There is a pic that has haunted me for a long time. A WW2 pow is blindfolded and about to get beheaded by the Japanese. The GI is on his knees waiting for the blade. A young guy, with a future about to end. No victory, no banging hotties, no getting drunk. What would I do? Make peace with God. Thank Jesus for what ever he tried to do that nobody seems to be able to imitate. Wait for the universe to open its door to the next world. I have nearly died a couple of times. No fear, just a race to escape the irreversible. It will happen sooner or later. Im ready.
Do you believe in God?
Quote:Quote:What I said is that there is a part of brain responsible for out of body experience. When The vestibular cortex is directly stimulated, people experience this out of body thing. You can also induce it through drugs or frequency. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-body_experience
(Today 08:41 AM)avantgarde Wrote:
Dude, I heard there is a part of the brain that lets your consciousness be projected beyond your body. If you put a needle in that part of the brain, it would project your mind as if you were looking down your body.
Fine, but your eyeballs are still in your head...how can you see down on yourself? I'm not saying I believe all these out of body experiences. I just don't understand the rationalizations. People looking down and SEEING doctors operating on them, and remembering what they did! I'm sure there is a scientific explanation, but I don't know what it is.
You don't see with your eye balls, it is like projection of your mind and senses. Also if you had certain paralysis dreams, you can also experiencing something similar where you watch yourself on the bed. It is a quite interesting phenomenon.
I believe in nature, not necessarily a "God." There's a natural order of observable occurrences in nature. Animals/humans/plants fight for survival in a world where we adapt or die. We (humans) have biological needs and we experience happiness, love, pain, and heartbreak. Where's the connection to a God? Why can't we as humans experiencing feelings occur just because that was the natural progression. Do dogs believe in an omnipotent capital "d" Dog? Why don't we believe in Dog?
Pantheism is also an interesting concept, I'd say.
"Christian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it. It does penance for the sins of others, but it is not broadminded about sin. Real love involves real hatred: whoever has lost the power of moral indignation and the urge to drive the sellers from temples has also lost a living, fervent love of Truth."
- Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen
To circle back, as promised:
I do believe that scripture is important toward establishing rules. However, in my mind, there exists some problems with this method as a central pillar toward establishing theology and the derived rules.
The primary issue is that scriptural interpretation, even of the same scripture, has a long history of diversity of interpretation.
Essentially, this diversity is the story of Christianity, for which we now have thousands of sects.
The problem, from my perspective, lies within the concept of God and his theology residing in the interpretations of the mind of the individual, rather than primarily as an essential part of your definition as a person.
In my view, religious practice should be centered around rituals that reinforce this ontological connection (ie: perhaps Temple worship) rather than scriptural interpretation. While a rulebook can be useful even in light of this type of worship, it would in fact be a rulebook that would not be tangled up with myth and theology that it might adversely affect as it changes.
The human mind has a habit of ever-seeking novelty and invention, and this is a large reason behind scriptural interpretative evolutions.
Another problem is that meaning has been lost through language translations. Once scriptural meaning is diluted or corrupted, the practice of scriptural reliance is questionable.
This would not be a worry in a largely ritual focused tradition whose primary teaching tools were vastly simplified myth that conveys the structure of our relationship with god as well as the true essence of our being.
This is in contrast with the complexity of current scripture that lends itself to endless interpretation that assumes that there is no esoteric meaning that may in actuality be present. A simplified mythological tradition would have minimal esoteric meaning, which often probably devolves into a subjugation tool. Withholding of information that pertains to how society actually functions and functions well, as well as your nature as a person, is all a foundation for a separate priest / elite class that holds the plebs in contempt. A simplified mythological tradition, focused on ritual, with a strong oral tradition might ironically be less subject to corruption.
There are pictures of Catholic bishop garb with the Eye of Horus / "Eye of Prosperity" on it, or otherwise on the furnishings.
Now, the meaning of this Eye is fairly straightforward if you know where to look. It isn't sinister. However, on a Catholic priest this eye is exceedingly esoteric and it serves as an elite symbol that separates the priest/elite class from people. Esoterism seems to exist in mainstream Christianity, and it should not. This esoterism has to be assumed to exist in the scriptures that most of Christianity continues to fervently attempt to interpret.
This is just me spit-balling reasons that are more or less in-line with my scriptural hesitancy. I wholly get the logic of scriptural belief and do recognize that its continued existence is an exceptional feat of humankind, with some caveats toward potential lost meaning. I also recognize its probable use and value as a governing tool, and thus that its continued existence was more or less assured because of its value in that regard. I'd be more interested in what was not preserved, not because I necessarily place high value on it for no reason, but because I would be interested in making comparisons and hypothesis as to why some things were preserved and other scriptures / meanings were not and whether or not the meaning loss adversely affected the religion.
Quote:Quote:
I think you underestimate the importance of scripture in establishing a common set of rules for believers to follow, and the miraculous nature of scripture surviving unbelievable odds to the present day. Keep in mind that all of our history was preserved through Christian monks after the fall of the Roman empire. Our conception of the past is therefore inextricably linked with Christ.
I do believe that scripture is important toward establishing rules. However, in my mind, there exists some problems with this method as a central pillar toward establishing theology and the derived rules.
The primary issue is that scriptural interpretation, even of the same scripture, has a long history of diversity of interpretation.
Essentially, this diversity is the story of Christianity, for which we now have thousands of sects.
The problem, from my perspective, lies within the concept of God and his theology residing in the interpretations of the mind of the individual, rather than primarily as an essential part of your definition as a person.
In my view, religious practice should be centered around rituals that reinforce this ontological connection (ie: perhaps Temple worship) rather than scriptural interpretation. While a rulebook can be useful even in light of this type of worship, it would in fact be a rulebook that would not be tangled up with myth and theology that it might adversely affect as it changes.
The human mind has a habit of ever-seeking novelty and invention, and this is a large reason behind scriptural interpretative evolutions.
Another problem is that meaning has been lost through language translations. Once scriptural meaning is diluted or corrupted, the practice of scriptural reliance is questionable.
This would not be a worry in a largely ritual focused tradition whose primary teaching tools were vastly simplified myth that conveys the structure of our relationship with god as well as the true essence of our being.
This is in contrast with the complexity of current scripture that lends itself to endless interpretation that assumes that there is no esoteric meaning that may in actuality be present. A simplified mythological tradition would have minimal esoteric meaning, which often probably devolves into a subjugation tool. Withholding of information that pertains to how society actually functions and functions well, as well as your nature as a person, is all a foundation for a separate priest / elite class that holds the plebs in contempt. A simplified mythological tradition, focused on ritual, with a strong oral tradition might ironically be less subject to corruption.
There are pictures of Catholic bishop garb with the Eye of Horus / "Eye of Prosperity" on it, or otherwise on the furnishings.
Now, the meaning of this Eye is fairly straightforward if you know where to look. It isn't sinister. However, on a Catholic priest this eye is exceedingly esoteric and it serves as an elite symbol that separates the priest/elite class from people. Esoterism seems to exist in mainstream Christianity, and it should not. This esoterism has to be assumed to exist in the scriptures that most of Christianity continues to fervently attempt to interpret.
This is just me spit-balling reasons that are more or less in-line with my scriptural hesitancy. I wholly get the logic of scriptural belief and do recognize that its continued existence is an exceptional feat of humankind, with some caveats toward potential lost meaning. I also recognize its probable use and value as a governing tool, and thus that its continued existence was more or less assured because of its value in that regard. I'd be more interested in what was not preserved, not because I necessarily place high value on it for no reason, but because I would be interested in making comparisons and hypothesis as to why some things were preserved and other scriptures / meanings were not and whether or not the meaning loss adversely affected the religion.
There is a lot of ambiguous parts of the Bible. However, the core teachings are pretty straightforward. The Sermon on the Mount, and Jesus's two main teachings (Love God and Neighbor) set the tone for the entire book. Even if people disagree about the details, 80% of Jesus's teachings are right there. It's pretty hard to misinterpret anything, but you are totally correct about mistranslations skewing important parts of the Bible. For example, I did a lot of research over the summer about sexual morality within the Bible, and even my findings surprised me.
There's Nothing In The Bible That Prohibits Premarital Sex For Men
There's Nothing In The Bible That Prohibits Premarital Sex For Men
Contributor at Return of Kings. I got banned from twatter, which is run by little bitches and weaklings. You can follow me on Gab.
Be sure to check out the easiest mining program around, FreedomXMR.
Do any of the believers here are willing to delay sex until marriage?
Quote: (01-29-2016 06:16 PM)rpg Wrote:
Quote: (01-29-2016 06:02 PM)harveyspecter Wrote:
Do any of the believers here are willing to delay sex until marriage?
Not anymore.
It is culturally archaic. It will cause far more problems than it will solve. Making sex a big deal, makes sex into a huge pitfall.
Agree.
Quote: (01-29-2016 06:02 PM)harveyspecter Wrote:
Do any of the believers here are willing to delay sex until marriage?
Read that thread I just posted about premarital sex for men. It's not men who need to worry about saving their virginity before marriage, it is women. Our culture is fucked and tons of women think they should act like men though.
Contributor at Return of Kings. I got banned from twatter, which is run by little bitches and weaklings. You can follow me on Gab.
Be sure to check out the easiest mining program around, FreedomXMR.
Quote: (01-27-2016 12:55 AM)Osiris Wrote:
There is no god. The sooner you take that band-aid off, the better.
Humanity will not be free until the last stone of the last church falls on the head of last priest.
Definitely. Christianity is the boot of oppression holding down humanity. I mean look at this picture of Jesus riding into town on palm sunday in North Korea
![[Image: menyear-kimjong_3150841b.jpg]](http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03150/menyear-kimjong_3150841b.jpg)
How about this photo of John the Baptist when he was the leader of Russia?
![[Image: CroppedStalin1943.jpg]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/CroppedStalin1943.jpg)
and here is Paul getting ready to preach a sermon at the Khmer Rouge church
![[Image: POL-POT-006.jpg]](https://static-secure.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/12/10/1386683878775/POL-POT-006.jpg)
All of those darn modern day Christian dictators. Once you get rid of Christians I'm sure mass scale human atrocity will go away too.
Why do the heathen rage and the people imagine a vain thing? Psalm 2:1 KJV
Do I believe in god?
No.
It's not a big deal though.
Live and let live. As long as people won't bother me with their beliefs, I won't bother them with my opinion about them.
No.
It's not a big deal though.
Live and let live. As long as people won't bother me with their beliefs, I won't bother them with my opinion about them.
Quote: (01-28-2016 08:21 PM)rpg Wrote:
There is a pic that has haunted me for a long time. A WW2 pow is blindfolded and about to get beheaded by the Japanese. The GI is on his knees waiting for the blade. A young guy, with a future about to end. No victory, no banging hotties, no getting drunk. What would I do? Make peace with God. Thank Jesus for what ever he tried to do that nobody seems to be able to imitate. Wait for the universe to open its door to the next world. I have nearly died a couple of times. No fear, just a race to escape the irreversible. It will happen sooner or later. Im ready.
God damn, that is a great fucking post.
Quote: (01-29-2016 06:02 PM)harveyspecter Wrote:
Do any of the believers here are willing to delay sex until marriage?
Arguably not even Jesus or Paul command that to take place.
Jesus is asked in Matthew 19 whether it is ever lawful to divorce your wife; Jesus says any man who divorces his wife for anything but immorality and marries another woman commits adultery. The disciples then say "If that's right, it's probably better not to marry."* Jesus then warns them that not everybody can accept this teaching (though it's not clear whether he was referring to the marriage part or the non-marriage part) but goes on to say some people are made eunuchs from birth, some make themselves so for God's sake, and therefore let him accept this teaching who can.
And let's remember this is the guy who stands down a Taliban-esque stoning mob for the sake of a woman who's committed adultery, albeit he does say to her: Go and sin no more.
Paul in one of his letters basically says it's better for a man to marry than to burn with lust, and that's about it.
I take as implied from that a startling piece of humanity from these two. Neither of them condemn premarital sex explicitly. They both understand men are driven in large part by their dicks, so they only ask lifelong virginity from men who can honestly do it. Everyone else they encourage to find a good wife and marry her, but I'd say a guy who got caught fucking minus a wedding ring would have been dealt with by Jesus similarly to the adultress: neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.
* In passing, this is why the Catholic Church has the concept of annulment as opposed to divorce. If it holds that no valid marriage ever took place -- which is what an annulment decrees -- then a formerly married person is free to marry once more, since in the eyes of the Church no first marriage ever occurred.
Remissas, discite, vivet.
God save us from people who mean well. -storm
Oh, the bible pretty clear says πορνεια/immoral sexual relations including premarital sex is a sin (1 Corinthian 6:9,18).
1 Corinthian 7:9 :"8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."
So the bible doesn't condone immoral sexual relations.
1 Corinthian 7:9 :"8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."
So the bible doesn't condone immoral sexual relations.
It doesn't condone them, but neither does it condemn them as such. As I said: Paul writes in one of his letters -- the one you're quoting, to the Corinthians -- that it's better for a man to marry than to burn with lust, i.e. passion. And notice Paul doesn't say "must" marry. My point is that Jesus at least was human about it: he understood men are driven by their natures. It's Paul who brings on the thrashing language.
Remissas, discite, vivet.
God save us from people who mean well. -storm
Quote: (01-29-2016 08:26 PM)avantgarde Wrote:
Oh, the bible pretty clear says πορνεια/immoral sexual relations including premarital sex is a sin (1 Corinthian 6:9,18).
1 Corinthian 7:9 :"8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."
So the bible doesn't condone immoral sexual relations.
The bible may say it, but I don't believe it, or adhere to it.
Samseau, although porneia is derived from the word prostitute, it means more than whoredom and includes adultery, premartial sex in christianity. Yes formication from fornix the arch where whores gathered.
Quote:Quote:Should in that case meant if you didn't marry and had sex, then you committed an immoral sexual thing. Yes, they understood human desires, that is why they said they should marry.
It doesn't condone them, but neither does it condemn them as such. As I said: Paul writes in one of his letters -- the one you're quoting, to the Corinthians -- that it's better for a man to marry than to burn with lust, i.e. passion. And notice Paul doesn't say "must" marry. My point is that Jesus at least was human about it: he understood men are driven by their natures. It's Paul who brings on the thrashing language.
PM
Premarital sex can definitely be very destructive to eachother and to society. I think that is the point.
the way some guys on here chase casual sex, they would be billionaires if they put even half that effort into a productive purpose.
the way some guys on here chase casual sex, they would be billionaires if they put even half that effort into a productive purpose.
Lol true, it can waste time, even deb said he wouldve made more money if he spent less on chasing tails.
A woman has NEVER been impressed by a virgin dick. Ever. She might put up with it but a woman always wants what other women want. She goes nuts when other women want her man and loathes him when nobody does. Funny shit!
If God existed why doesnt he just show himself to the people? Why is he hiding?
Don't debate me.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)