• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The Gospel

And you're entitled to that opinion. Just don't expect me to care. I've got a life without faith in very much more than myself, and it's very much worth living. What the heck do you know about it?

But I trust me. I believe in me. I have faith in me. If I let me down, I'll pick myself up, tell myself it's okay, and try again. When others let me down, I'm very limited in what I can do about it, but I can always do something. When I make a mistake or do something wrong, I don't tell myself I'm bad, or sinful, or evil.

I say "Gee, I ought to give this some more thought, and try to do that differently next time."

I've tried sitting on my rear and praying, but somehow, nothing ever changed.
I've tried getting up, doing things for myself, and somehow, things tend to change, and change the way I want. And when they don't work out, I figure something went wrong. I look to see if it's me, and if so, I fix whatever needs fixing. If it wasn't me, I still try to fix things, but since another person's involved, it may not work out anyway.

That, my dear, is life.

Why don't you go watch Veggie Tales or something?
 
Hi Sling, I don't like Veggie Tales. I was thinking more along the lines of Spaced Invaders or something like it just for kicks!

Anyways if you don't believe prayer changes things, what do you think of the philosophy of "if people want things to change, then people need to change?"

In this world I think we are all concerned people who want to see things get better or improve. Change is growth, and growth is good, right?

Also Sling the mere fact that you say you have faith in yourself tells me that you may possibly be able to agree with a statement such as "God helps those who help themselves." Think about it.

I of course look at it a bit differently like "God hears those who cry out for help" this is of course because of my past experiences.
 
Time for kitties.

kitten20.jpg
 
Dr Adequate said:
The Roman Empire ... ?

I wonder if the cargo cultists will wait 2000 years for John Frum?

"Any day now ..."
Click to expand...

That idea has been mooted: Christianism as a Cargo-like response to the overwhelming Roman impact.

But I think the chief differences between the Romans and the peoples they rolled over were organizational rather than technological. The Roman army, and the administration that followed after it, were simply too powerful for weaker and smaller societies, even the ones that were anciently civilized and complex – for example, the Jews. Everyone already had swords and spears and tax collectors and spies, just not so many of them.

But when Melanesians and Papuans met the Western world, it was, for them, an H. G. Wells experience. The technological differences, even in the 18th. century, were overwhelming to the point of being flabbergasting. By the 20th. century, the gap had widened to the point that only magic could seem to explain it – and Melanesian/Papuan society regarded just about everything as magical already. To them, almost anything can be and probably is supernatural.

Of course, Papuans can change their thinking. They can learn. They can accommodate to things and ideas that are initially unfamiliar.

So you see? I am NOT drawing a parallel with Kurious Kathy.
 
Roadtoad said:
Just visited the site. Ursula, how much for a print of "Toadback Road"?
Click to expand...

$10 or $20, depending on whether you want regular or jumbo, and I take Paypal! *grin* I actually thought of you when I was trying to decide on the name for that one...
 
kurious_kathy said:
A life without faith is no life at all, in my humble opinion!
Click to expand...
Ok so if. . .

a life without faith is no life, and. . .
having no life is another way of saying you're dead, and. . .
I have no faith, so . . .
I must be dead, but I'm still walking around, so. . .
I must be undead! Cool!

Waitaminit. . . let me try this on for size. . . <ahem>

Brains. . . . brains. . . .

Yep, sounds right to me.

So, who's got the biggest, juiciest, tastiest brains on the forum?

:p
 
ceo_esq said:
You know, I did not realize that you were an artist. Unfortunately, your homepage is blocked by my firm's screening software, so I'll have to consult it later (I hope to find there examples of your work).

But I wasn't speaking of representationalism in art (artistic realism) when I referred to the truth-value of art.
Click to expand...

Well, there's some nudity in there somewhere, if you dig, so screening software often blocks it out. Such is life!

As for representationalism, I wasn't particularly referring to it either--there's some lovely wildlife art, for example, that is not photo-realistic, or even close. But if one considers truth, then while a depiction of a robin, however loosely rendered, on a fence may be a truthful representation of a robin, if the robin's wearing a small hat and carrying a shotgun, does that make it less truthful? And once you get into symbolic representations--if I draw robins with guns because they're belligerent little buggers who chase the other birds off, does that make it more truthful again? If I draw the robin as half-walrus, does that make it less true? What if it's a beautiful walrus? If Thomas Kinkade draws a saccharine robin on a saccharine fence, is my opinion that it's a load of self-indulgent tripe any more valid than the person who finds that kind of drivel sweet and nostalgic?

While it's well and good to speak of truth in art, it's a slippery thing to actually get ahold of. Unlike Keats, truth is not beauty for me--I have a fondness for naked mole rats, and no truthful representation of them is likely to be beautiful, no matter how much vasoline we throw on the lens--nor is beauty neccessarily truth. I skirt perilously close to Godwin's law, here, I realize, but there are spectacularly well rendered and elegantly composed propaganda posters from both World Wars on every side of the conflict. Many of them are clean, bold graphic design at a level beyond what I'll ever achieve in this lifetime. But I cannot say that their beauty conveys upon them any additional truth, or that they are any truer, in their beauty, than a crappily designed poster would be.

So what IS the truth-value of art, in the end?


(shameless plug)
www.metalandmagic.com
 
Genesius said:
Ok so if. . .

a life without faith is no life, and. . .
having no life is another way of saying you're dead, and. . .
I have no faith, so . . .
I must be dead, but I'm still walking around, so. . .
I must be undead! Cool!

Waitaminit. . . let me try this on for size. . . <ahem>

Brains. . . . brains. . . .

Yep, sounds right to me.

So, who's got the biggest, juiciest, tastiest brains on the forum?

:p
Click to expand...
Hrmm...I like this train of thought. Atheist zombies. Has a nice ring to it.

ANd I think Claus has the biggest, juiciest brains. Luckily, he's attracted to unsupported claims.

[Claus calling mode]We only use 10% of our brains mmmmm...I said brains...
Thor was a whimp
Scandinavians didn't exist before last week thursday[/Claus Calling Mode]

Oh...and since I'm not allowed to hotlink anymore, I give you....

Copyright_symbol_3.gif


COPYRIGHT SYMBOL!!!!
 
kmortis said:
Hrmm...I like this train of thought. Atheist zombies. Has a nice ring to it.

ANd I think Claus has the biggest, juiciest brains. Luckily, he's attracted to unsupported claims.
Click to expand...

I don't know if I want to eat Claus' brains. Getting around those f'n big horns on his helmet is tough.

I'm more in the mood for junk food anyway. Where's "Interesting" Ian?
 
i think that the bans on masturbation, sex before marriage and making women chattel came about when Constantine the Pagan decided to codify what he and his experts considered Gospel. then put every thing under a central control. didn't God say go forth and multiply, not get married go forth and multiply?
 
lostnick3 said:
i think that the bans on masturbation, sex before marriage and making women chattel came about when Constantine the Pagan decided to codify what he and his experts considered Gospel. then put every thing under a central control. didn't God say go forth and multiply, not get married go forth and multiply?
Click to expand...

Well, Jehovah said a lot of things about how to have sex and when. And Paul said it was better to marry than to fornicate around and go to hell, but celibacy was best of all.
 
lostnick3 said:
what about women being chattel
Click to expand...

Well, there's Paul's famous "women should remain silent in church" bit. His equally famous "wives, submit to your husbands" bit. Eve's curse of pain and servitude. Various verses from Leviticus showing how women and girls had less worth than males.

But, let's back up a bit, shall we? Why do you think the bans on masturbation, sex before marriage and making women chattel came about when Constantine the Pagan decided to codify what he and his experts considered Gospel, then put every thing under a central control?
 
lostnick3 said:
because the roman empire was forced to convert to one religion
Click to expand...

Yeeeeesss... so, there were no bans on masturbation on premarital sex before then, in the Christian community or the Roman Empire as a whole? And women were not treated as chattel? Is that what you're saying?
 
psy kick said:
proof there is a God, who else could've made something so cute?
Click to expand...

Ok, this has been bugging me for some time. It is not "Proof there is a God" it is "Proof there is a god", small "g". The name of the Christian god is God (or Yaweh or whatever). Note the capital: "There is a god, and God decides our fate".

P.S.
cute_kitten.jpg


Found here...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom