Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge
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 10-08-2005, 01:03 PM   #661 (permalink)
green day hater
 
deadkennediespunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: nh aka no where
Posts: 111
Default

i dont like religon it is oppresive
__________________
Gun---shot--->Brain---->Sploosh
deadkennediespunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2005, 05:07 PM   #662 (permalink)
Whitewater!
 
Merkaba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 2,885
Default

Beautifully analysed
__________________
She thinks I'm a reclusive genius, she's going to be very disappointed when she finds out i'm a reclusive wanker
Merkaba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2005, 07:12 PM   #663 (permalink)
killedmyraindog
 
TheBig3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 9,252
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merkaba
If I wanted a fight I would have sunk a little lower and sworn at you

A debate at the most maybe. No but seriously, you state there would be less dickheads if we all followed. Correct?

Next, you state you dislike those who use religion to act superior to others in society. Correct?

What I gather from that is irony. You're religous aren't you? So as a follower you are saying, from what you have experienced, that there would be less pricks if they followed what you follow. But in saying that are you not acting socially superior yourself? Which is what you hate.

Please tell me why I am wrong, or which part I have misinterpreted.
I should go back and read what I wrote, but I don't do it for class, im not doing it here, and im super ****ing lazy.

I didn't say if everyone follow christianity, I said if people follow the general chirstian path (and by christian, I mean how jesus lived).

Let me state that I hate the WWJD bracelets, if you need a braclet to remind you how to act, go live in the woods. But if you follow the general positions

No fighting (physically)
Treat others as you wish to be treated.
Don't steal, don't sleep with other peoples wives.

I think those are pretty easy to follow. The only time people risk breaking the rules is when emotion overthrows logic and they are opperating on Id impulse rather than superego.

Also, to appear socially superior, I didn't mean that people demanded people follow the rules (thought it could be seen that way, but I don't agree necesserily) I sort of meant, those who use it as part of a group of reasons their better than you. The waspy (though that still applied to the catholics, but here in america, catholics are considered for the most part stupid low class people) folk who sit up front and count who goes to church and how many times.

They force their kids to complete the sacraments, and all to keep on the up and up. They say "some people go to church just in case" and those people are there for the social propellment.

If that wasn't what I wrote then I was clearly all hopped up on Nyquil, and meant to say this.

Enjoy
TheBig3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2005, 07:14 PM   #664 (permalink)
killedmyraindog
 
TheBig3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 9,252
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merkaba
Beautifully analysed
To be fair, he's not exactly wrong. religeon is in most practical applications, oppressive.

And he didn't say anything ignorant since it was procedded by (what I recall to be) "I don't like it because"

Perhaps because wasn't there,but its not adding anything anyway.

And why should have have to analyse, its what he thinks, if you want him to explain ask.
TheBig3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2005, 08:56 PM   #665 (permalink)
Whitewater!
 
Merkaba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 2,885
Default

Oh darn, I was playing on the whole conventional wisdom theory
__________________
She thinks I'm a reclusive genius, she's going to be very disappointed when she finds out i'm a reclusive wanker
Merkaba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2005, 03:31 PM   #666 (permalink)
Me llamo Marijan
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Kuala Lumpur
Posts: 6,983
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog
though that still applied to the catholics, but here in america, catholics are considered for the most part stupid low class people
explain yourself (before i attack you for no reason)!
adidasss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2005, 09:34 PM   #667 (permalink)
jr.
Seeker of Peace
 
jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Newark, De.
Posts: 341
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog
catholics are considered for the most part stupid low class people
Enjoy


By whom? Are you speaking for anyone besides yourself? Is there a direct correlation between one's intelligence and income and their religious preference, or is this simply your opinion? And if so, what is your basis for this?
__________________
Be strong then, and enter into your own body;
there you have a solid place for your feet. ~ Kabir
jr. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2005, 09:45 PM   #668 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
From Cosmic Left Feild...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Canadia
Posts: 65
Default

I believe
From Cosmic Left Feild... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2005, 10:14 PM   #669 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
covle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: melbourne australia
Posts: 334
Default

[QUOTE=adidasss]

FINALLY! thankyou, this is what i was after as a response.
constantine combined the two dominant religions of his time, and is largely respected by historians for this. he was babtised against his wish on his deathbed, believing that would attain for all his sins.
as for a historical jesus, i believed that there was historical evidence also. apparently not. the romans reported everything they did. everything is documented, especially the enforcing of the law. you would think that messiah being judged and crucified would be somewhere? but it is not. there is nothing anywhere in roman documents from that time or before it about a man called jesus. he is m entioned, briefly i believe in the late 2nd century as the leader of the "mischieveous christians". if you can find something, please send it to me, as i have looked for a few months and can find nothing.
the 25th of december and 6 of jan(which early christians also celebrated) were pagan festivals, celebrated in egypt for centuries.
i went to christian schools for 13 years, im aware of the new testament. AND its hypocrassies. over half of them have been proven forged. if youw ere aware of the rediculously large amountof similarities, you wouldn't refer to them as "insignificant".
there were actually hundreds of christian gospels. but the four of the new testament are said to be eye witness accounts. but they agree on very little.
in matthew and david they both go to great length to show jesus is of the line of david, as the messiah should. both see jesus as fathered by joseph, but the lines of heritage are extremely different after the first generation. david continues all the way to adam, and thus to god. but this is fairly ridiculous as both claim joseph is not jesus' father at all, and mary is a virgin concieved of the holy spirit. this contradiction must have been noticed by the original writers? mark, however, doesnt mention bethlehem, the virgin birth, or jesus' lineage. these are fairly important points arent they? why omit them? some are even humorous. luke states that jesus was born in 6CE at the time of the census of Quirinious. then he contradicts himself saying john (the baptist) and jesus were concieved six month apart during the reign of Herod who died in 4 BC, which means he has created another miracle-a ten year pregnancy. even the events of jesus's crucifixionare not uniformly accounted in the gospels, and the historicity of jesus is what the literalist church is built upon! paul even states that jesus was not crucified but "hanged on a gibbet" and peter in the acts of the apostles "hung on a tree". the same indecisiveness is recorded about judas iscariot and even jesus' last words. even jesus himself isnt consistent in the gospels. in matthew peter asks his master "lord, how many times shall my brother wrong me and i forgive him? up to seven times?" jesus replies "im not telling you up to seven times, im telling you up to seventy seven times!"(18v22) and yet, why peter had to ask is uncertain, one paragraph earlier jesus stated:
"if your brother wrongs you, go have it out with him, just you and him. if he listens, you've gained your brother back. if he doesnt listen, bring one or two along with you, so that everything said stands on the word of two or three wtinesses. if he wont listen to them, speak up at a meeting. if he wont listen to the assembly, let him be the same to you as the foreigner and the tax-collector."(18v15-17). the gospels are inconsistent, and to early christians were 'phrase one' of christianity. thus pauls claim of reaching the "third tier of heaven" makes sense. and though the teaachings are as you say wonderful and beautiful, they are in no means original
__________________
LIVE.LOVE.BURN.DIE.

whoa...i quoted atreyu, that means im hardcore. look how hardcore i am!! thats hardcore...XXX
covle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2005, 06:28 AM   #670 (permalink)
Me llamo Marijan
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Kuala Lumpur
Posts: 6,983
Default

[QUOTE=covle]
Quote:
Originally Posted by adidasss

FINALLY! thankyou, this is what i was after as a response.
constantine combined the two dominant religions of his time, and is largely respected by historians for this. he was babtised against his wish on his deathbed, believing that would attain for all his sins.
as for a historical jesus, i believed that there was historical evidence also. apparently not. the romans reported everything they did. everything is documented, especially the enforcing of the law. you would think that messiah being judged and crucified would be somewhere? but it is not. there is nothing anywhere in roman documents from that time or before it about a man called jesus. he is m entioned, briefly i believe in the late 2nd century as the leader of the "mischieveous christians". if you can find something, please send it to me, as i have looked for a few months and can find nothing.
the 25th of december and 6 of jan(which early christians also celebrated) were pagan festivals, celebrated in egypt for centuries.
i went to christian schools for 13 years, im aware of the new testament. AND its hypocrassies. over half of them have been proven forged. if youw ere aware of the rediculously large amountof similarities, you wouldn't refer to them as "insignificant".
there were actually hundreds of christian gospels. but the four of the new testament are said to be eye witness accounts. but they agree on very little.
in matthew and david they both go to great length to show jesus is of the line of david, as the messiah should. both see jesus as fathered by joseph, but the lines of heritage are extremely different after the first generation. david continues all the way to adam, and thus to god. but this is fairly ridiculous as both claim joseph is not jesus' father at all, and mary is a virgin concieved of the holy spirit. this contradiction must have been noticed by the original writers? mark, however, doesnt mention bethlehem, the virgin birth, or jesus' lineage. these are fairly important points arent they? why omit them? some are even humorous. luke states that jesus was born in 6CE at the time of the census of Quirinious. then he contradicts himself saying john (the baptist) and jesus were concieved six month apart during the reign of Herod who died in 4 BC, which means he has created another miracle-a ten year pregnancy. even the events of jesus's crucifixionare not uniformly accounted in the gospels, and the historicity of jesus is what the literalist church is built upon! paul even states that jesus was not crucified but "hanged on a gibbet" and peter in the acts of the apostles "hung on a tree". the same indecisiveness is recorded about judas iscariot and even jesus' last words. even jesus himself isnt consistent in the gospels. in matthew peter asks his master "lord, how many times shall my brother wrong me and i forgive him? up to seven times?" jesus replies "im not telling you up to seven times, im telling you up to seventy seven times!"(18v22) and yet, why peter had to ask is uncertain, one paragraph earlier jesus stated:
"if your brother wrongs you, go have it out with him, just you and him. if he listens, you've gained your brother back. if he doesnt listen, bring one or two along with you, so that everything said stands on the word of two or three wtinesses. if he wont listen to them, speak up at a meeting. if he wont listen to the assembly, let him be the same to you as the foreigner and the tax-collector."(18v15-17). the gospels are inconsistent, and to early christians were 'phrase one' of christianity. thus pauls claim of reaching the "third tier of heaven" makes sense. and though the teaachings are as you say wonderful and beautiful, they are in no means original
all the mistakes you have mentioned are man made errors, the new testament was written by men, extraordinary men, but men non the less, and as my priest has explained to me, their gospels were written out of memory, i'm sure they did their best to record the events as truthfully as possible but can you do that? write down all those pages about houndreds of events that took place during some 3 years ( if i'm not mistaken )maybe even more? i think not....that being said, i was completely unaware of their inconsitencies as far as the way Jesus died, if that is true, that is indeed a humongous mistake to make, one that has nothing to do with faulty mamories, his death should have been pretty clear to all of them,so i will have to do some research about that
as far as Jesus being a direct descendant of David i always thought that was unneccessary , if he is a Son of God and Mary's conception was immaculate, that's all i need, but i think they were trying to connect it to David so as to prove a point to the Jews and their prophecies, to me, it doesn't matter and clearly has nothing to do with Jesus being God..
as far as constantine, i still don't see what he had to do with the invention of christian religion, he may have combined some pagan rituals or ceremonies with the christian religion, but the religion itself was unaffected by him, so you'll have to do better than just saying it to make me believe it....
adidasss is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2019 Advameg, Inc.