|
Post by the anti-myrmidon on Nov 18, 2003 18:06:58 GMT -5
Just as a random side note, if the use of the word "fool" (or equivalent) is a measure of maturity, then several biblical authors and (if you believe the gospels to be true) Jesus himself are deemed immature due to their use of the word "fool" (or its Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic equivalent). I don't claim that this is directly relevant to anything other than the one line of Jamie's where she addresses the use of the word "fool," so any attempts to engage in source derogation will be utterly meaningless. Thank you.
|
|
jamie
Casual Heathen
Posts: 8
|
Post by jamie on Nov 18, 2003 18:35:18 GMT -5
erm...it's a he
|
|
|
Post by Rama3459827 on Nov 18, 2003 20:06:35 GMT -5
Christianity as a religion depends on God to exist, but it is not necessarily true that God would need religion or followers to exist. WRONG. Sorry, but you're going to tell me that this applies to christianity but not any of the other religions? This logic is circular and fallacious, it begs the question. Assuming your argument being as follows: Christianity would not exist if God did not exist Christianity exists ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Therefore, God exists Or to put it another way, does Buddhism exist because Buddha existed? Because reincarnation is the real deal? How about any of the other thousands of religions we've played with over our several hojillion years on this planet? Ganesh exists because hindu exists? On a side note, does anyone else think a buddhist street-fighter would kick ass? Think of the combos you could make with all those fuckin arms!
|
|
|
Post by the anti-myrmidon on Nov 18, 2003 20:44:20 GMT -5
my apologies Jamie...there was no gender tag with your name, and I know far more female Jamies than male ones, so it was my original guess
|
|
|
Post by profdunebastard on Nov 18, 2003 21:35:43 GMT -5
Hindu Gods generally had more arms than Buddhist ones, but they both stem from India-same scource I would reckon. But yeah, a multi-armed holy man would totally kick ass, buddhist or otherwise. I say a daoist streetfighter wielding the power of yin-yang duality would rock.
|
|
|
Post by Rama340 on Nov 18, 2003 22:26:10 GMT -5
Hmm. Just think if instead of going the street fighter route you went the style of Soul Calibur. Hmm, although having more than two of any weapon really seems pretty silly. Not that a giant elephant with hundreds of arms isn't...but oh well.
|
|
|
Post by profdunebastard on Nov 18, 2003 22:47:21 GMT -5
A fighing game featuring gods of the major/more interesting mythological pantheons. HMMMM. I found my new calling in life...
|
|
Cygnus
Proliferator of Blasphemy
The point of a journey is not to arrive.
Posts: 33
|
Post by Cygnus on Nov 18, 2003 23:07:01 GMT -5
Christianity would not exist if God did not exist Christianity exists ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Therefore, God exists Dont put words in my mouth. I never said that. Let me repeat myself with a little clarification. I dont know if you arent reading the whole post or what, but the point of what I said had nothing to do with whether or not God exists. I said that christians, depend on God (or rely on the principle of God--however you want to phrase it) for their religion to have a basis. But God (the idea of God) does not depend on ANY religion to sustain his "being" as true or false. I used christianity as an example but it would suffice to insert any religion with a theistic view. I brought this disctinction up only because many people were saying that if christianity died that it would mean that the christian God would be dead to and therefore not "eternal" or whatever jamie said. the point was that God (if he exists) does not need followers to continue to exist. I feel like im repeating myself here. Please do not put words in my mouth. I am certain that we would ALL benefit if you were slower to speak and quicker to listen in the future. And I will try to do the same.
|
|
|
Post by Rama235 on Nov 19, 2003 18:53:44 GMT -5
Dont put words in my mouth. I never said that. Let me repeat myself with a little clarification. I dont know if you arent reading the whole post or what, but the point of what I said had nothing to do with whether or not God exists. I said that christians, depend on God (or rely on the principle of God--however you want to phrase it) for their religion to have a basis. But God (the idea of God) does not depend on ANY religion to sustain his "being" as true or false. I used christianity as an example but it would suffice to insert any religion with a theistic view. I brought this disctinction up only because many people were saying that if christianity died that it would mean that the christian God would be dead to and therefore not "eternal" or whatever jamie said. the point was that God (if he exists) does not need followers to continue to exist. I feel like im repeating myself here. Please do not put words in my mouth. I am certain that we would ALL benefit if you were slower to speak and quicker to listen in the future. And I will try to do the same. Actually, I wasn't putting words in your mouth. I was retranslating a direct quote from you in an attempt to better extract the true meaning. Unfortunately I mistook the context it was made in and wound up presenting a logical argument other than what you had made. The reason I laid it out in formal style like that was precisely so I could make sure that was what you were intending to say. You can't really blame me for making the mistake of thinking that your argument was the most absurd one possible. I mean shit, have you looked at the posts of the other theists? It's not like there's much of a precedence on this board (and in my experience in general) that would lead me to suspect I should give you the benefit of the doubt. This has of course become more clear to me and hopefully the future will show this. My problem was not in being too slow to listen (or read, as the case may be) my problem was in unleashing a torrent of posts one after another while heavily under the influence of several states which are known to have a detrimental effect on the human capacity for perception (sleep deprivation, hunger, fatigue, wearing white socks with black shoes and pants, etc.) Your snipe at the end and the subsequent "this post has been edited" makes me wonder just how much vitriol you wiped up off the floor after you clicked "post". I find your parting comment to be aggressive and wholly unecessary as you would have no reason to suspect that I make a habit out of speaking (typing) before I think (read), and thus your 'suggestion' would serve no purpose in the event of a simple mistake (which it was). Furthermore, your choice to capitalize the word "all" placed undue emphasis on the sentence and again, added to the hostility of it. But to touch on a previous matter (the one of God decaying) I am still not satisfied with what has been presented. By your assertion that "God" does not decay, you are leaving open the possibility that Krishna, Buddha, Shiva, etc. do decay. Thus, with that in mind I would like to know what signs are shown by a god (not God) who might decay. Surely if these other polytheistic contenders are simple constructs of society and yours is not, then we should be able to identify firstly what happens when one of these gods decays, secondly how we can tell this god is decaying/decayed, and thirdly how we can tell a god isn't decaying.
|
|
Cygnus
Proliferator of Blasphemy
The point of a journey is not to arrive.
Posts: 33
|
Post by Cygnus on Nov 19, 2003 21:07:31 GMT -5
My problem was not in being too slow to listen (or read, as the case may be) my problem was in unleashing a torrent of posts one after another while heavily under the influence of several states which are known to have a detrimental effect on the human capacity for perception (sleep deprivation, hunger, fatigue, wearing white socks with black shoes and pants, etc.) Your snipe at the end and the subsequent "this post has been edited" makes me wonder just how much vitriol you wiped up off the floor after you clicked "post". I find your parting comment to be aggressive and wholly unecessary as you would have no reason to suspect that I make a habit out of speaking (typing) before I think (read), and thus your 'suggestion' would serve no purpose in the event of a simple mistake (which it was). Furthermore, your choice to capitalize the word "all" placed undue emphasis on the sentence and again, added to the hostility of it. I apologize, you are right, I was getting defensive. Mostly because I was a little shocked how what i said was being interpreted. Thank you for clarifying. As far as my editing my post, im not used to forums with a preview button and I usually go back and fix typos. Most of the time if i edit a post, ill add an "*" to anything I add. As far as God decaying goes I am not trying to make the case for any god in perticular, again this is something I have already said. What I have been saying is that "god"(whatever god you want) in principle/by definition does not decay and as such he was seen as a symbol of permanence to establish the Dollar upon. Though as someone pointed out earlier, there are many other more universal symbols that could have been used as well. Whether or not Gods do actually decay or even if they exist doesnt have an effect on the fact that god is used as a sybol for permanence. All of that was simply a defence/clarification of what i thought jamie was trying to say. I do not necessarily believe that is why "in god we trust" was put on the dollar.
|
|