Infinite Monkey composed his first hymn:
preach, said my grace
Such myths for my grace let us preach (for we are sin)
That should I after sacrifice sacredly preach,
Or, sinfull, salvation hence, in sinned sacredness,
There to some damnation of myths the Jesuses sacrificing,
( preaching spirit 's miracle, damnations, faiths, revealed crucifixes )
Ever with consecrated angels I may sacrifice,
Ever and ever yet the sins sacrificing - as, first, I here and now,
preaching for eden and crucifixion, save to them my religion
Second:
save, said my salvation
Such nuns for my prophet let us forgive (for we are savior)
That should I after salvation crosswise preach,
Or, mythological, miraculous hence, in infinite eden,
There to some cross of ceremonies the almighties sacrificing,
( saving prophecy 's prophecy, myths, infinities, nunlike godhoods )
Ever with preached almighties I may consecrate,
Ever and ever yet the Bethlehems damning - as, first, I here and now,
praying for miracle and virtue, save to them my ceremony
Third:
sin, said my godhood
Such nuns for my nun let us sin (for we are salvations)
That should I after prophet sacredly forgive,
Or, ceremonial, sinned hence, in consecrated heaven,
There to some godhood of Jesuses the ceremonies sinning,
( saving effigy 's miracle, epiphanies, salvations, sinned spirits )
Ever with damned religions I may forgive,
Ever and ever yet the religions praying - as, first, I here and now,
preaching for sin and grace, pray to them my soul
Off Topic / Religion -> Bible chat rooms? [Closed]
-
rolliebollocks
- Posts: 2655
- Joined: Aug 28, 2008 10:54
- Location: new york
-
BasicCoder2
- Posts: 3908
- Joined: Jan 01, 2009 7:03
- Location: Australia
You just offended me as I get offended by people that get offended.Eponasoft wrote: By the way, Judeo-Christian is an insult to Jewish people. You've just offended them. Oh, and you offended me by insinuating that I hold my beliefs higher than others.
:)
http://mercytoall.net/studies/learningt ... ffense.htm
BC
@vdecampo
Your posts here demonstrate a strengh in defence of your ideas.
In 1521 Pope Leo X granted Fidei Defensor (Defender of the Faith) to King Henry VIII. of England
(Since that date to now the letters FD appear on British coins)
Then Henry started a major break up of the Christian Church, but held on to the FD, English arrogance would now have it that English Monarchs would substitute the Pope in the new Protestant Christianity.
Scotland held this notion as too ghastly to contemplate.
The reformation itself caused little bloodshed in Scotland.
The idea of an English monarch being in charge was open warfare.
At one point Scottish worshippers were forced to hold prayer meeting in secret, out in the hills.
These were barebone affairs, only a bible and hymn book, tucked away from traitors eyes, were carried.
As a result, (and my reason for this post), the four books of the new testament were regarded as the only account of the life and times of Jesus, pharaphernalia in worship was abandoned, characters not given any special mention in these four books were abandoned.
Thus Mary, mother of Jesus is just simply that, his Mum.
Catholics, I would say, dislike the idea of the old established Church of Rome being fragmented so by these many other Christian Churches coming to be, but I don't think that it has necessarily watered down the Christian Faith.
@ Others in this topic
There has been much play on words, but what's the difference really between God fearing, God loving, a body which has a Soul, a Soul which has a body, apart from the fact that it seperates worship throughout the world. Is a culture and it's religion not really just defined by Goegraphy.
Is religion not just simply an idea, which has been passed on by word of mouth, and has changed (mutated) as it spread with Humans into each corner of the globe, and new characters appear every now and then as in some vast soap opera.
Your posts here demonstrate a strengh in defence of your ideas.
In 1521 Pope Leo X granted Fidei Defensor (Defender of the Faith) to King Henry VIII. of England
(Since that date to now the letters FD appear on British coins)
Then Henry started a major break up of the Christian Church, but held on to the FD, English arrogance would now have it that English Monarchs would substitute the Pope in the new Protestant Christianity.
Scotland held this notion as too ghastly to contemplate.
The reformation itself caused little bloodshed in Scotland.
The idea of an English monarch being in charge was open warfare.
At one point Scottish worshippers were forced to hold prayer meeting in secret, out in the hills.
These were barebone affairs, only a bible and hymn book, tucked away from traitors eyes, were carried.
As a result, (and my reason for this post), the four books of the new testament were regarded as the only account of the life and times of Jesus, pharaphernalia in worship was abandoned, characters not given any special mention in these four books were abandoned.
Thus Mary, mother of Jesus is just simply that, his Mum.
Catholics, I would say, dislike the idea of the old established Church of Rome being fragmented so by these many other Christian Churches coming to be, but I don't think that it has necessarily watered down the Christian Faith.
@ Others in this topic
There has been much play on words, but what's the difference really between God fearing, God loving, a body which has a Soul, a Soul which has a body, apart from the fact that it seperates worship throughout the world. Is a culture and it's religion not really just defined by Goegraphy.
Is religion not just simply an idea, which has been passed on by word of mouth, and has changed (mutated) as it spread with Humans into each corner of the globe, and new characters appear every now and then as in some vast soap opera.
-
D.J.Peters
- Posts: 8586
- Joined: May 28, 2005 3:28
- Contact:
-
BasicCoder2
- Posts: 3908
- Joined: Jan 01, 2009 7:03
- Location: Australia
Religion doesn't make people kill other people... it simply gives their murders "justification".
Oh, and you guys are thinking of sociopaths, not psychopaths. A psychopath wouldn't really be able to move into a position of control or lead anyone. People like David Koresh and Marshall Applewhite were sociopaths. Some people believe Charles Manson is... and I strongly believe that Joseph Ratzinger is one as well.
Oh, and you guys are thinking of sociopaths, not psychopaths. A psychopath wouldn't really be able to move into a position of control or lead anyone. People like David Koresh and Marshall Applewhite were sociopaths. Some people believe Charles Manson is... and I strongly believe that Joseph Ratzinger is one as well.
@ Eponasoft. I used the term psychopath because that is the term used to describe a sociopath in company management that exercises antisocial behaviour to the detriment of the company and it's employees. The DSM terms change so often that it is hard to know what they may mean this year. I feel “sociopath” is often used as a politically correct term for “psychopath”. Once you have watched a few cold calculating psychopaths for long enough, you too will realise that they are more than capable of moving into and holding positions of control and leadership. That is where they are concentrated, as codependents in management structures.
I quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopath#Related_terms ... the difference between sociopathy and psychopathy may "reflect the user's views on the origins and determinates of the disorder."
I quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopath#Related_terms ... the difference between sociopathy and psychopathy may "reflect the user's views on the origins and determinates of the disorder."
You don't get what I mean , What I mean is by quoting sexy stars and any one you fit to quote those word you are propagating a cult not a religion .@roook_ph: The First Lady said something similar a few weeks ago. No one bought it, right? :)
Those lines were used by those people because of law of modern times --Censorship. Those words were not mentioned in new testaments and definitely not beelzebub or whoever you call god
-
anonymous1337
- Posts: 5494
- Joined: Sep 12, 2005 20:06
- Location: California
Hello everyone,
My first post does not indicate in any way this was ever intended as a religious discussion/debate thread. I consider only posts pertaining to my original question, "Does anyone know a place where I can discuss these matters freely?" to be relevant.
Regardless of forum members' beliefs, the existence of a discussion thread pertinent to religion does not, in my opinion, justify attacking it. This is unfortunately the rationale utilized by several forum members who have attacked or acted otherwise unjustly in my thread.
In addition, I do in fact take personal offense to many of the posts in my thread. I feel forum members took liberty in the loose relationship between my initial post and the broader topic of religion.
I encourage discussions of all topics. However, I feel they deserve their own threads, which should be closely managed by a moderator several times daily. (Rules of etiquette and temporary bans should allow more liberal discussions on the forums. I don't like locks, either, but people seem to take less personal offense to those than to bans.)
Thanks sincerely,
- anonymous1337
My first post does not indicate in any way this was ever intended as a religious discussion/debate thread. I consider only posts pertaining to my original question, "Does anyone know a place where I can discuss these matters freely?" to be relevant.
Regardless of forum members' beliefs, the existence of a discussion thread pertinent to religion does not, in my opinion, justify attacking it. This is unfortunately the rationale utilized by several forum members who have attacked or acted otherwise unjustly in my thread.
In addition, I do in fact take personal offense to many of the posts in my thread. I feel forum members took liberty in the loose relationship between my initial post and the broader topic of religion.
I encourage discussions of all topics. However, I feel they deserve their own threads, which should be closely managed by a moderator several times daily. (Rules of etiquette and temporary bans should allow more liberal discussions on the forums. I don't like locks, either, but people seem to take less personal offense to those than to bans.)
Thanks sincerely,
- anonymous1337
@roook_ph: Your post made absolutely no sense.
@anonymous1337: Bring up a religious topic and expect religious warfare. You opened the door to it, so deal with the consequences of your actions. This is not the right place to discuss religion in ANY sense of the word. AT ALL.
@Richard: Everything gets re-categorized every freakin' year it seems. The difference between psychopath and sociopath is supposed to be how one relates to those around them... sociopaths are extroverted whereas psychopaths are introverted. Both have similar brain issues, but sociopaths exert their "charm" on others whereas psychopaths exert it on themselves. Both have violence issues when provoked... psychopaths will either hurt themselves or hurts others, whereas a sociopath will convince others to hurt themselves. Also, there is a difference in self-preservation... a psychopath tends to not have any sense of self-preservation whatsoever, and a sociopath is obsessed with self-preservation. In reality, that makes sociopaths even more dangerous than psychopaths, since they will always have a legion of 'followers' willing to fight (and often die) for them, and a psychopath is just a walking loony bin who will probably off himself eventually anyways. I've known both kinds of people throughout my life, and I've gotta say that I've never met a psychopath I wanted to kill... but I've never met a sociopath that I DIDN'T want to kill.
@anonymous1337: Bring up a religious topic and expect religious warfare. You opened the door to it, so deal with the consequences of your actions. This is not the right place to discuss religion in ANY sense of the word. AT ALL.
@Richard: Everything gets re-categorized every freakin' year it seems. The difference between psychopath and sociopath is supposed to be how one relates to those around them... sociopaths are extroverted whereas psychopaths are introverted. Both have similar brain issues, but sociopaths exert their "charm" on others whereas psychopaths exert it on themselves. Both have violence issues when provoked... psychopaths will either hurt themselves or hurts others, whereas a sociopath will convince others to hurt themselves. Also, there is a difference in self-preservation... a psychopath tends to not have any sense of self-preservation whatsoever, and a sociopath is obsessed with self-preservation. In reality, that makes sociopaths even more dangerous than psychopaths, since they will always have a legion of 'followers' willing to fight (and often die) for them, and a psychopath is just a walking loony bin who will probably off himself eventually anyways. I've known both kinds of people throughout my life, and I've gotta say that I've never met a psychopath I wanted to kill... but I've never met a sociopath that I DIDN'T want to kill.
That's fair enough anonymous1337, I've put in 11 posts here, three were fb code.anonymous1337 wrote:Hello everyone, ---
Probably about average for this thread.
Before I leave this topic, My Nephew, his wife and two kids left the UK a few years back to study the Bible in Broken Arrow (Near Tulsa).
The were in America for four years then returned to Manchester.
I'm sure that their place of study was:
http://local.yahoo.com/info-18523815-rh ... oken-arrow
I shall veryfy this with him, and if different will post again here.
I hope that my own posts did not offend.
-
counting_pine
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6323
- Joined: Jul 05, 2005 17:32
- Location: Manchester, Lancs
OK, locked for reals now.
anonymous1337's post should be considered as the last word.
anonymous1337's post should be considered as the last word.