LogFAQs > #901399139

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, Database 3 ( 02.21.2018-07.23.2018 ), DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Mans beats the **** out of pranksters as 'harmless prank' goes horribly wrong.
ImTheMacheteGuy 05/15/18 5:35:09 PM #221:	fuzzylittlbunny posted... ImTheMacheteGuy posted... fuzzylittlbunny posted... I know, right? I suppose I?m like that Mormon kid in South Park. He acknowledges that he believes in ridiculous things but I?m okay with it because it made me into a better person by going with the teaching of being nice to others. Do you actually legitimately believe the ridiculous things or do you just accept them as they are part of your religion, whether by choice/loyalty to said religion or by a sense of obligation to said religion? This is where things get a bit odd for me. While I believe that Jesus was the son of God who was sent to die for mankind?s sins, I find it hard to believe that someone could multiply food, walk on water, or rise from the dead, which is pretty hypocritical considering that the offspring of an omnipotent being should probably be able to pull off any magic trick in the book, right? So I guess I believe less in what he did (besides, of course the most important thing of dying on the cross) as much as his teachings. But in regards to believing in said acts, it?s more out of obligation. That seems moderately reasonable. While I don't disagree with much of his teachings, on a basic level I write them off as common sense. I'm not going to view a character as some prophet or messiah just because they preach don't be an asshole to other :P. As for the dude himself, I don't see him as a historical figure but a sort of amalgamation of ideals, a mythological archetype if you will, along the same lines as Hercules or Gilgamesh or someone like that. His "miracles" and stuff, to me, are sort of fables that have been made larger than life but probably have some basis in reality but as much more... well... realistic acts and performed by different people, just collectively attributed to one person for the sake of the table. So essentially, things like water to wine, curing blind people etc. are probably metaphorical. Personally, I would never be willing to believe anything simply due to a sense of obligation. As a concept that is very off-putting. I'm stubborn as fuck though and also pretty distrusting, as well as individualistic. Any belief system I may have is pretty much guaranteed to oriented on my own perception and experiences, rather than the other way around. That's not to say there has never been anyone or anything that has influenced me. It's just that my own perception is precursory to influence, so outside influences that I take on board involve that which would already make sense to me prior to whatever knowledge, revelation or experience sparked the influence. --- Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/ <cite>ImTheMacheteGuy posted [p:901399139] in Mans beats... [t:76586157]...</cite> <quote><cite>fuzzylittlbunny posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ImTheMacheteGuy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>fuzzylittlbunny posted...</cite> <quote>I know, right? I suppose I?m like that Mormon kid in South Park. He acknowledges that he believes in ridiculous things but I?m okay with it because it made me into a better person by going with the teaching of being nice to others.</quote> Do you actually legitimately believe the ridiculous things or do you just accept them as they are part of your religion, whether by choice/loyalty to said religion or by a sense of obligation to said religion?</quote> This is where things get a bit odd for me. While I believe that Jesus was the son of God who was sent to die for mankind?s sins, I find it hard to believe that someone could multiply food, walk on water, or rise from the dead, which is pretty hypocritical considering that the offspring of an omnipotent being should probably be able to pull off any magic trick in the book, right? So I guess I believe less in what he did (besides, of course the most important thing of dying on the cross) as much as his teachings. But in regards to believing in said acts, it?s more out of obligation.</quote> That seems moderately reasonable. While I don't disagree with much of his teachings, on a basic level I write them off as common sense. I'm not going to view a character as some prophet or messiah just because they preach don't be an asshole to other :P. As for the dude himself, I don't see him as a historical figure but a sort of amalgamation of ideals, a mythological archetype if you will, along the same lines as Hercules or Gilgamesh or someone like that. His "miracles" and stuff, to me, are sort of fables that have been made larger than life but probably have some basis in reality but as much more... well... realistic acts and performed by different people, just collectively attributed to one person for the sake of the table. So essentially, things like water to wine, curing blind people etc. are probably metaphorical. Personally, I would never be willing to believe anything simply due to a sense of obligation. As a concept that is very off-putting. I'm stubborn as fuck though and also pretty distrusting, as well as individualistic. Any belief system I may have is pretty much guaranteed to oriented on my own perception and experiences, rather than the other way around. That's not to say there has never been anyone or anything that has influenced me. It's just that my own perception is precursory to influence, so outside influences that I take on board involve that which would already make sense to me prior to whatever knowledge, revelation or experience sparked the influence. --- Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1