G.I. Jesus, Killing for God

[Classic Iconocl]

Revolutionary metaphor of the cross...

The vertical beam represents man's relationship with divinity, distorted through religion. The horizontal beam represents man's relationship with other people, distorted through government. And where religion and state intersect, torture and muder occur. This has been true throughout history.

What's a fundamentalist agnostic? Someone who doesn't know, but KNOWS they don't know.

To those of you willing to spread your personal faith through collective violence, who call upon the minions of the state to enforce self-righteous bigotry, I suggest you quit looking for the burning bursh and instead simply appreciate the mircale inherent in the very existence of the bush itself. And if you still need a burning bush, torch Dubya in effigy.

Convert me - I dare you.

[Qdrop]

do you pre-write these posts....then copy/paste/post on a bunch of message boards and mass-emails?

your posts really borderline as SPAM to me....

[yeahwho]

do you pre-write these posts....then copy/paste/post on a bunch of message boards and mass-emails?

your posts really borderline as SPAM to me....
Classic Iconocl, meet Classic Qdrop.

[Qdrop]

*shakes hand.....and casts glare*

[Classic Iconocl]

do you pre-write these posts....then copy/paste/post on a bunch of message boards and mass-emails?

your posts really borderline as SPAM to me....

A few of them I pre-write, or excerpt from other material I've written. Most I don't. This particular post was not pre-written, only pre-thought (as are ALL posts, in fact).

I'm not selling anything here. Just ideas. Why don't you debate ideas with me, rather than implying that I might be spamming?

You know what? You just gave me a great idea for my upcoming novel about a war on junk food. The SPAM Police! I'm giving you a nod in my acknowledgements for that one. Thanks Q. ;)

[Funkaloyd]

What's a fundamentalist agnostic? Someone who doesn't know, but KNOWS they don't know. [...] Convert me - I dare you.
Can you accept that some things can be proven to be true, and that it's reasonable to assume that things which have neither proof nor a decent hypothesis are for all intents and purposes false?

[racer5.0stang]

Without the cross, there is no salvation for mankind.

Fundamentalist Agnostic: Someone who has been told the truth but decides neither to accept or reject, but instead sit on the fence. Someone who has the inability to make their own mind up.

I heard a joke one time, it goes like this:

There was a fence and on one side was Jesus and on the other side was Satan. Jesus called to the people and some came to his side of the fence and Satan called and some went to his side of the fence. One man decided to sit on the fence and not choose a side. Well Jesus and his group left and so did Satan and his group. About 30 minutes passed and the man was still on the fence. Satan came back as if looking for something and the man called out to him, "Hey, what did you lose?". Satan says "Oh there you are, come with me." The man says, "I don't have to go with you, I didn't choose a side, but sat on the fence." Satan said to the man, "I own the fence too."

Although the man didn't accept or reject Jesus, he still made his choice.

[Classic Iconocl]

Can you accept that some things can be proven to be true, and that it's reasonable to assume that things which have neither proof nor a decent hypothesis are for all intents and purposes false?

I can accept that some things can be proven to be true, in the sense that observable (and unobserved) phenomena can have demonstrable causes and effects that are perceptually consistent within a given context. For example, gravity exists...until it doesn't. The enlightened ones can discern the changing nature of all reality, material and phenomenological (perceptual), which belies the myth of permanence. Unless science can embrace this truth (that all things change), it will fall victim to the same arrogance and dogma that have corrupted spirituality (through organized fundamentalism) and impaired its ability to permeate our lives and help humans to flourish and grow.

I believe the first assumption of any scientist with humility should be that anything is possible. Science cannot answer certain questions. And some questions are impossible to resolve through empirical means. Neither faith or science can disprove the other. Therefore, I think there is some risk in assuming , "that things which have neither proof nor a decent hypothesis are for all intents and purposes false". The vulnerability in this stance is betrayed in the term "decent" (a subjective value judgement), but more critically in the term "all" (absolutist: knowledge as concrete rather than evolving).

There. The Buddha has farted. :eek: Your thoughts?

Christopher Largen

[Classic Iconocl]

Without the cross, there is no salvation for mankind.

Fundamentalist Agnostic: Someone who has been told the truth but decides neither to accept or reject, but instead sit on the fence. Someone who has the inability to make their own mind up.

I heard a joke one time, it goes like this:

There was a fence and on one side was Jesus and on the other side was Satan. Jesus called to the people and some came to his side of the fence and Satan called and some went to his side of the fence. One man decided to sit on the fence and not choose a side. Well Jesus and his group left and so did Satan and his group. About 30 minutes passed and the man was still on the fence. Satan came back as if looking for something and the man called out to him, "Hey, what did you lose?". Satan says "Oh there you are, come with me." The man says, "I don't have to go with you, I didn't choose a side, but sat on the fence." Satan said to the man, "I own the fence too."

Although the man didn't accept or reject Jesus, he still made his choice.

Did I ever claim that I do not accept Jesus?

I believe he was the Classic Iconoclast. He confronted the evil hypocrisy of organized religion and state-sanctioned murder. He freely embraced those rejected by religion, and vigorously chastized the religious leaders who were too clean to smell their own excrement. And the leaders tortured him to death for it. Then they tried to destroy the resulting spiritual movement by murdering those who followed his example. Once the authorities realized they could not destroy self-sacrificial spirituality by making martyrs of the followers, they chose a more effective path of destruction. The leaders coopted the spiritual movement, making it the official religion of the same Roman state that murdered Jesus, twisting it with dogma, bastardizing it, using it to justify oppression, torture and murder.

And that's exactly what our political and religious leaders are doing today. They are whitewashed sepulchres, spitting out judgment like hanging judges, acting like gods, more concerned with the letter of the law than the principles the law was founded on, torturing and murdering in the name of their god. Perhaps they should pray that the god they claim to believe in doesn't exist, because G.I. Jesus will straight up kick their asses. :eek:

[ericg]

Wow. You're just what this forum needed. Straight up. I don't have the tolerance... You seem fortunate in that regard. Paint the town red and clean house.

The way people wear the cross to me is sacrilege. Like, it's a tool on which the people gathered around and allowed Jesus to die on. And then wearing the cross is like what? He died for our sins? Yes, jackass, your sin was that you gathered around and allowed Jesus to die on... Like today, watch the constitution die, watch thousands upon thousands of people die, watch your children grow duller and duller. Hey, they'll never know the difference. Hethendom. Grant me the strength...

"...I'm prayin' for rain and, I'm prayin' for title waves, I want to see the ground give way, and watch it all go down..." -TOOL

But it's just a thought, you know.

[Ali]

do you pre-write these posts....then copy/paste/post on a bunch of message boards and mass-emails?

your posts really borderline as SPAM to me....Dear pot,

You are black.

Kettle.

Edit: (to avoid a double post). Racerstang's 'joke' defines Christianity beautifully: FEAR. Christianity is a religion based on fear of the devil and eternal damnation. If you don't do as the church tells you, then you are going to hell.

I'm not falling for that buch of crap. How stupid do you think I am? :p

[Funkaloyd]

Ok, I can see that I'm not going to be able to convert you =)

But I don't think that the criteria for making a hypothesis "decent" (for lack of a better word) need be subjective. A hypothesis that is actually testable, has been purged of logical fallacies and has had Occam's Razor applied would be widely regarded as better than one that hasn't.

And "all" is part of the cliché.

[Qdrop]

Dear pot,

You are black.

Kettle.


the fuck are you talking about?

find ONE post of mine that reads like pre-written, mass-mailed SPAM.

come on, let's see it.....


you're such a rabble rouser..... you don't even believe/care about half the shit you type (particularly trolling comments like above), you just want to get rise out of people. just like Whois....

[Classic Iconocl]

Ok, I can see that I'm not going to be able to convert you =)

But I don't think that the criteria for making a hypothesis "decent" (for lack of a better word) need be subjective. A hypothesis that is actually testable, has been purged of logical fallacies and has had Occam's Razor applied would be widely regarded as better than one that hasn't.

And "all" is part of the cliché.

I agree with you, but I would add a qualifier. Some hypotheses are not testable (at least not at this point). I will not accept an untestable hypothesis to be true, but unless I can devise a testable hypothesis to prove the first hypothesis false, it would be arrogant to claim knowledge either way.

What do you do for a living, Funk (I assume you know what I do)?

[Ali]

Some hypotheses are not testable (at least not at this point). I will not accept an untestable hypothesis to be true, but unless I can devise a testable hypothesis to prove the first hypothesis false, it would be arrogant to claim knowledge either way.By that logic, microscopic animals and suchlike did not exist before the invention of the microscope. There was no way to test the hypothesis and so it could not be true that there were such things, even though their effects (disease, etc.) implied that they did exist.

[Classic Iconocl]

By that logic, microscopic animals and suchlike did not exist before the invention of the microscope. There was no way to test the hypothesis and so it could not be true that there were such things, even though their effects (disease, etc.) implied that they did exist.

Let me clarify... I am a humble skeptic. To say I KNOW when I do not, is arrogance. For example, if I lived 300 years ago, I may have BELIEVED the world was flat, and I would have no means to prove it (or disprove it). But due to the fact that I would not claim KNOWLEDGE, I would be unwilling to force my BELIEF on those who claimed the world was round.

I BELIEVE that science would benefit from a healthy dose of humility, as would faith.

I know my skepticism is irritating to people who feel they must have knowledge in order to function, but even scientists live by faith. They set their alarms because they BELIEVE the sun will rise the next day. I can envision no means by which science can circumvent faith, or vice versa. So perhaps we need a new paradigm that embraces both faith and reason rather than placing them in dualistic opposition. Does that make sense?

[Ali]

So perhaps we need a new paradigm that embraces both faith and reason rather than placing them in dualistic opposition.Scientology? :eek:

Don't apologise for being skeptical. It it weren't for people demanding proof, then there would never have been any need to invent things like microscopes, telescopes, curly fry machines, etc.

Necessity is the mother of invention. Skepticism is the mother of necessity. Keep demanding proof. Blind faith is simply not enough any more and can get you into a whole lot of trouble!

[ASsman]

G.I Ghey.

[Whois]

Scientology? :eek:

Don't apologise for being skeptical. It it weren't for people demanding proof, then there would never have been any need to invent things like microscopes, telescopes, curly fry machines, etc.

Necessity is the mother of invention. Skepticism is the mother of necessity. Keep demanding proof. Blind faith is simply not enough any more and can get you into a whole lot of trouble!

I thought the correct spelling was $cientology...

[Funkaloyd]

What do you do for a living, Funk
I'm going to university next year. So nothing.