Christian Black Metal!
- Thread starter Felix Neumann
- Start date
ha... well i'm sure we disagree on nearly as much as we agree on... but i'm out the door on a music store run... i'll catch up with this thread later.
GeertSamuel
Member
now you're talkin' sense,
I sometimes, really sometimes do
Did I ever mention that I do not want to learn from discussions? And what's the sense of "Christians ALWAYS say this during debates". I think you can count in 90% of people can respond like that.
What am I actually saying wrong?
I have respect for your thoughts, and still it's not good enough.
What's here to win or lose in this debate? We share thoughts of eachother to learn from eachother, there is nothing to win or lose, only gain knowledge and understanding of another persons thoughts.
GeertSamuel
Member
oh most certainly... can you say Galileo Galilei? Copernicus? are you denying the stultifying effects of the inquisition alone, never-mind the innumerable other eras and mechanisms of religious censorship, on scientific advancement??
But is this something that I as a spiritual christian needs to be taken responsable for? I cannot do anything to correct that, and still I get that thrown in my face. You killed some great scientists 400 years ago. If your father was responsable for a dozen murders, do you also need to be held responsable for that? While christianity is now far more open, Islam still has this censorship on all kinds of things. And I strongly disapprove on that.
Because 1 or 2 people made a desicion to kill these scientists, other christians might have not wanted to kill these scientists, astrologists and what more.
no it isn't. but what did "naturalism" (let's call it that for now as you've said) give us next to knowledge, scientific improvement. As you follow your believes, be it, Juddaism, Christianity, Buddhism...all these religions are strongly against sexual outbursts, murder and more.
Offcourse I know that "naturalists" don't kill, gangbang and have morals that are correct for the society we live in today, heck even dare to say that a lot of religious people don't even have morals that they actually should have to use in today's society. But the point I wanted to make that all the "evil-doing" in this world, starts with a single person, which isn't led by his or her religion. You or me could kill a person tomorrow, and it wouldn't matter if you are non-religious or that I am religious, it's just in our personallity.
where in the bible does it forbid birth control? this is something 1 pope has to say to a lot of catholics. and they're dumb enough to listen to it. Again something that 1 man decides against, and since he's labelled as a christian, every christian should think that way. Be fruitful and multiply. 3000 years ago, there was no birth control, so in other words God said to man "enjoy the sex", what's wrong with that?
Wouldn't the world be one really boring place if we all would just sit there, and couldn't discuss about things like this, since there would be no religion? But +3000 years ago, it sure set the standard for morallity & ethics. But morallity and ethics nowadays, are the morallities we change to get by in our natural habitat, in the life we live.
I can't give an answer on why God didn't show himself to the Chinese, and did show himself to some bronze-age middle east farmers. I'm not God, I don't know his thoughts. But in the end for me personally it's about my spiritual relationship with God. And there are still now plenty things I don't understand about Him.
And to set the records straight, God gave people their own minds, their own thoughts, and especially their own will! This gave people the control over themselves, so where you might want put a fault on God, isn't it man itself that eventually is repsonsable for wrong doing?
There are still so many questions for me to. I've seen my little brother heal from a sickness (adreno genital syndrome), that was incurable. He had to take 12 - 16 pills per day, if he would mis a period of the day, he'd be in coma within 12 hours. He has now been healed. ( Ow man I now have to think of Death - Spiritual Healing haha...great work btw man!)...anyhow..
Doctors tried to find the scientific explenation but can't find it!!! They can't!
Does this mean you want to date?
SocialNumb
Damn Christians!
man, you having trouble following the thread of the conversation here? who the hell said anyone was taking you as responsible for anything?? wtf man, seriously... if you can't follow more closely it's just not worth it... it will just degenerate into frustration. read backwards from the beginning on this point.... i'm just not gonna remind you of everything each time you lose the thread of the conversation.. it's too much work.
i'm sure i'm not alone in saying, "what??" never-mind though.. don't bother.
good catch, you're right of course, i should have typed "papal proscription", not "biblical proscription"... but nevertheless there are plenty of examples in the bible regarding the inhibition of free sexual expression. but since we're "play-pretending" anyway, we can just ignore those
.hey, glad you dig the album... but yo... you gotta really audit this tendency you have to employ a "god of the gaps" mentality. it's profoundly weak-minded, regardless of how personally compelling a circumstance may be (and the health of a family member is surely one of the most compelling circumstances possible) to ascribe anything you and/or science can't currently explain to a magic sky-wizard. historically there have been thousands of mysteries that we once had no scientific explanation for... in every case you can be sure some theist reverently intoned, "god did this.... this is proof of god! there's no other explanation, so it must be god!!!", or words to that effect. of course the scientific explanations were later discovered. *oops*
.in light of this, how silly is it to claim "god did it" at everything that doesn't have an immediately apparent, or yet discovered, scientific explanation?
very glad to know that your brother is well , by the way.... but let's wrap it up here while we're still short of examining the potential moral problems the scenario you outlined involving your sibling creates for a personal god. besides, most every description you've offered of your belief system paints you as a deist, and not a theist at all. you should embrace that aspect of your faith, you'd be in great company, historically: Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, Immanuel Kant, David Hume, Charles Darwin, Ethan Allen, Voltaire, Thomas Pain, etc. etc.
i'm not inclined to carry on with this discussion to be honest... i feel you're not ready for serious religious debate of the type that members such as Stinnett and myself can bring to bear... i think you'd find it frustrating and withering. i also think there's a bit of a language barrier issue. to be fair, that may be the main problem, so let's just leave it.
time for working now... catch ya later Funky,
Haha talking about "Spiritual Healing". This theme is rightly condemned! There are so much lyrics in our beloved metal genre, denouncing things who absolutely WENT WRONG IN THE WORLD. I could not reconcile, if I´d be a loyal christ. I was so fucking brainwashed, as I was a kid. I tell you something...as Sepultura´s Chaos AD came out, I skipped the song AMEN, because I thought it is antichristian and I´m not allowed to go to heaven some time then. I was determined by others, other - directed by a "hollow man", called god!
WHO WANNA BE DETERMINED BY OTHERS??? This is the opposite of freedom. So FUCK IT. There are people who believe that they will soon picked up by Jesus, taking them to heaven. Why is nothing questioned in religion? Why stagnate? They said to me: "keep your child's faith" Never questioning! Blindly believe! I cannot describe how much I hate it.
WHO WANNA BE DETERMINED BY OTHERS??? This is the opposite of freedom. So FUCK IT. There are people who believe that they will soon picked up by Jesus, taking them to heaven. Why is nothing questioned in religion? Why stagnate? They said to me: "keep your child's faith" Never questioning! Blindly believe! I cannot describe how much I hate it.
Spiritual Healing
Always blocking the doors to your mind
Escaping the reality that surrounds you
Using faith as an excuse to kill
A sick way of life is now revealed
All the prayers in the world can't help you now
A killer a take of life is what you are
Speak no more lies
It's your turn to die
Preach the good word
Speak no more, perpare to burn
A justified torture?
From this may others learn
The life you took a holy death, a grave mistake
No changing your mind, your life you should pay
Practice what you preach
Your loved one is now deceased
Knowledge is at our hands
Never to understand
Spiritual healing
[Solos: Schuldiner, Murphy]
Blinded by the twisted ways you live
Kill for religion, will the Lord forgive?
Idiocy has stricken your mind
A real-life hell you will find
Last edited by a moderator:
Jevil
Pro Evolution Fucker
I am non believer, very science-man but of course I respect all beliefs as long as other beliefs respect mine.
If religion helps and works for a person, then it is something good. I sometimes wish I could believe in something so perhaps I wouldn't be so scared to death and my health paranoids would disappear.
My grandma was very religious and when she had problems faith helped her being more relaxed and hopeful.
Finally...2009 is almost over so... this year's oscar for the most controversial guy in the forum goes for... James "The Comrade" Murphy
Whenever I see a thread with lots of pages I say to myself "let's see what discussion is James in"
If religion helps and works for a person, then it is something good. I sometimes wish I could believe in something so perhaps I wouldn't be so scared to death and my health paranoids would disappear.
My grandma was very religious and when she had problems faith helped her being more relaxed and hopeful.
Finally...2009 is almost over so... this year's oscar for the most controversial guy in the forum goes for... James "The Comrade" Murphy
Whenever I see a thread with lots of pages I say to myself "let's see what discussion is James in"
i graciously accept the honour you've chosen to bestow upon me. I'd like to thank the Academy, my family, my fellow forum members, and Go....
Jevil
Pro Evolution Fucker
GeertSamuel
Member
very glad to know that your brother is well , by the way.... but let's wrap it up here while we're still short of examining the potential moral problems the scenario you outlined involving your sibling creates for a personal god. besides, most every description you've offered of your belief system paints you as a deist, and not a theist at all. you should embrace that aspect of your faith, you'd be in great company, historically: Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, Immanuel Kant, David Hume, Charles Darwin, Ethan Allen, Voltaire, Thomas Pain, etc. etc.
i'm not inclined to carry on with this discussion to be honest... i feel you're not ready for serious religious debate of the type that members such as Stinnett and myself can bring to bear... i think you'd find it frustrating and withering. i also think there's a bit of a language barrier issue. to be fair, that may be the main problem, so let's just leave it.
time for working now... catch ya later Funky,
I feel I'm a monotheist, so that's more leaning towards being a theist.
But at the end of the day, I believe in my believes, and you believe what you believe. I'm sometimes curious why people chose to be anti-religious. Just want to know their thoughts on it, and on a forum you will never get those "deeper" answers. You need to have talk in real-life, maybe one day we will, or maybe we don't.
When you mention I'm not ready for a more serious based religious discussion, I can probally agree. I haven't studied religions in general at all. For me I see it more a personal relationship with God though his son Jesus Christ and I don't care much for catholism, evangalism and the other side roots religious christianity took. And maybe as a side note, I also didn't have had the time the last 3 years, since my desicsion in my faith, to really dig deeper into the religious parts.
We both should be proud of the fact, that this is probally a pretty unique religiously tainted thread that didn't end up being a "Fuck you -> Now Fuck you -> Yes fuck you too" discussion.
I'm just curious James, if a religious band (christian, juddaism, islam, baha'i etc.etc.) contacts you to work with them, would you do it?
Or does that all depend on the music of the band, and if you dig it enough?
He´d sell his soul to the devil
Uh...I mean god. Forget it, just jokin´!I´d do it and in the endmix I would add satanic messages secretly
STINNETT
Bad / Nationwide
Being anti-religious isn't a lifestyle you chose because it suits you. It's not an alternative to being religious. It's a point of view that is all but inevitable once one has become adequately informed on the subject.
I became anti-religious out of an honest effort, as a much younger man, to become more devoutly religious and more in tune with my faith. I couldn't be the best possible Christian without total understanding of my faith, right?
The sad fact is that it does not stand up to scrutiny of even the most casual nature, let alone that of a deeply inquisitive and demanding intellect.
You mentioned that you have taken no steps to have a deeper understanding of what your faith is based on. Perhaps if you had, we would not be having such a discussion.
Being anti-religious isn't a lifestyle you chose because it suits you. It's not an alternative to being religious. It's a point of view that is all but inevitable once one has become adequately informed on the subject.
I became anti-religious out of an honest effort, as a much younger man, to become more devoutly religious and more in tune with my faith. I couldn't be the best possible Christian without total understanding of my faith, right?
The sad fact is that it does not stand up to scrutiny of even the most casual nature, let alone that of a deeply inquisitive and demanding intellect.
You mentioned that you have taken no steps to have a deeper understanding of what your faith is based on. Perhaps if you had, we would not be having such a discussion.
Man, well spoken! The only thing I can do, is to agree fervently
Apsu
I'm not yelling!
I have to take issue with the philosophical position you're implying and supporting, here. For one thing, it's ultimately antithetical to science in particular and empirical reasoning in general.
First there's the implicit premise presented as a package deal that "of course" you respect all beliefs as long as the bearer(s) of such beliefs respect yours. The major problem with this position is that it's completely untenable in general and probably only applies vaguely to a few specific people you had in mind when you wrote/thought it such as, perhaps, your grandmother. For example, your caveat of "if they respect mine" assumes that respect is a form of tolerance; of acceptance. A "so long as it doesn't harm me" approach. But would you say that you respect the beliefs that lead your neighbor to abduct and slaughter innocent people unrelated to you in their home, so long as their activity didn't interfere with your life? Or would you (as I assume the case to be) find the very idea abhorrent and disturbing, and by no means worthy of tolerance, acceptance or any level of respect? There's a lot more that can be said about the proper, rational, empirical basis of respect and why beliefs are just as (if not more) important as behavior when you coexist with others in a society, but for now the above point will suffice as it dovetails nicely to the next section:
Although what you're saying (and feeling, obviously) here seems reasonable and positive on the surface, there's honestly a subtly insidious premise involved which plays out in some fairly major ways; I'll see if I can elucidate it concisely.
The viewpoint you're espousing here is known as pragmatism -- ethical pragmatism, to be specific -- which is the idea that if something "works" then it is morally "good". The problem is in the definition of what it means for something to "work". Ultimately, pragmatism reduces to an "ends justify the means" approach because pragmatism offers no other guidance to reasoning or action besides succeeding at one's intended narrow, short-term goal, without regards to potential consequences or long-term drawbacks. Which invariably leads the rationally-minded person to realize long-term reasoning and planning is vastly superior, based on their knowledge of how reality actually works and that it cannot, in fact, be cheated (science). Given *this* premise, it readily follows that the act of lying poses a particular problem for the rational person who has as their goal maximizing their long-term happiness: namely that if "what works" -- where 'works' is a short emotional response -- isn't based on reality, then at *best* it will provide small doses of hollow comfort, paling in comparison to a truly rational integration of knowledge and experience with the facts of reality.
It's convenient and tempting to use the anecdotal evidence of the emotions of people close to us, particularly when attempting to build our own guides to thinking and living, but just because the pencil looks bent in the glass of water doesn't mean it really is bent -- the rational person will take a closer look. That's what science is. What it *must* be. I suggest you climb a little higher and take a closer look at what justification you have for this implicit pragmatism you're espousing; see if it's really 'straight' or if it just appears that way on the surface.
Jevil
Pro Evolution Fucker
Similar threads
