Jesus was born with the animals, funny that.Walker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 8:58 pmStupid question. Wearing a hat in church is a sign of disrespect. In or out of church if you are seated, you stand when greeting someone. When you shake hands, you use a firm grip and look them in the eye.
You don't do a Brandon and start sniffing hair and feeling people up.
This is called being civilized. There are other rules, too. Were you raised in a barn with the pigs?
Christianity
- attofishpi
- Posts: 9939
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: Christianity
- attofishpi
- Posts: 9939
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: Christianity
He stated as such in a post recently...he's a God denying infidel and he will pay for the sin of knocking peoples hats off (and the greater sin of talking continuous shite).vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 11:38 pmYou seriously think Zimmerframe isn't a kristian?attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 7:36 amJust so you know, I think Walker is on your team, as in he is also an infidel.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 7:16 am Hilarious that he keeps using the word 'baiter' when the 'kind Intelligent' kristoturd addressed me first in a deliberately 'baiting' way
Don't forget atheists, there is a religion for everyone, even YOU: www.boonyism.com
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13983
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: Christianity
Where? That's just ridiculous. And why is he knocking people's hats off in church then, if he's not a kristian?attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 1:39 amHe stated as such in a post recently...he's a God denying infidel and he will pay for the sin of knocking peoples hats off (and the greater sin of talking continuous shite).vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 11:38 pmYou seriously think Zimmerframe isn't a kristian?attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 7:36 am
Just so you know, I think Walker is on your team, as in he is also an infidel.
- attofishpi
- Posts: 9939
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: Christianity
You'd be surprised as to how many atheists enjoy annoying people in church. Some of them even go so far as to become ordained so they can molest kiddies while wearing silly frocks.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 1:50 amWhere? That's just ridiculous. And why is he knocking people's hats off in church then, if he's not a kristian?attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 1:39 amHe stated as such in a post recently...he's a God denying infidel and he will pay for the sin of knocking peoples hats off (and the greater sin of talking continuous shite).vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 11:38 pm
You seriously think Zimmerframe isn't a kristian?
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13983
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: Christianity
Well he's not one of them. By the way, 'atheist' is not the same thing as 'a theist'. You seem to be confused.attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 1:57 amYou'd be surprised as to how many atheists enjoy annoying people in church. Some of them even go so far as to become ordained so they can molest kiddies while wearing silly frocks.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 1:50 amWhere? That's just ridiculous. And why is he knocking people's hats off in church then, if he's not a kristian?attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 1:39 am
He stated as such in a post recently...he's a God denying infidel and he will pay for the sin of knocking peoples hats off (and the greater sin of talking continuous shite).
And I'm sure there are plenty of ways for creeps to get access to children, without spending years of their lives studying and doing exams.
-
- Posts: 1314
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm
Re: Christianity
No we don't. You confine what you describe as 'dishonesty' to "the legacy media". What I said is:Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 2:02 pmThen we were not disagreeing. The legacy media are dishonest. That's not the way it should be. It's not right. We agree.tillingborn wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 6:41 amThat is all I said and all I meant.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 4:05 pmIt is not the way it should be, it is not inevitable, and it's not right. However, it is the way things seem to be operating now.
That's what I meant to concede.
Are you so innocent that you believe the media which tell you what you want to hear are 'honest'?tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 10:19 amThe media is owned and/or run by people with political interests, which will influence the news they report and how they report it, that is just a fact of life.
Perhaps not:
On the face of it, you accept that the media who describe their competition as the 'legacy media' are your own Pravda news. I think it more likely that you either misread or failed to comprehend my point, but correct me if I'm wrong.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 2:02 pmYes, they are. That is what they have made themselves.tillingborn wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 6:41 amThe outlets that use 'legacy media' in this way are your Pravda news.
It is not ad hominem to point out the truth, which is that you misrepresented what I said, as you have again above.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 2:02 pmAs for the rest of the ad homs, I'm simply ignoring them. They don't have any relevance to the question of truth.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22140
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Christianity
Apparently not, given the historical significance of each.
Nietzsche had all sorts of odd things to say.
But don't worry. He knows better now.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22140
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Christianity
You pretend to misread, I see.tillingborn wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 2:38 am On the face of it, you accept that the media who describe their competition as the 'legacy media' are your own Pravda news.
I'm unimpressed.
-
- Posts: 1077
- Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:14 pm
Re: Christianity
Nah. You actually misread, and tillingborn graciously and accommodatingly gave you the opportunity to see and recognise as much, so as to adjust your response. You spurned that opportunity.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 5:07 amYou pretend to misread, I see.tillingborn wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 2:38 am On the face of it, you accept that the media who describe their competition as the 'legacy media' are your own Pravda news.
-
- Posts: 1314
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm
Re: Christianity
I gave you the benefit of doubt. Have another look at how you responded to what I wrote:Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 5:07 amYou pretend to misread, I see.tillingborn wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 2:38 amOn the face of it, you accept that the media who describe their competition as the 'legacy media' are your own Pravda news.
Here is a reminder of what I told you I mean by "this way":tillingborn wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 2:38 amOn the face of it, you accept that the media who describe their competition as the 'legacy media' are your own Pravda news. I think it more likely that you either misread or failed to comprehend my point, but correct me if I'm wrong.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 2:02 pmYes, they are. That is what they have made themselves.tillingborn wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 6:41 amThe outlets that use 'legacy media' in this way are your Pravda news.
To which you replied:tillingborn wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 6:41 amI got fed up waiting for you to explain so I looked it up. It is as I suspected:
""Legacy media" is politi-speak that political conservatives use to identify long-standing ("mature") media outlets (such as the TV news networks - ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc., and the major print news services - New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times., etc.) Typically, these ostensibly "left-wing" news outlets are critical of conservative political agendas."
The outlets that use 'legacy media' in this way are your Pravda news.
As I said, I gave you the benefit of doubt because I don't believe you meant to admit that, even though it seems to me true. Again, you are welcome to correct me if I am wrong.
It is not my intention to impress you.
-
- Posts: 1077
- Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:14 pm
Re: Christianity
This is to me really interesting and worthy of discussion in a thread titled "Christianity": how, according to Biblically faithful Christianity, is a person saved through Christ? What exactly does it take? Is merely mouthing doctrinal words of acceptance of salvation (through Christ) adequate? Or does one in addition have to feel and believe the words? If the latter, what if the person seeking salvation theoretically wants to accept salvation but can't muster up the adequate feeling and belief? When they utter the words, are they saved anyway, or not? Is salvation-by-utterance, under whatever conditions are required, irrevocable, or can it be revoked on the basis that, according to later events, the utterance was determined to be non-genuine?Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 4:48 pm From Immanuel's perspective, as you surely note, the metaphysical structure in the belief that one must perform a specific sort of action in the face of Jesus of Nazareth can be talked about. I find the Evangelical Christian position, or the practice, to be not a little strange. Could one, in a monotone and without any emotion at all, that is spoken like a robot, say: "Jesus, I request that You bring about the promised salvation in me now please". Would that be sufficient? Or, would one have to make the same statement with great drama and conviction, as if the drama and conviction proves that one really & truly means it? Clearly, you have to become *broken* as the Evangelicals say which means, literally, that your will (to rebel) breaks finally and you then submit (to discipleship).
But that action, within the Christian scheme, is certainly metaphysical, don't you think? It implies joining oneself to a current that takes one out of this world. And that notion, that hope, is also based in a metaphysics that 1) the earth is a lower domain, or prison-punishment and must be, or can be, transcended, and 2) that there is a higher dimension that, through a mysterious action, can instantly be attained.
If we allow that - as is obvious - Biblical Christianity is absurd, but that it must have had its seeds in something that is/was very real and not at all absurd - the historical personage of Jesus Christ - then who exactly is he, what did he do, what are the possibilities of relationship with him (assuming his immortality), how are they realistically entered into, and how can they be of help to the average person who doesn't want to buy into a load of bull (with hat tip to atto)?
I might be able to proffer some speculative answers, but I'll leave any answers to others for now.
- attofishpi
- Posts: 9939
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: Christianity
Er, I wouldn't tip your hat at me with what you have stated for certainly you have sussed me innacurately.Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 7:00 am If we allow that - as is obvious - Biblical Christianity is absurd, but that it must have had its seeds in something that is/was very real and not at all absurd - the historical personage of Jesus Christ - then who exactly is he, what did he do, what are the possibilities of relationship with him (assuming his immortality), how are they realistically entered into, and how can they be of help to the average person who doesn't want to buy into a load of bull (with hat tip to atto)?
-
- Posts: 1077
- Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:14 pm
Re: Christianity
These are very interesting comments.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 6:54 pm It is not that I myself put weight on the 'stolen land' idea but rather that I notice that it is a functioning narrative. It functions within a group of observations about conquest, domination, slavery, subservience to powerful interests and groups. It seems to me to be a way of examining things that is deeply bound-up in Christian ideas. So the intensity of the critique against *America and all she is and represents* is, oddly, a restatement of core Christian categories. It is an extension of the desire to see oneself as mored in sin, as determined by needs & desires that always result in sinful outcomes, and then by that strange need to *repent* for all that one is, all that one does.
And as I say if you (the person Immanuel Can) really took your Christian critique to its limits, your statements would not be that much different from those of the intense 'progressive' or antifa-like views. How odd it seems to me that you seem to hypocritically refer to it (the absolute application of Christian ethics) but in relation to a State (the US as the largest and most powerful state enterprise the world has known) that has not and cannot even be a Christian actor in the sense you seem to imagine possible. It is, and I say this without judgment, and in relation to your proposed idealism, thoroughly anti-Christian.
Given our communications over the years, I note with interest that you seem to be more amenable to the reality that indigenous lands were stolen by Europeans than you ever have been in the past, just as I note with interest that you seem to be more amenable to the reality that Zionism embodies a similar injustice than you ever have been in the past.
And that is the reality. The claims of misguided ideologues like Immanuel Can that the people from whom the land was stolen were fighting amongst themselves anyway are of course bogus: even if a people are warring amongst themselves, that doesn't justify an outsider from stealing their land, and we all know that that's how it went down. Even Immanuel Can does. It just doesn't serve his purposes to acknowledge that injustice.
I wish that you would go further. Land theft is not merely a "functioning narrative": it is the literal reality for millions of indigenous people. Back yourself up better, dude. The likes of Immanuel Can don't deserve coddling here.
You are 100% right in your later comments, and they are why you should repudiate rather than coddle Immanuel Can. Christ would absolutely condemn the land theft perpetrated by so-called Christians. Christ was, in these terms, a progressive, and, taking the Christian critique to the limit, Christ would absolutely condemn the basis on which the USA (and so many other colonies) was founded.
-
- Posts: 1077
- Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:14 pm
Re: Christianity
To be clear, the hat tip was solely with respect to the play on words of "buy"ing into a load of "bull", given your noting that "Bible" sounds phonetically like "buy bull".attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 8:41 amEr, I wouldn't tip your hat at me with what you have stated for certainly you have sussed me innacurately.Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 7:00 am If we allow that - as is obvious - Biblical Christianity is absurd, but that it must have had its seeds in something that is/was very real and not at all absurd - the historical personage of Jesus Christ - then who exactly is he, what did he do, what are the possibilities of relationship with him (assuming his immortality), how are they realistically entered into, and how can they be of help to the average person who doesn't want to buy into a load of bull (with hat tip to atto)?
I have no expectation that you do nor would agree with anything else I wrote.
You are relieved. Feel free to stand down and have a refreshing glass of lemonade.