Reply to thread

Your responses have become, at best, non-responsive. Exactly how much of a reply from me did you imagine your non-responsive posts deserve, hmmm?


And more to the point, if you cannot fashion a responsive post from single-sentence statements, what makes you think you have a better chance at a formally-stated argument, eh?


Truly, if I could weep blood.....


 


Apparently not.


 


Of course it would be beautiful for you. Then you can easily justify the love you find in homosexual ass.


 


What stupid nonsense!


Would the church be issuing encyclicals for DISSEMINATION to the faithful if it were meant to be esoteric?????


Do you even know what 'esoteric' means????


 


Do you resent the perks that goes with your president's office? You might want to start with the $hit in your own backyard before noticing something else.


 


So, jesus ought to have allowed the prostitute to be stoned to death????


Hmmmm.




Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Duh?




So, you admit that the mind/will lends the principle of volition to any action.


It is not as self-evident as you would like to think, fyi. A lot of morons still claim that thought is merely a manifestation of the brain, which is an entirely material existence. If I'm not mistaken, you argued for this same nonsense previously, in the abortion thread, I think.


 


LOL.


If people helped others without consideration for their personal well-being all the time, then half of jesus' ministry would have been irrelevant. Surely, that is as close to divine love as humanly possible, the principle of volition that kant's categorical imperative logically follows.


Obviously, your ideas are bereft of facts, logic and, in this particular case, context.



 

It really is easy to share when the act does not entail some huge personal sacrifice. As I have said, sharing at the mount of olives(?) would have entailed a huge personal sacrifice.


Again, CONTEXT.


Btw, you did quote yoda in another thread, and passed it off as a self-evident truth (which it was) without empirical evidence.


 


You are the one who want a discussion of the bible divorced from its context. Now, you want me to respond to the context of a discussion that lacks context.


See what I mean when I say 'unbelieveable nonsense'?


 


So, what has buddha's enlightenment have to do with jesus, hmmm? Clearly the ultimate reality jesus described is different from what buddha described.




That is all well and good but the point was -- do you have fortitude in your own convictions -- the way the early christians demonstrated the fortitude of their faith? Obviously, you don't.


And yet, it is this faith, demonstrated to the point of death, that you now see fit to belittle.


Though I am not angry, one can clearly see that there is just cause to be angry at your nonsense.


 


Nonsense.


Everyone is afraid to die. This fear is, in part, because of some form of judgement -- whether hellfire, or going back to life as worm or fungi, or eternal detachment from honor and family, etc. etc. Even buddhist samurai, the people utterly pre-occupied with death, fears sepukku. That is why they usually have seconds in ritual suicide, that they may not be 'dishonored' at the time of death.


Now, here comes a religion, bringing good news -- your own wretched existence is loved. No matter what you have done, you are saved, even from yourself.


And yet, you would rather listen to morons preaching nothing but eternal damnation.


Is that christianity's fault????


Back
Top