Ahem. -clears throat-
It might seem crazy what I’m about to say
Sunshine she’s here, you can take a break
I’m a hot air balloon that could go to space
With the air, like I don’t care baby by the way
...
Because I’m happy
Clap along if you feel like a room without a roof
Because I’m happy
Clap along if you feel like happiness is the truth
Because I’m happy
Clap along if you know what happiness is to you
Because I’m happy
Clap along if you feel like that’s what you wanna do
I don't even really need to say much. Link Posting should do.
http://www.problemswithpaul.com/
http://www.problemswithapostlepaul.com/
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/
I like the Yahoo answer especially, but the above links work if you have to thump the bible to have something make sense.
Seriously, think about this for a minute. Paul was a zealous, sadistic nutcase who worked diligently to destroy Christianity. Then he goes and converts. Suddenly he calls himself an apostle when NONE of the other ACTUAL apostles do this? He then tells HUGE contradictions that go against many things that Jesus said.
Private Prayer was Jesus' teaching. Paul made it into Public Prayer, which was condemned as exhibitionist. That's just one example.
And nowhere in the Gospels does it say that Jesus despised Homosexuality. That was all Paul's ranting. Also something about how women shouldn't be in positions of power? Maintain quietude?
In my opinion, Paul... excuse me, Saul of Tarsus, never changed. His goal was to destroy Christianity.
He succeeded.
Everything that is wrong with Christianity- can be traced to Saul/Paul the Self-Declared Apostle.
Jesus, I love you with everything I've got, and I love Christianity in it's purest form, but Saul #Rekt your sermons, bro.
-In reference to the hate and lack of tolerance that we see seeping from it.
The four gospels don't say anything about homosexuality let alone say anything wrong with it.
Jesus obsoleted the OT laws apparently.
Those New Testament verses where it hates on homosexuality? Yeah. Paul...
I think Paul said that latter one in Timothy.
Paul sucks.
Well, let's take a look at the fictional-reality hypothesis of the Multiverse theory.
See the link below.
...these viewpoint titles are rigged.
Also, I don't think the questions are whether it should be legal or morally acceptable (Won't touch this area. See a lawyer for details), but whether a zoophiliac relationship is even worth it.
Even if animals can display consent (in whatever forms), they are not as advanced as humans. You will never receive or be able to give the same kind of love to an animal as you can from a human being. Animals have feelings, and are capable of love, but I highly doubt it is for the same reasons that humans love each other.
That's my argument. Is it worth it? Is it actually love, or is it merely perceived?
Right. The Book of Romans, a series of letters written to Persecution-era Christians by Saul of Tarsus-turned Paul "the Apostle", the same overly zealous sadistic jackass that ruthlessly persecuted Christians for Rome, then inexplicably (blinded en route to Damascus I think?) became a Christian expert and wrote letters to Rome, about Christians, then planned to visit Rome, the capital of the hatemongers which killed Christ and his early followers.
Old habits die hard. A little common sense will tell you that he retained his discriminatory nature. Paul wasn't an Apostle. Saul was the first to weaponize Christianity against people he didn't like.
He called himself an Apostle. None of the original apostles did this. Also I believe there was a "don't be a pretender" line from Jesus somewhere? Pray in private, and don't parade it out on the streets and flaunt it about like "I'm So Fabulous!"
http://www.problemswithpaul.com/ for more details. Chock full of Bible Verses if you must thump :)
EDIT: Updated Version: http://www.problemswithapostlepaul.com/
2. What about all those poor children in poor countries who never heard of anyone called Jesus? Have they sent themselves to hell?
Lmfao. Agreed. Those people who go over to those countries and say they're doing it out of charity, then line up the starving villages and hand out bibles. Those pretentious dicks aren't doing it for charity, they're helping those people because they want a bigger demographic!
So... we're not going to even glance at all the other good things that this man has done in his life? Placing faith in God, giving to Charity, going to Church, studying religion, living happily, obeying the law... trying his best to obey the other laws? Loving thy neighbor, not committing adultery/being unfaithful to his partner...
I doubt that God's overlooking all of that because this guy's with another guy, and not even for inherently sexual purposes (note that their relationship is more about loving each other for who they are as people).
Dude, think for a minute. The man trusts that God will love and accept him for who he is, and he's done the best he could to be an amazing person and the promise of heaven has nothing to do with his behavior. He does it because he is a good human being. If God's going to betray that trust, then "God" isn't worth it. However on a personal level, I myself believe that God will not overlook this man's good qualities for one and one thing only. I love God, and God loves me back, for it is ultimately unconditional. The moment you strap a condition onto "Unconditional Love", it becomes meaningless.
Good and Evil are subjective. The only Objective Evil is hurting people for the fun of it and you are consciously aware that what you are doing is commonly perceived as wrong.
Also note: Without evil, we cannot identify good. We have to go through evil to know the righteous. God understands that. It is immature to think that God's going to set up a magnificent paradise for every single being in existence to live in forever and everything is all hunky-dory.
LIFE IS PURGATORY. WE LIVE TO ENCOUNTER TRIBULATION AND CONQUER IT. WE WILL BECOME ALL THE GREATER FOR OUR BEAUTIFUL VICTORIES AND HONORABLE DEFEATS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BuddhismandChristianity
Really all I can say. I take both sides of this argument. Buddha and Jesus are bros, man... I <3 Saint Oniisan.
I don't think Jesus failed as a teacher. I think that they just gave the messages to the wrong guys and they took it and twisted it to fit their sadistic agendas. I mean really. Paul = Saul, who tried to destroy Christianity. Then Romans persecute the Christians for YEARS and then some time after Constantine, the Romans made it a state religion. I'm not 100% but I think that'd piss off hundreds of Polytheistic Romans or Christian persecutors. Roman Catholics and Middle Ages. Yeeeeeaaaaaaahhh. No comment.
I will bet money that when Jesus comes back, if he comes back in physical form, he's going to take one look at modern Christianity and facepalm. "Did y'all even listen to me?"
He doesn't. It makes no sense.
Basically the idea of Hell as Torment or Isolation goes like this:
Good people go to heaven. Sinners, those who spread Satan's work, go to hell... where Satan thanks them by spawn-killing them over and over and over in the worst ways beyond imagination? What?!
If that were the case, then Satan's playing Jail-Warden and torturer/executioner for the evil scumbags that go against God. That means that God and Satan are in cahoots if God throws bad guys for Satan to beat up in retaliation for sinning.
Realistically, Satan would pat a sinner on the back and tell them to prepare for war. Seriously. God punishes nobody.
Dude, this guy's on my enemy list and I think you're being a bit harsh. Chill. Don't believe in God, so be it. He's also a bit of a chump, which is why he's on my enemy list, but the insult-cursing is a bit irrational. Just asking you to be a bit nicer. Be as critical as you want man, but seriously.
Yes, but not literally as stated. Sure, some animals may have been put on board (like a dog or cat), but 2 of EVERY animal?
That must explain why Mosquitoes... and parasites of other kinds.
Also, if it was only Noah's family and the possible best friend that was on the boat, then shouldn't the repopulated world be full of drooling, inbred morons? We wouldn't have made it to the Roman Republic.
Animals are adept with detecting natural disasters, so I think flooding is a detectable disaster for them. I doubt carrying them around would even be necessary unless they were domesticated or endangered at the time.
Also, it's possible that the previous Ice Age thawed out and the rising water levels took down some civilized areas (Atlantis maybe? Meh. Speculation is something I adore. Sue me) and killed a lot of people/plants/animals.
We've also got myths of bigass deluges just about everywhere.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/
Clearly, something happened. Noah was around when it did happen and somebody recorded it later. He wasn't the only survivor though, but he was one of the many survivors including Manu, Deucalion and Pyrrha, etc.
The last Ice Age/Glacial Period was around 13,000 or more years ago, which according to http://www.youtube.com/user/
Was the time that Atlantis (continent) went down. Perhaps Noah/Utnapishtim and the others were among those who escaped? If the amount of survivors was so slim, and they got separated while the rest of their lands got pimp-slapped by tidal waves, whatever pre-flood tech they had could have been lost. That could explain Noah's ability to build an ark with a design not practically used again after the flood. (Last I checked the Egyptians/Romans/Greeks didn't have any massive arks.)
Hey. I myself find this idea highly sketchy. I just love speculating and putting pieces together using any and every resource that I can, scientific or religious. Feel free to discuss this with me and help me build up this hypothesis or give me counter-evidence, but I believe that the "Noah's Ark" event did happen, just not in the literal context. There could be so much more to it than we imagined. It excites me to know that, and I just had to share.
Not inherently
We just have a lot of idiots parading around like "burn the infidel". It's on a scale.
On the one extreme, we have Spanish Inquisition, Crusaders, etc. People who are violent/hateful, and use a religion of love to justify their atrocities somehow. They have the power and take the actions.
Then we have the ones in the middle, may I clarify: The Westboro Baptist Church for example. They have the power to act by speaking hatefully, but not the power to act by killing or bombing or whatnot.
Then we have faux-benevolent folk who say that they love all people, but then attempt to assert that "help" is absolutely required in a person's life to turn them away from perceived sins.
Basically, no. Christianity is NOT an inherently hate-filled, violent religion. It's just some Christians whose bullshit draws the most attention.
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” -Mahatma Ghandi.
I can get behind this. HOWEVER.
#1. Buddhism is an Atheist religion, it has no god.
Erhrm. Mahayana Buddhism. Granted you may have been referring to Theravada and that's totally okay, but Mahayana Buddhism places belief in countless Bodhisattvas, who come close to nirvana and the shattering of the cycle of rebirth, but step back from it so that they may help others achieve enlightenment. (Often, it's believed that they retain their memories of previous lives because forgetting everything you did to become a bodhisattva completely defeats the purpose lol)
#2. Buddhism don't kill other people to see who has the better imaginary friend.
Not that I'm aware of. Most of the time it's the Buddhists who get scoffed/killed/etc whatever. The Khmer Rouge almost wiped out the Buddhists in Cambodia I believe? Mao Zedong (gloriously misspelled?) wasn't the friendliest to them either.
#3. Buddhism is older.
Not the best argument for "This is better". Judaism is older than Christianity and... urm... Leviticus. Christians have stated that they dropped the fabric-blending, shellfish/pork eating, sabbath-keeping, etc laws, so...
#4. Buddha didn't sacrifice himself so millions can be murdered, he gave up his riches so he can help millions.
That wasn't Jesus' intent in the first place. I will bet money that when Jesus returns (if in physical form that is the same as the one that he left in) he will take ONE look. Mind you, ONE SINGLE LOOK at Christianity today and go, "Whoa, what have YOU GUYS been doing?!"
-Also, Buddha did "sacrifice" himself in the sense that he sacrificed Siddharta Gautama, relinquishing material riches in favor of spiritual contemplation, then he went and taught people what he discovered.
Finally Buddhism accepts all people, last time I checked, God is Homophobic. It's a sin for two Humans to have sex and love.
This is a flawed argument altogether. Buddhists are generally an all-inclusive bunch, however they are strict with things like chastity, sexuality, etc. Marriage isn't even a sacrament to them, but a monk will show up at a Buddhist wedding out of kindess however.
-The REAL God is not a homophobe. No all-loving being promises unconditional love and acceptance and then takes the offer back because of a factor that one can't control. And to those who are going to say "Well he is all loving, he loves gays but they have to turn away from the sin an-yadayada"... that's like saying "Accept this help you don't need because I don't agree with your lifestyle". That's not love. That's being a faux-benevolent dick...
-It is not a sin for humans to love one another because that's the basis of true, unadulterated Christianity. Christianity today (coughcatholicscoughcough) just demonizes sexuality in all areas outside of vanilla MxF. While I don't necessarily approve of the majority of fetishes/paraphilias including BDSM... seriously guys? Bottling up sexuality -> Pervy Priests. Ahem, we had a scandal about that a few years ago if I am not mistaken?
I am new to this site, this is my VERY FIRST argument. Be gentle with me if I get a few things wrong here and there xD
