see only the past because it takes time for light to reach your eyes.

The stimulus for each moment of perception is new, but the perception of this moment is patterned on past moments, energy shunted into a perceptual picture by the transducing action of our particular neural network. Many of the things we see everyday we take for granted as being the same everyday but if we were to see them in moment by moment detail we would see dramatic changes.
If you were to watch intently for example, a one foot square of ground that normally pass by every day, for a day, you would see that the mundane view that we thought we noticed, was going through profound changes hour by hour.

Life does not deserve to be, that it is, is so much beyond, deserving to be. Life is invaluable.

 

Hmmmm, Or they are "in the middle" because of a deeper understanding of both religion and science than you may posses.

You are also falling into that trap of quantifying another person's experience based upon your own.

Fundamental error right there.

Why I expounded on my varied personal experiences in PM was to illustrate that I have the repertoire of experiences to allow me to discern the difference more than someone who hasn't. If you read any of my posting in the psychedelics section (as PB_Smith as well) you would also know that I am very well versed in discerning the effects of substances, my responses tothem and how/why they occur. I'm not some newbie neophyte when it comes to all this type of crap, that's for sure

I guess you did not except that idea and therefore I must be "misunderstanding" things, assuming the remark had me in mind.

Thing is, we are talking about something that from the outset is EXPERIENCE based, not textbook.
Yet why do you guys want to completely discount an individuals experiences as they relate to the topic of Christianity?

Still Kicking, the reason you have been asked about psychedelics is because of the ineffable quality of the experience, same applies to religious experience.

Bottom line, absent the "experience" the books will NEVER make sense beyond a scholarly historical interest.

THAT is the MAIN REASON these type of discussions always go this way and why I usually avoid them, but the OP for this one was just too much to resist.

 

In the beginning was a stereotypical god? The whole premise of this thread emerges not from a genuine sampling of all factors involved but from stereotypical and limited perspectives.

A certain inclination of the individual might cause one to come the theory that excesses assigned to religious programs were instrumental in contributing to the liberal enlightenment. This is true but, All factors are integrated into all factors. The shear brutality of feudal europe is enough to make one question ones existence. Further because of contributions from changing climate, food production becomes more reliable in producing sufficient diet overall or surpluses in particular groups. Better nutrition means more computational power, quicker reflexes, better adaptability freeing up time for higher thought.

Even diseases brought on by the domestication of animals can contribute to the morphological/perceptual transformation of the species. Certain attitudes, genetically or culturally at large can die out.

As far as an investigation into causes of phenomena, the perspective of this thread is too narrowly contrived. Science, or even sound reason, in this case is abandoned for pseudo social theory. Religion is an artifact of human endeavor, not the cause of it.

 

thedope:

It's unlike you to dispute my loving everyone on the grounds I haven't met them! What a condition to set! Is there someone you'd have me not love?

If you would have everyone responsible for our vision of the world, you don't do so by passing on your own. Your words suggest shared guilt rather than innocence. But then you know not what you do, right? It's why you take "christ-teaching" upon yourself to begin with. You speak of circumstance, but then hold us to it rather than elaborate in love. You speak of the abomination of a split mind, its harm, rather than its healing, you say every body dies, but doesn't have to. Asked when then do they die, you say in their own time. As though you know every body! lol As if you alone have time for every body! Are you torn? We will bring you back to yourself. You started a sibling thread on the horror of some atheists arguments, yes there is horror in some, but at least the reason is clean! :-D

Realize the love that keeps on finding what it wants. That can't find enough. Joy wants eternity.

There is nothing profound in the statement god alone is good. Not even the error.

Like the simple fact that reality is relative? lol :-D How do you think reality does not relate?

Yes, life is invaluable, but it is only so in valuing it. :-D Life loves to deserve itself. Life desires. I laughed so hard when you told me you found life useful! Even more than when you said it was redundant! LOL



There's too much badmouthing of this thread. It has been interesting. And I think everyone should be allowed to if not deserves to be heard. Good on still-kicking for un-ignoring the posters he was ignoring. Good on meagain for respecting that we are mature enough to respect oneanother. ( even if he did go on a bit of a blitzkreig before ;-D)

 

You were doing pretty well until you said; “we must, if we accept historical sources, admit that they have even been sanctioned by the Christian church”, the problem being that if they sanctioned atrocities, they could no more be “the Christian church” than the people that committed the atrocities and called themselves Christian.

Very well could be true but also remember that there may other reasons for people to want God not to exist.

Are you saying that being “struck in the middle” is the result of “misunderstanding of both science and religion”

Bye.

 

Hi OWB, you may have missed post #244. A question from me about your "fruitage." lol

 

This is your exact quote, that I copied and pasted:

[FONT=&quot]If you will note, I highlighted it for you, you said that you asked for other people’s opinion on what you had said. Then you go on to say that all you get is opinions.

So if you don’t want other people’s opinions, I might suggest….don’t ask for them.

[/FONT]

 

Mah.. why go for the easy option? go for the option that gets the most interesting and challenging results, the real head scratchers.

All the topics I've read from you have been pretty philosophical, but the problem is, you can't have a completely factual argument in philosophy because philosophy challenges the very basis of what you think you know to be true.. facts pale into insignificance...

Using reason, yes.. but sometimes you really have to jump in the shit. How do you know what's outside the cave if you're huddling in the back warming your hands on the bare stone(you haven't discovered fire yet, because you haven't been outside the cave)?

Disregarding the topic for a second.. when studying your religions and trying to justify whatever, who are you doing it for? You, or the people around you?

Facts aren't definite, they're theories that have been accepted by the majority of people at this point in time to be true, supported by data that they assume is relevant to the subject.. yes, some are more "definite" than others, like all life is carbon based vs. the world is flat(dated I know, can't think of any obscure recent ones, but you get the point)

Back to the initial point, no they wouldn't do anything to solve the controversies because in another 100 years we will have found new holes in Christianity, or any particular dogma. Times change, and so, inevitably, will points of view.

The problem isn't the religion, it's the people, and that's only if you choose to see a problem in the first place.

Aye, can't say I was sure that a lot of those posts deserved to be deleted but whatever.. but no worries anyway.

Obviously going to try and avoid making judgements, but going back to the cave thing.. if you don't know what else is out there, what can you compare your current life against? How much fun could you be having? Is this all there is?

There is so much in life that doesn't have to be justified to be enjoyed.. justification is fun, it adds that extra wow factor, but in the end it doesn't mean shit.

I think you're stuck on what you think is truth.. There is no definitive truth, there is Truth, but good luck trying to measure that shit, let alone derive any describable meaning from it.. going back to the metaphor Noxious used of the play/theatre production, just in a different context..

The characters in the play aren't real, they're concepts, you can't measure them.. their lines are on paper and you can measure the height and width of each letter, the mean number of words on a page, the ratio of vowels to consonants throughout the script, but will that give you an idea of what the plays about? Everything you've measured will be undoubtedly true, but what are you gonna do with that truth?
If you were really intent on measuring those things, you'll be happy when you've got those measurements - a sense of achievement via a quick shot of dopamine.. but that little shot of euphoria is short lived.. soon you want something else to measure. It's like the carrot on a stick thing you talked about earlier on in the thread, but also, in a different context.

The reason you think that is because you're not looking at the bigger picture..

When's the last time time stopped? when did you last stop having thoughts? when did things stop growing, dying, or deteriorating?

Every word you read is changing "you", what I write determines what you read, which determines what you'll interpret, which determines what you'll think about, which is not only influenced by my words, but your current state of mind, your environment, what you thought about breakfast this morning.. There are infinite factors that are involved in the outcome of your response to this post, going back thousands of years even before we were even thought about.

Which were all written by man, which I think are based on the same thing. Truth big T. Pure experience..

Please share, I think the loud, opinionated and borderline preaching 20 year old takes the Smarmy Award anyway..

Don't you see that the premise of your argument is based on that which has no solid facts to begin with? The only "facts" are those quotes from the Bible, since that's what the religion has evolved around.

No paracetamol's, cold and flu capsules, asprin's, vitamin supplements, caffeine of any kind? if not, I'm impressed..

Where's that aversion come from? Propaganda, or being around people on drugs who don't know how to use them properly and end up having a bad time?

You can get whatever they offer without the drugs, and even more.. but it's very hard for people in Western society to spend 40,000 hours meditating to reach the Divine Truth.. some education, preparation, and some heavy psychedelic intoxication can get you there in a few hours.. of course you come down, but you're left with an astounding sense of awe and gratitude. A reminder that life goes beyond simple facts and figures, that the figures come out of this abstract, liquid existence.

Definitions give meaning to it, but they are not it.

I'll admit, regarding the psychedelic experience, that discipline is another matter, there are downsides to the short cuts, but it's nothing that can't be remedied.