On Atheism vs. Christianity

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
I can't get over the people patting miniMUNCH on the back for such a poorly conceived post.

Look, atheism isn't the substitution of science for faith -- it's not a trade -- it's the simple absence of the latter. The reasons behind that absence would be different for every atheist you ask. Science is just a tool, not a belief system, and the comparisons miniMUNCH has drawn are specious at best. The fact that "ignorant" scientists who have proposed incorrect hypotheses can be proven wrong at all is a great example of the value of science -- that we can continue to learn and transcend our understanding of the universe.

Questions like "Why am I here?" might sound philosophically titillating, but they are intellectually weak. What does that question even mean? If you translate it to something concrete, like "How did I get here?", then you might find answers and science might help you do so. But science, being just a tool based on tests and observations, will not explain purpose or meaning at a personal level. Those answers come only from individual reflection, if they come at all, and if some use faith to find them, so be it. I choose to look elsewhere because that path does not seem sensible to me, or fitting with what I have experienced.

And I would like to add to the bolded that faith is not the absence of science.

Actually, it often is. Many, many people feel compelled to question scientific theories because those theories are at odds with their faith.

Faith certainly is the absence of science, and rational thought as well. Faith means to believe in something for no reason what so ever. To believe in something which has not a single tiny bit of supporting evidence. That is the absence of rationality and science. If there is any reason(evidence) to believe something, believing in it is no longer faith.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
I can't get over the people patting miniMUNCH on the back for such a poorly conceived post.

Look, atheism isn't the substitution of science for faith -- it's not a trade -- it's the simple absence of the latter. The reasons behind that absence would be different for every atheist you ask. Science is just a tool, not a belief system, and the comparisons miniMUNCH has drawn are specious at best. The fact that "ignorant" scientists who have proposed incorrect hypotheses can be proven wrong at all is a great example of the value of science -- that we can continue to learn and transcend our understanding of the universe.

Questions like "Why am I here?" might sound philosophically titillating, but they are intellectually weak. What does that question even mean? If you translate it to something concrete, like "How did I get here?", then you might find answers and science might help you do so. But science, being just a tool based on tests and observations, will not explain purpose or meaning at a personal level. Those answers come only from individual reflection, if they come at all, and if some use faith to find them, so be it. I choose to look elsewhere because that path does not seem sensible to me, or fitting with what I have experienced.

And I would like to add to the bolded that faith is not the absence of science.

Actually, it often is. Many, many people feel compelled to question scientific theories because those theories are at odds with their faith.

Faith certainly is the absence of science, and rational thought as well. Faith means to believe in something for no reason what so ever. To believe in something which has not a single tiny bit of supporting evidence. That is the absence of rationality and science. If there is any reason(evidence) to believe something, believing in it is no longer faith.

That is a very nice definition of faith you have there, one I am sure you have a lot of faith, in yourself. one I'm sure you fancy fits well with your God of Reason. But it is quite small minded and ignorant in my opinion. It is a product of the left hemisphere doing left brained thinking. It is a product of the part of you that talks and that you can access consciously with language. It knows nothing of the silent hemisphere on the right that sees God in a single glance as an act of being. You count water molecules while others swim in oceans, examine psychoactive chemicals while others laugh. You are a spectator and not a player, but your reward is your arrogance and your ego.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
Faith certainly is the absence of science, and rational thought as well.

Faith means to believe in something for no reason what so ever.

To believe in something which has not a single tiny bit of supporting evidence.

That is the absence of rationality and science.

If there is any reason(evidence) to believe something, believing in it is no longer faith.

You just described the Republican Mission statement :shocked:

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: shira
First of all, I take exception to your use of the phrase, "reaction to events," when referring to God. How can God possibly "react?" You're implying that God is affected by external events.

And the comparison you're making between, on the one hand, yourself and your cat (and your extremely limited foreknowledge of you cat's demise) and, on the other hand, God and his infinite foreknowledge of everything that ever was, is, or every will be is absurd.

First of all, you have an emotional attachment and dependency on your cat. And the prospect of your cat dying is of relatively recent origin - you're still dealing with the newness of it. Also, although you can see the end coming, the details of that end aren't distinct. You don't know exactly when and you don't know exactly how. Furthermore, you have no idea what it's going to feel like when your cat finally does die - you fear what you might feel; you fear what life will be like in the days after the death. And beyond these practical details and feeling, an infinity of other details elude you.

An infinite, all-everything God, on the other hand, isn't remotely comparable. From the infinite past to the moment Satan tempted mankind, God has known every detail of what Satan would do, every detail of the fall of man, every detail of every action of every human to the end of time. And still, when the completely known event - every atom, every sound, every smell, every action - transpired, God "reacted" with rage?

Even at my weakest I couldn't swallow such rot.

First of all, I do not remember reading anywhere in the bible about God reacting with "Rage." He does get angry, but "rage" has the connotation of someone being out-of-control. Just b/c God knows what is coming does not change His expectations that He has for us.

. . .

Can you really believe what you wrote in the bolded sentence?

I just watched a video of Usain Bolt running 19.19 last week in the 2009 World Track and Field championships. I'd watched that video several times before. I knew exactly what the outcome of the race would be. To say in this situation , "I had expectations today that Usain Bolt would run a 19.19 in 200 meters" is just nonsensical. I had no "expectations" whatsoever.

Silly shira, arguing with a person of faith. You remind me of a man trying to convince a drunk that there's no such thing as alcohol. He's going to refute you with pink elephants every time. A drunk does not know a thing about proving the existence of alcohol. His intoxication is all the proof he needs. When it comes to alcohol, he who tastes know. And it's a vintage that produces the soul tipsy with the love of God.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: shira
First of all, I take exception to your use of the phrase, "reaction to events," when referring to God. How can God possibly "react?" You're implying that God is affected by external events.

And the comparison you're making between, on the one hand, yourself and your cat (and your extremely limited foreknowledge of you cat's demise) and, on the other hand, God and his infinite foreknowledge of everything that ever was, is, or every will be is absurd.

First of all, you have an emotional attachment and dependency on your cat. And the prospect of your cat dying is of relatively recent origin - you're still dealing with the newness of it. Also, although you can see the end coming, the details of that end aren't distinct. You don't know exactly when and you don't know exactly how. Furthermore, you have no idea what it's going to feel like when your cat finally does die - you fear what you might feel; you fear what life will be like in the days after the death. And beyond these practical details and feeling, an infinity of other details elude you.

An infinite, all-everything God, on the other hand, isn't remotely comparable. From the infinite past to the moment Satan tempted mankind, God has known every detail of what Satan would do, every detail of the fall of man, every detail of every action of every human to the end of time. And still, when the completely known event - every atom, every sound, every smell, every action - transpired, God "reacted" with rage?

Even at my weakest I couldn't swallow such rot.

First of all, I do not remember reading anywhere in the bible about God reacting with "Rage." He does get angry, but "rage" has the connotation of someone being out-of-control. Just b/c God knows what is coming does not change His expectations that He has for us.

. . .

Can you really believe what you wrote in the bolded sentence?

I just watched a video of Usain Bolt running 19.19 last week in the 2009 World Track and Field championships. I'd watched that video several times before. I knew exactly what the outcome of the race would be. To say in this situation , "I had expectations today that Usain Bolt would run a 19.19 in 200 meters" is just nonsensical. I had no "expectations" whatsoever.

Silly shira, arguing with a person of faith. You remind me of a man trying to convince a drunk that there's no such thing as alcohol. He's going to refute you with pink elephants every time. A drunk does not know a thing about proving the existence of alcohol. His intoxication is all the proof he needs. When it comes to alcohol, he who tastes know. And it's a vintage that produces the soul tipsy with the love of God.

i will agree with you on that point

i have no problem with a person who believes and genuinely is a kind person, but it seems quite hollow when its coming from a douche bag....which is all too often the case

i know a lot of atheists that live a lot more in line with christ than the average christian...thats not to say atheists are always good, but i think that they tend to be critical thinkers who see the danger in going along with the herd ..they actually share a lot of the same "christian" values

i wonder if theists ever see a flaw in the self legitimization that they abuse when claiming a religious belief...so and so should do this because god said so..when in reality what this means is "because i think so", whether or not there is a god is quite irrelevant to the way they try to control others with this self legitimizing power.

at least when someone argues for "reason" they are attempting to find the truth of the matter instead of abusing their power through projecting their ego (assuming they are not being purposely deceptive)

you said

" You count water molecules while others swim in oceans, examine psychoactive chemicals while others laugh. You are a spectator and not a player, but your reward is your arrogance and your ego. "

to another poster..I disagree with this statement, it may be true of some people, but many feel that by examining life as closely as we are capable of, that we will be able to come closer to the elusive truths that we all long to find..

this type of knowledge is quite useful...some things that impacted me for instance are the various studies about subjects such as:
a humans ability to remember events clearly
how people react under pressure
how people behave when confronted with commands from a perceived authority
how do violent murderer's brains differ from the average person

unfortunately we can never know everything, but when we take what we can into account, knowledge innoculates us from our own flaws if we are dilligent in reminding ourselves of them..
or to put it in terms of ego: i feel that this type of knowledge can diminish the bad part of our ego's effect on the world

atheists get a bad reputation because they feel overwhelmed by the masses surrounding them and may come off as assholes because they tend to go against the grain...if theists and atheists spent more time attempting to find common ground instead of trying to prove the unprovable , a win win solution could be found for both atheists and theists..we don't agree, so lets move on from that disagreement and find something we can agree on..surely we aren't THAT different ..?

when i was a child i spent hours arguing against religious people..some i ended up respecting even though i disagreed with them..i can say this much though..i am tired of playing the gotcha game and trying to make an ass out of each other...its ridiculous and it makes me sick that people like atreus (the op) simply could care less for improving life through his belief, he just gets off on trying to score points against the other side..he thinks he is outsmarting them but he is accomplishing nothing

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Silly shira, arguing with a person of faith. You remind me of a man trying to convince a drunk that there's no such thing as alcohol. He's going to refute you with pink elephants every time. A drunk does not know a thing about proving the existence of alcohol. His intoxication is all the proof he needs. When it comes to alcohol, he who tastes know. And it's a vintage that produces the soul tipsy with the love of God.

I think a more apt analogy would be that the drunk attributes his intoxication to pink elephants, not alcohol. Even if the skeptic knows better (or at least admits to doubt), the drunk will not be convinced, because he has all the proof he needs.

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Silly shira, arguing with a person of faith. You remind me of a man trying to convince a drunk that there's no such thing as alcohol. He's going to refute you with pink elephants every time. A drunk does not know a thing about proving the existence of alcohol. His intoxication is all the proof he needs. When it comes to alcohol, he who tastes know. And it's a vintage that produces the soul tipsy with the love of God.

I think a more apt analogy would be that the drunk attributes his intoxication to pink elephants, not alcohol. Even if the skeptic knows better (or at least admits to doubt), the drunk will not be convinced, because he has all the proof he needs.

I see what you did there :beer:

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Silly shira, arguing with a person of faith. You remind me of a man trying to convince a drunk that there's no such thing as alcohol. He's going to refute you with pink elephants every time. A drunk does not know a thing about proving the existence of alcohol. His intoxication is all the proof he needs. When it comes to alcohol, he who tastes know. And it's a vintage that produces the soul tipsy with the love of God.

I think a more apt analogy would be that the drunk attributes his intoxication to pink elephants, not alcohol. Even if the skeptic knows better (or at least admits to doubt), the drunk will not be convinced, because he has all the proof he needs.

I see what you did there :beer:

:beer: :beer: :beer:

To be fair, Moonbeam used the same phrasing, intentional or not.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: shira
First of all, I take exception to your use of the phrase, "reaction to events," when referring to God. How can God possibly "react?" You're implying that God is affected by external events.

And the comparison you're making between, on the one hand, yourself and your cat (and your extremely limited foreknowledge of you cat's demise) and, on the other hand, God and his infinite foreknowledge of everything that ever was, is, or every will be is absurd.

First of all, you have an emotional attachment and dependency on your cat. And the prospect of your cat dying is of relatively recent origin - you're still dealing with the newness of it. Also, although you can see the end coming, the details of that end aren't distinct. You don't know exactly when and you don't know exactly how. Furthermore, you have no idea what it's going to feel like when your cat finally does die - you fear what you might feel; you fear what life will be like in the days after the death. And beyond these practical details and feeling, an infinity of other details elude you.

An infinite, all-everything God, on the other hand, isn't remotely comparable. From the infinite past to the moment Satan tempted mankind, God has known every detail of what Satan would do, every detail of the fall of man, every detail of every action of every human to the end of time. And still, when the completely known event - every atom, every sound, every smell, every action - transpired, God "reacted" with rage?

Even at my weakest I couldn't swallow such rot.

First of all, I do not remember reading anywhere in the bible about God reacting with "Rage." He does get angry, but "rage" has the connotation of someone being out-of-control. Just b/c God knows what is coming does not change His expectations that He has for us.

. . .

Can you really believe what you wrote in the bolded sentence?

I just watched a video of Usain Bolt running 19.19 last week in the 2009 World Track and Field championships. I'd watched that video several times before. I knew exactly what the outcome of the race would be. To say in this situation , "I had expectations today that Usain Bolt would run a 19.19 in 200 meters" is just nonsensical. I had no "expectations" whatsoever.

Silly shira, arguing with a person of faith. You remind me of a man trying to convince a drunk that there's no such thing as alcohol. He's going to refute you with pink elephants every time. A drunk does not know a thing about proving the existence of alcohol. His intoxication is all the proof he needs. When it comes to alcohol, he who tastes know. And it's a vintage that produces the soul tipsy with the love of God.

Moonbeam, that's not a very apt analogy: In the case of the drunk, what he believes is the cause of his inebriation and the actual cause of his inebriation coincide - only a psychotic would try to convince the drunk otherwise.

Your analogy would be appropriate if directed at true-believers who attempt to debunk science.

However, I do understand what you're driving at, and I agree. The essential problem is that human beings continually assume that a feeling of certainty is somehow an indicator of truth. A true-believer feels a euphoric certainty at what he perceives as oneness with the Creator. How can one hope to get through to one so moved that euphoria is merely a brain state?

Still, I have faith (ironic, no?) that a few of the "saved" can be saved.

 

[Moonbeam]

There is a thing called God-Alcohol that produces a Religious realization-Intoxication that creates Religions-Pink Elephants and attacking those Religions-Pink Elephants delusions of the Religiously realized-Intoxicated does nothing to shake their faith in God-Alcohol because of that very Religiously realized-intoxication.

He who drinks from the well of God's love collapses time and space and ceases to exist in this world. Your admonitions that he is deluded will not reach him for he has hidden himself so completely behind you that he looks our of your own eyes.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There is a thing called God-Alcohol that produces a Religious realization-Intoxication that creates Religions-Pink Elephants and attacking those Religions-Pink Elephants delusions of the Religiously realized-Intoxicated does nothing to shake their faith in God-Alcohol because of that very Religiously realized-intoxication.

He who drinks from the well of God's love collapses time and space and ceases to exist in this world. Your admonitions that he is deluded will not reach him for he has hidden himself so completely behind you that he looks our of your own eyes.

Well, you were making sense until that final phrase. Anyone looking out of MY eyes might well be deluded, but certainly not with God-alcohol.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There is a thing called God-Alcohol that produces a Religious realization-Intoxication that creates Religions-Pink Elephants and attacking those Religions-Pink Elephants delusions of the Religiously realized-Intoxicated does nothing to shake their faith in God-Alcohol because of that very Religiously realized-intoxication.

He who drinks from the well of God's love collapses time and space and ceases to exist in this world. Your admonitions that he is deluded will not reach him for he has hidden himself so completely behind you that he looks our of your own eyes.

Well, you were making sense until that final phrase. Anyone looking out of MY eyes might well be deluded, but certainly not with God-alcohol.

See: Being John Malkovich

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: shira
First of all, I take exception to your use of the phrase, "reaction to events," when referring to God. How can God possibly "react?" You're implying that God is affected by external events.

And the comparison you're making between, on the one hand, yourself and your cat (and your extremely limited foreknowledge of you cat's demise) and, on the other hand, God and his infinite foreknowledge of everything that ever was, is, or every will be is absurd.

First of all, you have an emotional attachment and dependency on your cat. And the prospect of your cat dying is of relatively recent origin - you're still dealing with the newness of it. Also, although you can see the end coming, the details of that end aren't distinct. You don't know exactly when and you don't know exactly how. Furthermore, you have no idea what it's going to feel like when your cat finally does die - you fear what you might feel; you fear what life will be like in the days after the death. And beyond these practical details and feeling, an infinity of other details elude you.

An infinite, all-everything God, on the other hand, isn't remotely comparable. From the infinite past to the moment Satan tempted mankind, God has known every detail of what Satan would do, every detail of the fall of man, every detail of every action of every human to the end of time. And still, when the completely known event - every atom, every sound, every smell, every action - transpired, God "reacted" with rage?

Even at my weakest I couldn't swallow such rot.

First of all, I do not remember reading anywhere in the bible about God reacting with "Rage." He does get angry, but "rage" has the connotation of someone being out-of-control. Just b/c God knows what is coming does not change His expectations that He has for us.

. . .

Can you really believe what you wrote in the bolded sentence?

I just watched a video of Usain Bolt running 19.19 last week in the 2009 World Track and Field championships. I'd watched that video several times before. I knew exactly what the outcome of the race would be. To say in this situation , "I had expectations today that Usain Bolt would run a 19.19 in 200 meters" is just nonsensical. I had no "expectations" whatsoever.

I bet you that if Usain watches it, he gets some emotional charge from it. Unless you were some huge Bolt fan I would not expect you to get any thrill one way or the other regarding your example.

Edit: My use of "Expectations" merely refers to God wanting us to hold to a standard. His desire for us to hold to a standard is an expectation for us to do something. I am not sure what "tense" or grammatical form I am using the word, but it is not the same as how you are thinking. I thought that was evident, but I am not the best communicator, so maybe not.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: shira
I just watched a video of Usain Bolt running 19.19 last week in the 2009 World Track and Field championships. I'd watched that video several times before. I knew exactly what the outcome of the race would be. To say in this situation , "I had expectations today that Usain Bolt would run a 19.19 in 200 meters" is just nonsensical. I had no "expectations" whatsoever.

I bet you that if Usain watches it, he gets some emotional charge from it. Unless you were some huge Bolt fan I would not expect you to get any thrill one way or the other regarding your example.

Edit: My use of "Expectations" merely refers to God wanting us to hold to a standard. His desire for us to hold to a standard is an expectation for us to do something. I am not sure what "tense" or grammatical form I am using the word, but it is not the same as how you are thinking. I thought that was evident, but I am not the best communicator, so maybe not.

So... if God.. watches a video of himself.. I think I lost track of this metaphor.

Anyway, how do you make these claims about what God desires for us, or what his intentions are?

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: shira
First of all, I take exception to your use of the phrase, "reaction to events," when referring to God. How can God possibly "react?" You're implying that God is affected by external events.

And the comparison you're making between, on the one hand, yourself and your cat (and your extremely limited foreknowledge of you cat's demise) and, on the other hand, God and his infinite foreknowledge of everything that ever was, is, or every will be is absurd.

First of all, you have an emotional attachment and dependency on your cat. And the prospect of your cat dying is of relatively recent origin - you're still dealing with the newness of it. Also, although you can see the end coming, the details of that end aren't distinct. You don't know exactly when and you don't know exactly how. Furthermore, you have no idea what it's going to feel like when your cat finally does die - you fear what you might feel; you fear what life will be like in the days after the death. And beyond these practical details and feeling, an infinity of other details elude you.

An infinite, all-everything God, on the other hand, isn't remotely comparable. From the infinite past to the moment Satan tempted mankind, God has known every detail of what Satan would do, every detail of the fall of man, every detail of every action of every human to the end of time. And still, when the completely known event - every atom, every sound, every smell, every action - transpired, God "reacted" with rage?

Even at my weakest I couldn't swallow such rot.

First of all, I do not remember reading anywhere in the bible about God reacting with "Rage." He does get angry, but "rage" has the connotation of someone being out-of-control. Just b/c God knows what is coming does not change His expectations that He has for us.

. . .

Can you really believe what you wrote in the bolded sentence?

I just watched a video of Usain Bolt running 19.19 last week in the 2009 World Track and Field championships. I'd watched that video several times before. I knew exactly what the outcome of the race would be. To say in this situation , "I had expectations today that Usain Bolt would run a 19.19 in 200 meters" is just nonsensical. I had no "expectations" whatsoever.

Silly shira, arguing with a person of faith. You remind me of a man trying to convince a drunk that there's no such thing as alcohol. He's going to refute you with pink elephants every time. A drunk does not know a thing about proving the existence of alcohol. His intoxication is all the proof he needs. When it comes to alcohol, he who tastes know. And it's a vintage that produces the soul tipsy with the love of God.

I disagree with this b/c I have not really mentioned any experiential aspect of faith- at this point I have only been discussing concepts with the others here in this post. I am not discounting experiential aspect of faith, it just hasn't come up for me yet in this conversation.

time to get back to work... lunch over

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
NEMESIS 1 REALITY

My only real fear left, is that my reality becomes like yours . Eyes wide shut!

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jesuits.htm


Have you never thought ?

What exactly should the words HRCC Means to a true beliefer is the testitmony of the Living Word.

HOLY ROMAN

YOU have to be deullisional to believe that wording would ever be used by a true christian and keepers of the Word. DElissional. The Church of CHRIST has no Holy Roman in it.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There is a thing called God-Alcohol that produces a Religious realization-Intoxication that creates Religions-Pink Elephants and attacking those Religions-Pink Elephants delusions of the Religiously realized-Intoxicated does nothing to shake their faith in God-Alcohol because of that very Religiously realized-intoxication.

He who drinks from the well of God's love collapses time and space and ceases to exist in this world. Your admonitions that he is deluded will not reach him for he has hidden himself so completely behind you that he looks our of your own eyes.

Well, you were making sense until that final phrase. Anyone looking out of MY eyes might well be deluded, but certainly not with God-alcohol.

See: Being John Malkovich

I have. And in the film, John (who in Moonbeam's construction would be me) was basically a puppet for those inside his head.

How this relates to me and the fundies escapes me. They're certainly not in my head looking out of my eyes (if they were, they'd be a lot better off), and I'm certainly not their puppet.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
NEMESIS 1 REALITY

My only real fear left, is that my reality becomes like yours . Eyes wide shut!

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jesuits.htm


Have you never thought ?

What exactly should the words HRCC Means to a true beliefer is the testitmony of the Living Word.

HOLY ROMAN

YOU have to be deullisional to believe that wording would ever be used by a true christian and keepers of the Word. DElissional. The Church of CHRIST has no Holy Roman in it.

Who are you even responding to? I didn't say anything about any of that. I'm not a Catholic, if you're talking to me. I was just referring to a past thread where you were posting gibberish and YoYo made a goofy powerpoint presentation about it.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There is a thing called God-Alcohol that produces a Religious realization-Intoxication that creates Religions-Pink Elephants and attacking those Religions-Pink Elephants delusions of the Religiously realized-Intoxicated does nothing to shake their faith in God-Alcohol because of that very Religiously realized-intoxication.

He who drinks from the well of God's love collapses time and space and ceases to exist in this world. Your admonitions that he is deluded will not reach him for he has hidden himself so completely behind you that he looks our of your own eyes.

Well, you were making sense until that final phrase. Anyone looking out of MY eyes might well be deluded, but certainly not with God-alcohol.

See: Being John Malkovich

I have. And in the film, John (who in Moonbeam's construction would be me) was basically a puppet for those inside his head.

How this relates to me and the fundies escapes me. They're certainly not in my head looking out of my eyes (if they were, they'd be a lot better off), and I'm certainly not their puppet.

I was just making a silly film reference. I don't know what Moonbeam is talking about most of the time, but that's fun I guess.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There is a thing called God-Alcohol that produces a Religious realization-Intoxication that creates Religions-Pink Elephants and attacking those Religions-Pink Elephants delusions of the Religiously realized-Intoxicated does nothing to shake their faith in God-Alcohol because of that very Religiously realized-intoxication.

He who drinks from the well of God's love collapses time and space and ceases to exist in this world. Your admonitions that he is deluded will not reach him for he has hidden himself so completely behind you that he looks our of your own eyes.

Well, you were making sense until that final phrase. Anyone looking out of MY eyes might well be deluded, but certainly not with God-alcohol.

See: Being John Malkovich

I have. And in the film, John (who in Moonbeam's construction would be me) was basically a puppet for those inside his head.

How this relates to me and the fundies escapes me. They're certainly not in my head looking out of my eyes (if they were, they'd be a lot better off), and I'm certainly not their puppet.

I was just making a silly film reference. I don't know what Moonbeam is talking about most of the time, but that's fun I guess.

Moonbeam definitely has a gift for symbolic language, but sometimes the wheels come off of his Sufi go-cart.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There is a thing called God-Alcohol that produces a Religious realization-Intoxication that creates Religions-Pink Elephants and attacking those Religions-Pink Elephants delusions of the Religiously realized-Intoxicated does nothing to shake their faith in God-Alcohol because of that very Religiously realized-intoxication.

He who drinks from the well of God's love collapses time and space and ceases to exist in this world. Your admonitions that he is deluded will not reach him for he has hidden himself so completely behind you that he looks our of your own eyes.

Well, you were making sense until that final phrase. Anyone looking out of MY eyes might well be deluded, but certainly not with God-alcohol.

Maybe this will make what I meant more clear.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There is a thing called God-Alcohol that produces a Religious realization-Intoxication that creates Religions-Pink Elephants and attacking those Religions-Pink Elephants delusions of the Religiously realized-Intoxicated does nothing to shake their faith in God-Alcohol because of that very Religiously realized-intoxication.

He who drinks from the well of God's love collapses time and space and ceases to exist in this world. Your admonitions that he is deluded will not reach him for he has hidden himself so completely behind you that he looks our of your own eyes.

Well, you were making sense until that final phrase. Anyone looking out of MY eyes might well be deluded, but certainly not with God-alcohol.

Maybe this will make what I meant more clear.

Ya know you have a good head on your shoulder moonbeam .

You can see whats clearly in front of your eyes which makes you question FAITH.

AS many many do . I believe its better to reject the lies also.

But have you rver asked yourself WHY the gapping holes exist in religious teachings. They had time to cover these holes.

You ever stop yo think those holes were put there to Derour you from finding the path of trueth .


Lets look At What Christ Represents.

Completion of the covenant between God and Abramham . Which means NO more Blood Sacrifice. Christ also believered the Final Laws. Christ was completion of a covient between GOD and MAN !

At the last Supper Did Christ say do this in remembrance of me.

So what did Christ mean . Have Mass on Thursdays. Change the Sabbath to Sunday . What did Christ Mean. Break bread which is my body and drink the wine of my blood.

What does that Mean . It means teach what I have taught so as to make man drunk with my glory over the Beast. THAT is what a CHURCH is. Its not a place . Its the last supper. NO priest need to be present.

Christ never said to change GODs Holy Commandments . The Lords Day BY Hebrew tradition is sabbath . Saturday.

Lets Change the Meaning of The Lords Day here from the traditional 1 day a week BS. That was created by Priest= Money /Control freaks!

What if say The Holy day God Commands us to Keep is Not a day of week but a moment in Time.

Lets tie that to all this 2012 on winter soltios Conspirecy and Prophecy Stuff. What If On That Day we enter another Day. Another Moment in Time . The Age of Aquariuos for instance. What If This Is GODS HOLY DAY. 5,500 years after God promised to restore Adam to the LIGHT!(Garden). What If we sin on that DAY? What IF man has become enlightened befor that time ? I don't know . But its clear that something has been guiding men in the path of destruction . WHY/ Who were the angles what was god?

WHY all the lies? Why is religion made to look foolish . When Christ was anything but a fool. After Christ was gone it was nothing for regious men to still his identity and do evil in his name . God have mercy on all who don't believe they were given fair choices.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

I love it. I believe.

 

[Sacrilege]

Conspirecy and Prophecy Stuff. What If On That Day we enter another Day. Another Moment in Time . The Age of Aquariuos for instance.

Deus Ex has the answers!

 

[spittledip]

Eh.. mods might want to delete that link.. not sure, haven't tested it