Oh yeah...the Jesus thing. Sweet suffering seventh circle of hell that is confusing. Do they have independent sapience, were they the same being since Jesus was born, ITS ALL CONFUSING!
Thought experiment
- Thread starter Silent Bob
- Start date
- Status
Doesn't everybody in Mormonism get a planet? Not that special than really. Also what a guy do with a whole planet to himself? It just seems boring.
Or am I thinking of something else?
Or am I thinking of something else?
Really? Enlighten us if you please.
All I know about Mormonism is that they have a musical that I really want to see. That and their founder is an ex-con.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolob
excerpt, spoilered for length
As for God having a physical form,
source: http://www.irr.org/mit/finessing-god-once-a-man.htmlJoseph Smith said:
Why do I get the feeling this is just Joseph Smith's bad sci-fi novel, and in the final edit put Jesus stuff in? Also I know the budget was probably small, but they could've AT LEAST gave the demons cooler designs.
Can't tell if you're intentionally mocking Scientology here or not. If so, great deadpan. If not... ouch.
I've experiment with deadpan every now and again.
On Scientology, the alien souls thing I've always thought was pretty cool science FICTION. No need to be making religions based on sci-fi. Taking science fiction too seriously is what made that guy go crazy in "Breakfast of Champions." Damn that book is good.
On Scientology, the alien souls thing I've always thought was pretty cool science FICTION. No need to be making religions based on sci-fi. Taking science fiction too seriously is what made that guy go crazy in "Breakfast of Champions." Damn that book is good.
I have no idea about this, but I think this sentence
might be relevant.
It's basically the same as bringing up Leviticus and his prohibitions against shellfish and tattoos: It's a legitimate point mainly because the Church hasn't bothered to say anything about it. If they did, no one would bring it up or at least they'd be shut the fuck up when they are pointed to the church's current stance on it.
What are you talking about? What "stance" would you like the "church" to take? Leviticus is one of the 5 books of the Jewish Torah. It is the primary source of Jewish Law. It deals with major theological issues of holiness and atoning for sin but it is also, especially when viewed in it's context, ancient cultural law for an ancient people. In Christianity it's part of what we consider the "historical" books and while it doesn't form the basis for any "law" that Christians are under, since Christ came to fulfill the law. It's still revered as something important to the Jewish people who form Christianity's spiritual heritage but not relevant to Christians today in the sense that it should be followed. It's history.
Seriously, most of these "gotcha" things you guys come up with that you think are so clever are things that even a basic Christian theology class would go over.
The only part of Leviticus some Christians like to quote today is the part where it says it's important to kill gay people. Ignoring that it's also important to kill people with tattoos and men and women who cheat on their spouses (amongst a variety of other subjects it's important to kill people over).
... So why aren't they saying that instead of just ignoring it? Simply coming out and saying "That doesn't apply to Christians, because the law has been fulfilled by Christ's arrival" would basically be enough for me to ignore it. It's a silly answer, but at least it's one that makes sense in the context of the story. Needs of the plot and all.
Then again, I'm already sick of explaining to people what existentialism and agnosticism are and how they are different than atheism, so it's probably like that. My family STILL doesn't get it and treat me like a godless heathen at times.
Then again, I'm already sick of explaining to people what existentialism and agnosticism are and how they are different than atheism, so it's probably like that. My family STILL doesn't get it and treat me like a godless heathen at times.
If there is a holy being in the sky, I am pretty sure he doesn't give 3 shits about being gay or having tattoos. I'd think he'd be too busy appearing in tacos or whatever.
Remember that? When random people in the news would just see Jesus in stuff? What happened to that? I miss the craziness of it.
Remember that? When random people in the news would just see Jesus in stuff? What happened to that? I miss the craziness of it.
..............wow. I am not sure if that is stupid or awesome. So I'll just say its stupid awesome.
Who is "they"? You do realize there are over 2.2 BILLION people, thats a third of the population of the planet. Keeping in mind there are so many denominations and varieties of churches that trying to lump "christians" in as one big groups who all have come to the same consensus on theology is like trying to herd cats.
Most churches/denominations have the same basic tenants but you will find a wide variety of views on about 95% of everything else.
Now, the part that you and I really do agree on in general here is that most Christians DO ignore the Old Testament. They are terrified of it. They have no idea how to make sense of everything because far to many churches and pastors are terrified of it so the shitty teaching they have gets handed down to their congregations and even that isn't very much. The root of the problem is that the "church" in general doesn't do a good job of dealing with the OT for a very wide variety of reasons. There is a revival of sorts right now, of people trying to bring a reasonable and scholarly view of the OT back into the church. Thats how I taught it when I was an adjunct at a Christian College.
I wasn't invited back the next semester and the other professors associate with me were fired. We were to "liberal" apparently for the financial backers.
What they meant by "liberal" of course was, scholarly.
Well, you might think it's silly, but to anyone who studies it it's fascinating to watch cultures change and grow, get destroyed, get reformed, deal with the issues they face, etc. The sacrifice of Christ served to cover ALL the law, so no more sacrifices were necessary. No longer were people having to live under condemnation of their sins, Christ was literally dying in their place and paying the price for them. Hardly silly.
Probably. People love to talk/debate about religion, particularly Christianity, few really know much about it just like most major religions or faiths.
See, the thing is that I DID have a few years of catholic theology classes. The problem is that they really don't bother to teach you much about the old testament outside of a few approved stories, mostly because they have no way to reconcile half of what is happening with modern sensibilities. Your approach to teach it from a historical perspective probably was the right idea, but that would mean exposing people to it... and offended people rarely step into churches.
I'm with you, like I said above, that is where we 100% agree. Far to much of the church, including catholic and protestant branches don't know how to teach on the OT so they ignore most of it.
My approach wasn't necessarily historical, although that was one part of it, it was mainly focused on using current scholarly thought. Which means really looking at genre, history and culture rather than cherry picking out what fits safely on a flannel graph
My approach wasn't necessarily historical, although that was one part of it, it was mainly focused on using current scholarly thought. Which means really looking at genre, history and culture rather than cherry picking out what fits safely on a flannel graph
I remember reading a weird old testament rule about sacrificing goats. What is the deal and old religions and sacrificing goats? I don't know why they'd kill a goat for no reason, goat meat is gooooooooooood. Did god really only forgive sin if you waster perfectly good live-stock? If so than god has very wasteful tastes and I do not care for him.
Actually when animal sacrifices were made in the temple, only the fat had to be sacrificed. People could eat the rest. Really the sacrifice was that the meat ha to be boiled instead of cooked in a tastier way (yes there is a case in the bible of priests getting in trouble for bbqing the meat instead of boiling it).
Getting rid of the delicious animal fat....not as bad as just throwing away the goat but still something I find questionable. Did they have to get rid of the fat all the time, or was this just for specific occasions?
Didn't it have value to them? Or was all animal fat and barbecue just a sin to them then? I am confused now.
He's saying it wouldn't have been a sacrifice if it didn't have value. I.e: it was not a waste, it was a sacrifice. You don't seem to appreciate that these people didn't see it as 'not using delicious fat', they believed in God, and saw it as giving up this good thing so that they could show they're appreciation and faith to that God.
You mean when the emperor sat down the different churches and had them produce one set of scriptures and cull the books that where considered blasphemous?
Keep in mind I originally thought this animal sacrifice meant getting rid of the whole animal and THAT was what I one hundred percent disagreed with. Getting rid of the fat I don't necessarily abhor I just personally find it questionable because I was raised not to waste anything as long as it is edible. That's just me mind you. I do admit to respecting them for not doing something even though they liked it.
For Starters.
If the Bible is supposed to be an enduring record of the covenant with God, how is it that man has been able to cherry pick what is meaningful and what is not?
Also, is God such an asshole that all the people who believed other religions before his came into prominence (christianity is a relatively modern religion) are all going to hell simply because he couldn't be bothered to make his presence known?
If the Bible is supposed to be an enduring record of the covenant with God, how is it that man has been able to cherry pick what is meaningful and what is not?
Also, is God such an asshole that all the people who believed other religions before his came into prominence (christianity is a relatively modern religion) are all going to hell simply because he couldn't be bothered to make his presence known?
The bible was not formed until the Council of Hippo in N.Africa. Until then each individual church wrote its own Gospel of the Founding Apostle/Disciple (at least 100 years after the events listed.) Some of those gospels became wildly different than what the larger churches had in their gospels.
On the topic of hell, what's up with the whole dying for the sins of man-kind blurb? Does that mean that everybody is forgiven and nobody has to worry about being good as long as they're Christian? Or do we still have to follow the rules? If so, than Jesus didn't really die for anyone's sins since numerous people feel the need to live virtuous lives which doesn't make sense since Jesus all-ready died for our sins. Or was it just a metaphorical dying for our sins and we still have to be virtuous? I really REALLY find this confusing.
- Status