Thou Shalt Not Take The Name Of The Lord In Vain

[Steven]

We don't know what Christ said....

that's not what Josephus said......

and in all fairness - we dont KNOW that we dont know what Christ said.

We simply think we dont know. But we could be wrong about that.

and some of us think we do (know).

and that's why my Ju Ju is bad ass. Cause I KNOW it is. And I never waiver........

[phee]

that's not what Josephus said......

and in all fairness - we dont KNOW that we dont know what Christ said.

We simply think we dont know. But we could be wrong about that.

and some of us think we do (know).

and that's why my Ju Ju is bad ass. Cause I KNOW it is. And I never waiver........

Right... like I said.... We don't know what Christ said....

[Steven]

Right... like I said.... We don't know what Christ said....

too bad your wrong.

[HipsterDufus]

Right... like I said.... We don't know what Christ said....

I do. Shhhhh, no one can know. :fear

[phee]

too bad your wrong.

Don't make me whip out my research again

[Steven]

Don't make me whip out my research again

a formidable foe is this Phee fellow.....

[HipsterDufus]

a formidable foe is this Phee fellow.....

I think that Jesus is thanking himself that it's Friday...

Can you tell I'm ready to go home?

[phee]

a formidable foe is this Phee fellow.....

[Paper Hearts]

I dont see the contradiction your talking about. Maybe you can help me (honestly) with some difinitive referance biblical points so I can feel where yrou at.

Remember too that Christ also called himself the Son of Man - a being that he also acknowledged as imperfect and fallible. ANd remember again that in the Hebrew Culture "the son of" equates to exactly thgat - equality. thats why they accused him of blasphemy in calling himself the son of God. Also remember that Christ claimed to (charges levied against him in court) have the authority to forgive sins and stated this publically - again pointing to his own beleif at least - that he was on par with The Father. He was a mystery then and a mystery now - and I belevie this was intentional. One final note to consider was the overall "style" of his ministry - he completely disregarded the former religiosity and power structure of the Sanhedrin and instead took the people directly to God's feet with himself as the vehicle. In the Hebrew world - that approach was phenominal and far too personal and intimite with YHWH. that alone - points toward his own beleif that he "knew" God to a much greater degree than the other prophets. His comparisopns to God were never rough but iunstead were blantent and divisive. I see a certain genius to that apporach. But if overall he was so wrong or jsut another man then I truly doubt we'd be discussing him online right now.

You don't see a disconnect in Christ saying that God is the omnipotent father when God is actually not omnipotent enough to control his own jealousy, let alone omnipotent enough to foresee that his plan for man was going to 'fuck up' almost instantly, as it did, there in the Garden of Eden? If Christ is not making a rough comparison of God in such a reference, then either the Bible's text cannot be trusted or, dare I say, Christ was not telling the truth. Of course, there's always the chance that Christ did not understand God's nature, either. But then why follow him?

***

Why are we still talking about Christ today? Did you really just ask me that? -Why are we still talking about Buddha today? Buddha dates back further. I mean come on. Those people in Rome, they had their own religion, just like you have yours. Ancient Romans didn't persecute Christians because they thought Christianity was true, they persecuted Christians because they thought Christians were wrong. Is Islam popular in the Philippines because Christ was really just a profit, as Muslims believe? And what about in the land where Christ was born? Why does Judaism, the most popular faith in Israel, the land where Christ lived, deny Christ? And what about all the other empires that persecuted Christians which Christianity did not over take?

Christianity's eventual popularity in Rome has nothing to do with proving "God" or Christ. One could also interpret Christianity adding to the fall of the Roman empire as 'look how insanity destroys civilization'. There is no point in any of it.

At least finally you're talking to me as if you're religious rather than talking down to me as if you know something that I do not. I do thank you for that.

[Steven]

You don't see a disconnect in Christ saying that God is the omnipotent father when God is actually not omnipotent enough to control his own jealousy, let alone omnipotent enough to foresee that his plan for man was going to 'fuck up' almost instantly, as it did, there in the Garden of Eden? If Christ is not making a rough comparison of God in such a reference, then either the Bible's text cannot be trusted or, dare I say, Christ was not telling the truth. Of course, there's always the chance that Christ did not understand God's nature, either. But then why follow him?

***

Why are we still talking about Christ today? Did you really just ask me that? -Why are we still talking about Buddha today? Buddha dates back further. I mean come on. Those people in Rome, they had their own religion, just like you have yours. Ancient Romans didn't persecute Christians because they thought Christianity was true, they persecuted Christians because they thought Christians were wrong. Is Islam popular in the Philippines because Christ was really just a profit, as Muslims believe? And what about in the land where Christ was born? Why does Judaism, the most popular faith in Israel, the land where Christ lived, deny Christ? And what about all the other empires that persecuted Christians which Christianity did not over take?

Christianity's eventual popularity in Rome has nothing to do with proving "God" or Christ. One could also interpret Christianity adding to the fall of the Roman empire as 'look how insanity destroys civilization'. There is no point in any of it.

At least finally you're talking to me as if you're religious rather than talking down to me as if you know something that I do not. I do thank you for that.

and now your talking some smack to me Bud, why I dont know.

A) I'm not relgious. I do not blndly and zealously adhere to the whims and vision of others, i am not bound by christendom's obligatory traditions, I am anything BUT legalistic, and i don't fit the mold.

B) I knowwhatever I know Paper, as do you. We both trust our own methods of research and choose what is valuable. But I'm not bent that you place greater value in yoru own perspective. And if I come across as if i am talking down to you - please point this out to me because I reaaly dont see it and that has never been my intention nor is it my style.

C) god's jealousy (if were going to take a completely human approach to the use of this word) has never been communicated by God to man - as somethign he was out of control with. He uses it as a defining and divisive tool to go along with "thall shalt have no other Gods before me". He's an all or nothign kind of Deity. I'm cool with that. I dont see it as an uncontrollable situation - I see it as a straight shooting supreme power using human verbage to make a very clear point. I dont see that as imperfection at all.

D) I'll never be able to answer your question regarding why did God even get started if he knew it was all going to fuck up???? Everyone asks that question, and everyone asks the wrong person. I dont know is my answer. i do beleive based on my own huiman existence and expereince, that free will is tantamount to a feirce desire for indipendence. perhaps God wanted free willed worshippers to commune with and knew if he created free willed intelligence there would be no way to avoid the next step of a fight for seperation form God's dominance but he did it anyway and inserted himself into the mix. But I dont know dude. I also dont "need" to know. I also don't "need" to know and understand every nuance of my my wife's thoughts and goals and feeligns and abilities to see value in sharing that relationship with her. She makes me better, I can tell you that much. Ditto with the God trip.

E) were talking about christ today because we are talking about christ today and this thread is/was abotu christ (today???). I have suggested that there are other means to see something. You have suggested that I'm off my rocker. OK, i'm cool with that. But I also know that nobody in this thread is gettgn all fired up and fristrated over Buddah. I aint. And I'll add to your Romans thinking Christianity was wrong - your RIGHT. But it was not a moralistic principle they were fighting, and they were not fighting to liberate the mnds of the people from the dreaded tenticles of judaism. They saw somethign potent that did not jive with their ideals - and therefore they saw a threat. ALl I am pointing ot bud - is that there is power in the process. I'm not askin gyou to agree with me on its alleged divine source.

and quit talkin smack to me homeboy.

[Paper Hearts]

and now your talking some smack to me Bud, why I dont know.

A) I'm not relgious. I do not blndly and zealously adhere to the whims and vision of others, i am not bound by christendom's obligatory traditions, I am anything BUT legalistic, and i don't fit the mold.

B) I knowwhatever I know Paper, as do you. We both trust our own methods of research and choose what is valuable. But I'm not bent that you place greater value in yoru own perspective. And if I come across as if i am talking down to you - please point this out to me because I reaaly dont see it and that has never been my intention nor is it my style.

C) god's jealousy (if were going to take a completely human approach to the use of this word) has never been communicated by God to man - as somethign he was out of control with. He uses it as a defining and divisive tool to go along with "thall shalt have no other Gods before me". He's an all or nothign kind of Deity. I'm cool with that. I dont see it as an uncontrollable situation - I see it as a straight shooting supreme power using human verbage to make a very clear point. I dont see that as imperfection at all.

D) I'll never be able to answer your question regarding why did God even get started if he knew it was all going to fuck up???? Everyone asks that question, and everyone asks the wrong person. I dont know is my answer. i do beleive based on my own huiman existence and expereince, that free will is tantamount to a feirce desire for indipendence. perhaps God wanted free willed worshippers to commune with and knew if he created free willed intelligence there would be no way to avoid the next step of a fight for seperation form God's dominance but he did it anyway and inserted himself into the mix. But I dont know dude. I also dont "need" to know. I also don't "need" to know and understand every nuance of my my wife's thoughts and goals and feeligns and abilities to see value in sharing that relationship with her. She makes me better, I can tell you that much. Ditto with the God trip.

E) were talking about christ today because we are talking about christ today and this thread is/was abotu christ (today???). I have suggested that there are other means to see something. You have suggested that I'm off my rocker. OK, i'm cool with that. But I also know that nobody in this thread is gettgn all fired up and fristrated over Buddah. I aint. And I'll add to your Romans thinking Christianity was wrong - your RIGHT. But it was not a moralistic principle they were fighting, and they were not fighting to liberate the mnds of the people from the dreaded tenticles of judaism. They saw somethign potent that did not jive with their ideals - and therefore they saw a threat. ALl I am pointing ot bud - is that there is power in the process. I'm not askin gyou to agree with me on its alleged divine source.

and quit talkin smack to me homeboy.

Steven. Please explain for the good people on the board the secrets of the Universe. Please start by telling us where God comes from.

Do you really know that the Christian god is real or is it more likely that at some point in your life you prayed for something and then whatever you prayed for happened?

I have no problems with you having your faith. What I have problems with is you claiming to 'know' rather than simply just being a Christian. I give you the benifit of the doubt. If you know, then why won't you explain things? You can't just infer that you know and then act like other people are wrong and not expect people to be a bit skeptic. That's just outrageous.

I claim not to know. I would like to know. Please tell me.

[Paper Hearts]

If there are so many things that you don't understand about your religion, then you are just blindly accepting. You are certainly not accepting with any amount of real understanding. And no Christian can explain, the Bible doesn't explain.

In fact, if there is anything that you don't understand or cannot prove about your religion then you are just blindly accepting.

[Steven]

Steven. Please explain for the good people on the board the secrets of the Universe. Please start by telling us where God comes from.

Do you really know that the Christian god is real or is it more likely that at some point in your life you prayed for something and then whatever you prayed for happened?

I have no problems with you having your faith. What I have problems with is you claiming to 'know' rather than simply just being a Christian. I give you the benifit of the doubt. If you know, then why won't you explain things? You can't just infer that you know and then act like other people are wrong and not expect people to be a bit skeptic. That's just outrageous.

I claim not to know. I would like to know. Please tell me.

Holy Moly but your ON FIRE tonight Paper!!! (and I'm late for a very important date)

1st - relax and back up a bit. Your countering an offensive that I'm not really creating, and your lumping me in with others that drive you batshit. Give me some grace here Dude, you know i deserve a wee bit.

Now - that being said....

what I "know"....

A) dont let it offend you - much of what I've said this afternoon although rooted in my beleifs are said with a bit of jest, they are certainly not meant to get you bent or dismiss you for what you know.

B) I KNOW what I know, just like you do. You KNOW I'm full of shit. I can handle that. I cnat tell you where God came from. I also cant tell you where the Universe came from and how it all stems backward to some sort of beginnng as litrally ALL thigns we expereince in this dmension have a beginning and an end but in this case I cannot.

C) nor do I need to. Nor do I care to. Nor am I arguing for my right for an opportunity to do so. So get off it. Jeez-Christ.

D) your WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY off base about me praying and something happening and that's why I beleive. Your trying to lump me in again Bro. Stop allready - I wont fit the mold. And you ask me questions with a huge spoonful of sarcasm, therefore you really DONT want to know why I beleive what I do and yoru are already setting up your rebuttal for a good pouncing. The problem Paper Hearts - is that I have complete faith in what I do - your not going to trounce me and fluster me and there is no point in taking sarcastic shots at me because I've no need to conquer you - why then do you feel the need to conquer me?

E) other things I "know" and cannot prove:

Laura will never cheat on me.

I am an extremely loyal friend and my word is good.

I'm not a liar

I fear no one

I do what I want and move where I will under my guise of Christianity.

how bout we ditch the word "KNOW" since its such a trigger? Let's go bakc to all my posts and insted insert "I beleive". It does not water down my position. DOes it become more palatable for you though? if it does, cool. If it does nto, nothing I can do about that.

F) Honest, SINCERE question to you; why in the world, and where in the world, and when in the owrld have you EVER seen me make a statment that I cannot see or EXPECT how other people can be skeptic? I've never doen that once. I dont NEED to convince you of anything Bud. Really. I also dont need to be right. in fact I am giving up that right because I dont give a shit. While its true tha tI do not yeild, I am not asking YOU to yeild, nor do I wish to do away with you and yoru point of view.

Somewhere, somehow - I gather that people have pissed you off royal in the name of Christ.

Sorry about that Paper.

But hey - it wasent me. I actually think your pretty cool.

I have to go now - I have a hot double date with Brenda Starr and Marblez. (told ya - bad Ju Ju)

[Paper Hearts]

Holy Moly but your ON FIRE tonight Paper!!! (and I'm late for a very important date)

1st - relax and back up a bit. Your countering an offensive that I'm not really creating, and your lumping me in with others that drive you batshit. Give me some grace here Dude, you know i deserve a wee bit.

Now - that being said....

what I "know"....

A) dont let it offend you - much of what I've said this afternoon although rooted in my beleifs are said with a bit of jest, they are certainly not meant to get you bent or dismiss you for what you know.

B) I KNOW what I know, just like you do. You KNOW I'm full of shit. I can handle that. I cnat tell you where God came from. I also cant tell you where the Universe came from and how it all stems backward to some sort of beginnng as litrally ALL thigns we expereince in this dmension have a beginning and an end but in this case I cannot.

C) nor do I need to. Nor do I care to. Nor am I arguing for my right for an opportunity to do so. So get off it. Jeez-Christ.

D) your WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY off base about me praying and something happening and that's why I beleive. Your trying to lump me in again Bro. Stop allready - I wont fit the mold. And you ask me questions with a huge spoonful of sarcasm, therefore you really DONT want to know why I beleive what I do and yoru are already setting up your rebuttal for a good pouncing. The problem Paper Hearts - is that I have complete faith in what I do - your not going to trounce me and fluster me and there is no point in taking sarcastic shots at me because I've no need to conquer you - why then do you feel the need to conquer me?

E) other things I "know" and cannot prove:

Laura will never cheat on me.

I am an extremely loyal friend and my word is good.

I'm not a liar

I fear no one

I do what I want and move where I will under my guise of Christianity.

how bout we ditch the word "KNOW" since its such a trigger? Let's go bakc to all my posts and insted insert "I beleive". It does not water down my position. DOes it become more palatable for you though? if it does, cool. If it does nto, nothing I can do about that.

F) Honest, SINCERE question to you; why in the world, and where in the world, and when in the owrld have you EVER seen me make a statment that I cannot see or EXPECT how other people can be skeptic? I've never doen that once. I dont NEED to convince you of anything Bud. Really. I also dont need to be right. in fact I am giving up that right because I dont give a shit. While its true tha tI do not yeild, I am not asking YOU to yeild, nor do I wish to do away with you and yoru point of view.

Somewhere, somehow - I gather that people have pissed you off royal in the name of Christ.

Sorry about that Paper.

But hey - it wasent me. I actually think your pretty cool.

I have to go now - I have a hot double date with Brenda Starr and Marblez. (told ya - bad Ju Ju)

That's all I was looking for Steven.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

There are some people that get "pissed off" when they feel someone is being irrational.... even if that "non logical" behavior isn't really pointed at, or "attacking" them.

That i think , is too much of a minority situation to really be the so-called "irrational" persons fault.

Some people, even though its hard to grasp for some of us... have faith... oldschool faith. Meaning , they have made the "leap" a lot sooner than many of us would with not nearly as much empirical data than many of us would like.

I know i was in that situation in previous years, but i never really though of myself as being "irritating" or "rude" to others in doing so.

The above is of course meant in the context of religous faith, but might sound a bit more broad. It could apply to other things but thats not how i intended it.

I think many of us assume that total "reason" or "logic" is the only legitimate way to figure out what the truth of a situation is. Many, base their view of reality with a bit more emotion and instinct rather than pure experimental style 2 + 2 = 4 type thought. They "trust" based on perhaps a lot of logic, but also maybe a fair amount of emotional "gut feeling" which, i think is fairly common.

[Paper Hearts]

There are some people that get "pissed off" when they feel someone is being irrational.... even if that "non logical" behavior isn't really pointed at, or "attacking" them.

That i think , is too much of a minority situation to really be the so-called "irrational" persons fault.

Some people, even though its hard to grasp for some of us... have faith... oldschool faith. Meaning , they have made the "leap" a lot sooner than many of us would with not nearly as much empirical data than many of us would like.

I know i was in that situation in previous years, but i never really though of myself as being "irritating" or "rude" to others in doing so.

The above is of course meant in the context of religous faith, but might sound a bit more broad. It could apply to other things but thats not how i intended it.

I think many of us assume that total "reason" or "logic" is the only legitimate way to figure out what the truth of a situation is. Many, base their view of reality with a bit more emotion and instinct rather than pure experimental style 2 + 2 = 4 type thought. They "trust" based on perhaps a lot of logic, but also maybe a fair amount of emotional "gut feeling" which, i think is fairly common.

I don't get pissed off because I feel someone is having irrational thought, but I do find it offensive for someone to talk about their beliefs as if they were no mere possibilities. You see, when you question people like this, they get very defensive in addition to not being able to explain why their religion is absolute truth. All that I seek is mutual respect, someone to say, where as you allow for possibilities, I believe in one. I'm fine with that. But to insinuate that everyone else is wrong for not sharing a faith which obviously has the keystone missing, plus a few gaping holes (as they all do) it's disrespectfull. Albeit, it's maybe difficult for someone who is religious to fathom that.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

I don't get pissed off because I feel someone is having irrational thought, but I do find it offensive for someone to talk about their beliefs as if they were no mere possibilities. You see, when you question people like this, they get very defensive in addition to not being able to explain why their religion is absolute truth. All that I seek is mutual respect, someone to say, where as you allow for possibilities, I believe in one. I'm fine with that. But to insinuate that everyone else is wrong for not sharing a faith which obviously has the keystone missing, plus a few gaping holes (as they all do) it's disrespectfull. Albeit, it's maybe difficult for someone who is religious to fathom that.

I too actually do get a bit irritated when people have this sort of "I KNOW THIS IS A FACT YOU CANNOT SAY ANYTHING THAT WOULD EVER MAKE ME CHANGE MY MIND"

Because that, really is, and i dont mean it as an insult... is ignorance. At least how i define ignorance. One of the >verypossiblity however small , that anything I know.. whatever it is, could be wrong. Its possible. Theres virtually nothing that is totally impossible to be in error. (kind of a paradox there)

I was just sort of trying to point out that its... lets say an idea that is fairly common, and i think could use a grain of compassion when dealing with it and try not to go on the offensive when its encountered.

[Head Wreck]

lies.

i am the one true god

worship me

[Troy Spiral (13)]

One day HW is going to post a well thought out response and i think the board will self distruct.

[phee]

One day HW is going to post a well thought out response and i think the board will self distruct.

Me first

[Head Wreck]

i saw HW's post first, i demand the right to self destruct first.

tbh. religeon is a big stew pot. a good friend of mine is a hindu brahmen and i kinda agree on the philosophy. belive in what you want, just dont hurt anyone.

as to me being well thought out. i simply cannot, i have a reputation of a social handgrenade to keep

heres lookin at you kid

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

OK.... Why is someone else thinking that you are wrong, and that nothing you say will change thier mind so damn offensive?

Paperhearts doesn't beleive in God and nothing anyone says will change his mind. He has made that pretty clear. Well, nothing short of God having a sit down talk with him.

Steven believes in God and nothing anyone does or says will change that.

OK... How does that make them Ignorant? Infexible, yes. Close minded, yes. Ignorant?

[phee]

OK.... Why is someone else thinking that you are wrong, and that nothing you say will change thier mind so damn offensive?

Paperhearts doesn't beleive in God and nothing anyone says will change his mind. He has made that pretty clear. Well, nothing short of God having a sit down talk with him.

Steven believes in God and nothing anyone does or says will change that.

OK... How does that make them Ignorant? Infexible, yes. Close minded, yes. Ignorant?

Good post...

And it just proves that it truely is a matter of perspective and the choices we make

[Head Wreck]

i'm kinda with troy here, lets break the word down shall we.

ignorant

ignore ant

to ignore ants.

and now i have confused myself

[BrassFusion]

OK.... Why is someone else thinking that you are wrong, and that nothing you say will change thier mind so damn offensive?

Paperhearts doesn't beleive in God and nothing anyone says will change his mind. He has made that pretty clear. Well, nothing short of God having a sit down talk with him.

Steven believes in God and nothing anyone does or says will change that.

OK... How does that make them Ignorant? Infexible, yes. Close minded, yes. Ignorant?

I know you're not asking me, but... I don't think either of them is ignorant. There are a whole lot of ignorant people who belong to large organized religions, however. That's what happens when you recruit so blatantly... you get people who don't even know why they're in your congregation, much less anything about any OTHER world religion.

I know a few blissfully ignorant Christians. I have one friend who, years ago, hooked me up with a friend of hers because she thought we'd be compatible because we were both Atheists.

Luckily, we were both Agnostics. We tried to explain the difference to her (she asked), but she had a lot of trouble grasping it, probably due to her Catholic upbringing.