Yeah. She baked cookies for us after. But I was kinda weirded out by the whole pissing on her tits thing. Not weirded out how much she wanted me to do it, but how much I enjoyed doing it.
I don't really believe in crisis hotlines honestly. I have a family member who calls them, and I honestly feel (like a lot of mental health professionals) that all the doting and positive attention that goes with suicidal gestures sometimes serves to reinforce them to a point where people end up actually going through with it.
If part of your plan to kill yourself involves calling a crisis hotline, then you aren't 100% dedicated to it and probably won't do it.
I like your idea of making my suffering contribute to something. I'll find something.
One time I went to an online crisis hotline and was put on hold for like 20 mins. In that time I made a thread on 4chans politics board having something to do with suicidality which was full of people talking about how they felt the same way and that as long as you push through it there is a light a the end of the tunnel. There was a lot more in that thread but to cut it short what was discussed was very real and pertitnent to the actual lives of individuals rather than some script designed to talk someone out of suicide or self harm. Now I wasnt seriously going to kill myself in that instance but I was contemplating it more seriously than I ever had. Which is why I was like "Well maybe it would be a good idea to talk to someone about this". My point is that I got more from an anonymous message board full of pretend retards and faggots than I could have gotten from someone from a crisis hotline because I got real people experiencing what I was first hand rather than just positive reinforcement.
He is a jedi. While I can't speak to his scholarship, he crafts a series of logical arguments that in the very least are well grounded in the texts and demand an explanation from his opponents.
And while your point is true that this would be an easy argument to make, you say that as if it dismisses his work. Quite to the contrary, it's an easy argument to make because it's most likely what happened and there's absolutely no evidence to the contrary besides these texts. Secondly, St. Paul is a pretty unique case of this because, unlike these other (unknown) gospel authors, St. Paul spent most of his life trying to destroy Christianity. More importantly, he wrote most of the bible and it contradicts a lot of the gospels. So it's a very good argument.
You are misinterpreting my statment. I was agreeing that it is very easy for a disciple to fuck shit up by putting his own views down as a "fact". I was not dismissing his work but actually agreed with the premise of your assertion.
Well said. I would, however, introduce the element of power into the equation. Basically, it stands for one group to disagree with the other because then they don't have to concede political authority to the other. It's easy to get wrapped up in doctrine, but the church was running the show at the time, so these theological differences usually resulted in power imbalances benefiting those who rose contentions in the first place.
I didnt think it nessecary to introduce the element of power into the equation as it should be self evident. From my learnings the Roman Catholic Church had a very tight grip on the west and the Eastern Orthodoxy had a loose yet stable grip on the East. Byzantium is really the only extreme case of an Orthodox empire. Of course there is a power struggle between the two churches but in my humble opinion I do not find it as interesting as the things that separate these two churches theologically.
Very, very wrong. This demonstrates very poor exposure to philosophy and an even more poor understanding of the ancients. Granted, I'm not dismissing theology because all philosophy usually has element of wisdom in it, but theology is basically philosophy within very narrow parameters of unreasonable belief and arbitrary variables. I would argue that theology is some of the most narrow-minded philosophy because, while Plato was looking at the world around him and trying to draw conclusions about the nature of reality, most western theologians are operating on a series of many unexamined, culturally inherited assumptions and relying on variables of magical thinking to explain away problems. I mean, just look at theodicy or the trinity. These contradict the most basic tenants of reasoning, and any intelligent person wouldn't otherwise believe them if they didn't have emotional commitments to (as Aquinas put it) reason being subservient to faith. This "intellectually stimulated discussion" usually boils down to explanations like "well god is a magical variable that can do anything (because the bible says he can, and we believe the bible because it says it's true), so even if something is completely unreasonable it must make sense in some way for us to hold to our earlier commitments to the nature of god." To put things bluntly, these are people who already have their conclusion before they even analyze evidence, which is literally the highest form of ignorance. You get more genuine discourse in philosophy about law because, unlike theology, at least the law is somewhat consistent.
I disagree. I think it demonstrates a different exposure to philosophy than your experience. Not a "poor" one. I am not saying that there is no merit in the works of Plato, for there is extreme merit. But when it comes to theology in the councils that took place between the Orthodox and the Catholic churches we see very feirce and real philosophical dispute that had a real impact on the way of life in those times. I am not meaning to say that this makes the philosophy and theology that comes out of these councils better but rather that it demonstrates instances in which debates on philosophy and theology have a direct impact on the lives of many individuals spanning multiple empires. The conclusions these councils came to had good and bad effects. I will concede that theology is a narrow paramater examination but I could not concede that those parameters are unreasonable belief or abritrary variables. I am a fan of pascals wager and to that effect I say that believing in the Chritsitan God in a time when the Church was on the level of government in the pecking order of society is absolutely reasonable. And the variables which were debated are not arbitrary since they are a product of hundreds of years of dogmatism and theology. I am not saying that these hundreds of years of dogmatism and theology were good, correct or right but I am saying that you must acknowledge that christian theology is an extremely complex and developed system that took an intelligence (even if misguided) to comprehend.
When you say that you get a more genuine discourse in philosophy about law it is highly dependent on the system of law. And we cannot forget that the Church, for a very long time, was a the justice system for many. How you say that theology is inconsistent seems to jut show your own ignorance on the matter of consistency in either church. Of course I will acknowledge that law is a prime example of philosophical discourse generated by any society. I just think it is a bit wanton to say that it is more genuine discourse than a theologians.
I also abhor and reject your attempt to assess my exposure to philosophy. I am arguing these points, not because they are my view but because they are the Christian view on the matter. I am in fact making arguments from a christian point of view when I myself do not hold that view. You see I am more a fan of actual debate rather than just espousing my own views and beliefs on those I converse with. I assure you that MY exposure to philosophy is not lacking and my understanding of the ancients is not exactly as I have described in this thread. I only say this because I feel with that stament you are are attacking the knowledge base you percieve me to have rather than the arguments I lay out. Granted the rest of your argument against it is solid and quite formidable. Though I still believe it to be flawed if I am speaking from a Christian view.
Very untrue and very ignorant. I know you claim that you aren't Catholic, but it's very apparent that you adopted a lot of their lessons from your early education. Namely, thinking that faith is a virtue just because you've heard people say it all your life. Any reasonable person will conclude that faith in and of itself is not a virtue. A person who lacks the evidence to support a conclusion but bridges gaps in reasoning with emotional commitments isn't a good thing that should be celebrated. A person who does this is, once again, engaging in the highest form of ignorance. Some of histories most devastating tragedies are a result of faith.
This is an equivocation which proves my original point, because the modern scientific methods absolutely reject any kind of faith. It is literally built on the premise that we should take nothing on faith. So the work of a scientist literally requires no faith.
Again I am arguing from a Christian viewpoint so to call me ignorant is a projection of ignorance to christian beliefs. I believe your statment of the virtue of faith is a misleading one. I am not saying that in itself blind faith in anything is a virtue. What I am saying is that asking for proof of faith is to disregard what faith is. I agree that one who lacks evidence and bridges the gap with emotion is in many respects not well grounded but I stand by my point that men of faith are not men of God. Descartes was a man of both faith and god and his works are some of the most well grounded and evidentially consistent works of science and philosophy. I argue that it is the manner in which one utilizes their faith that turns it into either a virtue or a vice.
To say that the work of a scientist requires no faith is incorrect. They must have faith that all the science that came before them is sound. They must have faith in their instruments. They must have faith in the valid workings of their own mind and most importantly they must have faith in the scientific method even though the method itself requires that whatever is undertaken in that method not be taken in faith. Modern scientific methods are just that, methods of science. Faith is not a method of science for good reason but that is not to say that the scientist is still not surrounded by faith in one sense or another.
Yeah, and also one of the most corrupt, disorganized, evil, warmongering, hypocritical, and exploitative organizations in the history of the human race. I'm not saying you can't have a religion, but there's no denying the crusades, 9/11, modern day fundamentalist religious terrorism, the Catholic church's suppression of truths about the natural world and contemporary miseducation for thousands of years, making the western world have totally backwards views about sex, the consistent persecution of people who think differently than they do, unprecedented psychological trauma from doctrines of hell alone, and totally ass-backwards laws we all have to respect or get thrown in prison. I know you want to try and see the good in these organizations (and I grant you there is some), but it's pretty obvious that you haven't had a lot of exposure to the ideas you're talking about. I know that makes me sound like kind of an asshole, but I say it as someone who used to believe the same things when I was younger and was in Seminary studying systematic theology. The thing is that, if you honestly take these ideas you claim to believe head on and have sincere engagement with them, there's no way you'll walk out of it believing it's virtuous for a man to believe garlic scares away vampires for the sake of believing it or that Aquinas arguing with some other priest about a thousand commitments they already assume without question because their culture told them to as a paramount intellectual pursuit.
Here I must also disagree. Your evidence is more or less unclear. In one view the crusades were a response to hundreds of years of muslim invasion and barbary. 9/11 was not a result of Christianity and had much more to do with American politics in the middle east. Modern day religious terrorism is largely unfound and admonished among Christians, at least compared to religious terrorism in the muslim world. Views on sex are a personal thing so to say that ones view is "backwards" means so only in relation to what you think is "forwards". Prosecution of belief is found in all societies from a political vantage point, a religious one and even philosophically. The most recent instances of persecution of belief is found to be against those of faith such as jedis in Germany or Christians in Russia. These things you are listing speak more to mans inclinations to violence, suppression, ignorance and fear than it does to any singular organization or institution. Again, I am speaking from a view of exposure to the Christian view rather than my own so to say that I havent had exposure to the ideas I am talking about is misguided as I am talking about these ideas in a fairly strict way that isnt nessecarily aligned with my exact belief structure. It seems to indicate that you believe yourself to be far more "exposed" to ideas, beliefs and what else and that your on a higher plane than those who think differently than yourself. In my opinion this is ignorance in its highest form. To say that your exposure is correct and my exposure is incorrect shows vast assumptions on your part about my exposure. What I am doing now is taking these ideas that are in my head (regardless of my belief in them or not) and having a sincere argument with them. I am not sheltering myself from the views of others but am challenging the views I have seen and through that I come to my own understanding.
Couldn't you install the browser bundle to a flash drive at home and run it from there? Alternatively you could make a live boot flash drive with TAILS if they allow you to change the boot order from within the BIOS.
WHY?!!?!??!?! These fucking cocksuckers in the media always rail on Russia and China for being so bad. Why the fuck are we alienating ourselves from two of the most powerful countries on the world? Why the fuck are we telling Putin what to do in his own backyard? Why the fuck dont we buddy up with China and find a relationship that benefits both of us? We could easily use Russia to end ISIS if our countries were amicable. Imagine how fucking epic it would be if American and Russian troops just fucking steamroll those towelheads.
Sometimes i get sad thinking about international politics. I feel like things could be a hell of a lot better run.
I used to go to church camp and very much believed in god and now things are different. And I just don't know quite how to tell my parents.
One time I went to church camp and we played this game that was like hide and seek but it was actually Romans finding jedis. It was pretty fucking weird looking back on it because the councilors dressed up as romans and "killed" all the jedis played by the camp goers.
Oral tradition is a massive part of our historical knowledge. Even the books of lineage and histories from the Old Testament were not written at the time they happened but at a much later time. And let us not forget the emperorship jesus and his disciples endured. In terms of historical politics Tiberius and Caligula were two of the most chaotic and dangerous emperors of the age. Their vast control of judean lands is a direct cause for these things being so secretive until later times when it was safe to have a writing pertaining to Chrestus. I am not saying that we can absolutely hold the Gospels as valid in every which aspect but you cant refute that the political climate of the time made it very dangerous to be aligned with christianity.
Now I know nothing of Hyam Maccoby (sounds like a jedi) so I will have to look into his work. And it is very easy to speculate an instance in which a follower would take events and distort or alter them to align with his own view of perfection, heaven, god, etc. No your contention with Matthew 16:18 is the same contenion the Orthodox have with the papacy. The Catholic view seems to be that Peter (lineage of the bishop of rome i.e. the pope) was the first church and in that respect the most powerful and in some senses superior to that of antioch for insance. The Orthodox hold the bishop of rome as the first among equals. This is actually an incredibly interesting element of the great schism between these two churches for the reason that it is ultimately reduced to a tautology of faith. It is reduced to interpretation of scripture and in that regard the split of catholic and orthodox is a prime example of two different evolutions of one core doctrine. It is in my opinion one of the more sociologically fascinating pieces of history because it demonstrates that an organization as large as the church, when spread across continents and divided by geography, will inveritably come to their own conclusions an when they come tell each other of their conclusions the belief systems developed by either party is so radically different from the original that neither can reach a concensus. Thus an orginization splits into two yet they hold the same fundamental beliefs. How they interpret these beliefs and how they view the mysteries of faith is really what separates them.
I would even argue that this is not bad. Theology is the basis of philosophy. You can mentally masturbate to platos republic all you want or some stupid dialouges of endless questions until the subject has been quite literally guided to the "correct" answer but the works of people like Aquinas or Anthony or the heated exchanges that took place in coucils and tribunals of the church and you come across some of the most intellectually stimulated discussion in history.
On a last note I believe you are mistaken when you say "the Orthodox and Catholic churches mislead their followers into thinking "evidences" of their interpretations are the same as "proof" of their interpretations". Proof is what a scientist needs. Not a man of faith. And in their heart, near all decent men (any many indecent too) are men of faith, maybe not in god or the church, but they have great faith in something. Even a great scientist will benefit from great faith if not in a god in his work. Faith is not to be proven and as such one cannot present proof. The churches make their cases and give evidence in support of their claims but this is the intellectual aspect of man doing what he must to reinforce his views and beliefs. The faith runs deeper and is hard to explain. Believeing that Jesus was crucified died and was burried and three days later was resurected gets at the core of faith. No one can prove that Jesus rose from the dead. No one living can know if jesus appeared to his disciples and spoke to them. The importance of faith in this story is not blinding thinking god has amazing powers to bring the dead back to life. If that were it jesus would have lived happily ever after. No, this story demonstrates faiths importance by how jesus followers reacted once they gained faith. It is a story of people facing the death of their leader, regaining faith in him even though he died and continuing his work. Because regardless of if it happened or not, after his "reappearence" to his followers, they began a movement based in faith. And it resulted in one of the largest and most systematically advanced organizations this world has ever seen.
My parents converted when I was like 17. They made me too. I went to classes and everything and got "accepted" into the catholic church after a few week of these classes that we had to take.
You make it sound like college or something. You dont just get "accepted" you have to be baptized or confirmed. Regardless at your age you would have the option of doing neither since the ceremony would consist of the bishop or priest being like "You in?" at which point you respond "Amen" or "Fuck this shit". It sounds like you just kinda went along with what mommy and daddy wanted in order to resist conflict. You should just tell them what you believe (or dont believe) because its way more respectable and they wont ask you to go to church and wonder why you wont go with them and feel bad.
If you dont believe in God just tell em. If you think getting drunk and high are crazy then you dont know crazy. Wanna have a real crazy time? Debate the merit of believing in god with a real christian. If you and they arent pants on the head retarded they may actually make a good case, or be reasonable enough to listen to and respect your case.
