Mel Gibson's drunken, anti-semitic, sexist tirade

[quote name='soonersfan60']I

Please only add things if you truly understand what you are talking about. Stating half-truths or platitudes that you "think" are correct do nothing to further anyone's understanding of the subject matter.[/quote]

I get everything from the bible, not what I think, I dont use man conceived ideas like rationalism, empirisim, mystisisim, or other pagan greek philosophy to interpret the bible, and let me state that I never said catholics cant be saved, Have a nice day
 
[quote name='fshaia']I get everything from the bible, not what I think, I dont use man conceived ideas like rationalism, empirisim, mystisisim, or other pagan greek philosophy to interpret the bible, and let me state that I never said catholics cant be saved, Have a nice day[/quote]
This has got to be THE most asinine response I have heard to justify your rhetoric. Sadly, opinions are like assholes - everyone's got one & sometimes they stink.

I love it when you say you openly admit you don't use valid debate methodology such as rational thought, empiricism (and of course, you couldn't even be bothered to spell it right :roll: < / spelling nazi > ) or even greek philosophy (which at least tried to use some form of coherent logic). It stands to reason then that none of your arguments hold any merit in the real world because of your inability to use logic. FYI, everything you use in the modern world is derived from people who WERE able to use logic - cars, planes, hell, the damn computer which you are using to spew your pedantic reasoning. So, as such, you don't deserve the privilege, nay, the right to even get on the internet if not for such 'pagan' concepts such as the Internet. If everyone had stuck to the Bible, we'd still be living during the Inquisition as well as believing the world is flat. Here's a logic lesson for ya bub:

All oranges are fruits. All fruits are not oranges.

Likewise:

All Catholics are Christians. All Christians are not Catholics.

Not a knock on Christians who display some common sense but you get everything from the Bible? Good for you! So you can selectively choose which things you can accept & deny! Great! The Bible is the most convoluted & contradictory piece of literature around. In the same Bible which professes to cut out an eye if it causes you to sin, it also tells you it's your obligation to impregnate your brother's wife in case he dies & if you pull out & spill your manchowder on the ground, hell's your next destination. :lol: Awesome.:applause: The same Bible also asks of a God who enjoys treating his so-called beloved children as playthings:

Lot - impregnated daughters & wife turned to salt
Abraham - offering his son as a sacrifice
Jesus - crucified
Simon Peter - crucified upside down

all just to satisfy his/her/its own ego due to worship? Wow what a great f*cking God. Hoo f*cking ra.

Shit, if there's one thing I learned going to church when I was a kid was that a lot of people do stupid shit in God's name. The one thing that these people forget is that God gave them a mind (as well as free will) but it seems He should take it back because obviously none of these people use them. Lest you forget, "Give a man a fish & you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish & you feed him for life." < /diatribe >

NON-PRACTICING CATHOLIC HULK SMASH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:bomb:
 
[quote name='chosen1s']^ Are you on some sort of crusade against Pat Robertson? [/quote]

Yes, I hate the fucker because he needs to just die. Its him and assholes like him that fuck everything up. I mean the fucktard nearly started an international incident with shit about the President of Venezuela.

Not to mention that CBN is about 10 mins from where I live...
 
[quote name='jaykrue']Shit, if there's one thing I learned going to church when I was a kid was that a lot of people do stupid shit in God's name. [/quote]

:lol: Quotable.

At any rate, some of the posts in this topic are why religion must adjust with the times. Everything else has since the Bible was written.
 
[quote name='fshaia']I get everything from the bible, not what I think, I dont use man conceived ideas like rationalism, empirisim, mystisisim, or other pagan greek philosophy to interpret the bible, and let me state that I never said catholics cant be saved, Have a nice day[/QUOTE]The bible isn't "man conceived?"
 
You just watch - christians will be willing to set aside their bible for Mel Gibson. :lol:
 
[quote name='fshaia']I get everything from the bible, not what I think, I dont use man conceived ideas like rationalism, empirisim, mystisisim, or other pagan greek philosophy to interpret the bible, and let me state that I never said catholics cant be saved, Have a nice day[/QUOTE]


Oh man.... this BABY GOT BOOK


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqHBIwMRZ1s
 
I am not Christian, Catholic, etc....I do not have any religious affliation. But I still like Mel. Sure, He fucked up when he got drunk but overall he had produced good films.

What I want to say it I have nothing against Mel Gibson generally speaking. He may have some personal problems but at least he hasn't gone off the deep end like Tom Cruise, Micheal Jackson, Martin Lawrence, etc.

And furthermore, I really look forward to the film he is making in Central America with the natives. It a non-english movie and I respect that he is producing films that is out of the norm from the Hollywood system.
 
Hmmm, when does South Park air? Considering how accurate they were on how batshit crazy Mel is, I wonder if they'll do a follow-up w/ this incident.
 
[quote name='jaykrue']This has got to be THE most asinine response I have heard to justify your rhetoric. Sadly, opinions are like assholes - everyone's got one & sometimes they stink.

I love it when you say you openly admit you don't use valid debate methodology such as rational thought, empiricism (and of course, you couldn't even be bothered to spell it right :roll: < / spelling nazi > ) or even greek philosophy (which at least tried to use some form of coherent logic). It stands to reason then that none of your arguments hold any merit in the real world because of your inability to use logic. FYI, everything you use in the modern world is derived from people who WERE able to use logic - cars, planes, hell, the damn computer which you are using to spew your pedantic reasoning. So, as such, you don't deserve the privilege, nay, the right to even get on the internet if not for such 'pagan' concepts such as the Internet. If everyone had stuck to the Bible, we'd still be living during the Inquisition as well as believing the world is flat. Here's a logic lesson for ya bub:

All oranges are fruits. All fruits are not oranges.

Likewise:

All Catholics are Christians. All Christians are not Catholics.

Not a knock on Christians who display some common sense but you get everything from the Bible? Good for you! So you can selectively choose which things you can accept & deny! Great! The Bible is the most convoluted & contradictory piece of literature around. In the same Bible which professes to cut out an eye if it causes you to sin, it also tells you it's your obligation to impregnate your brother's wife in case he dies & if you pull out & spill your manchowder on the ground, hell's your next destination. :lol: Awesome.:applause: The same Bible also asks of a God who enjoys treating his so-called beloved children as playthings:

Lot - impregnated daughters & wife turned to salt
Abraham - offering his son as a sacrifice
Jesus - crucified
Simon Peter - crucified upside down

all just to satisfy his/her/its own ego due to worship? Wow what a great f*cking God. Hoo f*cking ra.

Shit, if there's one thing I learned going to church when I was a kid was that a lot of people do stupid shit in God's name. The one thing that these people forget is that God gave them a mind (as well as free will) but it seems He should take it back because obviously none of these people use them. Lest you forget, "Give a man a fish & you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish & you feed him for life." < /diatribe >

NON-PRACTICING CATHOLIC HULK SMASH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:bomb:[/QUOTE]

Man, you've got a lot of built-up anger towards God and the Bible. I just wanted to let you know that a lot of the contradictions that are tormenting your mind are not what you believe them to be. Most of the Old Testament references you made were directed towards the people of that era of history and recorded as such. As an example, a historian might record that you made a list of things for a 6-year-old that goes something like this:

Don't touch the lawn mower
Don't sit in the driver's seat of the car
Don't try to pick up the TV

10 years later, a historian might also record you telling that now 16-year-old to drive the truck to the shop, pick up the lawn mower, and mow the yard - and when he's done move the TV from the Family Room into the basement. Does that mean you contradicted yourself, or does it mean that in your finite wisdom you saw fit to change the rules based on time/place/additional factors.

This may be a very poor example, I don't claim to be a guru or anything like that. Christ and the New Testament make no effort to hide the fact that from Christ forward the way we look at "The Law" and the volumes of rules, etc. is meant to have changed dramatically. So the contradictions you mentioned don't apply any more today than a 16-year-old who drives his car to school - even though his parents told him never to get behind the wheel of a car when he was 6.

As for tearing out your eye, etc. I think you would enjoy studying the different speaking and story-telling styles of Christ and early Church teachers. That particular "command" is more about bringing impact to the seriousness of Heaven and Hell, Sin and punishment than it is a command to mutilate your body every time you sin.

I think you probably know a lot of this, I can tell from your posts that you're well-educated and intelligent (not being sarcastic - your posts are very well thougt out). But there might be others on here who would be interested in a response to some of these concerns.
 
[quote name='chosen1s']Man, you've got a lot of built-up anger towards God and the Bible. I just wanted to let you know that a lot of the contradictions that are tormenting your mind are not what you believe them to be. Most of the Old Testament references you made were directed towards the people of that era of history and recorded as such. As an example, a historian might record that you made a list of things for a 6-year-old that goes something like this:

Don't touch the lawn mower
Don't sit in the driver's seat of the car
Don't try to pick up the TV

10 years later, a historian might also record you telling that now 16-year-old to drive the truck to the shop, pick up the lawn mower, and mow the yard - and when he's done move the TV from the Family Room into the basement. Does that mean you contradicted yourself, or does it mean that in your finite wisdom you saw fit to change the rules based on time/place/additional factors.

This may be a very poor example, I don't claim to be a guru or anything like that. Christ and the New Testament make no effort to hide the fact that from Christ forward the way we look at "The Law" and the volumes of rules, etc. is meant to have changed dramatically. So the contradictions you mentioned don't apply any more today than a 16-year-old who drives his car to school - even though his parents told him never to get behind the wheel of a car when he was 6.[/quote]

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)
Click to expand...

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)
Click to expand...

Where is this part of the New Testament that admits that the rules of the Christian Bible are directed at a specific place and time?

The Christian Biblical books used as canon (from the time of the Roman bureaucrats up unto the present day) are quite clear that their version of Jesus treated the Old Testament as absolute dogma.
 
[quote name='chosen1s']Man, you've got a lot of built-up anger towards God and the Bible.[/quote]
No, my anger is towards perceptions of God and the shit that gets done in His/Her/Its name as an excuse to be right (as can be evidence by the stupidity in the Middle East... but that's a whole other can of worms). I was raised Catholic but I consider myself an agnostic Catholic (questioning tenets in the religion).

I just wanted to let you know that a lot of the contradictions that are tormenting your mind are not what you believe them to be. Most of the Old Testament references you made were directed towards the people of that era of history and recorded as such. As an example, a historian might record that you made a list of things for a 6-year-old that goes something like this:

Don't touch the lawn mower
Don't sit in the driver's seat of the car
Don't try to pick up the TV

10 years later, a historian might also record you telling that now 16-year-old to drive the truck to the shop, pick up the lawn mower, and mow the yard - and when he's done move the TV from the Family Room into the basement. Does that mean you contradicted yourself, or does it mean that in your finite wisdom you saw fit to change the rules based on time/place/additional factors.
Click to expand...
No, I don't believe a lot of the stuff in the bible (at least the literal interpretation as such). My diatribe was more or less directed towards people who say they use the Bible as the be-all-end-all means of living their lives. As evidenced by your example, what worked in the past doesn't necessarily apply to the present. That's my biggest qualm - people like fshaia only use the bible as their sole means of guidance. Life isn't as simple as it was back then so there's some stuff the bible can't cover. It's this inability to adapt to modern life that irks me bad in a HULK-SMASH kinda way.

This may be a very poor example, I don't claim to be a guru or anything like that. Christ and the New Testament make no effort to hide the fact that from Christ forward the way we look at "The Law" and the volumes of rules, etc. is meant to have changed dramatically. So the contradictions you mentioned don't apply any more today than a 16-year-old who drives his car to school - even though his parents told him never to get behind the wheel of a car when he was 6.

As for tearing out your eye, etc. I think you would enjoy studying the different speaking and story-telling styles of Christ and early Church teachers. That particular "command" is more about bringing impact to the seriousness of Heaven and Hell, Sin and punishment than it is a command to mutilate your body every time you sin.
Click to expand...
The tearing out the eye thing was mentioned as an example of a good idea with good intentions gone bad. I completely understand it was meant as a philosophical display of the depths separating the concepts of Heaven/Hell but it also irks me that there are people who use literal interpretations of such things w/o fully considering its usage in a practical manner in real life.

I think you probably know a lot of this, I can tell from your posts that you're well-educated and intelligent (not being sarcastic - your posts are very well thougt out). But there might be others on here who would be interested in a response to some of these concerns.
Click to expand...
I agree that there would be people interested in a response to such concerns but also, it irks me that some people don't use what God has given them - a mind. To me, a mind is the most precious gift anyone, preternatural being or not, can give. The fact that some people are too stupid to think beyond their boundaries just pisses me off to no end. But, true be told, I think that those who would be interested would also have somewhat of a rational sensibility to practical applications of religious philosophy instead of taking the bible word-for-word. It would be essentially be speaking to the choir. I hate it when people say they use the bible to live their lives because more often than not, they do so in literal fashion. It's this absolutionism that made me use those examples because they wouldn't work in the modern world.
 
[quote name='fshaia']To be a Christian means you have to be born again, which means "from above" it means that the holy spirit has changed your heart, it doesnt mean you are perfect or dont sin, but you cant worship idols (catholics pray to mary) and rely on your works to be "saved", many catholics do just that, not all but many. Someone on this board said without catholics there would be no christianity, WRONG, there was already church called "the way" and it was started by Jewish converts to Christ.
[/QUOTE]

What ass-backwards Church-In-A-Tent did you learn *that* from??

Catholics, Protestants, Lutherans, etc are all Christians....Christians believe in Jesus Christ, you Moron. :p

Catholicisim is one of the many 'sects' of Christianity...each believing in Christ (their common bond, that Jesus was the Son of God) but every one having different offshoots that believe different things.

(and conveniently, like ALL good religiions, have reason to believe that they are right and everyone ELSE is wrong...and going to suffer for it!)


Catholics went against what Christ taught and started such things as the Crusades in which they murdered thousands of muslims, jews, and christians, they also had a history of selling salvation through "indulgence" or another words you can buy your salvation for money. They still have "mass" to further rely on their works to save them, when Christ already said "it is finished" that means PAYED IN FULL. Just thought I would add to this discussion.
Click to expand...

Sounds like your typical Bible Thumper Born-Again talk here........still waiting on that Rapture, eh? :)
 
[quote name='HeadRusch']

Sounds like your typical Bible Thumper Born-Again talk here........still waiting on that Rapture, eh? :)[/quote]

No, I dont beleive in the rapture as most people think of it, the rapture is another thing thought up by europeans, Margaret McDonald had "vision" and was later adopted by Darby and most evangelicals beleive it as truth, the first centrury church never taught this and was not adopted unti the 1800's

As to your remarks about born again bible thumper etc.. the bible says that "the gospel will seem like foolishness to those that dont beleive", so I understand your thoughts.
 
sugar.jpg


Things that make sense shouldnt require belief in order for it to not seem like utter foolishness.
 
[quote name='camoor']Where is this part of the New Testament that admits that the rules of the Christian Bible are directed at a specific place and time?

The Christian Biblical books used as canon (from the time of the Roman bureaucrats up unto the present day) are quite clear that their version of Jesus treated the Old Testament as absolute dogma.[/QUOTE]

I wrote a very long response and decided I could sum it up more succinctly:

- Christ healing on the Sabbath.
- Christ's disciples picking grains (?) on the Sabbath, to which Christ defended them.
- Christ's correction of the Pharisees on a number of occasions.
- Christ's saving the woman who deserved to be stoned.
- Christ's declaration that it isn't what goes into the body that makes it unclean, etc.

Peter in Acts, as well as Paul in a number of places piggy-back onto Christ's commentary about what makes a person unclean and I believe they are very direct about God's withdrawal of "unclean" status for many animals. Paul also has a lot to say about circumcision, whether it is physical or a matter of the heart, etc.

These are what I am referencing in my post above. Christ didn't come to enslave us with the law, but to free us from it. "We are now under the law of the Spirit who lives within every believer, and are not under the letter of the Law. 'For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.' " (2 Cor. 3:6)

Am I a moral relativist? No. But I think there is a strong argument to be made that there is nothing contradictory about the fact that God dealt differently with different people and groups of people throughout history according to His sovereign will. Was it a disgrace for a man to have tattoos in the Bible (somewhere) because God hates for men to have tattoos, or because using our discernment we can understand that at that point in history having your body marked was a symbolic to others of certain things that God did not want His people to symbolize?

God set up a moral and relational law, and nobody could fulfill it, nobody could bear it - until Christ came. He both fulfilled it, and freed us from it. Now the law is still there, and if Christ disappeared we would default back to it, but He never will. He fulfilled it (as stated in the New Testament) and now those who trust in Christ answer to Him. He purchased us with His sacrifice, He owns us, the law does not own us. Christ's way is to use discernment and know that if your sheep falls into danger on the Sabbath you would go and rescue it instead of sit at home and let it die because of the bindings of the old law. Christ is now our High Priest. We now have direct access to speak with God. The law is still there. Christ freed us from it and His way is better. I don't think that makes the Bible contradictory, I think it makes it beautiful and real as it demonstrates God's continual revealing of Himself and His plan to His creation.
 
[quote name='chosen1s']Am I a moral relativist? No. But I think there is a strong argument to be made that there is nothing contradictory about the fact that God dealt differently with different people and groups of people throughout history according to His sovereign will.[/quote]

Like how according to the chrisitian god of the old testament, slavery is allowed in Ancient times, and rape can be paid off with a hefty fine?

The bible is the perfect place for the modern moral relativist to hide, you just pick the parts you like and then blame the rest on the deus ex machina of the christian god's "sovereign will"

Although how someone can advocate what the monster of the Old Testament did as simply "sovereign will", I'll never know. I'll give you this though chosen1s, if I was a King in medieval times, I would have loved to have millions of your kind as loyal subjects.
 
[quote name='trq']Wow. What the fuck happened to this thread? I don't know whether to walk away, or just jump in...[/QUOTE]The zealous happened to it. You should walk away or watch, amused.
 
[quote name='jmcc']The bible isn't "man conceived?"[/QUOTE]

Shhh. Kid's's heads gonna 'spolde if you try arguing that their was contention, by mere mortals mind you, over what to include in the bible, and that the relgious texts he holds as the unassailable word of god was the consequence of political actions.

So, which is more unassailable? NIV, Good News, or King James translations? What about the Wal-Mart bibles for idiots ("Awesome" Teen Bible kinda shit)?

The same folks who proclaim that Nostradamus was merely mistranslated over centuries to the point that his linguistic ambiguity is merely circumstantially related, vaguely at best, to modern day events, are the same folks who seem to think that the philosophical integrity of the bible has remained rock solid and consistent for 2 millenia. Of course, these people without fail eat shellfish and participate in the capitalist economy, so they're going to hell anyway. No need to worry about them, I suppose.
 
[quote name='camoor']Like how according to the chrisitian god of the old testament, slavery is allowed in Ancient times, and rape can be paid off with a hefty fine?

The bible is the perfect place for the modern moral relativist to hide, you just pick the parts you like and then blame the rest on the deus ex machina of the christian god's "sovereign will"

Although how someone can advocate what the monster of the Old Testament did as simply "sovereign will", I'll never know. I'll give you this though chosen1s, if I was a King in medieval times, I would have loved to have millions of your kind as loyal subjects.[/QUOTE]

I think you're reaching for justification of your own personal agenda to be honest. Pointing out things you don't understand ad naseum doesn't make you right, it makes you annoying. I could pull out a Math book and question nuances of mathematical theory until we're all old and gray, one post at a time. That doesn't make math untrue, it just makes me someone who would rather ask questions than accept answers.

Your sovereign will question is less of a question and more of an accusation and I'm not going to spend hours pretending that I am giving answers to questions that were not asked. I can say that I have heard it addressed by highly educated scholars who make a lot of logical (not irrational fervor) sense. I do believe if a person seeks, they will find. I don't think you're seeking answers to your questions though.
 
[quote name='chosen1s']I think you're reaching for justification of your own personal agenda to be honest. Pointing out things you don't understand ad naseum doesn't make you right, it makes you annoying. I could pull out a Math book and question nuances of mathematical theory until we're all old and gray, one post at a time. That doesn't make math untrue, it just makes me someone who would rather ask questions than accept answers.

Your sovereign will question is less of a question and more of an accusation and I'm not going to spend hours pretending that I am giving answers to questions that were not asked. I can say that I have heard it addressed by highly educated scholars who make a lot of logical (not irrational fervor) sense. I do believe if a person seeks, they will find. I don't think you're seeking answers to your questions though.[/QUOTE]Are you really comparing mathematics to theology?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Shhh. Kid's's heads gonna 'spolde if you try arguing that their was contention, by mere mortals mind you, over what to include in the bible, and that the relgious texts he holds as the unassailable word of god was the consequence of political actions.

So, which is more unassailable? NIV, Good News, or King James translations? What about the Wal-Mart bibles for idiots ("Awesome" Teen Bible kinda shit)?

The same folks who proclaim that Nostradamus was merely mistranslated over centuries to the point that his linguistic ambiguity is merely circumstantially related, vaguely at best, to modern day events, are the same folks who seem to think that the philosophical integrity of the bible has remained rock solid and consistent for 2 millenia. Of course, these people without fail eat shellfish and participate in the capitalist economy, so they're going to hell anyway. No need to worry about them, I suppose.[/QUOTE]

Again, I've done my debating and am pretty much done. But, regarding the philosophical integrity of the Bible - God's stated purpose for Earth and humanity is the same in Genesis through Revelation. A person may or may not like Bible or God's way of doing things, but the "philosophical" thread that begins in Genesis and runs through Revelation is unchanged.
 
[quote name='jmcc']Are you really comparing mathematics to theology?[/QUOTE]

No,

I am comparing a person's approach to debating theology to a hypothetical approach of debating a subject that I believed to be generally unrelated to theology.

This way I am able to discuss their approach to DEBATE regardless of what subject they are debating.


As an example, I could also have said "If I question the nuances of how my PS2 works ad naseum to people who don't necessarily have the high educational training to answer every little question I don't understand, does that make the workings of the PS2 untrue?"

Am I comparing the PS2 to theology and mathematics? Or am I comparing somebody's methodology for debate? This is really very simple logic. I think you just didn't like the clarity of my comparison.
 
[quote name='chosen1s']Again, I've done my debating and am pretty much done. But, regarding the philosophical integrity of the Bible - God's stated purpose for Earth and humanity is the same in Genesis through Revelation. A person may or may not like Bible or God's way of doing things, but the "philosophical" thread that begins in Genesis and runs through Revelation is unchanged.[/QUOTE]

Shame that it's the details what ails people, not some overarching theme. And that whole selective process of justifying behavior by seeking out a bible passage that can justify any range of behaviors. Stoned your child to death for talking back? Why not? The bible says so!
 
[quote name='chosen1s']I do believe if a person seeks, they will find. I don't think you're seeking answers to your questions though.[/quote]

I find it humorous that most people who seek an answer find the one that is closest in proximity to their own physical location.

For example, most people in North America who seek answers find Jesus, most Middle Easterners find Allah, and most modern Israelis find the Old Testament God.

Of course it would be false to assume that all North American Christians found Jesus because it was the current cultural custom. However when one, against all odds and amidst much 'misunderstanding', develops a spirituality that is outside the cultural norm, I think it's hardly accurate to say that that individual is not seeking answers to their own questions.
 
[quote name='chosen1s']No,

I am comparing a person's approach to debating theology to a hypothetical approach of debating a subject that I believed to be generally unrelated to theology.

This way I am able to discuss their approach to DEBATE regardless of what subject they are debating.


As an example, I could also have said "If I question the nuances of how my PS2 works ad naseum to people who don't necessarily have the high educational training to answer every little question I don't understand, does that make the workings of the PS2 untrue?"

Am I comparing the PS2 to theology and mathematics? Or am I comparing somebody's methodology for debate? This is really very simple logic. I think you just didn't like the clarity of my comparison.[/QUOTE]I think it's more that I don't think I like things with concrete answers being compared to metaphysics.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Shame that it's the details what ails people, not some overarching theme. And that whole selective process of justifying behavior by seeking out a bible passage that can justify any range of behaviors. Stoned your child to death for talking back? Why not? The bible says so![/QUOTE]

Which comes back to why it was such a big deal that Jesus freed us from the bindings of the law.

One might argue as a side note that the stoning wasn't about justifying murderous parents, it was about refusing to accept abusive behavior from children against their parents. Nobody is debating that the laws of the Old Testament were rigid and extreme in their punitive reprocussions. Some day you can ask God for yourself all those questions and let Him tell you why He did what He did.
 
[quote name='jmcc']I think it's more that I don't think I like things with concrete answers being compared to metaphysics.[/QUOTE]

Say what you will. The comparison was with regards to debating strategy and the subjects of the comparison were simply the background for that discussion.

Diversion from the topic tends to be an indication that the preson trying to divert either feels they can't win that particular topic or are so passionate about the topic they are trying to divert to that they will draw illogical lines of reasoning in an effort to transition into what they really wanted to get in to.

(As in your two attempts to bait me by diverting the topic from debating strategy into why you feel that mathematics and theology do not belong in the same school of rational thought).
 
[quote name='chosen1s']Say what you will. The comparison was with regards to debating strategy and the subjects of the comparison were simply the background for that discussion.

Diversion from the topic tends to be an indication that the preson trying to divert either feels they can't win that particular topic or are so passionate about the topic they are trying to divert to that they will draw illogical lines of reasoning in an effort to transition into what they really wanted to get in to.

(As in your two attempts to bait me by diverting the topic from debating strategy into why you feel that mathematics and theology do not belong in the same school of rational thought).[/QUOTE]Who "debates" math?
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Well I refuse to believe this, Mel Gibson's a good christian boy that made that great movie.[/QUOTE]
LOL! Sarcasm FTW
 
[quote name='jmcc']I think it's more that I don't think I like things with concrete answers being compared to metaphysics.[/QUOTE]

Ok, I'm going to bite. Completely aside from theology.

Mathematics has concrete answers? Have you SEEN calculus? Dude, I was straight A's in every math class I ever took and understood it all. Math, Algebra, Trig, Physics, Biology (yeah yeah, lots of crossover there). But Calculus makes NO logical sense to me whatsoever. I really gave it an honest effort, both in HS and in College.

Math: 1+1 = 2
Calculus: XYZDJF squared with regression formula minus square root of the Pythagorean Theorum = 2

I got my A in Calculus as well, but I never understood what I was doing. Additionally, I have discussed a lot of molecular/atomic (I don't remember what they called it) Physics with some scholars who are way smarter than I ever will be. I hate to rock your world, but when you get to the atomic and sub-atomic level, your concrete mathematical foundations fall completely to pieces - which in no way affects the reality or truth of mathematics in our world.
 
[quote name='jmcc']Who "debates" math?[/QUOTE]

Almost nobody, which makes it the perfect backdrop for my comparison of debating styles. If there is a flaw in someone's debating of math, it is most likely in their debate style rather than in their view of math since nobody debates math.
 
[quote name='chosen1s']Ok, I'm going to bite. Completely aside from theology.

Mathematics has concrete answers? Have you SEEN calculus? Dude, I was straight A's in every math class I ever took and understood it all. Math, Algebra, Trig, Physics, Biology (yeah yeah, lots of crossover there). But Calculus makes NO logical sense to me whatsoever. I really gave it an honest effort, both in HS and in College.

Math: 1+1 = 2
Calculus: XYZDJF squared with regression formula minus square root of the Pythagorean Theorum = 2

I got my A in Calculus as well, but I never understood what I was doing. Additionally, I have discussed a lot of molecular/atomic (I don't remember what they called it) Physics with some scholars who are way smarter than I ever will be. I hate to rock your world, but when you get to the atomic and sub-atomic level, your concrete mathematical foundations fall completely to pieces - which in no way affects the reality or truth of mathematics in our world.[/QUOTE]So, how much debate came up in your math classes? And what strategies were there besides "show me the proof for your assertion?"
 
[quote name='chosen1s']Almost nobody, which makes it the perfect backdrop for my comparison of debating styles. If there is a flaw in someone's debating of math, it is most likely in their debate style rather than in their view of math since nobody debates math.[/QUOTE]I just don't think it's that good an analogy, in that math has demonstratable measure, religion doesn't. So, fallacies aren't really effective in "debating" math, if you want to call it that. They will be shown to be false.

P.S. I'm not sure I consider Calculus math, per se. I bet we think along the same lines, because I look back at it and think "man...I never came up with a single exact answer in the entire time I studied calc, what the hell?"
 
[quote name='chosen1s']Which comes back to why it was such a big deal that Jesus freed us from the bindings of the law.

One might argue as a side note that the stoning wasn't about justifying murderous parents, it was about refusing to accept abusive behavior from children against their parents. Nobody is debating that the laws of the Old Testament were rigid and extreme in their punitive reprocussions. Some day you can ask God for yourself all those questions and let Him tell you why He did what He did.[/QUOTE]

I think the question is why has society stepped away from the word of God? Why *don't* we stone our children anymore? Why don't we kick the bitch out of the house for a week when she's menstruating? Why do we live lacsivious lifestyles in which we engage in usury and the consumption of shellfish? Why do we violate God's word so? Is the Old Testament a set of suggestions, or the divine word of God to be ignored at your own post-mortal peril? There wasn't a time-relevant clause in the bible that said "thou shalt not eat of the bacon/until circa 1950 AD/for then it shall be refrigerated/and thus good/this is the word of the Lord," so why ignore what the bible literally says?

[quote name='chosen1s']Mathematics has concrete answers? Have you SEEN calculus?[/QUOTE]

jmcc, homeboy's got a point. Ask any mathematician; 2+2 *can* equal 5. I won't take that as far as the dude from a few pages ago and suggest that empiricism is a creation of mankind and thus the devil's work (I'm a positivist at heart, which is why I can't embrace much religion), but mathematics, if it were so concrete, wouldn't have anything else to put out anymore. As it stands, plenty of mathematicians write plenty of philosophy, polemics, and rebuttals about what means what.

Also, calculus is as tangible as the computer you're using relative to statistics. That's some messy shit right there. ;)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I think the question is why has society stepped away from the word of God? Why *don't* we stone our children anymore? Why don't we kick the bitch out of the house for a week when she's menstruating? Why do we live lacsivious lifestyles in which we engage in usury and the consumption of shellfish? Why do we violate God's word so? Is the Old Testament a set of suggestions, or the divine word of God to be ignored at your own post-mortal peril?



jmcc, homeboy's got a point. Ask any mathematician; 2+2 *can* equal 5. I won't take that as far as the dude from a few pages ago and suggest that empiricism is a creation of mankind and thus the devil's work (I'm a positivist at heart, which is why I can't embrace much religion), but mathematics, if it were so concrete, wouldn't have anything else to put out anymore. As it stands, plenty of mathematicians write plenty of philosophy, polemics, and rebuttals about what means what.

Also, calculus is as tangible as the computer you're using relative to statistics. That's some messy shit right there. ;)[/QUOTE]No, I'm saying straight out: I don't consider calc a "true math." It's logic based fudging for engineers. It only works because we're not sophisticated enough to need anything more concrete than approximations yet. If I remember right, I think Hawking said once that even in the course of quantum physics it's only practical to go to 8 decimal points on stuff. Anything more than that is overkill. So calc is still perfectly fine for the forseeable future. It's just not really giving an answer so much as a very, very refined guess.
 
[quote name='jmcc']No, I'm saying straight out: I don't consider calc a "true math." It's logic based fudging for engineers. It only works because we're not sophisticated enough to need anything more concrete than approximations yet. If I remember right, I think Hawking said once that even in the course of quantum physics it's only practical to go to 8 decimal points on stuff. Anything more than that is overkill. So calc is still perfectly fine for the forseeable future. It's just not really giving an answer so much as a very, very refined guess.[/QUOTE]

Calculus is not math. I didn't expect the argument to shift that way.

I wonder what Mel would say about this.
 
[quote name='gregthomas77']Calculus is not math. I didn't expect the argument to shift that way.

I wonder what Mel would say about this.[/QUOTE]"Shut up, sugar tits!" I expect.
 
[quote name='gregthomas77']Calculus is not math. I didn't expect the argument to shift that way.

I wonder what Mel would say about this.[/quote]

:rofl:

This is the best post in the thread. :applause:

WWMGD
 
[quote name='fshaia']He is a catholic, not a christian, big difference[/quote]

Take from dictionary.com:

Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

Catholic is just a different form of Christianity.

I question the authenticity of this alleged "Report." Writing sloppy on a few pieces of lined paper doesn't seem like a report to me. However, he did apologize for the things he said while under the influence, but again this information is coming from the same article.
 
Remember that time I forgot that this thread was 5 pages long and I was making a correction already discussed in this thread?

Now to redeem myself....

Shut up sugar tits!


Wait...WTF already discussed as well...
 
When I was 15 I went to a Nazarene church with my then girlfriend. I even went to Sunday bible study with her a few times. I learned that the difference between Catholics and true christians is that Catholics pray to and worship christ on the cross. Every cross you see in a catholic church shows a dead, bloody jesus. Real christians worship the "living" christ risen from the cross which is why you don't see a bloody jesus on crosses in protestant churches.

So, Catholics worship the dead and protestants worship the living. Therefore, Gibson worships the dead, like Satan.....and vampires....and lonely, geeky, goth teenagers. So, you see, there really is logic in religion. Case closed.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']When I was 15 I went to a Nazarene church with my then girlfriend. I even went to Sunday bible study with her a few times. I learned that the difference between Catholics and true christians is that Catholics pray to and worship christ on the cross. Every cross you see in a catholic church shows a dead, bloody jesus. Real christians worship the "living" christ risen from the cross which is why you don't see a bloody jesus on crosses in protestant churches.

So, Catholics worship the dead and protestants worship the living. Therefore, Gibson worships the dead, like Satan.....and vampires....and lonely, geeky, goth teenagers. So, you see, there really is logic in religion. Case closed.[/QUOTE]

Wow.

.....and Satan is not dead.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']When I was 15 I went to a Nazarene church with my then girlfriend. I even went to Sunday bible study with her a few times. I learned that the difference between Catholics and true christians is that Catholics pray to and worship christ on the cross. Every cross you see in a catholic church shows a dead, bloody jesus. Real christians worship the "living" christ risen from the cross which is why you don't see a bloody jesus on crosses in protestant churches.

So, Catholics worship the dead and protestants worship the living. Therefore, Gibson worships the dead, like Satan.....and vampires....and lonely, geeky, goth teenagers. So, you see, there really is logic in religion. Case closed.[/QUOTE]

If you want to focus on the symbol, rather than the meanings underlying a symbol, that's fine. On the other hand, if you want to be more than a prat, then you can recognize some of the causes behind the protestant reformation.

Not that any of that (religious guidelines behind remarriage or indulgences, for example) matter much anymore. I'd argue that the most salient differences between various sects of Christianity are quite comparable to, say, the modern Supreme Court and constitutional interpretation. Comparing, say, Scalia's hardline literal interpretation of the big C as a document that sez what it means and means what it sez to some of the more liberal justices' (lemme pick on Ginsburg, since I get to go see her speak in Montreal next week) view of it being a "living" document, subject to contextual interpretation. Similarly, some Christians view the Bible as the literal word of God; he had a hand in the writing, editing, copyediting, and layout. Maybe he even picked the paper that was used. It is a flawless, and thus irrefutable, document. Like Scalia, it sez what it means and it means what it sez.

OTOH, other groups (some Catholics, who are less rigid than evangelical and various other protestant sects, and fence-sitters like the Episcopal/Anglican church) view it as subject to interpretation, and even have a committee, and a heirarchical leader (now named Benedict) who can "amend" the bible, or the church's teachings. This does not suggest that they change the text, as what it says is still held reverent by the Catholics, but, rather, that it is subject to interpretation, and *this* (whatever you can fathom) is the current interpretation of Bible passage X. Consider the sect of Catholicism that Mel Gibson and his father/family are members of - they despise modern, *ahem* "liberal" (Sorry, just had to toss that in there) Catholicism - changing the mass from Latin to local languages, turning the heat down on the Jews for killing Jesus, and other major liturgical and philosophical changes at Vatican Council II ("Electric Boogaloo" - sorry, old habits and all) that they considered weakened the church, portrayed its collective faith as weak and malleable - and thus not legitimate, among other things.

All, this, without getting into how catholics are reviled as idolators for exalting The Mother Mary and The Pope above others (the "Grima Wormtongue" of the "Left Behind" series of books is the Catholic Pope - so bad as to be on the side of evil, but pitiful as to be the evil lackey - you must hand it to LaHaye and Jenkins for that barb!). Of course, if revering other people who have served in the name of Christ sends you to hell, well...fuck it, I dunno and I don't care.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I think the question is why has society stepped away from the word of God? Why *don't* we stone our children anymore? Why don't we kick the bitch out of the house for a week when she's menstruating? Why do we live lacsivious lifestyles in which we engage in usury and the consumption of shellfish? Why do we violate God's word so? Is the Old Testament a set of suggestions, or the divine word of God to be ignored at your own post-mortal peril? There wasn't a time-relevant clause in the bible that said "thou shalt not eat of the bacon/until circa 1950 AD/for then it shall be refrigerated/and thus good/this is the word of the Lord," so why ignore what the bible literally says?[/QUOTE]


I think the "why" is addressed in the New Testament. To sum up:

God: "If you want to get into Heaven, you have to live your entire life without breaking these laws".
People: "This is impossible. We are all doomed"
Christ: "Now you're getting it. Only God could meet these requirements and I'm proving it. I lived it, I own it, and I paid your debt because you can't do it. Now, follow me and live life my way - or keep trying the old way and continue to fail."

You're either trying to follow the old way - the law of the Old Testament...or...

You're trying to follow Christ's way - seeking to serve Him and follow His example.

Which is why Christ summed the law in 2 commands: Love God with all your being, and Love your neighbor as yourself. Because people missed the point of the law. Just like when you tell your kid not to touch a gun. It's not that there is something inherently evil about the metal taking the form of a pistol. You tell him that because you don't want him to shoot himself.

That's why we don't stone children, etc. Christ brought grace to justice as a response to sin. He also revealed through his own words that the law should be viewed with the discernment God gives us, understanding the purpose behind the law and practicing the *purpose* of the law rather than following an impossible checklist and trying to make it apply to every facet of life (See Christ's commentary on adultry, Sabbath, punishment, tithing, honoring parents, etc.).

I think you probably disagree with me and that's fine, but I think I did a poor job of explaining what I was trying to say originally so I wanted to clarify. Enjoyed discussing the issue with intelligent people who disagree and appreciate your comments. Arguing with someone who refuses to back down because "that's what I believe" and no rational thought behind it is just as frustrating regardless of what side of the fence they're sitting on. On the other hand, intelligent people debating an issue in a respectful manner leads to a better understanding for everyone.

As for Mel, that's one complicated guy. But he does make some awesome movies. I'm also looking forward to the Inca movie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top