Members ChristianRock Posted November 4, 2008 Members Share Posted November 4, 2008 You are rambling now. No. You were. You said you would not let me use "the force". How are you gonna do that? Nowhere did i speak of proof. Only that abortion is unlike murder because there actually are different views of it. Rhetorical question: so if I now come up with a point of view that children under 2 don't have a conscience and are therefore no human beings, I can kill them? Having an opinion or not having an opinion doesn't change the fact that the unborn are human beings. They're homo sapiens like you and I. Have you never ever in a discussion asked an atheist to prove that there is no god? And if you haven't - have you ever noticed that other christians do ask atheists that ridiculous question (especially in these stupid internet debates)? Maybe I'm stupid but I fail to see how that relates to me in any way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members droolmaster0 Posted November 4, 2008 Members Share Posted November 4, 2008 I have written more essays on the Epistles than you have had hot dinners- let alone READ them- I actually have a BA in comparative religion among others- you barking up the wrong tree if you are trying to paint me as misrepresenting or misunderstanding the Bible You never sent that cab over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ChristianRock Posted November 4, 2008 Members Share Posted November 4, 2008 I have written more essays on the Epistles than you have had hot dinners- let alone READ them- I actually have a BA in comparative religion among others- you barking up the wrong tree if you are trying to paint me as misrepresenting or misunderstanding the Bible Then how come you don't know anything about new vs. old covenant? Hint: a bible search might help: http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=new%20covenant&version1=50&searchtype=all&limit=none&wholewordsonly=no Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members setAI Posted November 4, 2008 Members Share Posted November 4, 2008 Then how come you don't know anything about new vs. old covenant? why do you think that I don't? I studied the Bible- I did not follow it's primitive and highly inconsistent ideologies the 'New Covenant" is rather irrelevant historically considering that the WHOLE Bible is used throughout history as political tool- and almost always it is Old Testament ideas that are employed- not the socialist love-in of Shem Yehshua- even at the start of Christianity the ideals of the New Covenant where only mentioned when convenient- in one passage joyously offering salvation for all- and in the next giddily predicting the utter destruction of whole peoples- the new Covenant doesn't have much of a track record- for instance for several hundred years after the new Covenant salvation only took the shape of The Question: salvation after the Strappado!!! and if you try an argue "but this is what evil men did to the Bible- God's salvation was good" then I will remind you that not until Martin Luther did the concept of no mediator between Man and God even exist- the ONLY way for man to get salvation for 1500 years was through those evil men and their torture [men who you have already said were guided by God in translating and interpreting the Bible]- some new covenant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members carbon111 Posted November 4, 2008 Members Share Posted November 4, 2008 But he WAS, historically, a Nazi. Unfortunately so were a lot of German philosophers of the time. Some bits about that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Heidegger#Heidegger_and_Nazism http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/heidegge.htm I still agree with his ontology as laid out in Being and Time written when he was still relatively young before "the turn" and think it has absolutely nothing to do with his politics...or his notorious drinking habits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ChristianRock Posted November 4, 2008 Members Share Posted November 4, 2008 why do you think that I don't? I studied the Bible- I did not follow it's primitive and highly inconsistent ideologies the 'New Covenant" is rather irrelevant historically considering that the WHOLE Bible is used throughout history as political tool- and almost always it is Old Testament ideas that are employed- not the socialist love-in of Shem Yehshua- even at the start of Christianity the ideals of the New Covenant where only mentioned when convenient- in one passage joyously offering salvation for all- and in the next giddily predicting the utter destruction of whole peoples- the new Covenant doesn't have much of a track record- for instance for several hundred years after the new Covenant salvation only took the shape of The Question: salvation after the Strappado!!! LOL "Irrelevant"? 2 billion Christians disagree. You're just bringing in more of your I'm-so-much-better-than-everybody, what-I-say-is-the-law-even-though-it's-just-stuff-I-make-up kind of talk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members droolmaster0 Posted November 4, 2008 Members Share Posted November 4, 2008 Unfortunately so were a lot of German philosophers of the time. Some bits about that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Heidegger#Heidegger_and_Nazismhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/h/heidegge.htm I still agree with his ontology as laid out in Being and Time written when he was still relatively young before "the turn" and think it has absolutely nothing to do with his politics...or his notorious drinking habits. How can a man's philosophy, ultimately, have nothing to do with his philosophy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ElectricPuppy Posted November 4, 2008 Members Share Posted November 4, 2008 Isn't this usually about the point where the political/religious threads turn into a nasty name fest? {censored}socks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ChristianRock Posted November 4, 2008 Members Share Posted November 4, 2008 I'd say it's right about that point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members carbon111 Posted November 4, 2008 Members Share Posted November 4, 2008 How can a man's philosophy, ultimately, have nothing to do with his philosophy? You mean his Politics? Heigegger, later on, was a very different man..which is probably why Being and Time was abandoned. It's not as if he's a personal hero of mine or anything...more on that here: http://carbon111.blogspot.com/2008/09/heroes_30.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members setAI Posted November 4, 2008 Members Share Posted November 4, 2008 LOL "Irrelevant"? 2 billion Christians disagree. again- that is 2 billion MODERN christians who all have had their beliefs nurtured after the age of Luther! the modern view of God and Man in direct communion is TOTALLY ALIEN to the vast history of the Church Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members droolmaster0 Posted November 4, 2008 Members Share Posted November 4, 2008 You mean his Politics? Heigegger, later on, was a very different man..which is probably why Being and Time was abandoned. I might not have the quote exactly, but he refers to "the inner truth and greatness of National Socialism" in one of his works, and left that passage in even in a later edition, which came out after the war. I think that his philosophy and politics were intertwined, and I personally think that someone who has such an 'essential' philosophy of being would try to apply this to the nature of people and nations. I believe that he was attracted to Nazism because he thought that it enacted some of his basic principles. I confess that I found Heidegger a bore, and never read much, especially when I found out that he was a Nazi. Wittgenstein was more my style. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members setAI Posted November 4, 2008 Members Share Posted November 4, 2008 Isn't this usually about the point where the political/religious threads turn into a nasty name fest? {censored}socks. I never get that- I always get the "what the hell are you smoking- and where the hell is your punctuation? and what does 'vectored-theogenesis-through-computational-augmentation-of-quantum-observer-states-in-Hilbert-Space-sorted-through-Turing-Complete-Causal-Phase-Space-and-resonant-n-dimensional[where n=number of Boolean Observables in the system]-crystalline-structure-of-coherent-quantum-histories-through-statistical-distribution-per-the-Born-Rule even mean?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Swami Digital Posted November 4, 2008 Members Share Posted November 4, 2008 nutshell: Spinoza's God is the Universe- that is one major thing that Hegel helps us understand about Spinoza's Ethics That is actually what Hindus believe as well, not multiple gods as was stated at some point in this thread. -D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members greaseenvelope Posted November 4, 2008 Members Share Posted November 4, 2008 This is who I would have voted for, had he won the Democratic primary.. oh well... Mercer for President 51. To Prove to you citizens you do not know what and how I am suppose to do for you and what and how I am suppose to do for the United States of America Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ChristianRock Posted November 4, 2008 Members Share Posted November 4, 2008 again- that is 2 billion MODERN christians who all have had their beliefs nurtured after the age of Luther! the modern view of God and Man in direct communion is TOTALLY ALIEN to the vast history of the Church You never admit you're wrong, do you? Whatever way you want to pull it, 2 billion people + many more others in 500 years of the post-Luther church, is hardly "irrelevant". You can't accuse christianity and then completely dismiss our literal interpretation of the bible, and judge our actions by your own standards. That's just not fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Pilotwings Posted November 4, 2008 Members Share Posted November 4, 2008 VOTED for McCain/Palin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Swami Digital Posted November 4, 2008 Members Share Posted November 4, 2008 You never admit you're wrong, do you? Whatever way you want to pull it, 2 billion people + many more others in 500 years of the post-Luther church, is hardly "irrelevant". He's saying their perspective now is irrelevant to what occurred historically. Ie. a belief that evolved over time is now very different from what was originally proposed, so this new covenant vs. old covenant thing is a false dichotomy. Edit: And anyways, it's always been a false dichotomy, because when speaking regarding the 'old covenant' you're speaking for other people who have a very different view of their own beliefs. -D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members carbon111 Posted November 4, 2008 Members Share Posted November 4, 2008 I personally think that someone who has such an 'essential' philosophy of being would try to apply this to the nature of people and nations. Aparrently not. I believe that he was attracted to Nazism because he thought that it enacted some of his basic principles. Some have argued that but when it comes to ground-level Ontology, I don't see it. I confess that I found Heidegger a bore, and never read much, especially when I found out that he was a Nazi. Well, I'm really only a fan of Being and Time as it addresses Ontology itself in a way that speaks to me. Wittgenstein was more my style. Well, in general, mine too - though he's a bit of a "philisophical mechanic" and I find myself leaning more towards the metaphysics of Spinoza these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ChristianRock Posted November 4, 2008 Members Share Posted November 4, 2008 He's saying their perspective now is irrelevant to what occurred historically. Ie. a belief that evolved over time is now very different from what was originally proposed, so this new covenant vs. old covenant thing is a false dichotomy. -D I think you are doing what we call in Brazil "catch the train in movement and wanting to seat in the driver's seat". Go back and read some posts to know where this is coming from. He's basically accusing my interpretation of christianity according to his own biased standards, and when I point out what I actually believe (and which has nothing to do with what I'm accused of), first he says it's irrelevant, then he changes the subject to the middle-ages catholic church, which I have NOTHING to do with. And please, don't tell me two billion christians don't believe in the new covenant when you're not even a Christian and you have no idea what is preached in a Christian church. I do. And I won't attempt to make up stuff about hinduism (which I wouldn't anyway). Deal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members electrobaby Posted November 4, 2008 Members Share Posted November 4, 2008 Just to let everyone know, I just talked to God and he told me he voted for Obama and that Obama is gonna win. You should all have a word with him, just stare at your ceiling and talk to it and he will answer back in your head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Swami Digital Posted November 4, 2008 Members Share Posted November 4, 2008 I think you are doing what we call in Brazil "catch the train in movement and wanting to seat in the driver's seat". Go back and read some posts to know where this is coming from. He's basically accusing my interpretation of christianity according to his own biased standards, and when I point out what I actually believe (and which has nothing to do with what I'm accused of), first he says it's irrelevant, then he changes the subject to the middle-ages catholic church, which I have NOTHING to do with. And please, don't tell me two billion christians don't believe in the new covenant when you're not even a Christian and you have no idea what is preached in a Christian church. I do. No, actually I'm not. I just think you're not following his argument. I read all of those posts, just chose not to respond until now. It is a fact that Christian belief has changed over time. It's funny, you are angry that I am claiming something about what you believe, when the entire new vs. old covenant dichotomy professes to speak for a whole other religion. Also, don't assume that because I'm not a Christian, I haven't studied Christianity or Christian beliefs. I come from a very different background, an inclusive one where it's encouraged to study other faiths. -D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ChristianRock Posted November 4, 2008 Members Share Posted November 4, 2008 No, actually I'm not. I just think you're not following his argument. I read all of those posts, just chose not to respond until now. -D His argument is that the bible doesn't say something that it actually says, or that it says it but it's not relevant. I'm saying it's relevant to quite a few millions of people because the dispensation of grace a.k.a. new covenant is preached all over the churches. If you don't like what is preached, that's another story. It might be irrelevant to you, but to the christians, it's not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members carbon111 Posted November 4, 2008 Members Share Posted November 4, 2008 ...just stare at your ceiling and talk to it and he will answer back in your head. Um. That's not God... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Metrosonus Posted November 4, 2008 Members Share Posted November 4, 2008 again- that is 2 billion MODERN christians who all have had their beliefs nurtured after the age of Luther! the modern view of God and Man in direct communion is TOTALLY ALIEN to the vast history of the Church i never understood that being raised christian, when that was jesus' core message.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.