Lonelygirl15 :: View topic - Calling All Thelemites

Lonelygirl15
Forum to post messages about Bree and Danielbeast

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Calling All Thelemites
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

Lonelygirl15 Forum Index -> Her Religion

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

sovietkitsch
Casual Observer

Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 39
Location: Manchester, England

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:13 pm Post subject:

True, I guess I didn't pick the best example with old Tommy boy! But you get the gist..

derbygirl
Casual Observer

Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 26

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 3:40 am Post subject: Re: maxomai

maxomai wrote:

Quick note to the anti-Thelemites: human sacrifice and cannibalism are a blind for something else. No, I won't tell you what it is. I will tell you that it is perfectly legal. If you're going to make accusations to the contrary, you'd better damn well have some solid proof.

OK I am sooooo tired of reading this. Why even mention it at all if you're not willing to discuss it further? Why has everything got to be so secretive? It's no wonder why people get negative ideas about your religion--people are GOING to be suspicious of your activities when you won't even discuss it. Sorry if this upsets you, but that's my two cents.

derbygirl
Casual Observer

Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 26

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 3:42 am Post subject:

ravensgrace wrote:

tannhaus wrote:

I mean, Christians sit down and pretend to DRINK THE BLOOD AND EAT THE FLESH of the human incarnation of their God.

Some do it standing up, but seriously, what a generalization. Apparently, you didn't realize there are different denominations.

Right, I thought it was just a Catholic thing. I was raised Christian (went to a Baptist church) and we never did that. And for the record, it creeps me out too.

derbygirl
Casual Observer

Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 26

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 3:47 am Post subject:

ravensgrace wrote:

tannhaus wrote:

Did he accept the christian idea of a man in the sky dictating everything?

This is not a Christian idea. In fact, I don't think there is a single Christian who believes this concept of God. Actually, it reads like my old atheistic attempts at describing Christianity, before I learned anything about God.

I agree---and I don't know how many times I have discussed this idea with people. God IS NOT supposed to be a robot controlling you, me, and everyone. That is WHY he created free will. The idea is that God wants us to love him because WE WANT TO. So you can either follow him or not--do good or do evil---it's your choice. I don't know of any Christian who is not taught this.

foolslovehermits
Suspiciously Absent

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 7

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:49 am Post subject: Re: maxomai

derbygirl wrote:

Personally I feel that discussing these matters with the public is akin to casting pearls before swine, but I'll chime in with a few words. To discuss many of these issues openly one can only touch on the technical aspects. This is only half of the matter, and the least important at that. These things can only be truly understood by direct experience. Approaching these mysteries without the prerequisite knowledge base - which is considerable - or the right state of mind profanes it.

Most of the language that people get up in arms about is little more than thinly veiled references to sexual practices and secretions. Example: the blood of a child is symbolic for semen (semen -> potential child). There is nothing nefarious about any of it.

Nora Volkova
Enthusiastic Fan

Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 332

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 6:16 am Post subject:

That's true of Alchemical writings, too. _________________ CALL BORIS, DANIEL

derbygirl
Casual Observer

Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 26

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 12:51 pm Post subject:

Thank you, I respect that you took the time to respond.

Sfonzarelli
Devoted Fan

Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 580

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:20 pm Post subject:

sovietkitsch wrote:

tannhaus wrote:

The point I was getting at with the original statement was that there are plenty of things in Christianity that look pretty dang weird to anyone not of the religion...and that no religion is really any weirder than another. They're all equally weird...which makes them all normal.

I agree with this. When people bash Tom Cruise for his scientology beliefs, it really irritates me. Sure, what he believes might seem wacky, and the church seems to want to make money, but how does that differ from me being raised a strict catholic - being taught the concept of creationism and the priest coming round the congregation rattling a collections plate?

It only seems weird when its not what you're used to.

TheChessboardWoman wrote:

sovietkitsch wrote:

I think people bash Tom for his behaviour in regarding his religion (IE jumping on couches and being a total crazy-lunatic-arseface.) On the other hand, you rarely, if ever, hear any bashing toward John Travolta or Beck, both scientologists. The difference? They do not act like crazy people.

If a crazy person were Christian and bible-thumped, people would call them on it. It's the same for every religion.

There's a difference between having a crazy belief system and having a crazy belief system that involves subscription to a corrpt and evil bureaucracy. The Church of Scientologist is a deranged mafia.

But I do like Beck.
_________________
I've got a Morse Code anagram for you to decode, Cassie:

-.-. ..-. ..- -.- / ..- -.-- ---

TheChessboardWoman
Lonely Fan

Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 201
Location: NB, Canada

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:25 pm Post subject:

Sfonzarelli wrote:

Each religion is equally deranged if you look at it objectively. Hence the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
_________________
- Paige, an official member of the Smooth Operators.

JerseyJohnny
Enthusiastic Fan

Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 377

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:16 pm Post subject:

TheChessboardWoman wrote:

Each religion is equally deranged if you look at it objectively. Hence the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

No, the "church of the flying spaghetti monster" is a lame attempt at attacking the philosophical premises that underly peoples' choices to believe in any particular religion or none at all. Anyone who thinks "FSM" is some sort of genius breakthrough in exemplifying "religion" in general is a complete shit-head.

In other words, "FSM" is the rallying point for a bunch of atheists who have nothing better to do than whine and cry about how religion is destroying everything in the world, because those same idiot atheists have no accountability to themselves for their lives being so shitty and have to seek an external factor/force to blame.

BlackRiven
Suspiciously Absent

Joined: 25 Sep 2006
Posts: 16

Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 7:24 am Post subject:

JerseyJohnny wrote:

No, the "church of the flying spaghetti monster" is a lame attempt at attacking the philosophical premises that underly peoples' choices to believe in any particular religion or none at all.

I'm curious, what would those premises be?
The point of FSP is that intelligent design doesn't pass the test of logic.

JerseyJohnny wrote:

In other words, "FSM" is the rallying point for a bunch of atheists who have nothing better to do than whine and cry about how religion is destroying everything in the world, because those same idiot atheists have no accountability to themselves for their lives being so shitty and have to seek an external factor/force to blame.

What makes you think it's an attempt to vent furstration? It might be hard for you to accept, but for many atheists what they see as the absurdity in religions is great material for parody simply for humor's sake, if nothing else.

Nora Volkova
Enthusiastic Fan

Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 332

Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:33 am Post subject:

Sfonzarelli wrote:

sovietkitsch wrote:

tannhaus wrote:

TheChessboardWoman wrote:

sovietkitsch wrote:

I agree. Rank and file scientologists just want to improve their happiness, get along well in their communities, and promote to other people something which they feel has improved their lives. In other words, they're much like your wiccan or christian or jewish or thelemite or muslim or agnostic neighbors.

The Church of Scientology, however, has a hell of a lot of actual documented and strongly-supported-allegations-of criminal activity, negligence, and bad behavior to answer for, and there's nothing more wrong with calling them on it than calling other religions out.
_________________
CALL BORIS, DANIEL

JerseyJohnny
Enthusiastic Fan

Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 377

Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 9:10 am Post subject:

BlackRiven wrote:

JerseyJohnny wrote:

No, the "church of the flying spaghetti monster" is a lame attempt at attacking the philosophical premises that underly peoples' choices to believe in any particular religion or none at all.

I'm curious, what would those premises be?
The point of FSP is that intelligent design doesn't pass the test of logic.

How are you defining "logic"?

BlackRiven wrote:

JerseyJohnny wrote:

[/quote]

For one thing, it was brought about as a "weapon" used in the evolution vs. creationism fight in Kansas. All the people I know who think it's so "brilliant" tell me that the purpose was to identify how foolish religion is in general (and, by association, all those who believe in any religion). As for it being a parody for "humor's sake", that would make sense if it were actually funny at all. Of course, most of the people who find FSM funny also find Family Guy and Mind of Mencia funny, so 'nuff said about their so-called "sense(s) of humor".

BlackRiven
Suspiciously Absent

Joined: 25 Sep 2006
Posts: 16

Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 3:47 pm Post subject:

JerseyJohnny wrote:

How are you defining "logic"?

Logic being a form of inference and a standart of judgment that aims to lead to undisputable proof.
In the case of Intelligent Design what makes it not pass the test is the fact that it relies eventually on faith rather than concrete proof. Creationists believe that they have proof in the form of various philosophical ideas but they all eventually lead to a leap of faith rather than tangible deduction.

JerseyJohnny wrote:

For one thing, it was brought about as a "weapon" used in the evolution vs. creationism fight in Kansas. All the people I know who think it's so "brilliant" tell me that the purpose was to identify how foolish religion is in general (and, by association, all those who believe in any religion).

That depends on the person. We live in times when logical reasoning become prominent in various degrees amongst all (civilized) people. Everybody, including religious people use it somewhere, some more skillfully than others of course. Religion requires a leap of faith, which by definition is not logical, and to some people such blind trust sounds foolish.

That is not to say every time someone like that meets a religious person they'll immidiately consider them stupid, but once a debate such as the one in Kansas arises it does seem incredibly silly that some people are willing to accept the kind of arguments that Creationists use.
For example: the analogy that ID believers often use regarding complex systems (giving as an example a watch, moustrap, etc) is not entierly compatible with the nature of what ID is supposed to deal with. An object is a static system, nature is dynamic, the human body (when viewed from the point of view of thousands of years), is also dynamic.

JerseyJohnny wrote:

As for it being a parody for "humor's sake", that would make sense if it were actually funny at all. Of course, most of the people who find FSM funny also find Family Guy and Mind of Mencia funny, so 'nuff said about their so-called "sense(s) of humor".

It doesn't have to be 'haha' funny, it can be funny intellectually.

JerseyJohnny
Enthusiastic Fan

Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 377

Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 4:17 pm Post subject:

BlackRiven wrote:

JerseyJohnny wrote:

How are you defining "logic"?

Logic being a form of inference and a standart of judgment that aims to lead to undisputable proof.

Your definition sucks. Completely relative terms are used. What constitutes "inference", and on who's part? What particular "standard of judgment" are we talking about here? There have been MANY throughout the history of philosophy, which is the basis for "logic". "Undisputable proof"??? (Is that anything like INdisputable proof??) Again, based on philosophy, from which logic is derived, all "proof" can be disputed by the application of different philosophy.

Seems to me that your only "logic" is that which is based on a naturalistic philosophy. That's fine. But you ought to realize that your philosophy is not the only one out there, nor is it intrinsically NOR extrinsically "superior" nor any more "logical" than others.

BlackRiven wrote:

In the case of Intelligent Design what makes it not pass the test is the fact that it relies eventually on faith rather than concrete proof.

First of all, I'm not here to discuss "intelligent design" with a moron like you. Second, "concrete proof" is nonsense, as are the small-minded people such as yourself who believe there is such a thing.

BlackRiven wrote:

Creationists believe that they have proof in the form of various philosophical ideas but they all eventually lead to a leap of faith rather than tangible deduction.

I don't give a rat's ass what you have to say about Creationists, you small minded wretch.

BlackRiven wrote:

JerseyJohnny wrote:

I love how you talk about the "leap of faith", a concept which is so obviously lost on you, yet you use the catch-phrase to in your own pathetic attempt to portray the (il)logic of others. "Leap of faith" is a concept developed within the philosophy of Kierkegaard. It doesn't pertain to naturalistic philosophy. (I'm sure this is all way over your head.) As for Creationists, their illogic is equalled by the illogic of none other than their opponents. I'm sure you will not understand that at all, but it's the plain truth, one which you cannot and/or will not understand.

BlackRiven wrote:

JerseyJohnny wrote:

It doesn't have to be 'haha' funny, it can be funny intellectually.

"Humor" is "haha funny", dopey. Satire is perhaps the word you were looking for. FSM is actually satirical, but not good satire at all. FSM makes a point only to small-minded people, those people whose worlds are limited by their own small minds, people who are naturalists in their philosophy.

Display posts from previous:

	Lonelygirl15 Forum Index -> Her Religion	All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next
Page 5 of 10

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Protected by Anti-Spam ACP