|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 12, 2019 20:31:06 GMT
It makes logical sense within the constraints of the religion, Jesus is the saviour, to reject that salvation should have some pretty logical consequences. A nube rof translations of the mark passage actually render it as continued rejection (which is what blasphemy means in this case) which as I say makes logical sense. I suppose you could be asking why believe in any of the religion, I guess that is up to you , but if you choose to believe in THIS religion then the doctrine of blasphemy makes sense in that context.
Except there is no evidence this religion, or any other, is valid. I think Jesus was a wise and noble teacher, knowing that he might be a composite character, who taught the quite widespread philosophy, not just in Judaism, but many other religions at the time, that being merciful and nonjudgmental to one another; ridding oneself of putting value in , and therefore not being owned by, material and spiritual possessions; answer violence and hatred with compassion and love. In other words, live as he lived: his way. His way is the path to the salvation out of existential suffering here and now. This is the New Earth. Sadly, I rarely see this among his most ardent followers. Rather than letting go of possessions, they continually add to them and build a fortress (religion) around it to protect and attack from. I know you mean well, but you do have pride in your beliefs and don’t mind frightening people by telling them they are destined for eternal and infinite suffering unless they come to the safety of your fortress. This gospel of fear and unimaginable suffering, to me, flies in the face how I understand Jesus’ message. So I can’t accept God, if he exists, is so evil to punish his creation like that. So as I say, the religion says that acceptance of Jesus is required for salvation ( I personally have a more liberal take on that ), so in terms of the doctrine of salvation there is always an opportunity to be redeemed. Rejection of that salvation is a sin termed blasphemy, and unless you repent from said blasphemy then you will be rejected. You are in a lot of ways rejecting the religion as a whole, which is your right, but the doctrine makes sense in the light of the religion. in terms of addressing what you deem is my set of beliefs: I personally believe that Christianity teaches us how to improve our lives here and now, I am not in Christianity to hope that there is a heaven and I might get in. My take is that Jesus teaches us ways to live that will make us better people, if I reject that I will never get better. Let me be clear I believe that there may be a heaven, but I reject 100% the idea of a hell that is eternal, in fact I find it hard to believe in any kind of hell, it is more likely that existence is hell and it is here that we are learning to be better and improve ourselves. So my rejection of any of these teachings will doom me to continue as I am without improvement until i repent and start learning again. I accept I am not a garden variety Christian. I tend to reconcile my belief against the base observation that God is good and forgiving, anything that does not gel with that must be rejected, like for example eternal punishment for a mistake in a brief life.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 12, 2019 18:49:55 GMT
Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit means to reject Christ as your Savior and die in that state. Why should I believe this? It makes logical sense within the constraints of the religion, Jesus is the saviour, to reject that salvation should have some pretty logical consequences. A nube rof translations of the mark passage actually render it as continued rejection (which is what blasphemy means in this case) which as I say makes logical sense. I suppose you could be asking why believe in any of the religion, I guess that is up to you , but if you choose to believe in THIS religion then the doctrine of blasphemy makes sense in that context.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 11, 2019 21:17:57 GMT
You realise that is written in present tense right? That if one stops blaspheming and then repents they can be forgiven? Or are you seriously suggesting that a Muslim who converts to Christianity (after all a holding Allah higher than God they are blaspheming against the holy spirit) will still be rejected? That would mean there is no such thing as a born again Christian. is that really your stance? EDIT: the phrase that you would be after to make you point valid would be: but whoever has blasphemed against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit means to reject Christ as your Savior and die in that state. Exactly, so you can repent prior to death and accept the holy spirit.
The only thing that will condemn you is CONTINUED rejection of the holy spirit, you always have a chance to turn yourself around, that is central to Jesus' message.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 11, 2019 20:35:58 GMT
I happen to believe in a loving forgiving God, so no, there is no sin that God would not allow us repentance from. Do you even read your bible, bro? “Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.””MARK 3:28-29 You realise that is written in present tense right? That if one stops blaspheming and then repents they can be forgiven? Or are you seriously suggesting that a Muslim who converts to Christianity (after all a holding Allah higher than God they are blaspheming against the holy spirit) will still be rejected? That would mean there is no such thing as a born again Christian. is that really your stance? EDIT: the phrase that you would be after to make you point valid would be: but whoever has blasphemed against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven;
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 11, 2019 20:28:44 GMT
Your technically correct. but... some people reject God and their wills become hardened in sin and they ultimately choose evil over good. so it's really more of them rejecting God, than God rejecting them. because God does not want anyone to end up in hell but people do it to themselves by rejecting His commandments etc. If they are rejecting God they have not repented.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 11, 2019 2:06:34 GMT
I happen to believe in a loving forgiving God, so no, there is no sin that God would not allow us repentance from.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 10, 2019 21:38:39 GMT
Everyone is expected to know the difference between fiction and non-fiction. I dont know if you know it, but a few years ago I saw designated targets by John Birmingham in a second hand bookstore. For one reason or another I did not buy it on the day I saw it, and came back the next day but forgot where it was in the shop, so I asked the attendant: me "Hey I cam in yesterday and saw a book I want to buy, it's called designated targets by john billingham" attendant "what's it about' m: "it's about a slightly futuristic navy fleet that is testing a warp field and accidentally sends itself back to 1942 and destroys the fleet bound for Midway in world war 2' a: 'Is it fiction or non-fiction" 
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 9, 2019 23:48:09 GMT
Waititi is a complete douche who would be horrified if he ever finds out Hitler was defeated by the mostly white American men he despises. Funny, I thought the Soviet Union had a shortage of white American men during the war.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 2, 2019 23:25:02 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 2, 2019 21:02:48 GMT
How is pan's labyrinth NOT a horror? It had at best one scary scene. Overall it was horror like Lord of the Rings is horror. The whole thing is horror, its about a girl who has no family or people, who is going through many tribualtions, according to the definition: In literature, horror (pronounced hawr-er) is a genre of fiction whose purpose is to create feelings of fear, dread, repulsion, and terror in the audience—in other words, it develops an atmosphere of horror. fear, repulsion, dread, all there.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 2, 2019 0:31:27 GMT
Pans Labyrinth is horror? Also I guess they didn’t like It How is pan's labyrinth NOT a horror?
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 29, 2019 20:06:39 GMT
Can you link to this quote? I cant find it.
|
|
|
|
.
Aug 28, 2019 23:38:42 GMT
clusium likes this
Post by gadreel on Aug 28, 2019 23:38:42 GMT
Gee! A blog opinion website. I am underwhelmed. Have you been taking notes from Heeeey and Ejrenious? No, I've been taking notes from Google.com I would not be too concerned it is actually not a bad write up, and jibes with things George Lucas has already said.
|
|
|
|
.
Aug 28, 2019 22:38:26 GMT
clusium likes this
Post by gadreel on Aug 28, 2019 22:38:26 GMT
I am well aware that some of those guys are atheists. Yes, Gene Roddenberry, the creator of Star Trek, was definitely an atheist, & his atheism made its way into his series. George Lucas, on the other hand, was more spiritual, & as any fan of Star Wars knows, religion is very heavy in the series. How so? If you are thinking of the Jedi then I disagree. Their primary claim is that life creates an "energy field" which connects everything together, and that individuals can access this field and thereby gain extraordinary abilities such as telekinesis, prescience, increased physical speed, etc. They further claim that on death one can transfer one's personality (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) into this energy field, where it continues to operate and can interact with the living. But these are not faith claims. The force absolutely does exist, and any Jedi can easily and immediately prove it. Jedi can levitate objects, on command. Their ghosts do exist. They can sense distant events, and future events. Hell, they even have a scientific explanation for how the force is created and how individuals can access it, via the parasite midichlorians that all people carry. There's nothing religious about any of this; it's pure applied science. The only thing remotely religious is that the Jedi adopted some of the cosmetic trappings of religion, and that occasionally people describe it as such. But it's really not. To be fair, the midichlorians are a retcon, and at least once the belief of the sith (which is of course the belief of the jedi) is referred to as a religion. The fact is that (at least according to my understanding) George Lucas originally borrowed a whole lot from various sources including religious ones. And lets be fair in a lot of instances the claims made by esoteric religions about the abilities of the masters are extraordinarily similar to the feats of the jedi, although the jedi seem to have the best of the lot.
|
|
|
|
.
Aug 27, 2019 2:03:44 GMT
Post by gadreel on Aug 27, 2019 2:03:44 GMT
You just ignored my comment didn't you, I can see analogies are no good, lets address the issue you have pointed out, your contention: God made the Ozone layer so that life would be comfortable on earth for the living creatures that he designed that somehow get hurt by the sun he also designed. My observation if the earth evolved to have an ozone layer, then life would be able to begin to thrive, and even though, looking back on it, it may look like the ozone layer was put there so we could live, in actual fact the ozone layer ended up there and that is what allowed us to live. My observation shows that there is another way of looking at it, and the ozone layer does not REQUIRE a creator. I didn't ignore anything. Mainline Christians & other religious groups have no problem with evolution. ok then you did not understand. please read my comment slowly, it explains quite clearly why the fitness of the earth is not evidence of creation. but here is some more refutation of the fine tuning argument
|
|
|
|
.
Aug 26, 2019 1:28:19 GMT
Post by gadreel on Aug 26, 2019 1:28:19 GMT
Sorry that is just the puddle argument, the water that fills the hole feels like the hole was built for it, but it actually changed to fit the whole. As we know for a fact evolution occurs, the fact that life seems to fit so perfectly on the earth can be attributed to evolution not creation. It fits so well not because it was designed for us, but because we adapted to it. That still does not negate the fact that the 0Zone layer was meant for protecting living organisms from the cancerous effects of the sun. Someone Wanted to Make life on Earth. You just ignored my comment didn't you, I can see analogies are no good, lets address the issue you have pointed out, your contention: God made the Ozone layer so that life would be comfortable on earth for the living creatures that he designed that somehow get hurt by the sun he also designed. My observation if the earth evolved to have an ozone layer, then life would be able to begin to thrive, and even though, looking back on it, it may look like the ozone layer was put there so we could live, in actual fact the ozone layer ended up there and that is what allowed us to live. My observation shows that there is another way of looking at it, and the ozone layer does not REQUIRE a creator.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 26, 2019 0:12:24 GMT
I'll tell you why, because your phony and deluded proof IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH. It is also borderline insanity, from which is already absurd. Ever heard of the 0Zone Layer, Toasted Cheese ? That layer of gas in the Earth's hemisphere that is being destroyed by pollution? Before pollution began destroying that layer, it was for protecting all living things on Earth from the cancerous effects of the sun. Putting the destruction of that layer aside, & whatever it is made up of, the fact that it is there at all, points to a Supreme Creator. It means Someone Wanted to put life on Earth. All animal life, including human beings, breathe in oxygen, & breathe out carbon dioxide. All plant life breathe in carbon dioxide & breathe out oxygen. Again, this points to a Supreme Creator. If life was all a complete & random accident, there would be no connecting relationship, preserving the life force of the living things here on Earth. Sorry that is just the puddle argument, the water that fills the hole feels like the hole was built for it, but it actually changed to fit the whole. As we know for a fact evolution occurs, the fact that life seems to fit so perfectly on the earth can be attributed to evolution not creation. It fits so well not because it was designed for us, but because we adapted to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 25, 2019 23:33:06 GMT
Just shows mental retardation is not limited to any one social, political, religious or racial group.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 19, 2019 23:35:03 GMT
I'd do it for the lulz. But I don't fancy splurging money out just to get a Ouija Board. That would be silly.
What I would splurge on would be my fave childhood board games.
Or another childhood one I owned. Which should not be a big surprise.
I never got this though, but wanted it
Nice, I just got the Judge Dredd RPG and both the block mania games, not to mention got a full spare set of all the rolemaster books.  nostalgic gaming for the win
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 18, 2019 22:58:20 GMT
Alright I might give them a shot. I just picked up Nuclear Evolution to read this morning, so might be bogged down for a bit I remember reading that one too. Another interesting source of thought for you is Rick Roderick. He’s since passed away, but did do three Teaching Company lectures now available free online. His philosophy does not address the otherwise existence of Being, but explores the human search for Self. rickroderick.orgAll the lectures have transcripts, but it’s fun to hear him talk in his West Texas voice. ok Might put them on in the background while I work, thank you for that
|
|
