Ask a Catholic
Offline Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
This thread is for anyone here to ask me any question about the Catholic Faith they wish to ask. Questions about the Catholic faith can be about anything from Catholic history, teachings, and/or the Bible. I only have a few rules/guidelines.
1. Serious questions please. Please refrain from odd or insulting questions.
2. Questions about the Church sex scandal are fine but please see guideline 3.
3. Please keep it civil and polite, i.e. please do not refer to the Pope as the fuhrer, a pedophile, kiddy fiddler, and etc. This also applies to the clergy in general.
4. Stay on topic. Obviously I’ll do this myself too.
5. Please refrain from insulting me, i.e. “Why don’t you jump off a cliff” or “do yourself a favor and kill yourself”, and etc. The screen name refers to Cliffjumper the heroic Autobot from the Transformers series and toy line. Great show, movies, and toys by the way 
I will try my best to be prompt and as detailed as possible. I am working on my thesis. So I may be busy sometimes. Also I will try to answer each person’s question in the order in which I see them.
Thank you.People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
- Login to post comments
No, not thin skinned at all. I just asked politely at the beginning of this thread for respect and polite conversation. I have been polite to you (specifically and generally). It would be nice to at least return the favor in kind.
If you want to discuss the Inquisitions I am more then happy to do so with historical facts. However it is off topic. Pick one topic or the other please. Also again please refrain from insults back handed or otherwise. Perhaps I misunderstood your comparision of me to a racist white supremist. If I did I apologize. However, again in the future please refrain from off topic and insulting posts.
And yet God antcipated this by giving us His Catholic Church (Magisterium), perfect and the same yesterday today and forever. He also continues to give us His presence perpeutally at every Adoration Chapel around the world. Not to mention the Sacraments, all the miraclous signs, i.e. Guadalupe and Lanciano, healings, and of course your God given intellect.
Again today we have intellect, modern miracles, and the perfect Catholic Church. If you would like to witness a miracle attend your local Parish mass and watch the bread and wine transform into Jesus' body and blood. If you don't want to wait for 30 minutes then by all means walk into see Him at any Adoration Chapel. If that does not work for you go see/read about Lourdes, Guadalupe, Lanciano, and etc.
If I see inaccurate/fallacious points I will point them out.
Did you read my whole answer? If you did you would know God tried other ways before the miraculous sign.
God supernaturally intervenes now. His Church, the Eucharist, Eucharistic miracles, miraculous signs like Guadalupe. Not only that but again we have our intellect. What you have today is the same as in the past and in the future, people chosing sin, misery, ignorance, and death as opposed to perfection, joy, knowledge, and life. Put simply we sin nothing new here.
Prayers of petition which you are refering to are not putting God to the test. Asking is not pridefully demanding. God tells us to ask Him for what we need and want. Putting God to the test requires hubris, the inherent idea that you know better then God and thus know exactly what, how, and when, He should perform for you.
Going back to my child parent comparison. If a child says politely, "Daddy will you get me a Transformer?" this is asking not demanding or testing. If the child said, "Martin you have money! Buy me a Transformer! You know I want it now! Gimme! Gimme! Gimme!" this is testing, demanding, and prideful.
See: hubris
Again we have the Perfect Catholic Church, many modern miracles, and our intellect. The argument, "God needs to perfrom for me to prove His existence." is not a cogent argument for the existence of God.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
They should be good Christians.
That's not likely to happen--however, if you noticed you are merely asking them to abide by the rules of the site.
I was a Catholic until I joined the USMC in 58. The movie "Full Metal Jacket was my summer of 1958. I was brought up until the age of 13-1/2 at the St Cloud MN Childrens home (google it). I was an Alter boy and at 13 was at that time considered an elder amoung ther other kids just as all kids that age back then were considered fairly well grown up.
Today- I cannot see where any religion on the planet is correct--and I also say--not biblically correct.
A question-- Why do you consider the Pope correct. Before you answer that, go to this site. https:// sites.google.com /site/ oldseers (close the spaces) The crux of the matter is---if the Pope (or any other religion claiming to be Christain) dosen't have page one of the bible correct he's got very little else correct. Please understand, I am not intending to be of negative intent by any measure.
The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.
https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers
Knowledge trumps faith and I'm not a Theist
Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth
It's funny because your quote fully epitomises religious hubris. Dictionary.com [ hubris, noun: excessive pride or self-confidence; arrogance. ]
To paraphrase..."What nerve you atheist !!! How dare you question the "perfect"Church, how dare you question God's existence !!! ? God doesn't perform tricks !!!
I love irony, don't you ?
Well I'm tired of waiting for a response so I'll nitpick at other statements while I wait.
The catholic church is not perfect. Unless you support child molestation and those who would protect molesters from justice.
Also, the catholic church is not the same today as it was a hundred years ago, and it will not be the same in a hundred years as it is today. The most simplistic research would show you as much.
The bread and wine remain bread and wine. There's no miracle in that. You're the first person I've ever encountered who claims it changes into flesh and blood. Well I'm sorry if you take offense to this fact, but it doesn't change into flesh and blood. Never has, never will. If it did, then it would qualify as evidence your god exists. Which would be huge, since there isn't any such evidence.
Just fairy tales. No miracles have ever been proven. Most are obvious fakes or old wives tales.
Thank evolution for that. Literally.
Actually it is, for your god at least. Without proof of his existence, one cannot believe he exists, and therefore cannot have faith in him. For some people proof enough is found in having been told he exists. For others, a hallucination or unexplainable coincidence will suffice. But some of us need real evidence. Something that doesn't come from other people or fluke scenarios or crossed wiring in the brain. It doesn't have to profit anyone or hurt anyone, it just has to prove he's actually out there.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Bullshit.. Antibiotics work independant of belief in them (or even knowledge of taking them). My dog took them to prevent infection in his recently operated on scrotum (normal operation for male dogs) to prevent infection. They work. If you had strep throat, the drugs you take have been proven to work in trials at a better rate than placebos.
Why is belief mandatory for a cure? In Luke 22:51, I assume those who came with the high priests wouldn't have come if they did believe. Regardless, Jesus was able to heal the dude's ear. This implies that belief is not mandatory for healing. The verse we were discussing in Matthew, upon checking every version on bible gateway I understand (46 in English, 3 in Polish, yes I checked them all!) and one extra Polish one (that I wouldn't add until I read that it is the most common translation used, "Biblia Tysiaclecia"
, I found that 78% of English translations didn't imply what you said it implied, nor did 50% of Polish versions. According to the new testament, belief is only sometimes mandatory in order to be cured. Incoherent, as the bible usually is.
And this theme of faith and works is contradicted, as shown above.
I'll get to that in a bit. You brought up extra-biblical sources for your belief which I will discuss shortly, after I cover the biblical. The King James, and New International translations in English (and the Biblia Tysiaclecia in Polish, the 3 Biblegateway.com translations for Polish are new testament only) imply in Ezekiel 14:9 that when the prophets deceive someone, it is the lord who has deceived them. Have you a reason to disagree with how that is written?
Now, Catholic Church. I don't have to agree with them. Next, the Deposit of the Faith. Sounds dirty to me. Jokes aside, it refers to scripture and apostolic succesion, which I also don't believe. Even if someone were to prove to me that it did go down a line from Peter or Paul, I don't believe that what they think they saw is what they actually saw. I find that an extraordinary claim, which requires extraordinary evidence. The writings of the doctors and fathers of the church are all the same thing. Basically, what you've said is
Aaaand a bunch of stuff that requires that that is true. Since I disagree with the truth of that, you have succeeded in explaining nothing to me thus far.
Why would I ask on those topics? I think it's obvious why the Crusades and Inquisitions. These were intended to spread dogma and doctrine by force.
The injunctions in Catholicism against contraception and abortion are because the Catholic Church wants its adherents to have more children. The number 1 indicator of someone's religion is the religion of their parents. It would, of course, be hypocritical to say that a rule only applies to Catholics. Therefore, they attempt to apply it to everyone. Also, people are more likely to turn to religion in times of trouble. If a particular religion sees every instance of procreation as a gift, someone who is having troubles with it may gravitate towards that. These two rules exist only for the purpose of self-preservation of the church. The same applies to injunctions against euthanasia (it would be hypocritical to allow that in light of the others) homosexuality, etc. The one against homosexuality is even more sinister in a way. Since anyone growing up Catholic sees that as a mortal sin, they see same sex attraction as something that is not even an option. When they realize that they're not attracted to the opposite sex, they are very likely to, instead, opt to the priesthood, or in the case of girls, a convent. I have a priest in my extended family, and a former Catholic nun as well. Due to a continental divide, I have yet to discuss this with the former nun, but I would love to. Short story, she found a man. Not every nun and priest is gay, but other than a small amount of asexuals (which do exist), I would venture that many are. It's a good reason why you seemingly see such a small number of gay Catholics. Seriously, you should meet my relative who is a priest. You'd see what I mean.
As far as scriptural Canon, clearly I think there are major contradictions, and I have to mention historical and scientific misstatements as well.
Why did you point me to those particular questions? What is a really radical claim specific to Catholics is apostolic succession, and transsubstantiation. What evidence do you have for those 2 things? That's what I want to know.
Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.
Again not on topic. If you wish to discuss the false claim that Yahw-h the name comes from earlier pagan cultures. We can discuss that. Right now though we are dealing with why Yahw-h is God, not misunderstandings of lingual transliterations. There is no other God like Yahw-h. I can explain why Allah, Isis, Thor, El, Baal, etc are not like God Yahw-h if you would like. Where do you want this conversation to go next.
1. How Yahw-h is different from X god
2. False claims of Yahw-h as a name and/or concept borrowed from another culture(s).
Choose one please.
Actually according to the Muslim belief system I can blame Allah for my actions as Allah can interfere with my choices as seen in the Koran and Hadiths.
Vishnu can interfere with my actions too as seen in the the traditions of Hindusim.
Apolle can interfere with my actions as well as seen in many Greek myths.
None of those gods are even remotely the same to Yahw-h. None allow for free will in practice, literature, and reality.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
A table needs a carpenter/designer is not an analogy in and of itself. It is a fact. I have seen a table being built by a carpenter. It is true regradless whether or not I directly experience it. "I don't see it; therefore, it doesn't exist." is not a cogent argument against God, for God, or for/against anything. Even science does not work on strict empiricism.
I agree science cannot prove God's existence. We agree yea! I never said any such thing though. I said scientific evidence in conjunction with other evidences supports the existence of God.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
it becomes an analogy when you attempt to make a syllogism out of it. and i'm not arguing against god's existence. i'm arguing that the evidence you present will not be compelling to most people here because it is not scientific.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
And yet I can walk through the woods for 5 minutes and find a table that didn't have a carpenter. The only way your syllogism works even in the sole case of a "table" is if you define the word "table" as something that is created by a human for the purpose of being used as a table. In which case, it is a purely semantic statement. If you define "table" as any object that can adequately fulfill the function of what we generally call a table, then no carpenter is required.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
But I did pray and God did answer my prayer and fix my computer. He blessed me with my earthly father who does that kind of thing for a living and fun. So not only did God through my father here fix my computer, but he taught me some neat partioning tricks, how to notice hard drive problems, and other cool stuff.
Just because God does not perfrom at the snap of your fingers to answer your every whim how and when you want it does not mean He does not exist.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
The Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed is the basic definition of Christianity. What is what for? The creed or Christianity? The Creed is used to define what Christianity beleives and what one must believe to be Christian. Christianity specifically Catholicism (The One True Faith) is used to keep you holy, with Christ, and ultimately to bring you into Heaven with the Trinity.
Jesus nor the Catholic Church ever said that an Earthly utopia would come about if Christianity was true and/or if many or all were Christian.
As to Christianity's true goals, which overall is the salvation of souls through the spreading of Christ's Gospel and teachings, this has not happened yet for several reasons:
1. We only reach salvation after the death of the flesh. So there are people still alive who are yet to be saved.
2. People will choose no slavation over salvation.
3. Jesus has not returned which is necessary for evil to be fully and truly defeated.
These are not all the reasons but some big ones.
As to what Christianity specifically Catholicism has given the world since BC well there's a lot.
1. The means of complete salvation through the Catholic Church
2. The Catholic Church
3. The sacraments
4. The flourishing of western civilization
6. The formation of Europe
7. Major contributions to the development of logic and philosophy
8. Major contributions to the formation of scientific thought and the experimental method see St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Father Roger Bacon
9. Major contributions to scientific fields and the freedom to do scientific research. See, antibotics, vaccines, astronomy, genetics, medicine, physics, and much more
10. Constitutions
11. Constituional monarchies and republics
12. Trail by jury
And there's a lot more. These again are some the big ones.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
1. The means of complete salvation through the Catholic Church
But screw everyone else right?
2. The Catholic Church
Something that many more people would be alive today if it didn't exist.
3. The sacraments
Always a good excuse to kill or jail people who don't follow them.
4. The flourishing of western civilization
Lol, really? REALLY? Do I laugh or cry?
6. The formation of Europe
Through the most violent period known in human history and the mass slaughter of tens of millions.
7. Major contributions to the development of logic and philosophy
Yeah, ask Giordano Bruno, Tommaso Campanella, Galileo and Menocchio. The Church certainly helped them contribute through imprisonment and torture.
8. Major contributions to the formation of scientific thought and the experimental method see St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Father Roger Bacon
While condeming any scientist who dared make a discovery that wasn't consistent with Church doctrine.
9. Major contributions to scientific fields and the freedom to do scientific research. See, antibotics, vaccines, astronomy, genetics, medicine, physics, and much more
Uh huh...
10. Constitutions
Which Constitution was written by a Catholic?
11. Constituional monarchies and republics
Really? The Greeks were Catholic?
12. Trail by jury
Again, originated by the Greeks and in practice long before Rome adopted Christianity. As far as the modern jury, it finds its roots in Scandinavia, which was overrun with Pagans at the time. It was adopted in England by Aethelred the Unready, also not Christian. It then disappeared for awhile until it was brought back with the Magna Carta by King John, who was excommunicated by the Church.
Sure, when you willingly rewrite history to fit your agenda. You are either extremely ignorant of history or you are completely dishonest. Since you are a good Catholic, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are ignorant.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
of Christianity then, is Catholisism. That's hypocrtical. If the Pope is chosen by a super human then why do Cardinals have to elect one. It turns out that ---if---Cardinals elect a Pope then "they" are the super humans. And in turn--if the Cardinals elect the Pope then they are God--right---which in turn menas that if they are the super humans --then what do they need a Pope for. The whole thing doesn't make sense. The Jehovahs
Witnesses claim also that their religions leaders are chosen by God. That happens (according to them) at a special ceremony where if one drinks the wine that same is a member of the 144000. How am I supposed to believe that. There's nothing to go on except --they say. Religions depend on "belief because "they say" but they have no proof of what "they say". There's no such claim in the book that there is any such being as super human. That's merely and ancient belief fostered by those who set themselves above others and acquire the postion of leaders. Religions are nothing more then another civil government that has no civil powers but maintain dominance over others by belief, while civil governments use police force to maintaihn dominance, and neither has solved a single social problem going back 1000s of years. What's the problem????. The dark age Euorpeans merely attached their religion to the bible. What you have there is Europeanism, not Christianity.
What you are describing in your posting is --the Cathiolic church instituted civilization--which can't be. Catholisism is a religion as any other--and will never solve the worlds problems any more then governments will. What use is religion if it's not going to change anything. I can't believe just because someone "says". Drinking wine from gold goblets and wareing special finery hasn't, and isn't, going to change a thing--that we have evidence of. What can the Pope and the Cardinals do/say that will bring peace to this planet. Old Seer.
The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.
https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers
Knowledge trumps faith and I'm not a Theist
Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth
I never said you made a statement regarding your personal beliefs. Again, I never said all my proofs and eveidences were scientific. Some are some are not. So far I have seen no scientific arguments against Yahw-h as God here. I have seen typical responses that are all traditional ignorant or back handed insults. I was asking you questions to better understand your position(s).
As to the insults and impolitiness, I was unaware that politeness was completely out the window. I was also unaware that my expection to have a rational and polite conversation was irrational and an unachievealbe expectation for some atheists on the rational responders site.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
I have not said anything like that, and I know that is not a dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church. Please stay on topic.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
Actually the tetragram is not be used in some literguical hymns and prayers. It did not completely eliminate it. This was done because Yahw-h is a Holy name of God the Father, which He spoke. This tradition is something that goes all the way back to the ancient Hebrews. So following that tradition (a fine and good but not dogmatic tradition hence the little "t"
we Catholics do the same.
Doctor Who is fantastic!
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
Leave it to a Prottie to speak ill of the pope on Orangemen's Day...
There are no theists on operating tables.
of the thing and x'ed out. Us Seers don't go along with such nonsense. Floks aren't goping to respect others, are they. We don't say the Pope is right but we do respect beliefs of others. The animal mind rules on planet earth.
The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.
https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers
Knowledge trumps faith and I'm not a Theist
Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth
oh please, don't be obtuse. your finger-wagging that i responded to in my post was not prompted by any insult or impoliteness. it was prompted by dana's gif of someone pouring syrup over a madonna statue, which only the hyperreligious would consider "insulting" or "impolite." i'm sorry, but we don't cater to the sensitivities of the hyperreligious here.
now, that being said, it is very possible that someone here will be rude or insulting when faced with asinine or ignorant posts. most of us just don't suffer fools. if you find that irrational or disconcerting then, as i said, you're welcome to fuck off to another site.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
No you haven't. However, I will state right now that the Catholic church is nothing but a criminal organization based on an awful lie. Trans-substantiation is a ridiculous claim that is definitely untrue. Confession is nothing but a way to make children nervous, and adults comfortable with many an awful crime they've committed. Thinking these things seems to me, to condemn me to hell according to the church if I maintain this line of thinking until my demise. Is that not what the church says?
Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.
You call the Catholic Church a criminal organization then want to lecture me about calling religion poison. HA!
FYI, all religions are based on lies which makes them poison. But good luck treating that institution as a criminal organization. See that is you don't get my "treat religion like a volcano". Now do you honestly think you can rid the world of Catholics? No more than you could remove Mt Fuji.
Don't rightfully point out the bad religion causes then fucking lecture me about calling it poison.
Yes the origins of that church are rooted in tyranny and the Popes were not saints, they were gang leaders. But thats what all religions set up, gangs. It allows humans to set up "in group out group". Catholics don't own a monopoly on religious tribalism.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Hi Cliff Jumper. Something that is evident is your insistence in the ultimate fallibility of the empirical method counterbalanced by your dogmatic belief in 'facts' like the ones above. I think it's fair to argue raw empiricism is not the only way to approach generally knowable human truths - in fact I would argue rationalism and empiricism are always applied together in human brains - but you seem to be doing something else. You highlight empiricism's inability to disprove god and having established 'doubt' over its power in this 'case', argue absolute truth can yet be ascertained in 'other ways'. These ways seem to be absolute belief based on the bald assertions contained in the bible - they are beyond any normal method of confirmation. Could you tell us if you have any doubt about your beliefs? Or are you absolutely certain?
Having read the entire thread I see no one has successfully defined god. You asked others what their idea of a god might be but did not clearly define your own idea of a god beyond broad human concepts like 'cause', 'intelligence' and 'higher power'. It does seem to me that you are supporting the abstract noun 'god' with labels that are equally nebulous. Would you argue it is possible to prove the existence of a thing that has not been defined and whose characteristics are both undefineable and outside our ability to confirm? I think it's possible to believe in such a thing - but that is not the same as proving the existence of such a thing to be more or less true.
Cause and effect is an empirical observation. Given empiricism lies at the core of your christian beliefs, could you explain to us at what point you believe empiricism stops functioning as a tool for increasing your personal knowledge about god?
It's a false dichotomy to suggest empiricism (I think you mean sense data in this case) and rationalism (human reason) are opposed as ways to know things about the experience of human existence. When the researcher seeks to confirm a rationally conceived hypothesis, empiricism and rationalism work together. When the christian employs the cosmological argument, empiricism and rationalism work together. In fact, I would argue that empiricism and rationalism used together comprise the best way for humans to ponder and seek to confirm those things that seem to be true.
What would you say that 'truth' is, Cliff Jumper? What do you mean when you use that word in support of statements about your entwined experiences of the objective and subjective world?
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
no, they're not. lying is a conscious, malicious decision. there is zero evidence most religious founders were liars. they may have been misguided, ignorant, inaccurate, etc., but they were not liars. religions are based on two types of claims: historical and parahistorical. i'm not going to bother defining those terms because as much as you shoot off about religion you should know what they mean. the historical claims can be falsified in theory, and most of them have been. that doesn't make the claimers liars. maybe they were, maybe they weren't--that's almost always impossible to tell. you say they were liars because you want them to have been liars: it fits your polemical motives and reinforces the rhetoric you've committed years of your life to. as for the parahistorical claims, there is no way to empirically falsify them. if someone claims to have had a mystical or revelatory experience, be it of god or shunyata or brahman or whatever, you have no logical leg to stand on in telling him he didn't. so how can we maintain that someone has "lied" in this situation? only and purely polemically.
that being said, brian, i'm still waiting for you to man up and say you were wrong about your historical assertions over on the wealth envy thread. i guess you just forgot...
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
I know, I for one, would like to make some kids of my own ..someday (55555), at the appropriate juncture. I am so bad (Lol!)
Attn. To 0ff - site (Only)
Nice to know the left hand doesnt know what the right one is doing in trifling in matters in which you have little to no impact on a lasting peace.
What is hardly sought also a community where believers can practice love toward their brethren as the Bible requires; "But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another,.." (~ 1 John 1:7a) And, ''Jesus answered and said to them, "Even if I testify about Myself, My testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going ; but you cannot tell from whence I come or where I am going.'' (~John 8:14)
Context independent used in a message to 0 F F S i t e (as you already do know is true of most of this )
The crime scene, she was just Nuzzled or blowing a kiss across a room, maybe ?The crime scene, she was just Nuzzled or blowing a kiss across a room, maybe ?You might be familiar with.. kinda going by a set of information by design where this guy seems slippier than an eel.
SongLyrics ::
’Cause I need some protection
(Not that kind Of, Saint Thecla protect us (plural), dirty minded Elders; who do you take me for ??!? I dont care to stick around to find out !!)!!
When I see the connection
Though I see I don’t stare
Though I see I don’t stare
When I’m lost in my reflection
Though I see I don’t stare
Though I see I don’t stare
Then I change my direction
One foot follows the other
One foot follows something new
’Cause I need some protection
And I’m scared I could lose it
If I stare, you’ll be gone
Alright Elders .. check up on your free reading 'fiction' lists (See/View Upload)::
^ Brian, attempting to make new enemies by lying about what someone said AGAIN.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Lectured? When?
Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.
don't worry about it. i really think brian is starting to hallucinate or something. he gave me a good dressing-down last week for calling hitchens a maoist, something i've never done in my life, nor would do, because, unlike brian, i know what a maoist actually is.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Re :: Destiny (prarabdha) versus self-effort (purusartha):
[A Brief.. PRE-POST POST]
The Roman Catholic pope was quoted extensively on the radio news for a recent speech, his homilly (which I completely missed) Where he said married couples should look at how Jesus loves his Church. Marriage can be extremely messy. As sinners we can do dumb things in marriage—we hurt one another; we make false assumptions and then miscommunicate; we manipulate or say mean things to our spouse; we think less about serving and more about being served. We don’t always follow God’s Word. In addition, reportedly he goes on, to always being faithful, love also must be “untiring in its perseverance”, he said.Just as Jesus forgives his Church, spouses must ask each other for forgiveness so that “matrimonial love can go on,” he said. “Perseverance in love” must endure, in good times and bad, “when there are problems, problems with the kids, money problems, problems here and there.”“Love perseveres,” he said. “It keeps going, always seeking to resolve things in order to save the family.” And something about a ''culture of conformity'' is to blame for all these couples that end up with pets, instead of kids, substitutionally. He is quoted as saying: “It might be better — more comfortable — to have a dog, two cats, and the love goes to the two cats and the dog. Is this true or not? Have you seen it? “Then, in the end this marriage comes to old age in solitude, with the bitterness of loneliness.“
>> Covet their familiar joys (yes, they were blessed) heppinn crīstesmæsse
re :: Destiny (prarabdha) versus self-effort (purusartha):
A day, it's a beautiful day when love is openly expressed, where 'we' can love, not only be loved. As the ancients put it : of the good lady, greatly is her, within who possesses the principal tablets with the obligations
And IMHO, It is past overdue someone made the time needed to understand, explore, or puzzle a bit on why I’ve written what I’ve written, I certainly left enough clues (there are more than enough clues ~ double meaning) . .
Sumerian or other Assyrian religions and in the faith systems of the ancient Sumerian and the Akkadian of Assyria's --One of the greatest of all conceivable powers, was to wield the key influence over destiny, instances were said to 'decree destiny' when presenting their gift, in the councils of the ancient gods, these few themes were infused in their own language and culture in the older ANE culture. The vital control of destiny was sought about all else in the power struggles of the gods. The Tablets of Destiny were believed to contain the details of fate and the future, which controls each individual’s future state; he who held them, according to surviving accounts, was able to determine the fate all things. Imdugud (Akkadian: Anzu or variant of Zu/AnSu) states:
'I shall take the gods´ Tablet of Destinies for myself, And control the orders for all the gods,..''Where he noticeably made off with them, so instead of letting it go, there was a need to have them recovered. Although, For the true Christian, it is essential to maintain a true trust and abiding faith, no matter how grieved the heart may burden one. It doesn't mean inaction is FOREVER! Provisions are made for the sake of the future family.
p.s. -- This is sort of a Pre-Post Post. The Tablets of Destiny were believed to contain the details of fate and the future, ancient gods fought over their possession.
You are misunderstanding. God is infinte, immaterial, omnipotent, omnipresent, omni-just, omni-loving, omni-mercifiul, all good, and perfect. For Him to chose against that would mean He is none of those things. God is good always as it is His isness. In other words it is His very nature to be all these things.
For us we were created perfect, and allowed to choose between life and love or death and hate. One cannot love without choice, free will. Without choice we would simply be robots, slaves. There would be know love, no joy, and no perfection.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
As a former Catholic you must know that the Bible is not the sole source for information regarding Jesus Christ and His teachings. I have been using other methods besides the Bible. You keep saying, "You can't use the Bible as proof. It's no more valid than ____ holy book" I have not used the Bible to prove God's existence.
It's taken 1500 years to write the last 1500 years of history. With many of the writers not even alive when those they were writing about were alive. For example, Patrick Henry's books weren't penned till 20-30yrs after he died & his memorable speech at St John's wasn't recorded by pen for 20 yrs. So He never said or wrote those things by your logic.
Again, your erroneous claims about Genesis can be discussed if you like. There is no Catholic doctrine that the Earth was made in 6 days. Men do not pop out of dirt. God formed them, see design and creation. Again a woman does not pop out of ribs. The first woman was formed and designed by God. Human flesh does not survive rigor mortis, but again Jesus Christ was human and divine. Jesus Christ was not a magic baby born strictly of natural means. He was born from God the Father and the Immaculate Virigin Mary.
How am I blaming you for anything? I have never blamed you, generally or specifically, for anything in the Bible. I am more then willing to defend its contents as separate topic if you like.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
No I understood "perfectly". You have two versions of "perfection" in your world view that you are unwilling to acknowledge. Should I go through and contrast the differences again ?
You do not understand what perfection implies. Or more likely you do understand but protecting your religious dogma trumps acknowledging simple logic.
You still choose to ignore that God's offer is predicated upon coercion ( rewards and punishment ) or in more simple terms ...."Love me or I'll burn you alive" Gotta love the Christian version of "free will".
Please define these words - infinite, omnipotent, omni-just, omni-merciful, all good, perfect and most curiously, immaterial. Explain how you were able to ascertain the very nature of your still undefined idea of god. Explain how it is logical to assume the first premise of any argument - in this case, that premise is god. Would you agree that you are using undefined and undefinable labels to define an undefined and undefinable god?
As well as being predicated on the bald assertion of a still undefined state of perfection, this argument proposes a false dichotomy - we get to choose between life and love, and death and hate. Human nature is more nuanced than this. Further, love and joy are products of the mammalian limbic system, they aren't really a matter of choice. Ask anyone who suffers depression. As for perfection, this label applies to a human concept that is subjective - there is no empirical measurement of perfection.
Again, CJ, could you tell us if you have any doubts about your christian beliefs? Or are you utterly certain?
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
No amount of claims inside or outside that comic book makes magic babies or invisible sky heros, by any name real. It is a mere book written by mere humans who didn't know jack shit about the nature of reality. That comic book reflects the superstitions and social beliefs of it's time.
No need for a separate thread. You could be arguing for Allah or Thor or a god named Frank. All the same shit to me.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
So I guess I won. I've given Cliff Jumper plenty of time to respond, and he hasn't done so. He's responded multiple times to other people, but not to me. I wasn't rude and I stayed on topic, as he requested, and yet he's ignoring me. I must conclude that he's doing so because he was defeated, and doesn't want to admit it.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I concur.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
yup, same thing with brian and his spurious hypatia quotes, his spurious marx quotes, and his bullshit about me calling hitchens a maoist. i demonstrated conclusively he's wrong, gave him plenty of time to man up, but he never wants to admit he's wrong, because he's a smarmy, self-righteous little pussy with a martyr complex, so he just ignores.
BRIAN, YOU'RE A FUCKING COWARD.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
I just had a vision of everyone putting that into their sig. lol
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
What you have pointed out for beauty are polls and objects like paintings which are beautiful. These are not beauty itself. Please show me beauty. With art you simply named framed paper with inks on it, not art. Show me art. With love you simply named some chemical processes and the neurotransmitters invloved in those processes. You neglected other aspects of love. And again you did not show me love. There is no question that there are material qualities to beauty, love, art, and etc, but that is not their whole it is a part.
I did not say empirical reductionism was the wrong way to gain knowledge. I said, "Keep in mind I am not saying empirical methods do not obtain knowledge, but it is not the only method for doing so."
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
No you did not choose the forbiiden fruit. You are not held responsbile for that by any means. The Catholic Church has not taught this. However, I know you have chosen sin in your life. We all have. Thus you, I, and everyone has rejected God's perfect love.
Adam and Eve's personal sin is not laid at our feet. We have never nor will it ever be on each one of us individually for eating the forbidden fruit. This idea is a common misunderstanding. We suffer the consequences of Adam and Eve's original sin. The effects of original sin and sin in general is not confined to just one time. There are physical and spiritual consequences. Think of a sin like stealing. If I steal someone's computer I have sinned. In the physical world I have taken a material object from someone else. Spiritually I have separated myself from perfection and goodness, Yahw-h. The repurcussions of my action are experienced by others in the physical world. For instance the victim lacks a computer, certainity of security, trust, and etc. Thus the vicitim suffers from the consequences of my action(s).
With Adam and Eve's sin, direct disobedience to God and His will we suffer the consequences, i.e. a world and us separated from God's perfection. Now we can be brought back into full union with God through participation in His mercy through His Catholic Church and the Sacraments specifically Confession.
There is more to original sin, sin, and concupiscence but this is a very basic explanation of it.
You are mixing up two separate issues. One is the issue of God, the Law giver who exists outside of space and time and who made the Law. The other is our role as the Law choosers (uphold or break). So continuing your example of a child abuser and an accomplice God would be the one who wrote the law not the one who chose not to report the problem.
God has told us what is right, (i.e. the Law is written on our hearts.) we then choose to uphold this or not.
Here is an example. A teacher makes a multiple choice test. The teacher knows the answers, the teacher also knows that some students will get them right, some will not, and some will cheat. The teacher has told them not to cheat. It is up to the students to uphold or break those rules. In the end, final judgement, the students will be rewarded or punished based on their actions.
God coerces no one. God has never said to anyone, "Love me or I'll burn you alive." God has said to us to choose Him (life and love). If you choose against Him you are invariably chosing death and hatred, Hell. If God removed Heaven and Hell there would be no love or chance for love, because their would be no choice. You cannot love without choice, and with choice comes consequences.
Think of marriage. You cannot have marriage without a proposal a choice. Of course with the proposal comes the consequence of a denial. In your scenario of "love" you would do away with the proposal, the choice, and the denial and simply have the man force the woman to be with him. That is not love at all.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
Polite to Cliff Jumper initially but if I read too much more of this tawdry confirmation bias - rank bald assertion in support of the spurious doctrine of hell - we'll be kissing toleration goodbye.
This individual is drowning in an ocean of undefined labels. It's not hard to see why some one this irrational is attracted to blatant fallacious appeal to force.
Hell is nothing more than a threat based on the ad hominem fallacy of the doctrine of The Fall, Cliff Jumper. Heaven is a fallacious appeal to consequence.
Heaven, Hell and The Fall are not places or events but irrational arguments and as we all know perfectly well, no irrational argument can ever be true.
Please stop assuming your first premise and speaking as if you, or the authors of the biased doctrine of your cult, know the 'mind' of an entity allegedly existing outside of space and time, yet inside the mind of Cliff Jumper.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
FUCK! YOU TYPED IN CAPS, YOU GOT ME!
"Maryter complex"? HA HA HA HA. OOOOOOOOOkaaaaaaay.
"Pussy" yep, that is why I am still here not running from you.
So myths and fables should be taught as fact? In a diverse species one economic tactic fits all of humanity forever, or do different situations call for different approaches depending upon conditions?
"Man up" I love that stupid sexist chalenge as if what is between your legs is important.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
yes, you are running. you refuse to answer a simple question: will you admit you were wrong about the erroneous assertions you made in the wealth envy thread? (i outlined three of them there, in case you've conveniently forgotten.) until you show any inclination at all to at least admit you're wrong when it's been clearly demonstrated, then you show no evidence of having any integrity.
and fine, brian: woman up. because my wife will also admit she's wrong when it's been clearly demonstrated.
until then, you're a fucking coward.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
ha ha Brian doesn't have as much balls as a woman.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
> Re :: Remember Me . . .
Remember Me (double reference, and double meaning) . . .
To the OP our Cliff Jumper (Attn. To Cliff Jumper )
In the New Testament documents, in Jude he exhort his audience ''to contend for the faith once for all delivered'' . Can you comment on the cross, and the death on a cross, if you can make the time please.
I dont know why, especially due to your overall approach, Fore you are woefully unqualified to speak on this topic, I know ( meaning you are totally and woefully unqualified to speak on this topic). However, please comment on many misconceptions have pervaded the notions about the mechanism(s) and cause of death by crucifixion, a subject dear to all of us; it's the death on which He (Christ) fulfilled and satisfied the substitutionary propitiation by being nailed to an old wooden cross, afterall.
Comment supplementary from some Lutheran of all things
''In the second century BC a Jewish author close to the Essene community made a new edition of the laws of Deuteronomy, incorporating verses from Leviticus and Numeri as well as priestly teaching from his own time. He published this new edition, which included a lengthy section on the temple, as authoritative Torah of God. In 1956 the bedouins found two copies of this work north of the Dead Sea. In this book, today called the Temple Scroll, we meet a radical reinterpretation of these verses from Deuteronomy: If a man informs against his people, delivers his people up to a foreign nation and betrays his people, you shall hang him on the tree so that he dies. On the word of two and three witnesses shall he be put to death, and they shall hang him on the tree. If a man commits a crime punishable by death, and he defects into the midst of the nations and curses his people, the children of Israel, you shall hang him also on the tree so that he dies. And their bodies shall not remain upon the tree, but you shall bury them the same day, for those who hang on the tree are accursed by God and men, you must not defile the land which I give you as an inheritance (Temple Scroll 64:6-13). In Deuteronomy it is not clear whether the evildoer should be hanged alive upon the tree or only his corpse after he is executed (most interpreters do not note that the Hebrew can be translated either “is put to death and you thereafter hang him on a tree” or “is put to death when you hang him on a tree” ). The Temple Scroll clearly ordains that certain evildoers shall be executed by being hanged alive on the tree. The word tree can mean a tree, a pole or a cross. In rabbinic sources “to hang on the tree” primarily means execution by hanging on a pole. Crucifixion would also be considered a form of hanging somebody upon the tree.'' ~ Prof. Torleif Elgvin ( of the Seminary of the-INDEPENDENT Lutheran Church, of Oslo)
They went and found a young donkey outside in the street, tied at a doorway. As they untied it . . It was the stubborn little donkey who insists on sitting firmly on its' haunches, who no one has ever ridden . . .
''Today we celebrate the day called “Palm Sunday,” the day of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem one week prior to his crucifixion and death of the Savior. In most cases some of you may be wondering why this is called “Palm Sunday”, it’s because according to the Gospel of John the crowds in Jerusalem came out to greet Jesus carrying palm branches, which they either waved or strewed in his path. We have two independent accounts of Jesus’ triumphal entry, one in the Gospel of Mark and the other in the Gospel of John. Historically speaking, this is very important . . '' ~ William Lane Craig (who is an American christian theologian).
Ref. found in the New Testament . . .
Gospel According to Saint Luke 19 (NKJV) ::
29 And it came to pass, at the mountain called Olivet, that He sent two of his disciples, saying, “Go into the village opposite you, where as you enter you will find a young donkey tied, on which no one has ever sat. Loose it and bring it here. And if anyone asks you, ‘Why are you loosing the donkey?’ thus you shall say to him, ‘Because the LORD has need of it.’” Then they brought her to Jesus. And they threw their own clothes on the young donkey, and they set Jesus on him. And as He went, many spread their clothes on the road. Then, as He was now drawing near the descent of the Mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works they had seen, saying: “ ‘Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord!’ “Hosanna!,
Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!”
Gospel According to Saint Mark 10 (NKJV)::
11 Now when they drew near Jerusalem, at the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples; and He said to them, “Go into the village opposite you and as soon as you have entered it, you will find a young donkey tied, on which no one has sat. Loose it and bring it. And if anyone says to you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ say, ‘The Lord has need of it,’ and immediately he will send it here.” So they went their way, and found the young donkey tied by the door outside on the street, and they loosed it. But some of those who stood there said to them, “What are you doing, loosing the donkey?” And they spoke to them just as Jesus had commanded. So they let them go. Then they brought the young donkey to Jesus (Thank Heaven) and threw their clothes on it, and He sat on it. And many spread their clothes on the road, and others cut down leafy branches from the trees and spread them on the road. Then those who went before and those who followed cried out, saying: “Hosanna!, Hosanna in the Highest!
‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’
Blessed is the kingdom of our father David
That comes in the name of the LORD!
Hosanna, .. Hosanna in the highest!”
. . .
Edit :: ( Edit Spacing or formatting of spacing )
Nope, women kick ass, and could kick my ass for sure. Your point?
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
You forgot the caps, it was much more dramatic in caps. FUCKING COWARD! Let it all out, you'll feel lots better.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
And you still avoid all of his questions. It is really hard to determine whether you or Caposkia are more intellectually dishonest. The only thing going in your favor is I have a stronger feeling that Caposkia knows he is being intellectually dishonest.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
A child could kick your ass. *rolleyes*
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
i don't need to let it out. you just proved it. again.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Again please refrain from offensive images. I am aware you can say or do whatever you want. However, as I am treating you with courtesy and respect I do expect some politeness in return. Thank you.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor