"We are God's sheep." wow, great analogy...

[kahljorn]

The points are "Valid" just like the Christian points are "Valid". If both are valid it indicates bias, which indicates Christian rhetoric. Which indicates me being bored. Which indicates me saying a post was boring.
How does not having sex have anything to do with ignorance? It just seems like a pointless statement, it doesnt say not to have sex AT ALL, it says not to go around laying every bitch you see. I wonder why. Plenty of aids out there now a days, plenty of teen pregnancies with children who get beat and are malnurished and then their mommies drown them and eat their souls...This is of course besides the fact that we have destroyed half the land of the world and depleted most natural resources. I WONDER WHY IT SAYS NOT TO GO AROUND AND FUCK EVERYTHING YOU SEE AND REPRODUCE LIKE RABBITS?
Point: invalid.


Other statement: Earthly values bad not being?
What have we seen from the love of earthly values and "Inferior" objects?
War over plots of land? For oil? Theft and murder? You want a tv, can't have one, so you go jack someone else? Why why why. Why I wonder why. I can't seem to decide why. I'm sure I could think of some more consequences of earthly desires, but I'm also sure you have the brain to muster up the musstering.
Point? INVALID.

I also never called him redundant, I called his views redundant of the Atheist rhetoric. I could call him redundant, though, because every post he has made has been against the practice of christianity in some fashion. Just because the church pussy whipped the people of the time using the "Good Book" doesn't mean it's this or that. They could've done it with any manner or tool, if you look through history it has been the reoccuring fact: people are controlled and led blindly. By one means or another. That does not include today's times, "democracy" doesn't mean jack shit, all it does is allow people to bitch about how things are.
Go ahead and think you're special because you live in america, though, that's their "Bible".

[kahljorn]

Funky g and the funky bunch

[Perndog]

Ok, you made me do it. Argument time.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

The points are "Valid" just like the Christian points are "Valid". If both are valid it indicates bias, which indicates Christian rhetoric. Which indicates me being bored. Which indicates me saying a post was boring.
How does not having sex have anything to do with ignorance? It just seems like a pointless statement, it doesnt say not to have sex AT ALL, it says not to go around laying every bitch you see. I wonder why. Plenty of aids out there now a days, plenty of teen pregnancies with children who get beat and are malnurished and then their mommies drown them and eat their souls...This is of course besides the fact that we have destroyed half the land of the world and depleted most natural resources. I WONDER WHY IT SAYS NOT TO GO AROUND AND FUCK EVERYTHING YOU SEE AND REPRODUCE LIKE RABBITS?
Point: invalid.

*BUZZ* WRONG. Christianity does not warn against "laying every bitch you see," it warns against any kind of sex other than for procreation (with your spouse) i.e. masturbation, oral sex, birth control, etc. By denying churchgoers' sexual desires and knowing they will either give in to temptation or become clergy (or both), the church lays a load of guilt on their shoulders and keeps them in line.

NEXT.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Other statement: Earthly values bad not being?
What have we seen from the love of earthly values and "Inferior" objects?
War over plots of land? For oil? Theft and murder? You want a tv, can't have one, so you go jack someone else? Why why why. Why I wonder why. I can't seem to decide why. I'm sure I could think of some more consequences of earthly desires, but I'm also sure you have the brain to muster up the musstering.
Point? INVALID.

*BUZZ* WRONG AGAIN. Having, admitting to, and nurturing earthly desires does NOT lead to fulfilling them in ways that are harmful to others. Everyone, Christian or not, is taught that stealing and killing are wrong, and if they grow up to steal and kill, it is not because they didn't go to church. Satanists are in the business of seeking carnal pleasure, but they get kicked out of the church if they do something blatantly illegal in the process. Christianity does not stop at making people good, law-abiding folk, it teaches that our bodies are dirty, that we must do only what is necessary to keep them healthy and concentrate our efforts on the spirit BECAUSE the mundane is inferior to the spiritual and by giving in to any mundane desire one separates himself from God. This adds more guilt for every time someone gives in to his cravings, and it keeps people low-maintenance by making them believe that they don't need anything but God to be happy.

I also never called him redundant, I called his views redundant of the Atheist rhetoric. I could call him redundant, though, because every post he has made has been against the practice of christianity in some fashion. Just because the church pussy whipped the people of the time using the "Good Book" doesn't mean it's this or that. They could've done it with any manner or tool, if you look through history it has been the reoccuring fact: people are controlled and led blindly. By one means or another. That does not include today's times, "democracy" doesn't mean jack shit, all it does is allow people to bitch about how things are.
Go ahead and think you're special because you live in america, though, that's their "Bible".

I like this point, however; very true. Personally, I admire the way the shepherds control the sheep, and I have long since stopped attacking them for that. I'm simply arguing here that they did and do; that should be painfully obvious and not really worth debate. I think the problem here is that an awful lot of atheists (like Brandon) have it in for Christianity because it is so prevalent and they think it's getting in their face all the time - they feel the need to stand up and strike out at it or else it will stomp all over them.

And I think a lot of them, particularly the younger ones, are a little sad because they don't have a religion of their own to identify with (though they'd never admit it).

[kahljorn]

What the church says and what Jesus said are two different things. I'm sure this point doesn't need discussing.

To continue, the purpose of religion(in it's purest form) is not to blindly corrupt and lead people. Rather, the design of it is to improve the personal soul of a person. You know, the souls well-being. Regardless of how the Church MISINTERPRETTED(we have already established they spread bullshit) certain things, the results of opposing them can be seen. They aren't even religious in nature, they are scientific fact. You go around fucking you're going to get someone pregnant. We know this(if you would like a sex ed talky talk let me know).
Also, sitting around masturbating to pictures of naked women is going to make you want women. SImple psychology. Getting your cock sucked is only going to make you want to stick your dick in them. Try to deny fucking a broad's mouth is nice, but fucking her hard isnt nicer.
Also, sex and earthly objects are interchangable. They are both desires, as desire they can taint the soul's journey to wherever the fuck it's going. To put it straight, you wanting something so bad it consumes you is going to "interupt your meditation", so to speak. I don't really want to explain the detachment from earthly shit shit.

Okay, as to the statement about not killing and shit, yes, everyone is taught it, and religion doesn't stop it. I agree whole-heartedly, but regardless, the point still stands that earthly desires are a primary trigger if not cause of said events. So how is Jesus CHrist warning against them bad? HOw is even the church warning against them bad? I really don't understand the point you were trying to make, if anything you reinforced the purpose of them preaching said beliefs. Please reliterate?
Do you think if the church said "Material objects are good! GET YOURSELF A GOAT!!!" it would have made things any different? Today people know shit is good, and yet there are poor people.
As by brandons proclaimations, during those times nobody wanted good things. Nobody worked for bread, economy failed, and there were no rich people. Nor no poor people who became rich, through merchanting or the such. .
People have always wanted.

I'd also tend to mention that people can seem to misinterpret the church's ideals, but that's OKay, because I misinterpret too. Touche myself. Touche.
That was as per your christian soul well-being ness. What is wrong with practicing spiritual cleansing, which could supposively reflect upon the material? A simple immitation of buddhism?

[Brandon]

Well I guess there's no need for me to post anymore, since I've already been passed off as just another angry young man.

C'est la vie.

[Dole]

"Right-wing: we tend to be more middle of the road."

[kahljorn]

I don't think you're angry, I just don't like your avatar.

[VinceZeb]

Originally Posted by Immortal Goat

Ok, Vinth, let me see. What is your definition of "education"? Is it being around Catholosism almost all of one's life and being told about it in school? (I refuse to call it being "taught" because it is against individual thought anyway.)...

That bolded line is the reason that if you used your brains to paint your wall, they would have served you more use in life up to this point.

Ever read the Lord of the Rings trilogy? The guy who wrote it was CATHOLIC.

Ever heard of St. Thomas Aquinas, one of the most respect thinkers in the history of mankind? CATHOLIC.

I could go on and on, but you are too fucking stupid to understand it and I'm too fucking bored of this conversation already.


And pern, my statement meant you are a fucking loser who practices or at least respects a fucking loser religion. And it's funny that you "don't know anything about football" yet you knew the Bills were a football team. Try again.

[FS]

He's got you there, Perndog. And hey - how come you know the word "football"? Clearly you know at least something about football. Liar.

[Perndog]

Vinth made me cry, and then FS made me laugh. This thread is fun.

kahljorn:

Pure religion may not be about control. But when I say Christianity tells people something, I mean the faith, and not the church. These are basic tenets that may have been emphasized but were not invented by church leaders.

Regarding sex, I think you missed my point a bit. As I said, Christianity doesn't only teach people not to go around fucking everyone, it preaches that sex other than for procreation is wrong, which is a harmful thing because almost everyone has a need for sexual gratification that is not fulfilled by waiting to do anything about it until you're ready to be a parent.

Masturbating to pictures of naked women does not stop you from wanting them, but it makes it a lot easier to wait until you get to have one. Do you go out and try to get laid immediately after you get your rocks off? If you stroke it a couple times a week and have vivid fantasies, do you get so frustrated that you'll do anything to realize those fantasies? No, because your basic need has been fulfilled - same with a blowjob or whatever. You may not be getting the best thing possible, but that's not important, at least not beyond a superficial level; the only thing that is crucial is having some kind of release, and this is precisely what Christianity denies.

Yes, sex is only another earthly desire, like the desire for good food and all that; I only carried the distinction from your previous argument. And you're missing the boat when it comes to desire; it's not the desire itself that is the good thing, but the fulfillment of that desire. I don't allow myself to be consumed by desire because I let myself have what I want. I embrace my desires not for themselves but for the gratification that comes afterward, which we all need to some extent. Under Christianity, however, by denying desires and keeping them from being fulfilled, people do become consumed, because they are forbidden to do what is natural, and they are taught to feel guilty once they succumb so they try to repress their natural desire. You're right: wanting something so bad it consumes you is going to fuck you up, and you get to that point by not getting what you want, which is exactly what Christianity leads to.

Does this make better sense? People will have desires no matter what you teach them, and to say that something they already feel is wrong is only to lay guilt on them and eventually drive them to frustration and compulsion. To say instead, "yes, you can have what you want, as long as you find a way to get it," frees people to fulfill their basic needs and wants and motivates them (who should already know enough not to kill or steal in the process) to strive for the things that aren't readily available, instead of sitting in complacency and "cleansing their spirit"...whatever the Hell a spirit is.

[Immortal Goat]

I see Vinth has conveniently chosen to ignore the statement I made about there being many atheists and people of other beliefs that are more deserving of being in the state of Heaven than he is. I wonder why that is??

Also, Vinth, yes I have heard of both of those people. But those are only two examples of an almost entirely thoughtless group of people (at least when it comes to faith). I never said that Catholics do not think about literature and stuff like that in their own ways, but that they do not have the sense to think that they might possibly be wrong in their beliefs in God.

What does Orthodoxy mean? It strictly means "without thought". And I have heard too many sermons that included the phrases "Orthodox Christians" and "believers in the one true faith".

[kahljorn]

So, the church preches an idealogy that is obviously not embraced. They have fucking big screen televisions, they don't know the value of what they are saying. And it's not that people are blindly following, it's that people are stupid enought to think God loves them right after they just bought their new RV.
Also, going from the tangent of having NO SEX AT ALL(not even for procreation as the dignants would fortell) certainly does have it's application in a souls journey. Other than that I don't know why they say not to have sex, especially since the other stipulation is that you don't have sex before marriage. It's basically a way to allow God control over your penis. I think it used to be a strange mating ritual type thing, like your child would come out retarded with three heads unless you got married.

[Perndog]

Goat: The practical defnition of orthodoxy is traditionalism. Orthodox is accepted practice, and orthodoxy is following that practice even after it has been discarded or modified by others (in this case, by conservative and Reformed Jews).

kahljorn: The fact that the church preaches something that its followers don't practice is only evidence that what they preach isn't the way things really ought to be; to put it succinctly, "Nothing that feels this good can be as evil as they make it out to be."

And I still think that the no sex rule is just another means of control: either a person will become so frustrated they will concentrate more and more on God and the church in order to quell their desire or they will succumb and then look to the church to assuage their guilt.

I wrote a lot more after this, but it wasn't really relevant. Nevermind. :/

[kahljorn]

Personally i think people just misunderstand the teachings. Not only literally but even in it's essence(This would tend to even include those opposed).
Most people tend to look at what it is rather than why it is(what exactly doing it is supposed to prevent or cause). Simply saying, "God wouldn't want me to" is a fucking stupid reason. It's like the little kid who won't steal candy because his mommy is watching. Perhaps the biggest thing for the church to get over is not merely performing the deeds in the bible but first understanding them.
I would say the same to anyone opposing them as well, most people who raggatag the Christian religion are irritating and trying to fit into the adverse christian cliche. "I'm cool because I hate God".
They sit around thinking of ways to spite the christian religion and finding contradictions that have nothing at all to do with the Spiritual nature of it. It really just makes people look stupid when they go, "GOD LOVES EVERYONE BUT HE FLOODED THE EARTH? TRULY GOD IS NOT REAL THEN SO THE WHOLE BIBLE IS FALSE", little beknown it to them there are many places in the bible where it says GOD IS EVIL and people are merely trying to propisition his good side with their faith.

Why fight the proposed answers when you can develop your own perceptions? It's such a waste of time. Igrony?

[Perndog]

Your argument assumes that there Christianity has some intrinsic value. What if it doesn't? What if everything God or the prophets ever said was either bunk, only historically relevant, or trivial? From the perspective of a non-Christian, I do not feel compelled to believe that just because Christianity has led to some good things and has persisted so long, its "essence," as you say, is a good one.

If you are convinced that people misunderstand Christian teachings, you must have a better understanding than they do, so please tell me what everyone is missing and why they're missing it. Because if there is something worthwhile about it, I'm sure in the dark. Spiritual nature? What is spirituality? What is a spirit? If it exists, do we need it? I have not once in my life done anything intentionally to nurture my "spirit," and I am currently in the best mental and emotional shape of my life.

[kahljorn]

What if what you say had no "intristic" value and christianity is the absolute right and now you're going to burn in hell? If Christianity were irrelevant, it would thus claim all active partitions of itself, including the opposing elements, similarly irrelevant. It would also sadly render every other religion and idealogy irrelevant, simply by chalking teeth.
And yes, there are plenty of good things to christianity, necessary factors to the overall development of things. In fact, if Christianity had not came and went by means of "COrruption", you would not be where you are today. Your thoughts would likely be nothing like they are, and you might not be in the best "Emotional and mental shape ever". You are who you are because of Christianity, it still played an integral part of your life rather False or Real.

Nobody really knows what a spirit is; by speculation it could be related to many things. The subconscious, for example. Which ironically pulses and ebbs with the fiberglass embrace of dreams, which are said to be a link to the spirit world. It's said your spirit gives off an aura of forms, your body/mind whatever also sends out these things called "Alphabeta waves". With these waves you can buy milk, for really cheap(offer available for a limited time only). This is a scientific thing. They are real. Meditation really does things, there are lucid dreams. Astral projection is possible, but I do not know if it is more of a vivid active hallucination than your spirit leaving your body.
Other than that, I can offer you nothing on the soul/spirit. I believe it to be something of the mind, or the mind is something of the spirit, but most would disagree.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

In fact, if Christianity had not came and went by means of "COrruption", you would not be where you are today. Your thoughts would likely be nothing like they are, and you might not be in the best "Emotional and mental shape ever". You are who you are because of Christianity, it still played an integral part of your life rather False or Real.

It is a fact that history and all its components, proceeding exactly as they did, are responsible for my current state of being (and my being in general). After all, if you remove one component from the historical record, who can be sure a ripple effect would not remove you from existence in the present as well? However, it would be foolish to argue that Christianity isolated was the cause of our being. Historical items did not exist in a vacuum--everything has to be taken in context.

[Perndog]

Brandon took the words out of my mouth. The existence of Christianity has influenced my life, indeed, but I have never knowingly applied any Christian teaching to my life that is not shared by dozens of other belief systems. Therefore, there is nothing about Christianity that makes me respect it as being necessary for existence.

And I have most defnitely never applied any religious belief regarding a "soul" or a "spirit," and I am of the mind that "spiritual health" is only another kind of mental health. I do believe in astral projection, the power of the subconscious, etc. etc. but I don't see any reason to elevate these parts of my mind to some mystical religious level. Furthermore everything I've read or heard from Christianity about how to improve my soul has been awful advice for me and more often than not things that would be harmful for me.

[kahljorn]

That is entirely irrelevant, you are arguing semantics. If it wasn't christianity you would be complaining about some other religion, let's call it buddhism. It might not necessarily even be about the idealogy of the religion, just the fact that it has influenced your life and you are pussy-whipped by it(In fact it's more of it's overbearing Historical influences that you dislike). Go ahead and try to deny if Christianity wasn't the dunce, there wouldnt be another. Christianity is just a cancer that needs to be cut, and once removed life will be happy and there will be no suffering? That is so much better than Believing God will make everything A-Okay!
The faccets of my argument still apply, despite semantic overtures.



By the way, I think your "Hate" is misdirected at the church when it would be more happily applied to the British Monarchy, those mary magdolin motherfuckers. Damn I love saying that.
Oh yea, and the fact that you can base most of your "intelligence" off the fact that you can derail christianity "Really well" would tend to include the fact that you are active participants in their religion, in fact, most arguments you would make against it I'm sure somehow fit into your personal philisophy of the World. Learning doesn't necessarily mean someone has to believe everything they are taught, quite the contrary; it's more that you are supposed to take what you are taught and go further with it, your denial of Christianity as per philisophical complications would tend to signify your democratic taste for it as you take a step or two, even if in a maticulous fashion.
You see, it's like a "War" so to speak. When two sides are fighting it out, they are both involved in this "War", but while in it they certainly wouldn't consider themselves a part of the others evil, the same could even apply to our current debate, which I find entirely demeaning- no offense intended.
Specially with your wonderful christian avatar.

[Perndog]

Please note who you're replying to, whether it's one or both of us, so we don't get confused. Who's got a Christian avatar?

I'm going to assume that last post was for Brandon, as there is only one point in it I can apply to myself (since I don't hate Christianity, I don't believe it needs to be eliminated, I think many, many other religions are at the same level only not as popular, and if there is a war between any two sides, I am not a part of it). That point is that you think there is something of absolute worth to be found just in that religion, and I disagree because, no matter how many people, Christian and otherwise have found that worth and applied it, it does not work with me, so it can't be absolute. I acknowledge that a very few of my opinions run almost parallel to Christian thought, but I can also point out pre-Christian sources for them, sources that I find more intriguing and more applicable to myself..

[kahljorn]

I don't think there is something absolute to be found in any-one religion, hence the discussion of components and necessary evils or whatever the fuck I said. Each religion plays a role, so does each concept and action.
The idea is; despite if you reject or accept the notions, they will have an effect on your life/thought-- regardless of what you want.

I was talking about your old antoine lavey avatar..

[Perndog]

I don't understand how you can imagine Anton LaVey being a Christian, I kind of thought the whole world knew who and what he was.

And if in fact that post was directed at me, I object. You pegged me very wrongly, and after reviewing my own posts, I can't find anything that would have brought you to that conclusion without some serious leaps. I am quite indifferent to Christianity and most other religions as institutions, and it offends me that you would imply that I am obsessed with it and that I am proud of my ability to attack it. For one, attacking Christianity is far too easy to consider it an accomplishment, and for another, I should hope I have more pressing issues in my life than to tear apart a belief system that isn't important to me. I will leave that to the teenage atheists, who do center their lives around Christianity just because 1) it bugs them or 2) it's rebellious to badmouth God. That is not me. I am not the one starting threads about how Christianity teaches ignorance or about picking apart the Bible. I am only jumping in and responding to the arguments people make.

I think our misunderstanding is coming from the discussion veering off course. I will readily accept that the existence of Christianity has shaped who I am, but that's a historical thing, and I didn't think that's what we were talking about. The last post of yours before we jumped to this new train of thought referred to people misunderstanding the essence of Christian teachings, to the basic reasons behind them, and to the "spiritual" nature of them. Since it sounded like you believed that Christianity had some good points everyone could take and apply to themselves, I felt it necessary to argue that; since you said everyone misunderstands Christian teachings, I asked you to enlighten me; and since you emphasized spirituality, I told you spirituality means nothing to me. You repeated in your next posts that Christianity has "good things...necessary factors to the overall development of things," which I took to mean there are things in Christianity that everyone needs or can benefit from, and once again, I disagreed.

If you want to talk about how people are influenced by exposure to ideas and by history, we can start another thread and talk about that. The issue I was discussing is whether there are elements of Christianity that have intrinsic value, such that *everyone* can and should apply them. Since, as I said, the only Christian values that I hold either existed before the birth of Christ or are beyond my awareness, I don't find any part of Christianity good or necessary in its own right.

Are we clear? I hope so.

I think I'll be done with this thread now - aside from the tiresome misunderstanding and character attacks, your substandard spelling and grammar are starting to cause eye strain.

[kahljorn]

I was talking in general, sorry your feelings were hurt. I don't direct anything, perhaps you've noticed that by my "Vague Assertions". They certainly weren't directed at you, had they been it would have been much more clear and there probably would have been a, "Fuck you" spotted here and there.
You said Spirituality means nothing, I applied it in a general sense. Not a stretch by any means, but certainly it is appropriate. I'm not here to save your soul, I don't particularly care in that nature.

"Since, as I said, the only Christian values that I hold either existed before the birth of Christ or are beyond my awareness, I don't find any part of Christianity good or necessary in its own right."

I cited a few, they are simple ideas, and yes, they did exist before Christianity; they are concepts that are obvious. Like not to kill. That in fact existed likely before any religion of the present time, and was more likely developed by moral standards based around material value and a certain measure of selfishness. There is likely no concept or philosophy available today that did not stem from something else, likewise there was probably another concept of similar taste floating about the time of it's birth. Buddha, Plato and Christ were all around at a similar time, all with similar ideas. Ironic? Coincidence?
There are many ideas and concepts within the CHristian religion considered commonly misinterpreted, there are certain individuals within "The Church" who would support these claims.

I don't know what you expect, to find God on a message board? Anyway, enjoy yourself. I'm sure we could discuss ideas that are "Solely christian" in nature, but that would be entirely pointless since my grammar and spelling are so horrendous, plus I keep making personal attacks against you.

[Perndog]

Okay, I've changed my mind, I'm not done with this thread. No, you didn't hurt my feelings, you have to be mean something to them first. This is an intellectual debate, and this message board is just a diversion for me (as I hope it is for most everyone). I get very little out of it, and I put in more than I should. I post about Christianity on here because there are so many threads about it and because I know more about it than Islam or Hinduism or what-have-you. I'd be tickled pink if there was a thread for me to discuss the finer points of Satanism, but it seems pretty obvious to me that even if people here knew what they were talking about with that, I would be on my own against the world.

As for what irritated me originally, once I found out you were talking to me not Brandon, your "vague assertions" included, among countless other:

your "Hate" is misdirected

By which you implied that I hated something.

the fact that you can base most of your "intelligence" off the fact that you can derail christianity "Really well" would tend to include the fact that you are active participants in their religion

By which you mocked my intelligence and implied that "derailing Christianity" was important to me.

your denial of Christianity as per philisophical complications would tend to signify your democratic taste for it as you take a step or two

By which you assumed that I deny Christianity rather than ignoring it in favor of a better philosophy and yet there was still something that drew me to it.

your wonderful christian avatar

By which you didn't make any sense at all, but at least established that you were addressing me. I may be splitting hairs, but when I see a whole post full of the word "you" that ends in a sentence that obviously refers to a particular person, I tend assume the other "you"s are directed at the same.

[kahljorn]

I regarded you and Brandon as the same person, but as i said, take it how you will.
Also, you took most of my words the wrong way, maybe that's because I'm such a horrible speller.