|
Post by blaise on Mar 6, 2005 11:59:31 GMT -5
And this is something you are proud of? You should be ashamed of yourself! The only bush that should be discussed in this thread is the burning bush (note to Blaise et al: I do not refer to burning GWBush in effigy!). Discuss Passover or Easter; Yom Kippur or Ramadan; Christianity and Buddhism and Confucianism and animism; the failure of organized religion or its saving graces . . . but there are enough GWBush threads available already . . . let's keep the discussion as to whether he is evil incarnate or not over there, svp and merci. I agree with your admonition. However, since GWB strongly reminds one of Jeanne d'Arc, it would be poetic justice for him to meet the same fiery fate.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Mar 7, 2005 22:06:09 GMT -5
I agree with your admonition. However, since GWB strongly reminds one of Jeanne d'Arc, it would be poetic justice for him to meet the same fiery fate. Joan of Arc and the Bushleague? In the same breath? On the same page! Mercy! A lioness of history and archtype of inspiration and valour, and a failed oil hustler with no self-control. PUUUUULLLLEEEEEAAAAAAASSSSSE...
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 7, 2005 23:07:49 GMT -5
Joan of Arc and the Bushleague? In the same breath? On the same page! Mercy! A lioness of history and archtype of inspiration and valour, and a failed oil hustler with no self-control. PUUUUULLLLEEEEEAAAAAAASSSSSE... I think he's just trying to imagine Bush being burnt at the stake. I know I for one would love to see that happen.
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 8, 2005 5:22:56 GMT -5
Mmmm....steak....burnt....
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Mar 8, 2005 12:18:55 GMT -5
I agree with your admonition. However, since GWB strongly reminds one of Jeanne d'Arc, it would be poetic justice for him to meet the same fiery fate. Your repeated insertion of Bush in the religeous thread puts him up there with Jesus, Moses, Mohammad, Confucious, Buddha, and Gandhi. Apologies to whoever I inadvertantly missed from the list.
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 8, 2005 12:25:19 GMT -5
Your repeated insertion of Bush in the religeous thread puts him up there with Jesus, Moses, Mohammad, Confucious, Buddha, and Gandhi. Apologies to whoever I inadvertantly missed from the list. Lao-tzu, but he has a tendency to wander off lists.
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Mar 8, 2005 15:48:08 GMT -5
Joan of Arc and the Bushleague? In the same breath? On the same page! Mercy! A lioness of history and archtype of inspiration and valour, and a failed oil hustler with no self-control. PUUUUULLLLEEEEEAAAAAAASSSSSE... A deluded maiden and a deluded playboy, a neat juxtaposition if I may say so myself. Despite the biographical contrasts, they both listened to inner voices.
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Mar 8, 2005 15:53:26 GMT -5
Your repeated insertion of Bush in the religeous thread puts him up there with Jesus, Moses, Mohammad, Confucious, Buddha, and Gandhi. Apologies to whoever I inadvertantly missed from the list. Confucius and Gandhi were not religious figures. If you think they were, what were their respective religions? Nor is Bush a religious figure. He merely exploits religion to get votes. That makes him a demagogue, not a demigod.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Mar 8, 2005 22:38:00 GMT -5
A deluded maiden and a deluded playboy, a neat juxtaposition if I may say so myself. Despite the biographical contrasts, they both listened to inner voices. And what pray tell was the delusion. Most would think awesome Joan had more than the standard issue "inner voice" of conscience. Joan was a visionary, although, it's true: not bieng a dogmatic atheistic materialist, she never leapt on a horse in the name of the Absurd Accident in Space. Unless of course you are privy to some philosophical secret not shared by us other outer voices, eh? Bad enough she gets burnt to death, an experience I don't want to consider for too long, but, unkindest cut of all, you would pair a giant of world history with the dwarf, a blaze dare I say with a burnt-out bush. For God's sake give this incredible saint a break!
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Mar 10, 2005 20:02:44 GMT -5
Confucius and Gandhi were not religious figures. If you think they were, what were their respective religions? Nor is Bush a religious figure. He merely exploits religion to get votes. That makes him a demagogue, not a demigod. Bain Capital has offered $3.5B to purchase the Catholic Church and replace Pope John Paul II with a younger man. The offer include the assumption of all liabilities for outstanding lawsuits and mortgages on St. Pauls basilica and Notre Dame cathedral, university and football team. Financing for the Bain Capital offer will be funded by the Royal Saudi family. Officers for Bain Capital were unavailable for comment, but indicated that an offer for the holdings of Elizabeth Regina would be forthcoming. Sources witheld.
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Mar 10, 2005 22:36:37 GMT -5
And what pray tell was the delusion. Most would think awesome Joan had more than the standard issue "inner voice" of conscience. Joan was a visionary, although, it's true: not bieng a dogmatic atheistic materialist, she never leapt on a horse in the name of the Absurd Accident in Space. Unless of course you are privy to some philosophical secret not shared by us other outer voices, eh? Bad enough she gets burnt to death, an experience I don't want to consider for too long, but, unkindest cut of all, you would pair a giant of world history with the dwarf, a blaze dare I say with a burnt-out bush. For God's sake give this incredible saint a break! She was burned, all right, but she most likely died from suffocation because the oxygen was sucked up by the fire. At any rate she was murdered by religious nuts in Rouen who accused her of heresy, just like the nuts in Spain and Salem. Burn your body to save your soul? Sanctified barbarism. Joan said she heard the voices of Saint Catherine, Saint Margaret, and Saint Michael ,who gave her the mission of liberating France. I know not who gave Saint Spurious George the mission of liberating Iraq, but I'll bet they're nuts too. The same voices told him to privatize Social Security even though it would cost the government trillions.
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 10, 2005 22:57:28 GMT -5
She was burned, all right, but she most likely died from suffocation because the oxygen was sucked up by the fire. At any rate she was murdered by religious nuts in Rouen who accused her of heresy, just like the nuts in Spain and Salem. Burn your body to save your soul? Sanctified barbarism. But not when applied to George W Bush? Or is it OK for some nut(s) to get him? I agree with your admonition. However, since GWB strongly reminds one of Jeanne d'Arc, it would be poetic justice for him to meet the same fiery fate.
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Mar 11, 2005 15:18:05 GMT -5
But not when applied to George W Bush? Or is it OK for some nut(s) to get him? Spurious George is inadvertently burning the body of Iraq to save its soul. As for nuts getting to him, they'll need a lot of luck. Access to his body isn't easy nowadays. He is heavily guarded and his mass audiences are carefully screened.
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 11, 2005 18:05:26 GMT -5
Spurious George is inadvertently burning the body of Iraq to save its soul. As for nuts getting to him, they'll need a lot of luck. Access to his body isn't easy nowadays. He is heavily guarded and his mass audiences are carefully screened. You're not taking your irony supplements.
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Mar 11, 2005 20:09:12 GMT -5
You're not taking your irony supplements. No, but I had a daydream in which the roof of Madison Square Garden collapsed under the weight of tons of excreta during the Republican convention in New York, inundating delegates, candidates, and guests alike with a slurry of scheiss. And if James Dolan happened to be there, so much the better.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Mar 12, 2005 17:16:57 GMT -5
She was burned, all right, but she most likely died from suffocation because the oxygen was sucked up by the fire. At any rate she was murdered by religious nuts in Rouen who accused her of heresy, just like the nuts in Spain and Salem. Burn your body to save your soul? Sanctified barbarism. Joan said she heard the voices of Saint Catherine, Saint Margaret, and Saint Michael ,who gave her the mission of liberating France. I know not who gave Saint Spurious George the mission of liberating Iraq, but I'll bet they're nuts too. The same voices told him to privatize Social Security even though it would cost the government trillions. It is conceded by virtually all who study the the great life of the maid of Orleans that her death at behest of bishops representing imagined British material linterests. It is disingenuous to refer to these as acts undertaken for or in the name of religion. Unlike the decision to found Montreal which WAS undertaken specificly as a religious endeavor, the trail of Saint Jeanne d"Arc was an abuse of the office of the church . The British inquisition following the arrival of Henry III was a similar act of political expediency undertaken for supposedly higher motives. With vastly more deaths than the Spanish politiical act against "conversos" St Joan died for temporal, not spiritual reasons. To call either event religious in origin is to be disingenuous, bushlike. Are we then to understand that people who hear voices are deluded? On what basis such predjudice? By odd coincidence CBC is airing a biography of George Vanier, one-time Governor General, war hero, ambssador and "saint?"and Habs fan. He used to "talk to God" every day for half an hour, even during the bombing of Britain. Crazy? Trudeau. Crazy? There is absolutely no a priori reason to believe this. There are two types of people; dogmatic people who know that they are dogmatic, and dogmatic people who don't know that they are dogmatic. There are two options, only. Theistic universe or absurd accident in space. If this is an absurd accident in space, then there is no basis for calling anything delusionary. That is the nature of surds, so your criticism is like all things, ultimately pointless and absurd. If as most in the West believe, there is a transcendent entity, a "Personal It", then it is not much of a leap to the idea of prayer, communion, discourse with God. What on earth is unreasonable about this? Jesus seemed a little careless about money and a more than a little reckless when confronting people who would have him murdered, but, delusional? I see no evidence of that. You? Jay Ingram of "The Discovery Channel" did a study of Joan, looking to find even a little evidence of brain damage from a girl who at 12 years of age, dressed like a boy and communed with dead saints. Ingam found her more collected, rational and sane than he is. How about the last of the kids who were central to the events at Fatima in Portugal? What about all the imedically inexplicable healings at Lourdes, France. Delusions? Odd that such absurdities deliver such well-documented benefits to so many. As Frederick C. Coppleston said in one of his History of Philosophy books on atheistic existensialism, concerning the goofball Jean Paul Sartre, (and I paraphrase poorly) "If life is ultimately purposeless, why bother devoting so much energy to desperately insisting upon this. It's pointless." I think a good deal of your bushyheadedness, is in part to stave of nihilism, the understandable despair of naive materialism in the face of death.
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Mar 14, 2005 22:04:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 15, 2005 10:10:06 GMT -5
Response?
Well. How about . . . there are so many other sites that do a much better job of trying to debunk Christianity than this one. And what he says is certainly nothing new. In fact, it have been discussed and debated in Christian academic (and lay) circles for a number of years. In deeper fact, not only the origins of Christian theology, but the man Jesus Himself has been discussed and debated ad nauseum. Rudolf Bultmann and Friedrich Schleiermacher led the charge in searching for the historical Jesus and demythologizing the person of Jesus in the latter nineteenth century; the Jesus Seminar continues today. And inquiring minds do want to know, which is why debate is encouraged . . . not like . . . say . . . Islam, where if someone dares to think for himself he is branded an infidel and a holy execution is ordered (Salmond Rushdie comes to mind).Christianity does indeed encourage (or at least allow for) discussion on matters of faith and doctrine (of course, if you don’t like where the debate is headed you can always leave and start your own sect, which is a another problem and discussion!).
The belief in the origins of the Christian religion are many and varied. I see it as an off-shoot of Judaism (not Zionism). It was an attempt at spiritual renewal within an historic faith. Jesus, a Jew (and it always cracks me up that Christians could be anti-Semitic, as we owe our existence to the Jewish people and religion), considered Himself (based on the four gospels that we have [the Gnostic Gospel of James was not canonized though it is still quoted to disparage the faith]) Messiah. His interpretation of Messiahship was rejected and He was ultimately condemned, was killed, and yes, rose again.
An interesting book as to many of the 20th century interpretations of Jesus is Son of God to Superstar, edited by John H. Hayes. Some ideas: Jesus was . . . an apocalyptic visionary, a political revolutionary, the non-white leader of non-white people struggling for national liberation against the rule of a white nation, Rome = a black messiah, a sexual being (a thought proposed long before Dan Brown came on the scene), and my favourite, the creation of the early church (in which the gospels are presented as a codebook for the [drug] cult of the sacred mushroom. The suggestion: that once the “founding members” of the cult died the next generation lost the “truth” and began to believe the codebook literally. Hmmm . . . ).
There is definite debate as to a number of traditional Christian doctrines – the virgin birth, for example. Many of these beliefs are not critical to the core of belief. The resurrection is. Bottom line: without the resurrection Christianity is just another religion hoping for the best; adherents and followers hope the balance of good deeds outweigh the bad on the scales of judgement.
Recommended reading: Surprised By Joy, by C. S. Lewis (of Narnia fame) . . . and anything by Phillip Yancey (who discusses Christians and the problems we allow to overshadow us).
|
|
|
Post by HabbaDasher on Mar 15, 2005 11:24:22 GMT -5
I have no problem with the idea of religion. We all have the same basic need to understand our world and our place in it. Tangible or otherwise. A belief system. We all have one. Some prefer to work it out for themselves, some prefer a preconceived, structured system. Science, philosophy, spirituality fill the same need. We all have some idea of right and wrong and of the 'forces that be'.
I see the mentally and emotionally optimal human being as someone at peace with himself and world. An honesty with himself and an acceptance of his limitations and of the inevitable.
God, or 'the forces that be' are of course open to interpretation. Human opinion in any given area diverges and proliferates. This characteristic is a large part of our success as a species. So religion is as pervertable as any other line of thought. I don't think you have to be a nut to be religious, but the door is wide open if you want to be.
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 15, 2005 11:40:39 GMT -5
I don't think you have to be a nut to be religious... That Einstein, vot a kook vit dose crazy ideas. Mishegas! ![](http://207.201.140.66/artwork/alesia/dice.gif)
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Mar 15, 2005 13:17:09 GMT -5
That Einstein, vot a kook vit dose crazy ideas. Mishegas! ![](http://207.201.140.66/artwork/alesia/dice.gif) The universe is unbeliveably complex. The better our particle accelerators and electron microscopes get, the more smaller things we find. We have no reason to believe that we've found the smallest things, strings or even come close. The farther we peer into space, the more new things we find, weirder and weirder. Antimater, dark matter, missing matter, wassamater. Life is complex, the double helix and it's detailed messages of reproduction and timing; we haven't scratched the surface of what we've found and we don't understand how it works. We don't even know how gravity works so we say it warps time and space, but we don't really know what time and space are. Now the question. Was this created or did it just happen? Theologans say it's too complex to just happen. Scientists say if it didn't happen this way we wouldn't be here to ponder it. If it was created in six days, why did the almighty need to rest? If the world is a couple of thousand years old, why did he make dinosaur fossils? Why did he allow/create the hollicast? Is there a god? Personally, I don't think there is a God who plans things. I think the reason scientists say that it is impossible to know exactly the position of an electron without disturbing it and therefore it is impossible to predict the future with precision illustrates the random nature of the universe. The rules for very small things doesn't work with very big things. God is defined in many ways from"The Big Bang" to "Caring Heavenly Father". Depending on the definition, the existance can be interpreted to fit some of the facts. God may have sent his son to an unmaried girl who told her boyfriend she was a virgin, caused plagues of locust to fall on Egyptians and inspired Mohammud to marry his mother, but all those contrived scenarios seem unlikely attention to detail for a superbeing charged with manipulating the entire universe. God may have stopped the leafs from winning the Stanley Cup because he hated Clancy and the Red Sox from the World Series because he didn't like "No No Nanette", but I doubt it. Their respective incompetance had a lot to do with it. The one thing I am sure of is God didn't tell Sunni's to bomb Shias or Catholics to shoot Protestants or Jews to kill Arabs in his name or for his glory. He doesn't tell Republicans to mistrust Democrats, third world countries to produce too many babies or advanced civilations to use up the worlds limited resources. We can do those dumb things very well by ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Mar 15, 2005 17:39:45 GMT -5
If the whole master plan of the universe consisted of sending a messenger to earth to preach to laughably imperfect humans, then what was the point of creating all sorts of things in the universe that irrelevant to and unknowable and unreachable by these laughably imperfect humans?
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 15, 2005 21:09:49 GMT -5
The universe is unbeliveably complex. And we pretend that we can discover everything there is to know. How arrogant we humans are. That’s what I want to know. Of course, my beliefs lie elsewhere so it bothers me not. I’m just not a literalist when it comes to the creation narrative. The Bible isn’t science and it doesn’t pretend to be. My view (as documented elsewhere): God created. I don’t care how or when. He did a good job – too bad we got involved in de-creating. Free will. We aren't puppets on His string. He's the ruler of hearts only to those who allow HIm to be. Other questions: why does He continue to allow the destruction of the planet by His creation? And what’s with armadillos, anyway? What does a dyslexic agnostic insomniac do? Neither do I. He allows us to plan, though . . . and must shake His head (yes, I’m anthropomorphizing) and roll His eyes at our decisions, which are self-centred and bring us to ruin. Manipulating? Or trying to bring sense to us senseless boneheads? Religion: a convenient excuse for the abuse of power and land grab. Hard to argue with “God told me . . .” other than to say “but He didn’t tell me . . .”. If only compassion ruled our thoughts instead of selfishness! That we can! ![:-/](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/undecided.png)
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 15, 2005 21:20:15 GMT -5
If the whole master plan of the universe consisted of sending a messenger to earth to preach to laughably imperfect humans, then what was the point of creating all sorts of things in the universe that irrelevant to and unknowable and unreachable by these laughably imperfect humans? How arrogant we are! Why do we need to know everything there is to know? Why do we think that we can know everything? While there is nothing wrong with searching for truth or for the ultimate meaning of life (I thought it was 42) let's not think that the world revolves around us -- I thought that notion was debunked in the 16th century.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Mar 15, 2005 23:00:39 GMT -5
While it would be more than passing strange if a sauteriological event from a God who is intelligence, in dealing with us guys did anything less thorough and comprehensible. That mythology should reflect fundamental desires and themes is only consistent. This of course (like Harper's book "The Pagan Christ" based largely on a discredited "Egyptologist" ) does not address the most obvious element. Historicity. Like the trial of Socrates, too many witnesses for Plato to misrepresent what actually happened. Lazarus came forth, just out of the money, but it wasn't the last race: the crowd was still there. I find that the stuff you're asked to swallow to make a case against "the greatest story ever told" is simply absurd. The evidence in support is overwhelming, enough for me like Nicodemus in the tree to say " I believe, help my unbelief." If anyone really wants to investigate the whole questionof the existence or non existence of God you owe it to yourself to get Dr.Anthony Rizzi's (Physicist and Philosopher)"The Science before Science" . It is not a religious book, but if you're smart enough, he will lead you into and understanding of Aristotle's metaphysics from which Descartes and Kant blinded themselves by a rather basic but fundametal error. They denied the the critical role of the senses in acts of knowing and ended up "locked inside their heads ." A scientist, he treats of several scientific issues. He is not a fundamentalist or anti-evolutionary or in the least unscientific. Au contraire, and you will love what he has to say about "possible universe" ideas and other bits of quackery caused by philosophical confusion concerning the limits of scientific explanations. In Chapter 8 he proves the existence of God. I discovered this book accidentally while trying to help a friend's daughter studying philosophy at Western U. You really do owe it to yourself to discover what's going on and this is a most approach able book by a distinguished scholar. Put your money where your mouth is. After all, one of the accepted definitions of a sane mind, is one that is in tune with the nature of life and the universe. Overcome the 17th century premises of your intellectual life and satisfy that immense desire to understand. At the very least, you will know what the fundamental issues really are. You will die without even knowing what the problem is if you don;t get a book like "The Science before Science". I will be enjoying and learning great stuff from this book for years. This is not a book of Christian apologetics of any variety. It adresses scientific and philosophical reality. His view will integrate, not obfuscate what you already know. It;s your only hope. Think of the upgraded observations that will be possible on this terrific board. And it truly is a terrific board as should be anything devoted to les glorieux.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Mar 15, 2005 23:11:03 GMT -5
That Einstein, vot a kook vit dose crazy ideas. Mishegas! ![](http://207.201.140.66/artwork/alesia/dice.gif) That was VERY GOOD! It only took me a few passes....
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 16, 2005 6:53:10 GMT -5
Nicodemus in the tree to say " I believe, help my unbelief." Must you? ![:-/](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/undecided.png)
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Mar 16, 2005 23:37:38 GMT -5
Must you? ![:-/](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/undecided.png) Must I what?
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 17, 2005 7:00:32 GMT -5
Taunt me so: Nicodemus in the tree to say " I believe, help my unbelief." Nicodemus . . . came to Jesus by night Zacchaeus . . . in a tree The father of an epileptic . . . said "help my unbelief"
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Mar 17, 2005 10:42:33 GMT -5
Taunt me so: Nicodemus . . . came to Jesus by night Zacchaeus . . . in a tree The father of an epileptic . . . said "help my unbelief" Tou're right...next time I'll call him "that treed guy".
|
|