Mythra Posted June 11, 2005 Author Share Posted June 11, 2005 So DC - maybe if we talk about amanda behind her back, she'll poke her head out. I'm pretty sure it was a post by Amanda that was talking about Romans 1 not applying to homosexuals at all, but that the descriptions there were in reference to fundamental christians. Quite an interesting point. (although completely whacked out) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmatically_challenged Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 So DC - maybe if we talk about amanda behind her back, she'll poke her head out. I'm pretty sure it was a post by Amanda that was talking about Romans 1 not applying to homosexuals at all, but that the descriptions there were in reference to fundamental christians. Quite an interesting point. (although completely whacked out) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yea. It seems funny to me. But interpretations can be clearer if we take the culture of the religionists of that time into account, and that I know very, very little about. I dunno. Doesn't matter because it is a defense of a man made writings and not any kind of reasonable defense for a god inspired book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 Hi Amanda - no, it just seemed demeaning. Like we had never read the Bible or anything. Not too much you can tell us that we haven't heard. On the other hand, how well versed are you? Even your description is confusing. Are you new age, or fundamentalist christian, or what? I saw some of your posts on the Romans 1 thread that were not conventional thinking at all. Your bible interpretation seems to be a little, how should I say, weird? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hi Mythra! I apologize for the miscommunication conveyed to you that my intent was to demean anyone. NOT!!! I admire people on this site for being "thinkers", and very nice ones at that! Thanks for noticing I'm not in any particular category. What am I? I'm my own person... just like you. I spent 3 years in seminary, which I know means not too much, really. I've never followed any sect, just studied as much as I could of the original text.... learned condemning people never helped anyone. Hey, I still like your humor! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmatically_challenged Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 I think Amanda that you are evolving and are a free thinker of sorts. Your beliefs are strange to me indeed, but I still respect what is underneath your superstition. That is I respect you even if I can be a little jerk sometimes. hehe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted June 11, 2005 Author Share Posted June 11, 2005 OK, so what's you're gig now? Denomination? What kind of seminary teaches that Romans 1 is referring to fundamental christians? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 I see neocon used here quite a bit. Not sure exactly what that is. Another one I see used is - ROFL or something like that, referring to laughter, I think. Neo-con = Neo (new) Conservative, that a term media have minted the new movement of conservativs, that have some religious influences ROFL = Rolling On The Floor Laughing Btw, (By the way) talking about brilliant people and split-personalities etc, here's a lame joke for ya' How can you tell the difference if a person is totally brilliant or if he's totally insane? If he wears a Wrinkled or Strait-jacket. I told you it was lame! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmatically_challenged Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 Heehee! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 I see democrats as the party of handouts and freebies and welfare and affirmative action. I see republicans as the party of entrepreneurs, free enterprise, and personal responsibility. On the other hand, I could be complete fucked up, just like about religion. If you look at how OT describes Moses and the "Divine" law that was handed down. Religion was used as a political tool. There's not much difference between religion and politics. A church, with the pastor as the leader, uses a lot of political polemics to control his herd of sheep. While politicians reach for peoples beliefs to get them to follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmatically_challenged Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 If you look at how OT describes Moses and the "Divine" law that was handed down. Religion was used as a political tool. There's not much difference between religion and politics. A church, with the pastor as the leader, uses a lot of political polemics to control his herd of sheep. While politicians reach for peoples beliefs to get them to follow. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Uncle Hans...is that why Rome used the O.T. to invent a new religion in the first place? Because the current religions werent as useful to the government? hehe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 I was a big Bush supporter up until he went into Iraq. I knew that was a fucked up move from the start. Now, we're completely screwed over there. I mean, Arabs LIVE for this fighting shit. And how many people killed? Man. Probably more than ever died under Sadman Hussein. Feel bad for em. And one of the arguments was that Saddam tortured his prisoners, and we went in to save the people, and now we put people without the right to attorney in prison, outside our borders, so we can treat them as shit, without compromising the Geneva Convention. What the hell is that?! It’s almost like the story with the boy that gets bullied at school, and his bigger brother comes and tells the bully, “You can’t hit my little brother, only I can do that.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted June 11, 2005 Author Share Posted June 11, 2005 Rolling on the floor laughing. Thanks for the info I learn something everyday. Zoe Grace had me rolling on the floor laughing today at work with one of her responses. She can be really funny. But so can lots of people here. I think I'm gonna bag it, guys. See ya later. From now on, if you look up the words "hijacked thread" in the dictionary, you'll see the description "Influence of the Holy Spirit" by Mythra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 Feel free to punch holes in my perception of things. What I see is very awful. It's depressing. I can't because I think you're right. The only reason to take Iraq was that it was defenseless and easy to take. Beat the guy that’s on the ground. North Korea and many other countries have more weapons and pose a threat to us, but they’re too strong, so it’s easier to beat the crap out of the guy with no weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmatically_challenged Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 Uncle Hans...is that why Rome used the O.T. to invent a new religion in the first place? Because the current religions werent as useful to the government? hehe! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bump. hehe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 Yeah, I think everyone believes that there is a whole lot more to the Iraq thing than meets the eye. I don't really trust any politicians. Dishonesty is a mandatory requirement to live in Washington. The money flows to where the lips best meet the anus. No one looks out for the best interests of the country. It's all about money and powerful influences and special interests. But, it's still the best gig in the world living here. But it sounds like Hans has it ok too. I believe in this Country. The constitution is the most beautiful concept of mankind, but it depends on politicians, judges in Supreme Court and the police force to maintain it and not violate it. It depends on people’s belief in it. But when religion becomes a stronger belief than the Constitution, then we’re in trouble. Btw, I’m doing ok, live in a nice area, have my own company with some partners, my wife is a top salesperson at Lowe’s, so yeah, we’re ok. Even though, most of it is pretty much from hand to mouth on a daily basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmatically_challenged Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 Rolling on the floor laughing. Thanks for the info I learn something everyday. Zoe Grace had me rolling on the floor laughing today at work with one of her responses. She can be really funny. But so can lots of people here. I think I'm gonna bag it, guys. See ya later. From now on, if you look up the words "hijacked thread" in the dictionary, you'll see the description "Influence of the Holy Spirit" by Mythra. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hehe! Yea this thread was definately fun! Man its funny how we think simularly. There are so many funny people here! Hans, Fwee, Kahn, Brother Jeff, Zoe Grace , ....many. Peace, Reason, and Respect brother heathen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 Uncle Hans...is that why Rome used the O.T. to invent a new religion in the first place? Because the current religions werent as useful to the government? hehe! Good question... The Nice Convention (350?) decided that the OT should be part of the Bible, and I wonder why, because it was the Jewish holy book... I never thought of it before... But definitely Constantine (280-337) took Christianity to be the state religion out of political reasons. He maybe claimed to be Christian, I can't deny if he was, but most likely he saw the dynamical structure of the faith and the Bible as an incredible tool to manipulate people into obedience. The Church adopted so many pagan rituals (Eastern, Christmas, saints etc) so people could replace X with Z, and still be happy. Keep the tradition but just change the nameplate. He was very clever, no one denying that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmatically_challenged Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 Yes. I heard a rumor that he worshhiped the the Sun, and mythras was attached to this Sun worship, and so a few these understandings from that pagan religion were put into the mix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 Are we off track or what? Thread hijacking of the third degree! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmatically_challenged Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 Heehee! The holy spook has officially been debunked! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 Yes. I heard a rumor that he worshhiped the the Sun, and mythras was attached to this Sun worship, and so a few these understandings from that pagan religion were put into the mix. "Few" is an understatement. Many symbols were adopted in the early church even before the Nice Creed and stuff. Take the Fish symbol for instance: it's an old pagan symbol of fertility Dunkin Donut People in Water: the symbol of rebirth, invented way before Xians Christmas: Winter Solstice, major pagan celebration Easter: spring equinox, pagan Halloween: fall equinox, pagan Drinking blood, eating flesh: pagan Praying to saints (dead spirits): pagan Born of a virgin: pagan Monasteries: pagan Blood sacrifice: pagan and plenty more [edit] I'm going to adopt the term "the Holy Spook" from now on, not to be confused with MrSpooky, who is not so holy, but wholly intelligent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmatically_challenged Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 WOW! I at least new that these were not Jewish motifs so must be pagan, or at least new ideas that they pulled out of thier butts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 WOW! I at least new that these were not Jewish motifs so must be pagan, or at least new ideas that they pulled out of thier butts. I think the inventors of the first NT scriptures (like Q etc), were strongly influence by Jewish religion and Jewish and Greek philosophy. They made a mix of it all. And the OT has the same character, a mix of other religions. Then the Catholic Church did the same thing, mixed in traditions from plenty other religions and philosophies. That’s the reason why it’s so powerful. Its intention was the Salad Bar of Belief. Pick and choose, you’ll always find something to support your ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 If Mohammed had added his rants into the Bible, not as a replacement but only as an extension, we might have had a Jewish-Christian-Muslim religion today that would have whacked everyone out of their seats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmatically_challenged Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 Yes. When Greece occupied palestine the Jews were definately influenced. "Helenized Jews." I guess when cultures clash or when they peacefully meet ideas bleed into them from eachother. It's inevetable. A cycle in our history, present and future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 Yes. When Greece occupied palestine the Jews were definately influenced. "Helenized Jews." I guess when cultures clash or when they peacefully meet ideas bleed into them from eachother. It's inevetable. A cycle in our history, present and future. Yup. We have yet to see what kind of religions will come out from California! The melting pot of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts