Jesus Kills!
- Thread starter Adam
- Start date
It can't be serious.
• What is the last thing to go through a fly's mind when he hits your windshield?
• His ass,
I mean ... come on. I clicked the Back button and ... well, or is that your point?
thanx,
Tiassa
This reminds me of a joke I usually think about when driving east of the mountains:
• What is the last thing to go through a fly's mind when he hits your windshield?
• His ass,
I mean ... come on. I clicked the Back button and ... well, or is that your point?
thanx,
Tiassa
Look, um, I hate to point out the obvious
But c'mon, guys ... I'm with Adam, it's a good laugh. But that's all there is. (Click the Back button at the bottom of the story page. There's important information awaiting you.)
I promise.
thanx,
Tiassa
But c'mon, guys ... I'm with Adam, it's a good laugh. But that's all there is. (Click the Back button at the bottom of the story page. There's important information awaiting you.)
I promise.
thanx,
Tiassa
LIGHTBEING
Registered Senior Member
That's a damn shame!!!!!
This artical bring me to another point. Why is it when a Christian dies the loved ones always fall back on....well, it was her/his time to go. That's bullshit!!!!! It was a 17 year old girl's time to go???? Didn't even get out of high school yet God was ready to take her home?!?!?!?!?! Fucking people are so "God" damn ignorant!!!!!
Is this how they deal with their death.....they feel it is ok because she is with God and you can't qustion God's decision?????
Pisses me off
This artical bring me to another point. Why is it when a Christian dies the loved ones always fall back on....well, it was her/his time to go. That's bullshit!!!!! It was a 17 year old girl's time to go???? Didn't even get out of high school yet God was ready to take her home?!?!?!?!?! Fucking people are so "God" damn ignorant!!!!!
Is this how they deal with their death.....they feel it is ok because she is with God and you can't qustion God's decision?????
Pisses me off
I think some are true, actually.
He says some are true at the top of the page, and browsing through I saw a couple with actual newspaper names attached (like Reuters). His are all authored under the same name, and have no reference as to where it was published.
Still funny as hell. LMAO
He says some are true at the top of the page, and browsing through I saw a couple with actual newspaper names attached (like Reuters). His are all authored under the same name, and have no reference as to where it was published.
Still funny as hell. LMAO
Pretty sure it's not too true....
"FREEDOM, WYOMING (EAP) -- The scientific community was in awe yesterday when a Wyoming man revealed that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. The man claims to have spoken to God and received a message telling him that scientific measurements can no longer be trusted and that the world is in danger.
Cory Collins, 55, of Freedom, Wyoming, claims to have spoken to God personally, and says that God is unhappy about the way science takes its measurements so seriously.
"God confirmed to me that what the Bible says is true, and that our Earth and the universe are actually 9,875 years old. Some people disagree with the creation story in the Bible, but God told me personally that every word in the Bible is the truth."
NASA is currently seeking the assistance of Collins, in hopes that he'll be able to help them re-program the computers in the Cassini space probe which will be making a pass around Earth next month.
"We don't want any disasters next month, and if Mr. Collins is so sure that God spoke to him, we want to take every precaution and get his input and calculations on the matter. He could be the saviour of our planet if what he claims is true," said Walter Adams, project lead for the Cassini project.
NASA is also interested in obtaining Collins' input on redesigning some of the software modules which process data from the Hubble space telescope.
"His advanced theories on the speed of light, plus his contact with God are of great interest to us," Adams said.
"We've been wrong all along, and we should've known better. It's a miracle that we made it to the moon and back without the help of Mr. Collins." "
"FREEDOM, WYOMING (EAP) -- The scientific community was in awe yesterday when a Wyoming man revealed that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. The man claims to have spoken to God and received a message telling him that scientific measurements can no longer be trusted and that the world is in danger.
Cory Collins, 55, of Freedom, Wyoming, claims to have spoken to God personally, and says that God is unhappy about the way science takes its measurements so seriously.
"God confirmed to me that what the Bible says is true, and that our Earth and the universe are actually 9,875 years old. Some people disagree with the creation story in the Bible, but God told me personally that every word in the Bible is the truth."
NASA is currently seeking the assistance of Collins, in hopes that he'll be able to help them re-program the computers in the Cassini space probe which will be making a pass around Earth next month.
"We don't want any disasters next month, and if Mr. Collins is so sure that God spoke to him, we want to take every precaution and get his input and calculations on the matter. He could be the saviour of our planet if what he claims is true," said Walter Adams, project lead for the Cassini project.
NASA is also interested in obtaining Collins' input on redesigning some of the software modules which process data from the Hubble space telescope.
"His advanced theories on the speed of light, plus his contact with God are of great interest to us," Adams said.
"We've been wrong all along, and we should've known better. It's a miracle that we made it to the moon and back without the help of Mr. Collins." "
What's interesting about that page ...
What is most interesting about that page is the author's editorials, such as the one on Views on Religion and Mysticism. Elroy seems to have given much thought to the subject, but not a tremendous amount of research.
It isn't that his position is disagreeable, but tying it to mysticism in the fashion he has undermines the notion that he is addressing mysticism at all.
Sometimes I feel like one of the Ghostbusters. No, I never have found a copy of Tobin's Spirit Guide, though the thousands of entries in Davidson's Dictionary of Angels provides just the smallest snippet of mysticism around the world. The gods and their precepts are largely religion. Mysticism implies an inner secret, the kernel from which the greater whole flowers. To view a Webster's entry on mysticism:
What we have, then, is a comparative editorial regarding the mystical overviews of several religions, using Christianity as the headpin for the demolition implied.
In reality, mysticism is far more closed than religion. Anyone can choose to accept religious principle on faith; religion can be capsulized in a bullet-list apropos something like USA Today or CNN. Consider the difference between religion (representative) and faith (actual); rarely do the two coincide directly.
But mysticism transcends the standard rules of religion. It is a restricted process, a science within faith; a metascience, a metaphysic.
We might take for an example my oft-voiced complaint about Catholic diabology and other theological processes. The logical operations within the structure are, often, airtight, but the gaping maw in the hull comes from the a priori assumption that all the parts are assembled correctly, and also from the presupposition that the parts are the correct ones for the final product in the first place.
In that specific sense, we might say that if God exists and if Condition B is true, then Conclusion C is accurate; this is as far as one can get within religion--"if".
The mystical approach is different. Where the religious position assumes knowledge, the mystical position should recognize ignorance. Is it any wonder, then, that I might accept of the Christian God only the most mystical definition--that God is greater than that which can be conceived?
The mystical position, especially within the Abramic experience, accepts that God is unknown, and sets about creating an unnatural environment in which the mystic seeks an unnatural result--e.g. the presence of God. In Sufism, a common phrase is polishing the mirror, which implies not that one is God, but that when one attains enlightenment, the reflection of God's will can be found in the mirror--that is, the reflection of the enlightened self becomes an accurate representation of the concept of God.
At its most degraded, such a point as the author has struck--make the best of their lives while they're on Earth--suffers the same fate as Crowley's Thelemic declaration, Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
In a social comparison, we might see the lucre-blinded hedonism of the American economic juggernaut as an excellent parallel. One can tell me all they want about economic theory and how things should be, but the fact of the matter is that the noble interpretations of economic theory are mere idylls catalogued as trump cards to be played during election season. Trickle-down theory did not work the way it was supposed to because moneys did not trickle down the way they were supposed to. Of course, anyone who remembers the diagrams for trickle-down remembers quite clearly that, graphically represented, it looks exactly like the discredited pyramid schemes of modern business.
In light of the author's above-cited opinion, I wonder what, in the right company, he would be forced to admit about New York
But the point is well-taken. I'm one of those that tends to think that since the Christians have missed the point, so have a number of their critics. After all, any critic trying to work beyond the allegdly-bulletproof rhetoric of Christianity, attempting to delve into the misbehaviors of Christianity, is seeking the wrong fault. The faults of the Christian dynamic are apparent to anyone who has seen them, but I don't think most people recognize such telling marks at first glance.
If I accept the author's point, it would be with the note that the author is correct in his refutation of common faith, but both sides are way off when it comes to the actual problems of Christianity.
And this a sad state of affairs. Any critic of Christianity knows well that there exists a great dichotomy 'twixt the rhetoric and practice of Christianity. After all, this chasm is the primary point of contention.
Perhaps it is a result of the sacrifice of the intellect, but I don't understand why Christians are so damned anxious to demonstrate that which cannot be demonstrated. Now, I'm not talking a technological limitation here, but who here or anywhere is going to write the experiment that proves conclusively the existence of God? And how can that result be called God? Any sufficiently scary entity in the Universe would be enough to convince many, if not most.
The point is that one shouldn't have to disprove Christianity; nor should one try to prove it. To work so hard toward the proof of Christianity in one's lifetime is to work to defeat faith in God. After all, by proving God's existence, you are taking away the choice of faith and placing a demand of conformity onto others, and if God wanted it to be that overt, I assure you that God would have made it so. (What? I don't have to be an expert for that one; it seems self-evident, doesn't it?)
I think there's a larger fault at play; that is, I think the author is suffering a difficulty that is, for practical purposes, a standard.
Yes, uncertainty necessitates certain reactions. This is evident in history, and in the present experience. But the question and its rhetorical response rely on an act of deliberation, and religious currents run deep in the human history. We do, in fact, find it quite necessary to render our ignorance into myth, to create ideals in the place of knowledge.
The act of deliberation comes as a subtle process. Imagine, if you will, one who witnesses something to which he has no known criteria for reaction. The mind will compress or economize information. That there's fire raining on the city in the distance does not represent the whole of the thing, but it lends toward the priories awarded criteria for judgment.
Look at the number of non-Christians, for instance, who, at this site, are prepared to attribute certain parts of our religious heritage to a big misunderstanding concerning aliens. It's still a compression of the unknown, albeit one more likely than the God of the Bible.
The answer, simply, is that all of these religious expressions contain elements of the same "truth" that, in reality, is quite removed from gods and religions. Sure Universal harmony and oneness sounds chintzy, but by the time the environmentalists are done, we'll have the same effect with a whole lot more neuroses to deal with.
• Would anyone like to assert that data replication is consistent 'twixt one generation and the next? That data replication is constant, predictable, or stable?
• In light of this, I submit that, in adopting the religion of one's parents, one is, in fact, adopting the economized, compressed version. Pocket faith, if you will.
And that's the problem. On the one hand, the author has put together what seems to be a necessary response to religion. But the compression of data according to which mysticism has been addressed seems so severe that mysticism actually has no part in the article. Yet, such is reality, and those who will deal with such ideas in the future now have another incorrect compression to deal with, and thus will be countering something which puzzles their counterparts within faith. Those people will be responding to a fallacious association, as well, and this is how ideas get muddled.
As it is, I find the article one well worth reading, but it's also important to point out that surface reactions to the article aren't worth a whole lot because that surface reflects a false picture.
They're great reflections, I suppose, but I'm hung up for the moment on the borders crossed and the intellectual difficulty that comes from ideas bleeding together like that. As we see, of intellectual difficulties, Christianity has largely erased such difficulties by making them so frequent as to not be regarded as difficulties. They are, instead, points to be ignored.
Of the infidels, it's only important to me to save them the effort of responding to what isn't real. Mysticism exscinded, it's a great article though that pretty much says what a lot of people at Sciforums have been trying to say.
Perhaps its just a loose definition of mysticism. But then again, is there a distance between upholding the law and upholding justice? (I know it's complex for a rhetorical, but deal with it; I needed something just as abstract and baseless as God, and, well, the relationship 'twixt law and justice pretty well suffices.)
One wonders, then, why such a piece was written. If it is to actually contribute information and perspective to the debate, well, that's one thing, isn't it? But when bitching for a personal vendetta, sawed-off shotguns aren't the right tool in a crowded arena.
It's a good article. Just don't fool yourself into believing there is any regard for mysticism to be found anywhere inside it. Suggested alternate title for this article: Why I think other people suck.
It's broad enough
thanx much,
Tiassa
What is most interesting about that page is the author's editorials, such as the one on Views on Religion and Mysticism. Elroy seems to have given much thought to the subject, but not a tremendous amount of research.
It isn't that his position is disagreeable, but tying it to mysticism in the fashion he has undermines the notion that he is addressing mysticism at all.
A tremendously revealing snippet which helps define the boundaries of mysticism within the editorial. We see a basic comparison of broader textual and traditional overviews, of attributions that are merely symbolic. In this case, he is looking past the frying pan and at the fire in order to determine what is cooking.
Sometimes I feel like one of the Ghostbusters. No, I never have found a copy of Tobin's Spirit Guide, though the thousands of entries in Davidson's Dictionary of Angels provides just the smallest snippet of mysticism around the world. The gods and their precepts are largely religion. Mysticism implies an inner secret, the kernel from which the greater whole flowers. To view a Webster's entry on mysticism:
Only in loose interpretations do such mysteries as those reflected in the article's generalizations count as mysticism.
What we have, then, is a comparative editorial regarding the mystical overviews of several religions, using Christianity as the headpin for the demolition implied.
Such as this generalization. It's fair enough to limit the above to the minds of those people who choose to imagine that such a being really exists. At its heart, this is the point, and in light of such, believing in a being that exists in another dimension, escapes detection and so forth .....
In reality, mysticism is far more closed than religion. Anyone can choose to accept religious principle on faith; religion can be capsulized in a bullet-list apropos something like USA Today or CNN. Consider the difference between religion (representative) and faith (actual); rarely do the two coincide directly.
But mysticism transcends the standard rules of religion. It is a restricted process, a science within faith; a metascience, a metaphysic.
We might take for an example my oft-voiced complaint about Catholic diabology and other theological processes. The logical operations within the structure are, often, airtight, but the gaping maw in the hull comes from the a priori assumption that all the parts are assembled correctly, and also from the presupposition that the parts are the correct ones for the final product in the first place.
In that specific sense, we might say that if God exists and if Condition B is true, then Conclusion C is accurate; this is as far as one can get within religion--"if".
The mystical approach is different. Where the religious position assumes knowledge, the mystical position should recognize ignorance. Is it any wonder, then, that I might accept of the Christian God only the most mystical definition--that God is greater than that which can be conceived?
The mystical position, especially within the Abramic experience, accepts that God is unknown, and sets about creating an unnatural environment in which the mystic seeks an unnatural result--e.g. the presence of God. In Sufism, a common phrase is polishing the mirror, which implies not that one is God, but that when one attains enlightenment, the reflection of God's will can be found in the mirror--that is, the reflection of the enlightened self becomes an accurate representation of the concept of God.
This is an excellent point that the mystic would set aside; it is a question that will be answered in due course. That is, the notion of the purpose of the self should become obvious along the path to enlightenment--the awakening cannot come without this knowledge.
At its most degraded, such a point as the author has struck--make the best of their lives while they're on Earth--suffers the same fate as Crowley's Thelemic declaration, Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
In a social comparison, we might see the lucre-blinded hedonism of the American economic juggernaut as an excellent parallel. One can tell me all they want about economic theory and how things should be, but the fact of the matter is that the noble interpretations of economic theory are mere idylls catalogued as trump cards to be played during election season. Trickle-down theory did not work the way it was supposed to because moneys did not trickle down the way they were supposed to. Of course, anyone who remembers the diagrams for trickle-down remembers quite clearly that, graphically represented, it looks exactly like the discredited pyramid schemes of modern business.
A particular, silly irony occurred to me here. In the late 1980s and into the mid-90s, there existed a statistic which said X% if high school graduates cannot find their home city/state on a map of the United States, and Y% cannot locate the US on a world map.
In light of the author's above-cited opinion, I wonder what, in the right company, he would be forced to admit about New York
But the point is well-taken. I'm one of those that tends to think that since the Christians have missed the point, so have a number of their critics. After all, any critic trying to work beyond the allegdly-bulletproof rhetoric of Christianity, attempting to delve into the misbehaviors of Christianity, is seeking the wrong fault. The faults of the Christian dynamic are apparent to anyone who has seen them, but I don't think most people recognize such telling marks at first glance.
If I accept the author's point, it would be with the note that the author is correct in his refutation of common faith, but both sides are way off when it comes to the actual problems of Christianity.
And this a sad state of affairs. Any critic of Christianity knows well that there exists a great dichotomy 'twixt the rhetoric and practice of Christianity. After all, this chasm is the primary point of contention.
Perhaps it is a result of the sacrifice of the intellect, but I don't understand why Christians are so damned anxious to demonstrate that which cannot be demonstrated. Now, I'm not talking a technological limitation here, but who here or anywhere is going to write the experiment that proves conclusively the existence of God? And how can that result be called God? Any sufficiently scary entity in the Universe would be enough to convince many, if not most.
The point is that one shouldn't have to disprove Christianity; nor should one try to prove it. To work so hard toward the proof of Christianity in one's lifetime is to work to defeat faith in God. After all, by proving God's existence, you are taking away the choice of faith and placing a demand of conformity onto others, and if God wanted it to be that overt, I assure you that God would have made it so. (What? I don't have to be an expert for that one; it seems self-evident, doesn't it?)
What caught my eye amid this reasonably-expressed stance is the notion of whether or not uncertainty necessitates a reason to invent gods to calm our fear or ignorance.
I think there's a larger fault at play; that is, I think the author is suffering a difficulty that is, for practical purposes, a standard.
Yes, uncertainty necessitates certain reactions. This is evident in history, and in the present experience. But the question and its rhetorical response rely on an act of deliberation, and religious currents run deep in the human history. We do, in fact, find it quite necessary to render our ignorance into myth, to create ideals in the place of knowledge.
The act of deliberation comes as a subtle process. Imagine, if you will, one who witnesses something to which he has no known criteria for reaction. The mind will compress or economize information. That there's fire raining on the city in the distance does not represent the whole of the thing, but it lends toward the priories awarded criteria for judgment.
Look at the number of non-Christians, for instance, who, at this site, are prepared to attribute certain parts of our religious heritage to a big misunderstanding concerning aliens. It's still a compression of the unknown, albeit one more likely than the God of the Bible.
This, part, for instance, has nothing whatsoever to do with mysticism. It's about religion.
This excellent point lacks a vital perspective that would be addressed were the author more knowledgeable about mysticism. Namely, one finds among mystical interpretations of disparate religions, the philosophical groundwork for most of the coinciding facets of those various systems. Why do numbers have common attributes from mysticism to mysticism? Why are there so many similar presuppositions among disparate mystics?
The answer, simply, is that all of these religious expressions contain elements of the same "truth" that, in reality, is quite removed from gods and religions. Sure Universal harmony and oneness sounds chintzy, but by the time the environmentalists are done, we'll have the same effect with a whole lot more neuroses to deal with.
And here is the crux of the issue.
• Would anyone like to assert that data replication is consistent 'twixt one generation and the next? That data replication is constant, predictable, or stable?
• In light of this, I submit that, in adopting the religion of one's parents, one is, in fact, adopting the economized, compressed version. Pocket faith, if you will.
And that's the problem. On the one hand, the author has put together what seems to be a necessary response to religion. But the compression of data according to which mysticism has been addressed seems so severe that mysticism actually has no part in the article. Yet, such is reality, and those who will deal with such ideas in the future now have another incorrect compression to deal with, and thus will be countering something which puzzles their counterparts within faith. Those people will be responding to a fallacious association, as well, and this is how ideas get muddled.
As it is, I find the article one well worth reading, but it's also important to point out that surface reactions to the article aren't worth a whole lot because that surface reflects a false picture.
They're great reflections, I suppose, but I'm hung up for the moment on the borders crossed and the intellectual difficulty that comes from ideas bleeding together like that. As we see, of intellectual difficulties, Christianity has largely erased such difficulties by making them so frequent as to not be regarded as difficulties. They are, instead, points to be ignored.
Of the infidels, it's only important to me to save them the effort of responding to what isn't real. Mysticism exscinded, it's a great article though that pretty much says what a lot of people at Sciforums have been trying to say.
In conclusion, it seems, then, that the author finds humanity far too stupid to deal with mystical representations. Oh, well. He's largely correct, but only if we draw the objective/subjective line at matters pertaining to God, and allow all other principles based in uncertainty to continue to function.
Perhaps its just a loose definition of mysticism. But then again, is there a distance between upholding the law and upholding justice? (I know it's complex for a rhetorical, but deal with it; I needed something just as abstract and baseless as God, and, well, the relationship 'twixt law and justice pretty well suffices.)
You know, on behalf of the lot of us who try to support other people's freedom to believe whatever the hell they want to, I must insist that writers do not extend the Christian faith to represent all religion. Quite frankly, I agree with the above-cited statement, but by the time I reach the end of this otherwise-good article, I'm flat tired of trying to discern what the hell it has to do with mysticism and religion.
One wonders, then, why such a piece was written. If it is to actually contribute information and perspective to the debate, well, that's one thing, isn't it? But when bitching for a personal vendetta, sawed-off shotguns aren't the right tool in a crowded arena.
It's a good article. Just don't fool yourself into believing there is any regard for mysticism to be found anywhere inside it. Suggested alternate title for this article: Why I think other people suck.
It's broad enough
thanx much,
Tiassa