Timber,
Could you put that in simpler terms for me, please? I'm not quite sure I have grasped your meaning.
That religion - particularly as expressed through the Christian subset of the Abrahamic Tradition - might be so frequently the occasion of enmity and even violence is absurd. Something just ain't right about that. Its real, it just ain't right.
I wonder who would win in a boxing match between Buddha and Jesus. Or Muhammed and Jesus? Whoooo, I bet that would be a serious battle.
I could see that Buffer guy announcing the fighters...
"And in this corner, wearing the dark blue tradtiional muslim head wrap of which I am unaware the name of....Muhaaaaaaaaaaaaammed! ...And in this corner, wearing a diaper and a crown of thorns...ladies, and gentlemen...the current heavyweight champion of the world...Jeeeeeeeeeeeesus Christ!
timberlandko wrote:That religion - particularly as expressed through the Christian subset of the Abrahamic Tradition - might be so frequently the occasion of enmity and even violence is absurd. Something just ain't right about that. Its real, it just ain't right.
Ah, such as the title of this thread? I agree. This is one of those things that are not to be taken literally, Timber. A little interpretation is required. :wink:
kickycan,
Just keep hanging out here on the good old planet earth. The winner of the final battle will be revealed.
Momma Angel wrote: ... This is one of those things that are not to be taken literally, Timber. A little interpretation is required. :wink:
Oh, like the Bible, huh? Yeah. Figures.
Lash wrote:Truthfully, Setanta, haven't you said all Christians are Jesus Freaks? that they're all crazy...?
No, i have not. I am always careful to distinguish between the lunatic fringe of any religious or quasi-religious group and the mainstream. That goes for atheists as well, among whom there are the vehement deniers of god who make a religion of their anti-theist assetions, and a god of science. For many religionists, god represents all truth, omniscience. For such a type of atheist, science becomes the all truthful, all knowing godhead--and in my experience, all but a handful of them are as ignorant of science as the fanatical religionists are ignorant of comparative religion and religious history.
I have not at any time said that all christians are either Jesus freaks or crazy--though i haven't the least doubt that you would like to assert as much for the purpose of vilification.
Momma Angel wrote:kickycan,
Just keep hanging out here on the good old planet earth. The winner of the final battle will be revealed.
Hopefully in my lifetime. Can I get the big fight on pay-per-view? God, I hope so...How much do you think that would cost?
No, actually. I don't really need a good reason to vilify....if vilification is in order....
I just really thought you said that.
Of course, so many Christian haters, working vehemently on the diminuation of Christianity....I could have gotten you mixed up with one of the other ones. I would talk more about it, but I have decided to go vilify Blatham.
I'm probably a-gonna be sorry I posted this, but here goes anyway:
I like Setanta (I really do) for much the same reasons I like Frank Apisa and, yes, Momma Angel, too (be proud, Momma: Merry Andrew likes you!). One of them (Frank) is a militant agnostic; another (Set) is a militant atheist; and we all know that Momma is a militant Christian. It's the militancy aspect that intrigues me and appeals to me, inasmuch as I have not even a soupcon of this quality.
My beliefs -- or lack thereof -- are a very personal matter for me and I wouldn't dream of sharing them unless someone outright asked me to explain myself. I not only don't proselytize, I am opposed to all proselytizing by and and all believers and/or non-believers. As I've grown older, I've begun to question whether there is any such thing as "objective truth", particularly in matters not suceptible to scientific inquiry. And if someone's personal insight tells them that every syllable of the New Testament is absolute, irrefutable and unarguable truth, I will make no effort to disabuse them. For them, it is the truth, and that's fine with me. I don't even consider it a falsity in any objective sense because objectivity is completely and totally irrelevant here. We are not talking about the measurable distance from the earth's equator to the moon, folks. Once we agree on standards of measurement, there might be some objectivity possible there. Not so with personal beliefs.
My point, I guess, is that the very concept of "duking it out" over such matters is somewhat repellant to me. I will not attack anyone's faith, nor will I defend my own beliefs. Why this seeming cowardice? Because I don't know whether my beliefs are true for you. And if they are not, then it isn't my business to force them on you. They are true for me and, to me, that is all that matters. I truly believe that more harm has been done by well-meaning missionaries trying to impose their religious beliefs on "less advanced" people than all the tsunamis, earthquakes and typhoons in history combined. And I believe similarly about well-meaning atheists who keep shouting at the top of their voices, "There is no God." For them, that is true statement. It is, obviously, not a true statement for people like Momma Angel. And, again, no objective proof, or even credible evidence, is really readilly available to back either position.
But, keep at it, folks. If this sort of bout is your cup of tea, I don't mind being a spectator. In fact. I'm rather enjoying the spectacle of bare-knuckles street-fighting between parties who fervently believe -- yes, Setanta, I'm including you in that phrase -- in the rightness of their thinking.
Lash wrote:kickycan wrote:Momma Angel wrote:kickycan,
Just keep hanging out here on the good old planet earth. The winner of the final battle will be revealed.
Hopefully in my lifetime. Can I get the big fight on pay-per-view? God, I hope so...How much do you think that would cost?
Your
mortal
soul...
Sweet. That can't be worth more 'n four or five bucks...
Intrepid wrote:Oh, but I did miss that. I have become used to a certain tone that you use. i.e. you insist on using MOAN for Momma angel. Do you think that is particularly clever of you to shout moan? That is what you are doing, isn't it? When one is used to a particular format, one expects it. For someone who constantly picks fights, you are in no position to judge anyone else. If you consider anyone who asks a question or disagrees with you as picking a fight, you have a lot to learn about human nature.
You go out of your way to comment on posts i have made to others--as for example when i offered Thomas a crying towel and you took the opportunity to jump in. So i stand with the statement that you like to pick a fight. I hae already explained that i will not use MA because that to me means Merry Andrew, whom i have known for years, before this site existed. I won't use momma or angel--the thought disgusts me because the first is a blatant attempt to portray herself as the loving, motherly type, which i see as hypocricy, and the second because angels do not exist by any evidence i've ever seen, and it is another attempt on her part to portray herself in a favorable light based upon her predilections. She likes to tout her virtue constantly. I won't play, so MOAN it is, and MOAN it will remain. I didn't judge you, i just made the observation that you like to pick fights and seem to have a thin skin. I've never asserted that those who disagree with me inevitably deserve to be described as having a penchant for picking fights--that's just a goofy straw man you erected. Nor do i have any reason to believe that you can teach me anything about human nature--nothing i've ever read by you struck me as original or insightful.
At all events, your entire post is just another attempt to pick a fight.
Oh boy, somebody please hold me back! I am not going to get into a fight with Setanta. I am not going to get into a fight with Setanta. I am not going to get into a fight with Setanta. I am not going to get into a fight with Setanta. I am not going to get into a fight with Setanta. I am not going to get into a fight with Setanta. I am not going to get into a fight with Setanta. I am not going to get into a fight with Setanta. I am not going to get into a fight with Setanta. I am not going to get into a fight with Setanta. I am not going to get into a fight with Setanta. I am not going to get into a fight with Setanta. I am not going to get into a fight with Setanta. I am not going to get into a fight with Setanta. I am not going to get into a fight with Setanta. Somebody stop me when I get to typing that 100 times, please.
Merry Andrew,
No need to be sorry. I found that very honest and open. And, by the way, I like you too! :wink:
You may include me if you wish MA, but you will be wrong. I do not assert that there is no god--and you, as is the case with Frank, confuse the denial of a belief with belief itself. That is incorrect. One person makes an assertion, that there is a god. I simply reject the assertion, absent compelling evidence. Those are not equivalent positions.
