2010 Off topic thread(basketball,movies,etc whatever)

[SPX]

Re: UFC 117

Both. I don't consider myself religious, but I do attend church regularly... I don't think anthing bad would happen if I didn't though.

So you would not classify yourself as a "Christian," I presume, or feel that Jesus is the way to salvation or anything.

Have sort of a buddhist/Jesus philosophy. My goal is to want for nothing the world can offer me. But I like Jesus' action oriented approach.

Jesus got shit done.

[SPX]

Re: UFC 117

Jesus. . .

[MMA_scientist]

Re: UFC 117

So you would not classify yourself as a "Christian," I presume, or feel that Jesus is the way to salvation or anything.

I don't know. I don't necessarily believe that is what the Bible teaches. I guess it depends on the context. But when Jesus says "no one comes to the Father except through me..." I don't necessarily agree that this means what Christians popularly think it means. I mean, it is a lot of really gray vague talk. Then it has been interpreted as this stone cold theology by the numbers by modern churches. But if you actually go back and read the New Testament without the preconcieved idea of theology, I think you can get a different picture. I will say this, I don't disagree with anything Jesus taught. He basically taught us to have reverence for something greater than ourselves, which I think is great. And then he taught us to put others above ourselves. There is a lot of other stuff in there, but this pretty much encapsulates it.

If you look at some of the great philosophers they can't really come up with a better ethics system. I used to teach ethics to college sophmores. If you look at the deontological theories of ethics, they pretty much just say the same thing in a more convoluted way. Look at Kant with his theory of universibility and reversibility... is that really any different than what Jesus taught? I personally don't think the teleological schools of ethics hold up under scrutiny.

So if nothing else, Chistianity provides a tidy package to celebrate and examine your ethical and spiritual beliefs... even if it is not an exact match with the position of the specific church.

There is more. But that is probably more than you wanted anyway, and more than can really be handled in the UFC 117 thread.

[MMA_scientist]

Re: UFC 117

You bastard. I type up this serious response... and before I can post it, you put up your Jesus posters.

[MMA_scientist]

Re: UFC 117

I think you need to use your mod super powers and move all of page 32, 33 and 34 to the OT thread. I totally highjacked this thread.

[Luke]

Re: UFC 117

I think you need to use your mod super powers and move all of page 32, 33 and 34 to the OT thread. I totally highjacked this thread.

paging ZAK !!!!!

I'm not sure how to move pages I just know how to move a whole thread. If I try my dumb ass may end up deleting the whole thread

[SPX]

Re: UFC 117

I don't know. I don't necessarily believe that is what the Bible teaches. I guess it depends on the context. But when Jesus says "no one comes to the Father except through me..." I don't necessarily agree that this means what Christians popularly think it means. I mean, it is a lot of really gray vague talk. Then it has been interpreted as this stone cold theology by the numbers by modern churches.

I completely agree at least in regard to the synoptic gospels--Matthew, Mark, Luke. The "plan of salvation," as it's often referred to by churches, isn't really present. You can certainly find certain verses to support that point of view, but like you say, it's vague. At the very least, Jesus certainly never said, "Pray and accept me into your heart and you will achieve eternal salvation, but if you reject this truth then you will go to hell." It's not laid out like that. Jesus seemed to be much more concerned about the way people lived than what they believed.

The book of John, I think, wades further into theological territory. There are more statements about Jesus being "the Christ," for instance, and that's also where the we get the famous (or infamous, depending on your point of view), "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but gain everlasting life."

However, it's really in the epistles (especially of Paul) that there is this clear cut delineation between believers and non-believers, and the consequences of each. In fact, some scholars have charged Paul with essentially inventing Christianity, though it's clear from reading the other epistles that Paul was not alone in his beliefs during that time period. I think it's in Acts where, after his experience on the road to Damascus, it's said that Paul presented himself and his teachings to Peter, James, etc. and that his teachings were approved by the apostles.

So I do agree that the issue is confusing and, as you said, vague, and this is one reason among many that I walked away from Christianity. In any case, however, it does seem that a fairly orthodox (or what we today would call orthodox) amalgamation of early Christian beliefs had come together by the second century, laying the foundation for the Catholic church.

If you look at some of the great philosophers they can't really come up with a better ethics system.

Jesus was no doubt revolutionary for his time period. The emphasis on bringing people of all races together, dissolving the class structure and striving for equality, and raising the status of women were radical ideas 2000 years ago in the middle east (or anywhere, for that matter).

I have heard people make one criticism of Jesus ethical system, however, and that's that he didn't outwardly condemn slavery.

[SPX]

Re: UFC 117

You bastard. I type up this serious response... and before I can post it, you put up your Jesus posters.

I was just contributing to the discussion. . .

[MMA_scientist]

Re: UFC 117

I completely agree at least in regard to the synoptic gospels--Matthew, Mark, Luke. The "plan of salvation," as it's often referred to by churches, isn't really present. You can certainly find certain verses to support that point of view, but like you say, it's vague. At the very least, Jesus certainly never said, "Pray and accept me into your heart and you will achieve eternal salvation, but if you reject this truth then you will go to hell." It's not laid out like that. Jesus seemed to be much more concerned about the way people lived than what they believed.

The book of John, I think, wades further into theological territory. There are more statements about Jesus being "the Christ," for instance, and that's also where the we get the famous (or infamous, depending on your point of view), "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but gain everlasting life."

However, it's really in the epistles (especially of Paul) that there is this clear cut delineation between believers and non-believers, and the consequences of each. In fact, some scholars have charged Paul with essentially inventing Christianity, though it's clear from reading the other epistles that Paul was not alone in his beliefs during that time period. I think it's in Acts where, after his experience on the road to Damascus, it's said that Paul presented himself and his teachings to Peter, James, etc. and that his teachings were approved by the apostles.

So I do agree that the issue is confusing and, as you said, vague, and this is one reason among many that I walked away from Christianity. In any case, however, it does seem that a fairly orthodox (or what we today would call orthodox) amalgamation of early Christian beliefs had come together by the second century, laying the foundation for the Catholic church.

Agreed. If you were to pick up a New Testament having never heard of it, and just start reading it, Paul would really be the central character. And to it reads like Paul really organized the theology. But Christians have to accept Paul's writings as inspired if they accept any of it. But like you, this is where it starts to lose steam for me. Still, I don't find anything terribly wrong about what they devised.

I don't really get too hung up on the history and the likelihood that these events occured like some people do. That is a nonissue for me. You see a lot of books trying to justify one belief system or another based on logic, science, whatever... but for me, it is not something that concerns me until I can reconcile the philosophical issues.

The thing that gives me the most trouble, just ethically, is the delineation between believers and non believers. To me, it does not fit with the character of God as presented by Jesus and through Jesus as God in the flesh. It seems pretty arbitrary to condemn someone based on whether they happen to believe something or not. This is not something we have control over IME. And even if we did, should failing to believe something bring about the worst possible fate?

So I tend to think of "believing" in different terms. When I see it in the Bible, I generally think of it is following the ethical picture that was presented to us in Jesus. So with John 3:16, it still carries weight because it presents a picture of God loving the world and then the statement that if you understand and follow this way of living, you will will not "perish"... then it presents the afterlife question, which I happen to not believe in either. But that is another issue. But basically John 3:16 says to me, don't be a jerk and have some respect for others and about where you came from. The theology does present some challenges... for me it is more about seeking the truth, and even the theology by the numbers does actually a pretty good job of covering all the bases (except for that pesky non-believer issue).

I haven't really worked it all out yet, tbh. But I have some other theories about what you "believe" as well... You can't lie to yourself. Which means you can't pretend like you believe something you don't, which a lot of people do. But then just as many people try to deny that they have a spiritual longing. I think there are levels of understanding. I think you can grasp things on gut level, and that no matter what you tell yourself logically, you will never believe it the way you believe your instinctual understanding. Women want to have babies, whether it is biology or instinct or whatever... it is just in them. They can try to pretend like they don't want or need one, but then you see the 40 year old lady crying in the bathroom one night for no reason. I think we all have that same thing spiritually. You see these guys on TV, this is stupid, that is stupid, nihlism, blah blah... I guarantee you Bill Maher cries and takes anti-depressants.

[Ludo]

Re: Off topic thread(basketball,movies,etc whatever)

Ya'll really need to give a listen to some Christ Raping Black Metal or something. It's getting way too bible thumping folky in here.

[MMA_scientist]

Re: Off topic thread(basketball,movies,etc whatever)

Ya'll really need to give a listen to some Christ Raping Black Metal or something. It's getting way too bible thumping folky in here.

I am very sorry to have offended your delicate sensibilities.

Also, GTFO. No one cares what you think.

[Ludo]

Re: Off topic thread(basketball,movies,etc whatever)

Oh you didn't offend Me or My sensibilities. But if we're going to talk about our imaginary friends why don't we start with Captain Ron and Casper the friendly Ghost.

Also, your feminist-esque reply to someone who does not share your view would make out like your the one with the bruised sensibilities. Have fun at the clan meeting!

[MMA_scientist]

Re: Off topic thread(basketball,movies,etc whatever)

Oh you didn't offend Me or My sensibilities. But if we're going to talk about our imaginary friends why don't we start with Captain Ron and Casper the friendly Ghost.

Also, your feminist-esque reply to someone who does not share your view would make out like your the one with the bruised sensibilities. Have fun at the clan meeting!

are you retarded? You are the one who came in and insisted we stop talking about what we were talking about. I could not care less what your world view is. You seem to be the one that is upset that someone might not share your world view... why do you care if I believe in imaginary friends? BTW, no one said they believed in anything other worldly here... Jesus was definitely a real guy. We are talking about the church and whether its current teachings reflect what is actually written... no one is talking about whether anything is real or imagined.

Anyhow, how you got Bible thumping out of that is beyond me. Reading comprehension ftl?

[SPX]

Re: UFC 117

But Christians have to accept Paul's writings as inspired if they accept any of it. But like you, this is where it starts to lose steam for me.

Yeah, the issue is biblical inerrancy is a whole other topic. I used to embrace a fairly fundamentalist line of thinking and believed that the Bible--all of the Bible--was the inspired Word of God. I have noticed that many churches today, however, hold a more ambiguous position. Often times they won't come right out and say "we don't believe in biblical inerrancy" but there's a lot of variation over whether they accept Adam and Eve as actual historical figures, whether they believe Jesus was really born of a virgin, etc. These days they'll often try to have their cake and eat it too by saying that such stories are "true" and were inspired by God in the sense that they were meant to be stories that imparted spiritual truths, while not necessarily being literal historical facts.

I think it's especially true of more casual Christians that they pick and choose what they want to believe. They often come to the Bible with their own beliefs already in place, and then accept the portions of the book that agree with their preconceived notions and reject those that do not.

I don't really get too hung up on the history and the likelihood that these events occured like some people do. That is a nonissue for me. You see a lot of books trying to justify one belief system or another based on logic, science, whatever... but for me, it is not something that concerns me until I can reconcile the philosophical issues.

You see, I was always the opposite. For me, it's always been: Did this happen or not? For instance, did Jesus rise from the grave or did he not? Because, unlike you, I have always been concerned about the afterlife, and whether or not I would really, literally go to heaven was dependent upon whether or not the story was really, literally true.

Often times people choose a religion because it appeals to them. I hear this story all the time. But for me, I've never wanted to chase fairy tales, so either Jesus resurrected or he did not. Muhammad really received the Koran from Gabriel or he did not. Joseph Smith really received the golden tablets from Moroni or he did not. The Hindu deities really exist or they do not. Etc. . . Religion was to be a belief in what is true, not a pop psychology self-help system.

The thing that gives me the most trouble, just ethically, is the delineation between believers and non believers. To me, it does not fit with the character of God as presented by Jesus and through Jesus as God in the flesh. It seems pretty arbitrary to condemn someone based on whether they happen to believe something or not. This is not something we have control over IME. And even if we did, should failing to believe something bring about the worst possible fate?

Yeah, I agree completely. One of the biggest reasons I fell away from my own belief was because of this. I eventually came to the conclusion that there's no such thing as free will, at least in terms of the classical biblical notion. There are so many factors that go into what we think, feel, do, and believe and often we are not in control of these things. I remember, to demonstrate this, I once said to my dad (a very devoted Christian), "If you are so sure that you can control what you believe, do this for me: For the next 5 minutes, I want you to truly and passionately believe that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet. And then after 5 minutes, I want you to choose to believe in Jesus again." Of course this was impossible.

The idea that a hell exists and that God would send ANYONE there--regardless of what they believe or even have done--is just ridiculous to me. The more I pondered it, the more abhorrent it was. Even Hitler did not deserve eternal, neverending, worse-than-you-can-imagine punishment. At least that's my opinion. So God's going to send you or I there because we don't believe Jesus was born of a virgin, died, and was resurrected? Retarded.

And yet, this is in the Bible.

WITH THAT SAID: There is a group of Christians--those who believe in universalism--who believe that eventually everything will be reconciled to God and that no one will suffer eternally. In fact, they claim that the root of this belief in eternal punishment is erroneously based upon a mistranslation of a particular Greek word which I can't remember right now. Don't get this confused with the the Unitarian Universalist church. This is a general idea that has gained traction throughout many denominations, including Catholicism.

If you're interested, an excellent and thought-provoking resource on the topic is right here: www.tentmaker.org.

I think we all have that same thing spiritually. You see these guys on TV, this is stupid, that is stupid, nihlism, blah blah... I guarantee you Bill Maher cries and takes anti-depressants.

I believe some people are perfectly fine without God. Some speak of it as whether you have the "God gene" or you do not. A friend of mine was a long time Jehovah's Witness and left the church (or "cult," as he puts it) because they refused to endorse the idea of him giving the go-ahead for his daughter to have a life-saving blood transfusion. He's now an atheist and happier than he ever was as a religionist. He says he now feels free and like the weight of the world is no longer on his shoulders.

I know that I, personally, do have that craving, though. I certainly don't feel fulfilled in my current state. I want to know that there's a meaning and purpose to all of this and that my life really means something. For now, I have no idea if that's true.

[SPX]

Re: Off topic thread(basketball,movies,etc whatever)

Oh you didn't offend Me or My sensibilities. But if we're going to talk about our imaginary friends why don't we start with Captain Ron and Casper the friendly Ghost.

Yeah, go fuck yourself.

And for the record I think it's a very foolish thing to discount the idea of unseen realities out of hand. Life and the universe is mysterious enough that no one should be patently confident that they've got it all figured out.