|
missedyno
Dec 2, 2005, 2:11 PM
Post #26 of 49
(1519 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2001
Posts: 4465
|
In reply to: ....There would be no hot cross buns, they would be hot hash buns. Holy water would now be Bong water. and Jesus jokes wouldn't work e.g Whats the difference between jesus and a painting.... It only takes 1 nail to hang a painting. Jesus walks into a motel....throws 3 nails on the counter.....and asks.....can you put me up for the night. alright alright...save me a seat on the bus.
... looks like we're splitting the driving....
|
|
|
|
|
mistymountainhop
Dec 2, 2005, 3:03 PM
Post #27 of 49
(1519 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 14, 2003
Posts: 410
|
In reply to: In reply to: Not trying to offend anyone really, just a thought that occurred to me when i was drinking. who says i aint a christian anywayz? Go eat "poop, poop!" Well, you said you think that christians worship the cross. If you were a christian, you'd probably know that that's not the case. It's a bit simple. But then, so are you. :lol:
smells like someone here is getting a little..............offended!?
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Dec 2, 2005, 3:14 PM
Post #28 of 49
(1519 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
You trolled.
I decided to bite.
So what you going to do now you whiny little bitch? You going to complain that the big nasty tradman responded to your troll?
Come on, whine for us piggy.
Squeal piggy!
Squeal piggy!
:lol:
|
|
|
|
|
mistymountainhop
Dec 2, 2005, 3:22 PM
Post #29 of 49
(1519 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 14, 2003
Posts: 410
|
Tradman-
I thought about the things we used to do, they really meant alot to me.
you mean alot to me.
-Gurl you know its true.
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Dec 2, 2005, 3:28 PM
Post #30 of 49
(1519 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
That's sweet.
I can see you're a fan, and that's cool. But to be honest I'm really not into the cock.
|
|
|
|
|
robbovius
Dec 2, 2005, 3:34 PM
Post #31 of 49
(1519 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 20, 2002
Posts: 8406
|
In reply to: In reply to: Not trying to offend anyone really, just a thought that occurred to me when i was drinking. who says i aint a christian anywayz? Go eat "poop, poop!" Well, you said you think that christians worship the cross. If you were a christian, you'd probably know that that's not the case. It's a bit simple. But then, so are you. :lol:
Actually, the Cross is revered as a symbol of the Christ's sacrifice and divinity, and in pretty much EVERY church throughout the fractious world of christianity, can be found to hold a place of honor where adherents can offer prayer and meditation before it. so, while the cross itself is not worshipped, it IS worshipped before. Had Christ seen his passion broken atop a rock, or hung from a tree, most likely christianity would have some other prevalent symbol, than the ubiquitous cross.
Tradman, as far as Misty whining because you replied to his troll, well, unfortunately you whined first, by resorting to name-calling. Whoever name-calls first, loses, especially if you use time-worn and ordinary pejoratives like "whiny little bitch".
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Dec 2, 2005, 3:45 PM
Post #32 of 49
(1519 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
I wasn't aware there were such things as winners and losers in internet forum slanging matches, rob. And here I thought we were just having a bit of fun (as denoted by the LOL smiley).
Ah well.
As to your point, christianity has a number of symbols. What I've always found quite interesting is that christianity and its offshoots (which for these purposes includes islam) are the only mainstream religions which I can think of which have a specific prohibition against making representations of the deity itself.
Any thoughts on that?
|
|
|
|
|
wjca
Dec 2, 2005, 3:57 PM
Post #33 of 49
(1519 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Posts: 7545
|
In reply to: I wasn't aware there were such things as winners and losers in internet forum slanging matches, rob. And here I thought we were just having a bit of fun (as denoted by the LOL smiley). Ah well. As to your point, christianity has a number of symbols. What I've always found quite interesting is that christianity and its offshoots (which for these purposes includes islam) are the only mainstream religions which I can think of which have a specific prohibition against making representations of the deity itself. Any thoughts on that?
An idol and a symbol are two different things. And, are you really claiming that Islam is an offshoot of Christianity?
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Dec 2, 2005, 4:01 PM
Post #34 of 49
(1519 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
Offshoot is possibly the wrong word, thanks for pointing that out.
They share common roots, I think you could say.
What do you think?
|
|
|
|
|
missedyno
Dec 2, 2005, 4:04 PM
Post #35 of 49
(1519 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2001
Posts: 4465
|
damn i figured you'd guys take this to a serious debate after 3 pages
pre-dict-able!
|
|
|
|
|
robbovius
Dec 2, 2005, 4:07 PM
Post #36 of 49
(1519 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 20, 2002
Posts: 8406
|
In reply to: I wasn't aware there were such things as winners and losers in internet forum slanging matches, rob. And here I thought we were just having a bit of fun (as denoted by the LOL smiley).
ahhh, I knew that! :-)
In reply to: Ah well. As to your point, christianity has a number of symbols. What I've always found quite interesting is that christianity and its offshoots (which for these purposes includes islam) are the only mainstream religions which I can think of which have a specific prohibition against making representations of the deity itself. Any thoughts on that?
well, many of the Cross icons also have Christ crucified upon them, y'now? Being that Christ is an incarnation of God (since there is ONLY god ultimately and all other characters in christianity are only incarnations...correct me if I am wrong in that interpretation) that seems to violate 'graven images" prohibition, doesn't it? Also, paintings of the classical period depicting God as a long-haired older white man certainly violate that, (such as the roof of the sistene chapel) though they aren't revered as objects of worship, so maybe they get a pass...
didn't you and I have a debate about whether Christianity could be consodered to have aspects of a polytheism a few years ago here? I found an old word .doc with parts of my pro- argument in it, and I remember posting it in reply to a comment about how a previous agrgument containg the logical "fallacy of the undistributed middle". I thought it mioght have been you, but now 'm not sure.
|
|
|
|
|
robbovius
Dec 2, 2005, 4:13 PM
Post #37 of 49
(1519 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 20, 2002
Posts: 8406
|
In reply to: damn i figured you'd guys take this to a serious debate after 3 pages pre-dict-able!
Oh, Jesus tap-dancin' christ, you with the "Mush Factor 9" profile...;-)
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Dec 2, 2005, 4:14 PM
Post #38 of 49
(1519 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
The prohibition on graven images only applies to the big, extrauniversal aspect of God, not the Son part.
Mind you, anyone who worships a picture of a white guy with a goatee because they think that's what jesus would have looked like probably deserves everything they get just for being dumb: Christ was born in Judea 2000 years ago and might have been many things, but one thing's damn sure, and that's that he wasn't white!
:lol:
I don't remember the debate. Sounds interesting though.
|
|
|
|
|
mistymountainhop
Dec 2, 2005, 5:40 PM
Post #39 of 49
(1519 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 14, 2003
Posts: 410
|
I just took a class that briefly talked about how some 19th century business man said Jesus Christ was the greatest businessman in history. According to his reasons, Jesus was white, he put his face everywhere and could create a following. Quite Crazy and preposterous, but it is without a doubt Jesus was not white, or even anything what we think of him as. It like a long term marketing technique to appeal to the Christian masses by turning Jesus into a caucasion. The sad thing is, we will probably never know more than we do now about Jesus, it would be quite hard to find new sources of info.
|
|
|
|
|
wjca
Dec 2, 2005, 5:55 PM
Post #40 of 49
(1519 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Posts: 7545
|
I have a thought. What if instead of being crucified or stoned to death, Jesus was hanged? Back in the old days, the KKK were staunch Christians. Do you think they would have so gratuitously dececrated a holy symbol such as a noose by hanging all those that they did whom they believed to be the devil's spawn? How would all those lynchings have been carried out? Would they have burned the nooses and crucified people? I just don't imagine that a burning piece of rope would have had the same intimidation factor that a 15 foot flaming cross did.
Any takers?
|
|
|
|
|
mistymountainhop
Dec 2, 2005, 6:05 PM
Post #41 of 49
(1519 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 14, 2003
Posts: 410
|
Ahhh, good question.......
Maybe the KKK would wheel around guiotines? or hang people by their feet?
Or burn lower case t's in peoples yards standing for "time to leave"
|
|
|
|
|
missedyno
Dec 2, 2005, 7:03 PM
Post #42 of 49
(1519 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2001
Posts: 4465
|
In reply to: In reply to: damn i figured you'd guys take this to a serious debate after 3 pages pre-dict-able! Oh, Jesus tap-dancin' christ, you with the "Mush Factor 9" profile...;-)
only factor 9? geez, i'm going to have to go edit some more mush in there...
|
|
|
|
|
iltripp
Dec 2, 2005, 7:17 PM
Post #43 of 49
(1519 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2003
Posts: 1607
|
In reply to: The prohibition on graven images only applies to the big, extrauniversal aspect of God, not the Son part.
Not trying to argue with you, but where exactly is this distinction made?
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Dec 5, 2005, 10:17 AM
Post #44 of 49
(1519 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
In reply to: Not trying to argue with you, but where exactly is this distinction made?
It's not really a distinction stated in and of itself, more that there is a specific prohibition against making images of God before christ - in fact the hebrews under moses were punished with a terrible plague for making a gold idol of a bull which was supposed to represent Him in Exodus chapter 32 - but there's no mention of a prohibition on making images of Jesus.
The reasoning behind this seems clear and relates to the issue of faith: before christ, only the priests and selected individuals were allowed to see God, and the relationship with Him was conducted through them. Faith was placed in the huge unseen God behind the curtain. No faith's required to believe in a physical symbol - hence they were forbidden.
Part of why Jesus was sent was to change all that; everyone could see Him, so faith in His existence was a given. Faith was not placed in the man, but in what He said. Christians trust that God will save them eventually and guide them from day to day. The catholic church is quite keen on images of christ, but less traditional churches aren't so hung up on them.
Now this may seem a strange and counterintuitive relationship - why should we trust an invisible God without a stated reason? Well, look at it this way: as a child you trusted your parents, right? We trust our parents because they know better than us, even when they don't do what we want. We trust them even when they're not obviously around, as we trust that the way they've taught us to live our lives is good and correct.
This is why christians quite often call God "Father".
|
|
|
|
|
iltripp
Dec 5, 2005, 8:07 PM
Post #45 of 49
(1519 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2003
Posts: 1607
|
In reply to: It's not really a distinction stated in and of itself, more that there is a specific prohibition against making images of God before christ - in fact the hebrews under moses were punished with a terrible plague for making a gold idol of a bull which was supposed to represent Him in Exodus chapter 32 - but there's no mention of a prohibition on making images of Jesus.
But if Christ is God... wouldn't the prohibition still apply?
In reply to: The reasoning behind this seems clear and relates to the issue of faith: before christ, only the priests and selected individuals were allowed to see God, and the relationship with Him was conducted through them. Faith was placed in the huge unseen God behind the curtain. No faith's required to believe in a physical symbol - hence they were forbidden.
Is faith not still placed in the huge unseen God behind the curtain? Has this really changed as a result of Christ's coming, aside from the fact that there is now an image to represent an incarnation of said "God behind the curtain"?
In reply to: Part of why Jesus was sent was to change all that;
Fickle religion you got there, tradman... Always changin' its mind every couple thousand years or so. What's next? :wink:
In reply to: everyone could see Him, so faith in His existence was a given. Faith was not placed in the man, but in what He said. Christians trust that God will save them eventually and guide them from day to day.
Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but is faith not placed "in the man"? Isn't that the point of salvation through Christ?
In reply to: Now this may seem a strange and counterintuitive relationship - why should we trust an invisible God without a stated reason? Well, look at it this way: as a child you trusted your parents, right? We trust our parents because they know better than us, even when they don't do what we want. We trust them even when they're not obviously around, as we trust that the way they've taught us to live our lives is good and correct. This is why christians quite often call God "Father".
Interesting analogy. Unfortunately, I've long since abandoned the childhood myth that my parents knew everything. Should I do the same with this other "Father"? (Rhetorical question actually... you don't have to answer that).
Thanks for the response tradman. Don't take this as an attempt to start another religious argument. I'm just curious.
|
|
|
|
|
vertical_reality
Dec 5, 2005, 8:25 PM
Post #46 of 49
(1519 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2002
Posts: 2073
|
In reply to: But to be honest I'm really not into the c---.
The cock is usually in him. :twisted:
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Dec 6, 2005, 9:23 AM
Post #47 of 49
(1519 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
In reply to: But if Christ is God... wouldn't the prohibition still apply?
Not really; wouldn't it be pretty silly to prohibit making images of somoene everyone could see right in front of them? No faith was required to believe Jesus existed!
In reply to: Is faith not still placed in the huge unseen God behind the curtain? Has this really changed as a result of Christ's coming, aside from the fact that there is now an image to represent an incarnation of said "God behind the curtain"?
In a manner of speaking. But that's not the part of God christians have a relationship with. Before christ, ordinary christians weren't even allowed to talk to God without a priest there. Anyone can see that the pre-jesus God was remote, terrifying and prone to anger and vengeance. Jesus was and is different: christians believe they have a personal relationship with him (ie they don't have to have faith that he exists because they talk to him and see him every day, they only have to have faith in what he says).
In reply to: Fickle religion you got there, tradman... Always changin' its mind every couple thousand years or so. What's next?
Everything changes - science, politics, money, people - no matter what you believe in, it's different today and it'll be different tomorrow. Why should christianity be any different?
In reply to: Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but is faith not placed "in the man"? Isn't that the point of salvation through Christ?
Not as far as i know. Faith is belief in things unseen. As I said above, christians don't need faith in the man because they know he exists. Faith is placed in the things that can't be seen; the promises to us.
In reply to: Interesting analogy. Unfortunately, I've long since abandoned the childhood myth that my parents knew everything. Should I do the same with this other "Father"? (Rhetorical question actually... you don't have to answer that).
My parents didn't know everything either, and I didn't say they did. But they did know a lot more than me when I was a child. Compared to God, we are always like children, and know as little as children.
Look, the bottom line is this: faith is like love. It's not something you can understand by talking, debating or arguing. You could read every love poem ever written and not know a damn thing about love, and you could read the bible cover to cover and every commentary and concordance on earth and you still wouldn't know the first thing about faith.
Love is not something you have, it's something you do: you fall in it, play the fool for it, make it, lose it and fight, cry and die for it. Faith's exactly like that too.
When you were young, did you ever ask the question, "how will I know if I'm in love"? Every get the answer, "you'll know"? Well, if you ever have faith, you'll know man, you'll know. Until then there's not a thing I can say, show or do that can give you even the tiniest glimmer of what you're missing.
|
|
|
|
|
climbinginchico
Dec 6, 2005, 9:41 AM
Post #48 of 49
(1519 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 3032
|
Well said, Tradman. It's good of you to keep your head held high. As a close friend of mine said tonight: its such an odd twist to love the people He loves. Even when they are cruel and callous.
|
|
|
|
|
iltripp
Dec 6, 2005, 4:19 PM
Post #49 of 49
(1519 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2003
Posts: 1607
|
Thanks tradman... You've given me some interesting food for thought.
I can't say I agree completely with your take on things, but I definitely appreciate your response.
|
|
|
|
|
|
