Funny anti-religious Internet pics

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

 

[belamyi]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Good at changing the subject, aren't you?

That is what you call my simply trying to elaborate and clarify on the mysteric one-liners that you slovenly let drop as hints that what you say is right just because you are sure you are.

Your original assertion was that the Church destroyed technology and learning. That's false -- it preserved it, via the monasteries mostly. You keep jumping away from what you asserted to entirely later events.

Your assertion covered the collapse of Rome, so stick to the centuries between 300 and 700.

BTW, Western monasteries never stopped exchanging scholarship with their Eastern counterparts -- they were rather independent, that way.

I don't "jump": again, I do what you do not, namely elaborate. You are the one jumping to CONCLUSIONS as if they were self-evident and came from nowhere but your own conviction, and jumping OUT of precisely that frame of Late Antiquity, from the Constantinean era to the beginning of the VIIth century, as you do jump when you plainly state that "Western monasteries never stopped exchanging scholarship with their Eastern counterparts" which using the tone and phrases you seem so fond to use on this thread IS totally, not just inaccurate, but false: it would be only inaccurate if you had said that there were exchanges through the so-called Middle Ages, because it would hint at a continuity of centuries that never was the case, but by pretending that the exchange actually was continuous, you are planily lying.
As I said in previous posts, there were punctual tidal flows of learning from the Greek and Arabic-speaking areas, particularly during the Late Middle Ages precisely, as I pointed out, when the economic and social and, therefore, intellectual system in the Western European area was developing independently from the church (although, of course, not totally FREE from it).

What you adscribe to the monacal system as flowering, only was ever so in the urban context: the beautiful, technologically savvy environment you depict in your vision of the monastery communities is the rosy wet dream of world- and civilization-weary survivalists, the Omega Men pathetically and unawarely defiling the the rags and loose threads of civilization they pretend to preserve and honor as precious whole garments...

Read again: I said that it didn't even care THAT much (apart from some barbaric burning and so) but that the church couldn't and wouldn't cope with the challenge of sustaining a complex and enlightened civilization, and that it simply took a couple (almost literally) of anecdotical and testimonial, in the technological context, and nitpicked manipulated texts in the case of textual heritage and tradition, as sustaining elements of their new parodic new Christian order.
Did the church preserve the industry and agricultural productivity, the communication, trade, monetary, urban and general social system of the Roman Empire? did Rome "fall" trying to preserve that but, oh, the church DID succeed?

LOL

I used to believe the fable you do. Then I ran into some books about medieval technology and invention, that had nothing to do with the Church -- except that consistently throughout, the places that those were preserved and improved were monasteries, which happen to be part of the Church. It doesn't really matter what the hierarchy and the asswipe in Rome were doing; the monasteries just kept improving what the Romans had and coming up with ideas of their own.

Interestingly, there's another theme running through that: a great deal of technological advancement in those monasteries had to do making wine and beer.

Hmm. I've read a few thousand pages of liberation theology, and they have a habit of referencing Marx and others quite frequently. Those figures aren't relevant to theology, and building theology relying on them is by definition heterodox at the least.

They are at least open and explicit in their references, while the claims of fundamental dogmas about the Virgin Mary have more in common with old pagan traditions that with anything that can be found IN the Bible. Of course, you can always poke as much as you want AROUND the Bible.

 

[belamyi]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Some "helper" put mine in storage when I was relocating a few years ago, and I haven't seen it since. As Jockboy could attest, my Hebrew is deteriorating rapidly.

BTW, have you got the one with the introduction(s) in German, in Latin, or both?

Intro in German, English, French, Spanish and, finally, Latin. Why do you ask?
I just bought an item that seemed fine (despite silly reviews from users complaining about printing in the notes being too small .roll. ) and at a good price (like 20 or 30 EUR... I still keep the bill somewhere). The funny thing is that the covers are "rightwards" in the average Western alphabetic style, while the text inside goes "leftwards", in typical Semitic abjad style. Ah! the glories of free internet compounded with free commerce and some euros in to dispose of and trade for something truly worth something!

Damn you, there's still a lot from your airy posts to read, respond to and revise. Please, write everything you want because I am spending the next three days away from an internet connection... and I still haven't revise the traslation an old teacher-professor friend of mine send me two days ago...and that I wanted to send back duly nitpicked instead before parting tomorrow...
So if I do not answer to it all tonight, I will do it this weekend at post it next Monday, deal?

 

[looseliam]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

http://www.tshirthell.com/funny-shirts/mary-was-only-a-virgin-if-you-dont-count-anal

 

[zoltanspawn]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

No, being gay, black, white, red-headed, short, ugly, sick, etc., are things which we do not choose. They are neither right nor wrong. They just are.

Religion, on the other hand, is a choice to believe in incorrect information. If people insisted on running around arguing that 2 + 2 = 5 and 10/2 is 3, despite being given ample evidence to the contrary, I'd make fun of them too.

I don't think it's clearcut that religion is an explicitly chosen identity while race and sexual orientation are our material destiny. You may argue the merits of that opinion, but I think you'll probably at least concede that many people feel that their religious identity is of equal, if not greater, consequence to them than the other categories you cite. Whether or not it's nonsense, we are in the realm of considering people's most valued notions of themselves.

We ought to be able to talk about other people's senses of themselves. But if such a topic doesn't call for a modicum of thoughtfulness, I don't know which do.

 

[Mako247]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

omg! i have been saying this for years!

 

[bankside]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

You're the only one stating any such argument.

Oh no, that was Oakpope's position from a different thread. The one where I fundamentally misunderstood both the Enlightenment and the use of the circumflex accent in the word "to dare." I drew equal amounts of ire. But I did try to rebut it as it applied in this thread.

Incidentally, even though I find your position unconvincing, I do accept that you make an internally coherent argument in suggesting that the bible should be viewed as a whole; its passages of capricious tyranny (ensuring the inevitability of punishment and redemption by designing humans to be naive then setting an arbitrary standards of sinfullness) could be the product of a loving god whose purpose is to teach something about the nature of free will.

I don't find it at all plausible, or pleasant, or principled, but it is as I say internally consistent, and I do feel I owe more than just announcing my instinctual skepticism by way of rebuttal. I also think the same goes for the rest of us.

So for the rest of you, scoff if you must, but scoff with reasons;I expect no less of theists who disagree with me. I think it is not only more civilised but more likely to be convincing.

And now, an on-topic picture:

Delightfully this combines two of the old taboos, sex and religion. All we need to add is politics. Wait! Isn't Jesus a Republican?

(oh I think I even scored some points for implied sanctimonious American-bashing there.)

 

[TickTockMan]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Why God created man.
​

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

That is what you call my simply trying to elaborate and clarify on the mysteric one-liners that you slovenly let drop as hints that what you say is right just because you are sure you are.

No, it's because you changed the subject.

I don't "jump": again, I do what you do not, namely elaborate. You are the one jumping to CONCLUSIONS as if they were self-evident and came from nowhere but your own conviction, and jumping OUT of precisely that frame of Late Antiquity, from the Constantinean era to the beginning of the VIIth century, as you do jump when you plainly state that "Western monasteries never stopped exchanging scholarship with their Eastern counterparts" which using the tone and phrases you seem so fond to use on this thread IS totally, not just inaccurate, but false: it would be only inaccurate if you had said that there were exchanges through the so-called Middle Ages, because it would hint at a continuity of centuries that never was the case, but by pretending that the exchange actually was continuous, you are planily lying.
As I said in previous posts, there were punctual tidal flows of learning from the Greek and Arabic-speaking areas, particularly during the Late Middle Ages precisely, as I pointed out, when the economic and social and, therefore, intellectual system in the Western European area was developing independently from the church (although, of course, not totally FREE from it).

Um, no, it came from a Greek Orthodox monk, a Russian Orthodox priest, and a Benedictine monk. It surprised me, because I thought all connections had been lost, even though I should have known better, since the East and West churches never lost contact, as evidenced by the intermittent excommunications and reunions.

What you adscribe to the monacal system as flowering, only was ever so in the urban context: the beautiful, technologically savvy environment you depict in your vision of the monastery communities is the rosy wet dream of world- and civilization-weary survivalists, the Omega Men pathetically and unawarely defiling the the rags and loose threads of civilization they pretend to preserve and honor as precious whole garments...

The Cistercians were in the urban areas? That would be news to them. It was the monasteries in the cities that didn't 'flower', as you put it; they were too much under the thumbs of the bishops.

I won't bother with your fantasies there.

Read again: I said that it didn't even care THAT much (apart from some barbaric burning and so) but that the church couldn't and wouldn't cope with the challenge of sustaining a complex and enlightened civilization, and that it simply took a couple (almost literally) of anecdotical and testimonial, in the technological context, and nitpicked manipulated texts in the case of textual heritage and tradition, as sustaining elements of their new parodic new Christian order.
Did the church preserve the industry and agricultural productivity, the communication, trade, monetary, urban and general social system of the Roman Empire? did Rome "fall" trying to preserve that but, oh, the church DID succeed?

The church at least tried, at the beginning.

And now you're changing your claim, again. No one could have preserved everything you're grabbing at now.

They are at least open and explicit in their references, while the claims of fundamental dogmas about the Virgin Mary have more in common with old pagan traditions that with anything that can be found IN the Bible. Of course, you can always poke as much as you want AROUND the Bible.

So now they're okay because they're honest about their heterodoxy?

You keep slipping around -- "moving the goalposts", I think it's called.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

At the risk of being political . . . .

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Intro in German, English, French, Spanish and, finally, Latin. Why do you ask?

Whoa -- I'm envious! Mine has German and Latin.

I also have an old Greek New Testament where the critical apparatus explanation/description is in Latin but the scholarly introduction is in German while the edition introduction is in English.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

omg! i have been saying this for years!

Then you're clueless.

That's as good a description of Christianity as saying that the Democratic Party is a conspiracy to keep Americans divided and slowly introduce socialism in order to turn it over to communists.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Why God created man.
​

I can't stop laughing!

 

[TickTockMan]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

 

[TickTockMan]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

I think the main picture is already in the thread, but I can't remember.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

In the last two posts, four of the images merely show the ignorance of the person who made the image, two are childish, two are sadly true.

I have no idea how many Mikey would find blasphemous -- but definitely a majority.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

 

[TickTockMan]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

 

[TickTockMan]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

In the last two posts, four of the images merely show the ignorance of the person who made the image, two are childish, two are sadly true.

What about the other two?

 

[Quantumreading]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

I can't get over the fact of how butthurt Kulindahr is. Can't you give us one thread without your hilarious claims?