Funny anti-religious Internet pics

[johaninsc]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

 

[bort138]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

For some reason forcing people to love you back by threatening to torture them forever sounds a little unhealthy for a loving relationship... or is that just me?

 

[johaninsc]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

 

[johaninsc]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

 

[johaninsc]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

 

[johaninsc]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

 

[johaninsc]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

 

[johaninsc]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

The following link disagrees, saying that you only stop at that part, and not take in the full meaning of this vision. Peter later realises it is about people, not the food, and he proceeds to welcome non-jew into the sect as well as jews. This is the unclean made clean interpretation.
http://www.ucg.org/doctrinal-beliefs/does-new-testament-abolish-meat-distinctions/

In the OT, the laws therein about what to wear, what to eat etc is about ritual purity. Peter's utterance "Surely not" etc confirms that, and by the end of that story his solution still allowed him to maintain ritual purity without ingesting unclean meats.

The dweeb who wrote that article at your link was ignorant about two things: common sense, and the Jewish practice of argument from the lesser to the greater. Common sense says that when God says in a vision that something has been made clean, then it means that thing has been made clean -- and thus when God tells Peter to kill and eat from the selection of all animals in Creation, it does in fact mean that all those animals have been made clean. That is the essence of the argument from the lesser to the greater here, as well: Peter is meant to realize from the fact that God has made all those foods clean that He has also made all people clean -- and that both were made clean by the same action, namely the atonement of Christ.

Establishing the point further, in Acts 15, Peter cites this very event in his speech to the Council, drawing the lesson now from the greater to the lesser, that if God found those Gentiles acceptable as they were -- which the bestowal of the Holy Spirit showed -- then they were acceptable without following all the points of the Law, which included all the rules about food, and thus the rules about food are negated in Christ. The decision of the Council establishes this, reducing all the rules about food to prohibiting eating things that were killed by strangling (and arguably forbidding the eating of blood). In fact, James's speech indicates that requiring anything more is just harassment by men, not anything from God.

So the dweeb author is also missing one huge point about reading the Bible: letting the Bible interpret the Bible. Since in the later instance Peter makes clear that the vision did in fact mean that God has made all foods clean, then that's what the vision means -- period.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

I met a Lutheran Missionary who went to Haiti after one of the disasters, and he had a few nasty words about people like that in the picture. This missionary followed the advice of the apostle: make sure the people have food and clothes and all they need, and then talk to them about God. Handing out Bibles without helping them rebuild and take care of basic needs is stupidity and an insult to God.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

For some reason forcing people to love you back by threatening to torture them forever sounds a little unhealthy for a loving relationship... or is that just me?

There's no threat -- one of the early Fathers argued that Hell is an expression of love because it's God's way of saying you don't have to love Him if you don't want to; it's just that Hell is what you end up with when He leaves you to your own devices. There was a monk -- don't recall whether Dominican or Jesuit -- who expanded that to a full discourse, supported from statements all over the Bible.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Actually, mathematically speaking it's quite simple.

- - - Updated - - -

I think Jesus would laugh at that -- He made puns of His own.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Those basspole dimwitted fundies stole the name -- it used to refer to scientists who'd decided that the evidence pointed to there being a Creator, not to theological delinquents who finally realized that calling it "Creation Science" just made people laugh.

 

[bort138]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

I met a Lutheran Missionary who went to Haiti after one of the disasters, and he had a few nasty words about people like that in the picture. This missionary followed the advice of the apostle: make sure the people have food and clothes and all they need, and then talk to them about God. Handing out Bibles without helping them rebuild and take care of basic needs is stupidity and an insult to God.

Why couldn't they just leave the bibles at home and leave religion out of this altogether? It's great that there are people providing aid to those who need it but I have concerns that many see victims of natural disasters as opportunities to proselytize to the vulnerable.

 

[bankside]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Those basspole dimwitted fundies stole the name -- it used to refer to scientists who'd decided that the evidence pointed to there being a Creator, not to theological delinquents who finally realized that calling it "Creation Science" just made people laugh.

I don't understand there to be such evidence. Without something a little more substantive than this assertion, it is difficult to separate a sensible, rational, old-earth intelligent designist from an unhinged dimwitted fundie creation scientist.

 

[johaninsc]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Those basspole dimwitted fundies stole the name -- it used to refer to scientists who'd decided that the evidence pointed to there being a Creator, not to theological delinquents who finally realized that calling it "Creation Science" just made people laugh.

 

[johaninsc]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

 

[johaninsc]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

 

[belamyi]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Actually, mathematically speaking it's quite simple.

No, it is not "mathematics", it is linguistic logic, philosophy if you want, but I am not entering into that right now. Maybe in a few months I'll be able to post or send the text to whomever it is of any interest, and the fact that it can be applied to speak of some religious Trinity is irrelevant.

Definitely. One/.of the. TOP THREE in this thread. EVER!

 

[star-warrior]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

The dweeb{1} who wrote that article at your link was ignorant about two things: common sense, and the Jewish practice of argument from the lesser to the greater. Common sense says that when God says in a vision{2} that something has been made clean, then it means that thing has been made clean -- and thus when God tells Peter to kill and eat from the selection of all animals in Creation, it does in fact mean that all those animals have been made clean. That is the essence of the argument from the lesser to the greater here, as well: Peter is meant to realize from the fact that God has made all those foods clean that He has also made all people clean -- and that both were made clean by the same action, namely the atonement of Christ.

Establishing the point further, in Acts 15, Peter cites this very event in his speech to the Council, drawing the lesson now from the greater to the lesser, that if God found those Gentiles acceptable as they were -- which the bestowal of the Holy Spirit showed -- then they were acceptable without following all the points of the Law, which included all the rules about food, and thus the rules about food are negated in Christ. The decision of the Council establishes this, reducing all the rules about food to prohibiting eating things that were killed by strangling (and arguably forbidding the eating of blood){3}. In fact, James's speech indicates that requiring anything more is just harassment by men, not anything from God.

So the dweeb author is also missing one huge point about reading the Bible: letting the Bible interpret the Bible. Since in the later instance Peter makes clear that the vision did in fact mean that God has made all foods clean, then that's what the vision means -- period.

{1} Why do you use the ad-hominem 'dweeb' to belittle him and by extension his arguments?

{2} To anyone else the common sense thing would be, it's just a dream, and the rest of your speel is nonsense.

Why does a council need to be called to discuss this? If it was as simple as the two separate Ten Commandments of don't do this, etc handed down without need for earthly fallable men to discuss the merits thereupon, what use is your God if he cannot hand the commandment down in the time after Jesus when he was evidently able to do so via the flaming bush of Moses? It seems to me that the power of God has lessened to the extent where his words no longer are graven into stone, but for the choosing by mortal men.

{3} Why do some Christians eat black pudding made of the blood of pigs and other accessible ingredients?

Again, do you eat bacon?