.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to Murph.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="Murph:1003747"][QUOTE="Conservationist:1003715"][QUOTE="Murph:1003669"]I didn't say Christians cannot be smart people, just that it would be impossible to use one's "Christianity" as evidence of any kind of intelligence because it is so removed from an actual "Christian" creed, hence, NOT ACTUALLY CHRISTIAN (I guess one could give points for centuries of inventiveness...another argument, another time) which was arguing an OPINION presented by someone on this board (Conservationist). [/QUOTE] This is as usual my fault. Let's try this take on it: Christianity is words in a Bible. A huge Bible. One that is meant to be approached from any angle and lead to roughly the same area. However, beyond that -- all bets are off. Let's switch from Christianity to Nietzsche. Also words, of a more recent vintage. Equally misunderstood. To dumb people, Nietzsche is a license to steal, fuck, cheat, lie and screw over other people. (Ayn Rand, you stupid fuck, I'm thinking of you here.) To smarter people, Nietzsche is more complex -- not appropriate to go into here, but for sake of argument, let's take that at face value. A dumb person will fuck up Christianity and Nietzsche the same way. A smart person will arrive at alarmingly similar conclusions. Let's take a concept -- "equality." To a smart person, this means meritocracy. We all start out the same, we do the same work, those who do good rise. To a stupid person, equality means subsidies for all of those who consummately fuck up, at the expense of those who don't. Hope this example helped. Apologies for the gratuitous use of the word fuck.[/QUOTE] The problematic issues with Christianity here are varied and unique. For example, a two-fold issue with such BELIEFS are that...one, Baptist Christianity is true (in a historical sense, initial) Christianity, and the second, that Jesus was an Egyptian mystic embroiled in a dogmatic feud with Jewish and non-Jewish Messianic sects and leaders (including our friend that Baptist, so marginalized by biblical texts). Hence, historical accuracy has as much of a claim to curb a progression of accepted history as the opposite has an argument against a possible regression of ideals and cultural norms (what is "true" and "actual" might not work nor be relevant in today's world). Nietzsche is a dissimilar case because his role in history, while undetermined fully, is able to be coherently argued based upon the volume of work true to his nature (ie, his own work, printed "true" or "willing" to his taste). My view against using that particular faith (Christianity) in a dichotomous argument is that misunderstandings of history can undermine anyone using a mythos to create a moral/belief set. LUCKILY, moral traditions between cultural and spiritual codes at the time of the formation of both Christianity and Judaism have allowed for a synthesis between dogmatic creedence and accepted social cues/behaviors (meaning the religions carry tons of well-wrought, intelligent ideals in various forms, which most societies still praise). Islam, while not my forte, is decidedly more exclusive as its preservation deals with cultural forces still prevalent today. Hope that clears up my asshole-isms. C.R.E.A.M $$ y'all. [/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.005 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][