Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

AsburySkinsFan

Members
  • Content Count

    2,868
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

Posts posted by AsburySkinsFan

  1. 5 hours ago, Cooked Crack said:
     

     

    Rand Paul translation: "That black **** ought to take a seat and be thankful for all that we've given her."

    5 hours ago, No Excuses said:

    The dog whistle is now a full blown megahorn of white identity politics and culture war BS. 

    That ain't no ****ing dog whistle, here's a white man telling a black immigrant woman to sit down, shut up, and be grateful for all that the whites have given to her.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  2. 40 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

     

    Okay are we talking about the process of dying or death itself?  The process of dying frequently comes with suffering.  Suffering in general is not pleasant and therefore is generally categorized as bad (though, we can talk about the value of suffering too).  In addition, there is the pain of loss of those left living after the person has died.  So in that context, there is "bad" associated with death.  Beyond that, there's no real reason to believe that death itself is not neutral (from a biochemical/scientific stand point or a theological one).   @Larry recently posted, he fears nursing homes.  I agree.  I don't fear death.  I do fear the issues that come with dying.

     

    (And that quote about death being the wage of sin is from Romans and so Paul and not Jesus.  And while I like Paul, Paul was also clearly wrong about some things (e.g. he believed he'd be alive for the 2nd coming).  He also talks about death in a positive light in Philippians 1 so if you want to claim that quote in Romans indicates that we should fear death, then you have to also deal with Philippians 1.)

     

    The Hebrews believed in a mass exodus of Jewish slaves from Egypt accompanied with the destruction of a large component of the Egyptian army that was preceded by events that would have caused large scale societal upheaval (e.g. the death of the first born of not just every person, but also every animal).

     

    I don't.  The larger historical evidence indicates that such an event never happened.  It is likely the Hebrews were wrong.

     

    The authors are very likely wrong (as in the creation story too).  Hebrews believed that many diseases were the sins of the parents being delivered onto the children by God.  Not natural phenomenon associated with genetics, viruses, bacteria, etc.

     

    I don't.

     

    I don't claim to have it all worked out.  I could be wrong, but I'm pretty confident in saying that in totality I've got more right than people that didn't have modern tools we use to understand things.

    Classical Christian Theology:

    Prior to sin (man's participation in evil) there was no death.

    As part of the punishment for that sin god allowed humanity to be affected by death (NOT just the processes of sickness and age, but the reality of death). Death entered into the world through one man and death was over come by one man. The promises throughout the entire NT are not a happy existence AFTER we die but a resurrection and defeat of death. That's simply what the text says. Augustine in his dualistic theology abandons resurrection, and embraces Heaven as the reward, thus death is a now a mechanism. But Augustine misconstrues the Bible to his own ends. Even a cursory reading of the Bible demonstrates that God never intended for death to affect humanity, and that death is what is prevailed against, "O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?" If you are serious about your faith, I'd encourage you to examine what you believe in light of what's in your texts.

     

    As for your red herring arguments about the Hebrews and their vision of Eden/Exodus, you know full well that the point of those stories is not the stories but the teachings that undergird them. Christianity, is after all a Hebraic religion, and if you are going to stand in judgment of those who authored your very own sacred texts, then sir, I might suggest that you are creating your own religion, around a god of your own design. For your religion is nothing without the foundation it was built from, and if they are wrong about their theological principles then what leg have you to stand on? You have literally given yourself permission to remake the religion into whatever suits your interests. That, I do believe is the very definition of idolatry.

     

    As for Philippians 1, Paul is faced with his imminent death, he's coming to terms with the fact that he is going to be martyred soon by the Romans. This is a guy who is embracing his reality. Paul is NOT saying that death is a neutral thing or even a good thing. His hope is that through death he will be with Christ, you are seriously twisting his words if you think that Paul is somehow pontificating that death is somehow a benign thing. Death is the scourge of evil.

  3. 8 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

     

    1.  I'm not sure of your point about the wages of sin or how that indicates I'm wrong.  (the next part of the wages of sin deals with the gift from God, defining a process that results in an incredible gift as bad seems very short sighted to me).

     

    2.  I don't think he was.

     

    3.  I'm not at all sure the Hebrews understood post-death properly.

    So Jesus telling you that death is the wage you receive from sin you read that then to mean death is neutral. Even though according to the authors death was only known to humanity because of sin. All that to you makes death a neutral event? 

    Lemmie tell ya, that's HIGHLY counter intuitive.

     

    2. It's fine, you're both wrong.

     

    3. So the actual authors didn't know what they were talking about? It couldn't possibly be that you feel this way because it's you who misunderstands them? Nah, after 4,000 years you finally got it worked out.

    • Haha 1
  4. 11 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

     

    Just because it was preventable doesn't make it bad or a punishment today.

     

    I also don't consider it a punishment and yes, I prescribe to an Augustinian view.

     

    (You also seem to be suggesting a very literal reading of Genesis, which I also don't support.  The fact that some animals seem to understand right and wrong suggest that the idea of eating from the tree of good and evil isn't a true story.)

    Except the whole New Testament part about the wages of sin and all. And Augustine was wrong, he wasn't in keeping with what the Bible actually teaches in this regard, nor was he in line with anything that would resemble a Hebraic understanding of post death because Augustine either ignores or outright redefines the meaning of resurrection. Just sayin'

  5. 1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

     

    Huh... ok. I’m pretty sure Ted Bundy felt the same way about dead. Maybe a little less than a stop sign in his case though.  

     

    I think he idea that a theist views death as “good” and that an atheist views death as “bad” is a fallacy, but best stick the the script here.

     

     

    Landing on on the moon was a miracle!

    Oh so now I'm Ted Bundy. Gotcha. Why not engage your brain and ask a question before posting some bull**** strawman next time? Some who aren't failing in their basic logic centers would recognize that there is a difference in seeing death as neutral and seeing people as valueless objects as a sociopath, but I'm sure you just need your coffee before you can fully engage....(your past posting history notwithstanding).

     

    And landing on the moon wasn't a miracle it was an act of science and engineering. The fact that you don't know how to do it does not make it a miracle. I bet my wife's gallbladder surgery was a miracle too...you know if you ignore the whole surgeon.

    • Haha 1
  6. On 5/7/2019 at 3:00 PM, PeterMP said:

     

    1.  Well, I was talking about all death of any kind.   You see those deaths as bad.  A theist would not. 

    A Christian theist should, it is after all the consequence of sin and wholly preventable according to the faith.

     

    As I sit here now post-faith I don't place an emotional value on death any more than I do a stop sign. It's a thing nothing more. It is scripture in the Bible that considers death bad or a consequence of evil. That you suggest theists don't view death as bad seems to suggest that you've accepted the punishment as normal. It also suggests that you're more Augustinian/Dante version of the afterlife where death is a neutral gateway to the reward/punishment. Which I would argue isn't what your Bible actually teaches.

    On 5/1/2019 at 4:50 PM, 757SeanTaylor21 said:

    For someone who needs evidence that there is a God, and says theres only the Bible that tells us about Him is not truly looking. Miracles were done not for those who believe, but those who didnt/dont because if we face it....most are " if i dont see it i dont believe it." Theres miracles all over that you may not know, hear about or see. Theres prophets that have prophesied and came to pass thar you may not know, hear, or see. The Word says ask and you shall be given, knock and you shall find. If you seek Him. You will find. 

    Fine, if there are so many miracles name some verifiable miracles.

  7. 9 hours ago, Springfield said:

    I disagree.  It makes us as a country, both sides, look bad.  Whoever did it should be held accountable.

    That dip**** and his inept administration doesn't reflect on me in the slightest. And if THIS is the deciding moment for someone's opinion on the Trump Administration then their dumbasses who simply haven't been paying attention.

    • Thanks 1
  8. 1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

     

    TX is actually doing well with alternative energy.  They are (geographically) well situated to capture wind and solar (large open land with lots of sunshine).

     

    And are doing so well reasonably well.  TX has also worked through the years to diversify their economy (not get stuck in a situation where they are overly dependent on oil again after the oil crash in the 1980s that tanked the TX economy) and have broadly invested in lots of technology, including alternative energy.

     

    If there is a shift in energy production, TX wants to make sure they are well situated to take advantage of it (and not be left behind), and the best way to do that is to actually have those industries be active in your state.  Your state can't be involved in advances in an industry if the industry doesn't do much in your state.

     

    (Given where they are geographically, it would be nice if they were even doing better.  What would be even better though is if they'd control consumption more/better.  I think that's the American component.)

    You got liberal coming out of your mouf.

  9. Hey Siri, look up "Presidential Harassment" in the US Federal Law.....

    "Ok, Here's what I found under "Presidential Harassment" in the US Federal Law...."One orange fat **** who can dish it out but can't take it."

     

    Listen up Cheeto, when you make EVERYONE a target, then you lose the right to complain when they turn their focus on you.

    Get ****ed asshole.

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1
  10. I watched those clips and it simply amazes me that a President of the United States would say such things openly, and more so to an audience that is made of of teenagers.

    It's like Hitler hyping up his Nazi Youth.

    The lies and the vileness that flows out of his mouth with such ease, and no where in that crowd does anyone say, "Wait, this isn't who we are."

    Nope, instead, it's "President for life".

    This garbage has been festering in our nation for a long time, and Trump is the putrid puss filled boil that needs to be lanced.

     

    • Thanks 4
  11. Every day it's a new **** show.

    Meanwhile, we're all chasing down his lies and obstructions and he's off destroying another government agency.

    Trump commits enough grievances in one week that would have sunk any other Presidency, but because he has McConnell and a GOP Senate he gets to do exactly what he wants because he owns the guard dog. He's the worst of everything we've imagined about politics and his supporters use that to employ their self justifying false equivalencies. The saddest part is all of those people screaming "Barabbas Barabbas" erm....I mean "Send her back" will be the same ones folding their pious hands before Pence if he were ever to take over. 

    @Springfield said it, "There is virtually no infighting" because they've cast our all of the heretics in their Rightwing ideological purge, those who are left are an active part in the destruction. Many voters have said they left the Republican party because of Trump, and yet will be there as his loyal lapdogs to pull the lever for Trump when the time comes. Which means that their flight from the GOP is symbolic if it is anything at all.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  12. 59 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

    Hey, where are all of our Conservative Republicans at anyhow?

    The sickest part of all of this will be the things our neighbors say when Trump's finally gone, "Oh I didn't like him that much anyways, but what could I do?"

    • Sad 1
  13. 1 hour ago, Burgold said:

    2001 Space Odyssey would be classified SF because the major problem stemmed from a computer failure and the dangers of artificial intelligence. Continuing my geeky trend, that was the major fighting point between lovers of Star Trek vs. Star Wars. Star Trek is considered science fiction. Star Wars was treading on their turf without being classicly SF.

    Fair point on 2001 Space Odyssey, I disagree that a broken computer suddenly makes it syfy. That said Trekkies who say that SW isn't syfy are just stupid. 

    Star Trek is just Star Wars told by Berkeley professors. There's nothing specifically sciency that differentiates Trek from Wars. 

    2 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

     

    No.  I just see what people post here from twitter.

    Ahhh well that explains it. 1sec....

    Here you go...this should help.

     

    • Haha 3
  14. 1 hour ago, Larry said:

     

    Just pointing out, you have just announced that the biggest problem with the OT is that there wasn't enough CGI.  :) 

    I'm not bashful about admitting that. Some stories are told before their time. 

    Just now, TheGreatBuzz said:

    Is there really people out there that give a **** whether it's science fiction, science fantasy, etc?

    Have you even been on twitter?

    • Haha 1
  15. 2 minutes ago, dfitzo53 said:

    1. Way more Jedi around and they hadn't been forced into hiding. 

     

    2. Decades of special effects advances. Look at the way Vader moves at the end of Rogue One vs. the beginning of A New Hope. Or Yoda in Attack of the Clones. 

     

    (2 is really the driving factor.)

    1) we see that in Ep 1-3 the way Obi and Qui gon deal with some crowds of droids. And the Jedi were to serve, using the force on people seems hostile. Now why Darth uses his physical strength to lift the Captain (opening scene) rather than the force I dunno.

     

    2. And yes, I think the biggest problem with using the force in Ep 4-6 was the technology for the story telling, that existed for Ep 1-3 and following but in the 70's and 80's would have looked silly.

×
×
  • Create New...