#81
[account deactivated]
#82
[account deactivated]
#83
Goldgelbes Löwenäffchen
Post rating: ~

tpaine posted:

mudvayne. SHAUUUNNN!!!


http://www.reocities.com/hollywood/prop/2867/mud.html

#84
Goldgelbes Löwenäffchen
Post rating: ~
#85
Post rating: ~

aerdil posted:

theres just something aesthetically awful and cheesy about bands like mudvayne


wow look at this bay area newb not understanding the angst of trashy midwesterners like me. you've lost at communism

#86
corey "of "fail aids" fame"
Post rating: +

aerdil posted:

theres just something aesthetically awful and cheesy about bands like mudvayne


LOL yeah. if i could just put my finger on it........

#87
Unapologetic Opponent of Rape
Post rating: ~

babyfinland posted:

your highness goatstein would u rather live in a christian (evangelical) theocracy a la rick perry or islamist shari'a a la islamic-republican iran

Protestantism is fundamentally incompatible with theocracy so this isn't really a logical question?

#88
Post rating: ~
hey tpaine is that Ry-Know, Chüd, or Gurgg?
#89
[account deactivated]
#90
Kurdt
Post rating: +
the one holy catholic and apostolic church is stalin whereas protestants are trotsky. mormons are bob avakian
#91
YUNG JIRO AKA SHOWA STUNNA AKA
Post rating: ~

GoldenLionTamarin posted:

#92
Goldgelbes Löwenäffchen
Post rating: ~
#93
Unapologetic Opponent of Rape
Post rating: ~

discipline posted:

Cycloneboy posted:

Protestantism is fundamentally incompatible with theocracy so this isn't really a logical question?

what's a Puritan precious

A heretical sect of Anglicans.

#94
meet me in st louis
Post rating: ~
#95
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: ~

babyfinland posted:

the present construction of the self is fundamentally a product of monotheistic ontology, so holding an atheist position is generally incoherent, and at best a silly placeholder for some future ontological reconfiguration. "belief" is so basic to the constitution of the self that it makes no sense to really debate it, questioning this belief is little more than a thought experiment or a pedantic vanity.

if i were a better catholic i'd know the exact name for whatever heresy this is.

#96
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating: ~

getfiscal posted:

babyfinland posted:

the present construction of the self is fundamentally a product of monotheistic ontology, so holding an atheist position is generally incoherent, and at best a silly placeholder for some future ontological reconfiguration. "belief" is so basic to the constitution of the self that it makes no sense to really debate it, questioning this belief is little more than a thought experiment or a pedantic vanity.

if i were a better catholic i'd know the exact name for whatever heresy this is.



its the Horus Heresy

#97
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~

getfiscal posted:

babyfinland posted:

the present construction of the self is fundamentally a product of monotheistic ontology, so holding an atheist position is generally incoherent, and at best a silly placeholder for some future ontological reconfiguration. "belief" is so basic to the constitution of the self that it makes no sense to really debate it, questioning this belief is little more than a thought experiment or a pedantic vanity.

if i were a better catholic i'd know the exact name for whatever heresy this is.



its lacan

#98
Post rating: ~
cause you see, people didn't realize that they were people before they were infected with god aids.
#99
Post rating: +

babyfinland posted:

getfiscal posted:

babyfinland posted:

the present construction of the self is fundamentally a product of monotheistic ontology, so holding an atheist position is generally incoherent, and at best a silly placeholder for some future ontological reconfiguration. "belief" is so basic to the constitution of the self that it makes no sense to really debate it, questioning this belief is little more than a thought experiment or a pedantic vanity.

if i were a better catholic i'd know the exact name for whatever heresy this is.

its lacan



*suddenly hisses and becames a snake*
In psychoanalysis the patient looks at a third point instead of the therapists face. This is because the human face is hateful and unbearable to us.
*slithers away into mud.... but u know this isn't the last time...*

#100
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: +
yes i think it is the heresy of gnosticism. that is, it suggests that the proof of god is our knowledge of him through personal experience / knowledge, which is itself a sort of pantheism. or, rather, that the big Other is so intrinsic to our experience that it is a form of theism. catholics oppose this position because it implies a sort of god as subordinate to consciousness. that is, there is no real place for revelation or mystery, one simply is always faithful regardless of whether or not one is "actively" faithful. more importantly, such a god implies a lack of personality to god, because we believe in him due to ontological structure of ourselves and not because of a personal relationship with the creator.
#101
Post rating: +
to me god isn't like some guy with a big white beard on a throne... god could be, like, just the sunlight shining down through the leaves or a bird singing in the park...
#102
Kurdt
Post rating: +
god is a mediocre point guard drafted in the 2nd round by the washington wizards in 1997
#103
Post rating: ~
He also played with Kobe Bryant during a summer on an AAU team. Kobe learned the cross-over dribble move from Shammgod during this time.

uhh
#104
Nippon
Post rating: +

babyfinland posted:

the present construction of the self is fundamentally a product of monotheistic ontology, so holding an atheist position is generally incoherent, and at best a silly placeholder for some future ontological reconfiguration. "belief" is so basic to the constitution of the self that it makes no sense to really debate it, questioning this belief is little more than a thought experiment or a pedantic vanity.



ah yes, the Argument From Pomo Gibberish

#105
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating: ~

getfiscal posted:

yes i think it is the heresy of gnosticism. that is, it suggests that the proof of god is our knowledge of him through personal experience / knowledge, which is itself a sort of pantheism. or, rather, that the big Other is so intrinsic to our experience that it is a form of theism. catholics oppose this position because it implies a sort of god as subordinate to consciousness. that is, there is no real place for revelation or mystery, one simply is always faithful regardless of whether or not one is "actively" faithful. more importantly, such a god implies a lack of personality to god, because we believe in him due to ontological structure of ourselves and not because of a personal relationship with the creator.



the Roman church opposes gnosticism for the same reason any empire opposes the cultures it conquers, appropriates, and subverts. the fraudulent cannot stand side by side with the original without risking exposure

#106
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~

getfiscal posted:

yes i think it is the heresy of gnosticism. that is, it suggests that the proof of god is our knowledge of him through personal experience / knowledge, which is itself a sort of pantheism. or, rather, that the big Other is so intrinsic to our experience that it is a form of theism. catholics oppose this position because it implies a sort of god as subordinate to consciousness. that is, there is no real place for revelation or mystery, one simply is always faithful regardless of whether or not one is "actively" faithful. more importantly, such a god implies a lack of personality to god, because we believe in him due to ontological structure of ourselves and not because of a personal relationship with the creator.



yeah, i actually agree with those criticisms. you're flattening the question out by asserting that the big Other is God, which i don't think is lacan's position. with a more nuanced grasp of the question i think there is space for lacan without heresy. i mean, they did it with aristotle and plato both so.... anyways, the essential character of the self as a product of monotheism does not imply that this self has complete faith, or even any faith at all. it's just a comment on the poverty of atheism.

#107
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating: ~

babyfinland posted:

yeah, i actually agree with those criticisms. you're flattening the question out by asserting that the big Other is God, which i don't think is lacan's position. with a more nuanced grasp of the question i think there is space for lacan without heresy. i mean, they did it with aristotle and plato both so.... anyways, the essential character of the self as a product of monotheism does not imply that this self has complete faith, or even any faith at all. it's just a comment on the poverty of atheism.



poverty is a virtue in every historically authentic religion

#108
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~

Superabound posted:

getfiscal posted:

yes i think it is the heresy of gnosticism. that is, it suggests that the proof of god is our knowledge of him through personal experience / knowledge, which is itself a sort of pantheism. or, rather, that the big Other is so intrinsic to our experience that it is a form of theism. catholics oppose this position because it implies a sort of god as subordinate to consciousness. that is, there is no real place for revelation or mystery, one simply is always faithful regardless of whether or not one is "actively" faithful. more importantly, such a god implies a lack of personality to god, because we believe in him due to ontological structure of ourselves and not because of a personal relationship with the creator.

the Roman church opposes gnosticism for the same reason any empire opposes the cultures it conquers, appropriates, and subverts. the fraudulent cannot stand side by side with the original without risking exposure



crusades against heresy are basically entirely political, the church didnt care that peasants had stupid ideas unless they were organizing political conspiracies.

#109
Post rating: ~
what's monotheism? what's the essential character of the self?
#110
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: +

Transient_Grace posted:

what's monotheism? what's the essential character of the self?



last time i posted an explanation of this i got 5 downvotes and i can't take that kind of abuse again

#111
Post rating: ~

babyfinland posted:

Superabound posted:
getfiscal posted:
yes i think it is the heresy of gnosticism. that is, it suggests that the proof of god is our knowledge of him through personal experience / knowledge, which is itself a sort of pantheism. or, rather, that the big Other is so intrinsic to our experience that it is a form of theism. catholics oppose this position because it implies a sort of god as subordinate to consciousness. that is, there is no real place for revelation or mystery, one simply is always faithful regardless of whether or not one is "actively" faithful. more importantly, such a god implies a lack of personality to god, because we believe in him due to ontological structure of ourselves and not because of a personal relationship with the creator.
the Roman church opposes gnosticism for the same reason any empire opposes the cultures it conquers, appropriates, and subverts. the fraudulent cannot stand side by side with the original without risking exposure


crusades against heresy are basically entirely political, the church didnt care that peasants had stupid ideas unless they were organizing political conspiracies. gnosticism is retarded



gnosticism is the predecessor of tahrif. a cheap cop out for people who insist upon believing that the scripture is the actual untempered word of god.

#112
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~
lol centuries of theological work undone but its only weakness, uneducated snap one-liners from unbelievers
#113
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating: ~

babyfinland posted:

crusades against heresy are basically entirely political, the church didnt care that peasants had stupid ideas unless they were organizing political conspiracies.



doesnt explain why they systematically wiped out the passive and politically disinterested Cathars. the Romans simply couldnt allow any vestige of the True Christ to exist on this Earth. their victory had to be utter and total, for the sake of the Empire

#114
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~

Superabound posted:

babyfinland posted:

crusades against heresy are basically entirely political, the church didnt care that peasants had stupid ideas unless they were organizing political conspiracies.

doesnt explain why they systematically wiped out the passive and politically disinterested Cathars. the Romans simply couldnt allow any vestige of the True Christ to exist on this Earth. their victory had to be utter and total, for the sake of the Empire



catharism was the dominant faith of the occitan aristocracy you noob

i just read three books about this dont even front

#115
Post rating: ~

babyfinland posted:

lol centuries of theological work undone but its only weakness, uneducated snap one-liners from unbelievers



My Infalliable Scripture

also lolling lolling at 'theological work'; just thinking at the grand questions the great theologicians of the various abrahamic sects have bothered themselves with, all those *great efforts* at uncovering the mysteries of both God and creation.

so how many angels will be carrying the throne of allah my friend?

#116
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating: ~

babyfinland posted:

catharism was the dominant faith of the occitan aristocracy you noob

i just read three books about this dont even front



which they came into of their own free will. Catharism wasnt militaristically evengelical, the clergy held no power over anything other than the message and the spirit. They did not force populaces into the official state religion as the Roman church did.

Catharism won in the open marketplace of ideas, not on the blood-drenched battlefields where the Catholic church excelled. And for this they had to be eradicated

The Romans realized that they had killed the Body of Christ but not the Spirit

#117
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: ~

babyfinland posted:

you're flattening the question out by asserting that the big Other is God, which i don't think is lacan's position.

lol dude you just claimed that atheism was unintelligible because the big Other was based on a monotheistic ontology

#118
Nippon
Post rating: ~
theologychat: i remember reading that there was some ridiculously specific number of angels, like 656,648,819. plus 1/3 the host rebelled. that means if we tried to topple heaven that's like 22 humans and one demon for every two angels, i like those odds
#119
Goldgelbes Löwenäffchen
Post rating: ~
God is real
#120
Post rating: +
Lord, we are sinners. We have failed you. The history of the church of Peter, made to follow you in your infinite kindness, is soaked in blood. It upheld brutal doctrines not in accordance with the holy words of Christ. Today, loyal Christians are devastated by clergymen who preyed on innocent children, and were insufficiently held to account by their bishops. Many people suffered at the hands of corrupt men claiming to represent you. We are not even slightly worthy of your love; and yet you love us anyway. You forgive us of our sin, in your eternal mercy. We pray that you will guide us at every moment to be closer to you. We pray that you will give us the strength to be your servants, that you will help us resist temptation to evil. We pray that our priesthood be righteous and dedicated to you. We pray that you will unite all Christians in the universal church, to follow your true wishes, to live with humility and love for one another. Amen.