archenemy Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 yes that would be GOB, you clown DOB I think Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobra_Commander Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 err, yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ireneo_Funes Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 to err is human.... ...to forgive divine. Can we please get back to bible study? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 (edited) Can we please get back to bible study? OK The new testament is meant to supersede the old you wanker. No, my education says the New fulfills the Old; it does not "supersede", diminish, nor cast-aside the Old. I like that... it disallows "Christians" from off-handedly dismissing and reckoning with the characteristics of the God they say they believe in. DeC: When is God complicit and not?Knotzen: The greater question is, does God/goddess/the gods exist? And would he/she/they give a flying fuck that earthlings are bashing each other? It's people's belief of who God is, and their "relationship" to God that causes the trouble. We'd all be better off being agnostics, like me. You don't see me going around blowing up buses. Although I occasionally feel like punching someone in the face. Archenemy: Obviously, you have the Answer. Who knew that simply being noncommital would solve everything? It sure works well in relationships between individuals, of course it will work in relationships among groups.If by "noncommittal" you describe being "true to one's self" above loyalty and obedience to any club, institution, or codified faith, then I agree. However, I believe the effect you describe to be best served by the term "non-judgmental"; semantics perhaps, but I think not. It is abandonment of the mechanism of non-judgmentalism that answers the ubiquitous question “why can’t we all get along?”. Knotzen: I don't think agnosticism is noncommittal. How can you commit to something as unknowable and unidentifiable as the persona of God? I guess I could say, yeah, since I can't concretely identify it, it doesn't exist, but it's so unknowable I can't say it doesn't, either (that's why I'm not atheist). The idea of God is like what happens after death--we all have ideas, but no one knows for sure. No one has come back from being good and dead (I don't count Jesus or Lazurus or NDEs), and said, hey, this is what's it's like...! Live your life accordingly. Who the hell knows? Some people latch onto an idea that gives them peace, power, motivation, anger, etc. Doesn't make it any more real. Or less real. It is what it is, just like the true characteristics or existence of a suprahuman deity. Anthropomorphism of a state, quality, force, diminishes the sublime. Most of us long for more of the snippets of joy and peace we find in art, music, wilderness, “fun” activity, and unconditional (non-judgmental) love; there is beauty in these moments and there is no sweeter cup. There is nothing more fulfilling than the ineffable awe that sweeps us away in the poignant wave of crushing Beauty, leaving inexplicable tears of joy as its only earthly mark of passing. These experiences defy quantification in terms of time and space; it is the foundation of the phrase “timeless beauty”…and we can’t get enough of it. We experience a “flow” when involved that often causes us to lose track of time (our involvement need not be in an activity we love for this effect to occur). There is hardly a greater punishment than boredom; time slows to an unbearable crawl. “Doing time” is part of the modern lexicon for incarceration. Mostly, we must consult a timepiece or observe the sky to assess the progress of time; we have no innate accurate measure of the temporal and know the most joy when, coincidentally, it is lost. We experience more contentment, satisfaction, edification, and the feeling of being “at home”, in a timeless state than when time-bound. Webster’s definition of “eternal” is “having infinite duration” or “endless”, but, for me, in this instance, “the absence of time” is appropriate. We are “at home” in the absence of time. I do not know that the recognition of Beauty and Timelessness connotes an eternal (non-temporal) being. I only know what I experience and that the woes of the world manifest due to its lack. In essence, the experience of Beauty and Timelessness cannot be transferred or conveyed; to an extent, it may be shared…but the power and magnitude of an experience can be known only by each. It is in this place that true faith, love, joy, inimitable and unique to the bearer, resides within and the hope of the world is borne. …and where a God, by any other name, smells as sweet. Editted to include: This post serves as well in the "Your Avatar" thread of the Climbers forum. Edited July 8, 2005 by Dechristo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 Dude, go suck yourself. I believe the more eloquent is expression would be fuck you! you fucking fuck Come on, one more post you freakin lightweight That's better... where is Polish Bob when you need him? Clownpuncher! Dirty Sanchez! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 Can we please get back to bible study? Ironic that a poster named "Dechristo" is leading the class? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squid Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 and now for something completely different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 Ironic that a poster named "Dechristo" is leading the class? That would be "poseur". Happens to be of the name of the mountains outside my window. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 As in Sangre De Christo... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 aye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knotzen Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 Damn me, I'm an official girlie. What that has to do with the London Explosions, I couldn't quite say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 Observers predicted that the G8 conference would focus on global climate change and greenhouse emissions. Looks like that probably won't be the case now. And, this coming at a time of flagging British support of the Iraqi occupation. As far as we currently know, the bombings have nothing to do with the Iraqi situation, although I suspect it'll be spun to bolster support for the Iraqi occupation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double_E Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 The purpose of terrorism is just that.... <<long pause>> ...to terrorise people. --Tony Blair, on the telly a few minutes ago. watta fuckin genius. maybe he's trying to bring himself down to Dubya's level. maybe Dubya's cronies have been telling Blair's cronies "..c'mon now, does he have to appear so damn braiight all the durn time? he's making our boy look dumb." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 The purpose of terrorism is just that.... <<long pause>> ...to terrorise people. --Tony Blair, on the telly a few minutes ago. Maybe he shoulda followed it with... ...and "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 he still sounded less like an idiot than bush did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 he still sounded less like an idiot than bush did. Sad that Bush is the barometer of idiocy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 he still sounded less like an idiot than bush did. Sad that Bush is the barometer of idiocy. Sad but true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 he still sounded less like an idiot than bush did. Sad that Bush is the barometer of idiocy. I don't find that sad. What I find sad is that greater than 50% of the American voter's in the last election voted for him, after having seen him in action for four years. That one out of every two voters is also a similar barometer for idiocy is what is really sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomtom Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 What is pathetic is that the Democrats couldn't nominate a candidate that could defeat Bush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 What is pathetic is that the Democrats couldn't nominate a candidate that could defeat Bush. ouch! the truth hurts sometimes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 One could argue that true leadership in this country regardless of political flavor is sadly lacking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 One could argue that true leadership in this country regardless of political flavor is sadly lacking. i don't think you could even inspire an argument about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal_Con Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 What got me was the beyotch on the Today show going on and on about how this was a "senseless killing". Seems tone it makes perfect sensse, from the right we are in a war against "terrorism" and killing is what happens in wars. From the left it is just someone striking back for invaiding their homeland and killing their people. Evil maybe, but not senseless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 We lost true leadership when we acquiesced to a plutocracy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill_Simpkins Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 What is pathetic is that the Democrats couldn't nominate a candidate that could defeat Bush. I agree. Kerry didn't really fit the bill. Too bad Gore really started to open up and show his passion for the issues AFTER he ran in 2000. I think if Gore ran today, right now and showed his true devotion to the issues, he would smoke Bush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.