Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge > Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-30-2011, 10:30 AM   #141 (permalink)
Passerby
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Void
Posts: 299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Il Duce View Post
most Biblical scholars interpret that "why hast Thou forsaken me?" question as the point where Jesus has already taken all of mankind's sin upon himself, and thus he was dirty, dirty, dirty and even God will not touch him

of course God directed them to slay their enemies, the Bible would be different if Belial, Beelzebub or Lucifer's tribe were the victors
Well that just blows a bullet hole right through John 3:16. And, that was the whole plan remember? Most 'biblical scholars' are apologists. Why are they so 'apologetic'?

Why don't they just come out and say "I'm sorry, I have no idea what the hell I'm talking about"?

My God, my God, why, O Lord, have you forsaken me? It was on the cross that he said these words, for it was there he was divided.

Every reference to God He made was in third person, save one.

Mark well the name 'Barabbas'.

Mark 14:36
"Abba, Father," he said, "everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will."

The only time Jesus ever remotely referred to His Father by any name. Abba, which means “the father,” or “O Father.” Jesus did speak Aramaic.

The name Barabbas is a Hellenization of the Aramaic Bar Abba, literally, "Son of the Father".

He did not say, "Abba, Father why hast thou forsaken me"?

"Elohi, Elohi".

Ducie.....tell all those 'scholars' that they might want to learn their Elohi(m) from their Yahu, and their LORD God from their Lord GOD, and their LORD thy God, and their Lord, from their LORD, and their LORD of hosts......etc.

And, their 'hawah' from their 'hawwah'.

And, tell them we can all have a 'come to Jesus' meeting. Leave the wine skins at home, because, they are all full of s*it

If you cling to an idea as the unalterable Truth, then when the Truth does come in person and knock at your door, you will not be able to open the door and accept it.

I won't start on Lucifer, because I would be forced to name drop. And, I don't want that attention. I am an Eden, so, I have to know don't I?

I am sorry, however, for all the good religious folks out here being misled by all the buffoonery.

But, it is written many times to "pick up your OWN cross, and follow after me, and CONTINUE in MY Word".

It is typically interpreted to mean,

"I'll do all the dirty work, and, you all can ignore me, and worship Me like the devil; but, pay attention to Paul, and Simon Peter. You know, the 'rock' that denied three times even knowing my a*s."

I'm ready to rant, so, I will digress. Finish with a hymn.



peace dude
__________________
The passing traveler stops for food and music.
blankety blank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2011, 07:04 PM   #142 (permalink)
Live by the Sword
 
Howard the Duck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Posts: 9,039
Default

^^i tend to disregard most strawman arguments myself
__________________


Malaise is THE dominant human predilection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Virgin View Post
what? i don't understand you. farming is for vegetables, not for meat. if ou disagree with a farming practice, you disagree on a vegetable. unless you have a different definition of farming.
Howard the Duck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2011, 07:10 PM   #143 (permalink)
( ̄ー ̄)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,258
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SIRIUSB View Post
History is always written by the victors!
Can someone explain this saying to me? It has never made sense. Perhaps I'm taking it too literally, but whether you win or lose has no bearing on objective historical facts and events.
RVCA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2011, 07:18 PM   #144 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 526
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RVCA View Post
Can someone explain this saying to me? It has never made sense. Perhaps I'm taking it too literally, but whether you win or lose has no bearing on objective historical facts and events.
It means that people who are successful are the ones who hold the power for what is recorded in history. Technically it should say "Recorded history is written by the victors" or something like that.
Odyshape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2011, 07:23 PM   #145 (permalink)
Live by the Sword
 
Howard the Duck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Posts: 9,039
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RVCA View Post
Can someone explain this saying to me? It has never made sense. Perhaps I'm taking it too literally, but whether you win or lose has no bearing on objective historical facts and events.
of the tribes in Israel, Yahweh's tribe were the strongest and defeated the others

what their prophets and leaders have wrote down, is now taken as literal fact by most Protestant strawmen

imagine if some other tribe worshipping some other deity were the victors

values and morals would be different

edit:- and steveeden, in case you're not aware, I'm a Gnostic Christian
__________________


Malaise is THE dominant human predilection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Virgin View Post
what? i don't understand you. farming is for vegetables, not for meat. if ou disagree with a farming practice, you disagree on a vegetable. unless you have a different definition of farming.

Last edited by Howard the Duck; 11-30-2011 at 07:29 PM.
Howard the Duck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2011, 07:23 PM   #146 (permalink)
( ̄ー ̄)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,258
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Odyshape View Post
It means that people who are successful are the ones who hold the power for what is recorded in history. Technically it should say "Recorded history is written by the victors" or something like that.
That's what I thought, but that doesn't make sense either. Even though Germany lost World War II, there is still an objective series of events that make up the history of WWII, and this series of events was not recorded solely by the Allies. I mean, I'm sure that learning about WWII as an American entails a certain amount of inherent bias, just as learning about WWII as a German entails a certain amount of inherent bias. But despite any bias, recorded history is written by everyone.
RVCA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2011, 07:27 PM   #147 (permalink)
( ̄ー ̄)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,258
Default

I guess the saying should be "The version of history that you read may be obfuscated with bias, depending on the historical position of the author."

Which is like... duh.
RVCA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2011, 08:40 PM   #148 (permalink)
Passerby
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Void
Posts: 299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Il Duce View Post
^^i tend to disregard most strawman arguments myself
Trust me. He was not a strawman. Unless, you are referring to my argument as being weak. I don't think so, but, you never know. There's a whole lot more to this story than meets the eye.

I am just touching the surface on the canonical account. Christian beliefs in an actual human sacrifice offered up by their God in order to be a fall guy, so they don't have to be responsible for their own actions.

It goes way deeper than this.

It is the greatest story ever sold, I mean told

So, please don't disregard it. Argue it please?

I have even touched on the various birds, bees, flowers, and the tree symbolism. It's a great story.

But, if you must disregard it, please at least delve a little deeper as to why?

Because, as numbers go, we are only at 444, and 666 is much more entertaining, unless one actually believes it is more than a simple story, and actually believes in the 'one shot at life, screw it up, and off to hell for eternity you go' business. Many do.

Jesus said, "Whoever drinks from my mouth will become like me; I myself shall become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed to him."

And Simeon blessed them and said to Mary His mother, "Behold, this Child is appointed for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and for a sign to be opposed--

Become better than I; make yourselves like the son of the Holy Spirit. (Secret Book of James)

I am not certain what you meant by 'strawman', so please elaborate.





Peace
__________________
The passing traveler stops for food and music.
blankety blank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2011, 08:51 PM   #149 (permalink)
eeXCX
 
Goofle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Miami is the place
Posts: 11,385
Default



I think Jesus could easily have been a real man, obviously not a miracle worker, but someone who gave a lot for others. His mythology may have spread too much, created an aura that did not please those in power, and was crucified to "SHOW WHO IS BOSS!".

__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chula Vista View Post
[youtube]NUmCWGPgU7g[/url]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chula Vista View Post
[youtube]=LtYg1xz1A00[/youbube]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mindfulness View Post
2. What was the strangest/best/worst party you ever went to?
Prolly a party I had with some people I know
Goofle is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2011, 08:53 PM   #150 (permalink)
Al Dente
 
SATCHMO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,689
Default

^^^ Just so we're clear that you understand:

Straw man argument:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position, twisting his words or by means of [false] assumptions.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2] Generally, the straw man is a highly exaggerated[citation needed] or over-simplified version of the opponent's original statement, which has been distorted to the point of absurdity. This exaggerated or distorted statement is thus easily argued against, but is a misrepresentation of the opponent's actual statement.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord
And if you're getting bored then feel free to go give Eddie Vedder a handjob.
SATCHMO is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2019 Advameg, Inc.

SEO by vBSEO 3.5.2 ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.