November 22, 2005

• Jesus, being of an earlier generation, would find guns strange and confusing. he would feel far more comfortable with a sling. As a carpenter's son and undoubtedly trained in that endeavor, it is likely he would have been facile with an axe or adze, or the various knives, chisels and small cutting tools Here are some ancient carpenters tools (scroll down a bit). Less likely but possible would have been the Roman gladius, but keep in mind they were almost strictly a military weapon.
• Oh for fuck's sake.
• What does he say in the bible, again? "I bring not peace but a thirty-ought six"?
• What gun would Jesus pack? Matthew 21:2 When they drew near Jerusalem and came to Bethphage 2 on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, "Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find an ass tethered, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them here to me. Jesus would pack a Colt
• "Blessed are the peacemakers." "Turn the other cheek." "Love your enemy." Was I too vague?
• Yea, the Colt Peacemakers! You want to especially "turn the other cheek" to make sure you're aiming with the good eye. Love thine enemy with a BIG caliber.
• "...and you will know my name is the Lord, when I lay my vengeance upon thee!"
• Thou shalt lobbeth thine holy hand grenade and bloweth thine enemy, being naughty in thy site, to bit, in thine mercy.
• Using the Old Testament to overrule the New Testament is like using the original United States Constitution (including three-fifths compromise, et al)to overrule the Amendments (including the 14th, et al).
• No, they're probably right. Christians worship a god of hate.
• If hate = violence, then maybe you're right Nickdanger. Matthew 10:34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace but a sword."
• But, Alnedra, you have to have more of the quotation for it to make sense: Matthew 10:34-38 (NRSV): "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daugher-in-law against her mother-in-law, and one's foes will be members of one's own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of it." The sword is clearly a metaphor for breaking up families, and other normally united units: not literally a sword to kill people.
• As far as I know, I don't happen to worship a God of hate. But then, neither do I own firearms or vote Republican, so perhaps that makes me not a real Christian.
• I am going to be ill - religions profess a faith in god (God) interpretation is in the hands of man - how ugly it has become.Why oh why when it becomes interpretation do we find the constant reasoning and justification of 'metaphor - simile - euphemism" why should these things not be explained literally? As an interpretation of the sword I will go for the pen- at least it kills fewer people (sometimes)
• Thou shalt lobbeth thine holy hand grenade and bloweth thine enemy, being naughty in thy site, to bit, in thine mercy. thus endeth the rabbit with the nasty pointy teeth
• I wonder how one would define a "real" Christian nowadays. There are those who claim modern Christianity is not based truly on the teachings of Christ, but of Paul (Saul of Tarsus). To my mind, fundamentalists are no more Christians than flag-wrapping warmongers are patriots. But I still have to say that there are lots of things in the Bible which are frankly disturbing to me to read, as they seem to detract from the message of love, compassion and redemption that Christ has supposed to advocate.
• Didn't Chris Morris predict this in 97's Brass Eye episode with Priests packing guns?
• Well, I find Christian bashing refreshing. I appreciate the recent rash of it of late here on MoFi. It sharpens the senses, quickens the wit, to paraphrase Emerson. /sarcasm What most of you don't seem to get about Christianity is that is about warfare in one form or another. Following Christ isn't just lovey-dovey peace love and dope man \/, but is in fact a war against that which separates you from God. It has been quoted before, but I'll post it again: Matthew 10:34-38 (NRSV): "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daugher-in-law against her mother-in-law, and one's foes will be members of one's own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of it." That's not just figurative, metaphorical language. He frickin means what He says. Anyone who gets in the way of Christ is in the way of redemption, is in the way of salvation, is in the way of eternal life. Yes, Jesus loves everyone, yes God does not want any to perish, but all have eternal life. BUT that doesn't abdicate one's individual responsibility to CHRIST and to GOD. There's an alternative, and that's to follow yourself, your own desires. Every day is a war to win your soul. When you're a Christian, it is a constant battle. Also being a Christian is compared to walking on a narrow road, where but a few stay on the path. In other places, it's compared to being a warrior, where Christians are told to arm themselves with the armaments of battle, including the sword of the spirit and the shield of faith. Ephesians 6:11-17 Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. I don't believe you can separate Pauline doctrine from the doctrine of the Gospels. Even if you want to, you can't ignore Jesus' advocations for war, for trials and tribulations, for action in the face of great evil. He trashed the moneylenders' tables in the temple, and beat people with a crop. The Jesus of the Gospels is no more safe or peaceful than Paul is. And the sooner people get the idea that their version of Christianity isn't the one presented in the Bible, the better off they'll be. You don't have to like the teachings of the Bible. You can pick and choose which teachings you like and feel are 'okay' and which ones are 'messed up', but that's a pretty dishonest way of looking at it. It's a mistake to conflate the actions of God with hate and unrighteous acts of violence, just as it is a mistake to conflate the acts of some people who profess Christianity to God. But it happens all the time, I see it here (including in this thread) a lot, and it was kind of getting to me. Okay, preaching time is over...
• If I were God, I would think it pretty unreasonable to expect people to consider a group of books written 2000 or so years ago to be the word of God. Furthermore, this collection is based upon the vote of a group of men who did not personally know any of the authors of the books. I would wonder why they should think certain books to be the word of God when compared to all other books written before, during, or after the writing of these sacred books. How in the world could I expect people to know which old books they are to worship and which ones they are not to worship?
• What gun would Jesus pack? A water pistol, to facilitate middle-distance baptisms?
• If I were God No offense, but that's your first mistake. It's as foolish as me saying "If I were bernockle, I'd have converted to Christianity by now." So, I have a hard time consider the rest of your post to be a serious undertaking. Nevertheless, let's examine it. I would think it pretty unreasonable to expect people to consider a group of books written 2000 or so years ago to be the word of God. I admit to an "error" of faith on this portion. God is not something that can be verified, so this is a matter of trust. Furthermore, this collection is based upon the vote of a group of men who did not personally know any of the authors of the books. This is a bollocks argument, for the same reason authors like Mellville, Poe, and Hawthorne can be voted into the Norton Anthology. I would wonder why they should think certain books to be the word of God when compared to all other books written before, during, or after the writing of these sacred books. II Timothy 3:16 Also this How in the world could I expect people to know which old books they are to worship and which ones they are not to worship? Your assumptions are all wrong. It is not a book we worship. This is why you fail.
• I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but doesn't the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God actually emphasize that it's supposed to be no more than a metaphore, not to be taken too literally?
• This is why you fail. Fail in what, f8x? This is a bollocks argument, for the same reason authors like Mellville, Poe, and Hawthorne can be voted into the Norton Anthology. Not really. The Norton Anthology is a collection of works of fiction. Moreover, while opinion may be overwhelmingly in favour of such authors being good enough to be included, anyone can legitimately claim that they do not like Melville, Poe or Hawthorne. That's simply a matter of opinion. I just may not like Dead White Male Authors. The Bible is claimed as the Word of God, and for some the literal Word of God. That it is true cannot be disputed by Christians. The Bible is a whole set of separate documents written over a long period of time, by different people, and translated over the last two thousand years and more several times. Can it be reasonably expected that it is entirely uncorrupted in meaning and context? If the Word of God is such a sacred text, why are then there so many denominations of Christianity? Everyone reads the same Book, whose interpretation of it is right? The Lutherans? The Methodists? The Roman Catholics? Sun Myung Moon? Just to note, I'm not bashing Christianity. I was brought up in Catholic schools and have many Christian friends, and I do admire them for their faith and good works in the church. But I think Christianity is being hijacked for political purposes in the States, and that many people don't seem to have a clear idea of what being a Christian actually means nowadays. Sometimes I wonder if some people think that being a Christian gives them laissez-faire to deride, revile and hate those who are different from them.
• Fail in what, f8x? Sorry, Yoda humour. Probably misplaced. Don't read too much into that. I just may not like Dead White Male Authors. That wasn't bernockle's argument, if I'm reading him right. The Bible is a whole set of separate documents written over a long period of time, by different people, and translated over the last two thousand years and more several times. Can it be reasonably expected that it is entirely uncorrupted in meaning and context? See link I provided. It attempts to answer this query. If the Word of God is such a sacred text, why are then there so many denominations of Christianity? Everyone reads the same Book, whose interpretation of it is right? The Lutherans? The Methodists? The Roman Catholics? Sun Myung Moon? I agree, it's a thorny issue. But I'm not sure you can make it the basis for disbelieving in Christ. Remember, sectarianism does not necessarily imply that the text is flawed, merely disputed as to some meanings and interpretations. In general, even different denominations agree on the basic principles. For instance, I doubt any one of those named sects/denominations would argue against the two central tenets of Christianity. Beyond that, you begin to quibble over smaller issues that sometimes get inflated due to the excesses of mankind. Again, this should not be cause for disbelief (though clearly it has caused some to do just that, which is not to the Church's credit). I think Christianity is being hijacked for political purposes in the States I think that's a pretty ambiguous and unfounded idea. Today's evangelicals are far less political than assumed by the media and secular observers. Even those strongly opposed to same-sex marriage or smut on TV aren't often activists against those causes, so much as serial whiners about "the culture." When you say hijacked, I say show me the boxcutters that are being used to do it! many people don't seem to have a clear idea of what being a Christian actually means nowadays BINGO! You've certainly hit jackpot there. It's true. Misrepresentation of Christ is probably the single most damaging thing Christians (or so-called) have done in today's culture. Instead of embracing secular society, Christians shun, denounce, deride, and exclude. Instead of loving, Christians hate. And I'm not talking righteous, just opposition to that which is sinful. I'm talking Pat Robertson pride that is wilfully hateful and ignorant and deceptive. I hate that Christians misprepresent Christ and so turn away many who might otherwise love the message of the Gospel. So you and I are on the same pulse there, Alnedra.
• My giant invisible space monkey can beat up your giant invisible space monkey.
• When you say hijacked, I say show me the boxcutters that are being used to do it! I am thinking of how verses are cherry-picked to indicate how certain things are taboo "in the eyes of God", such as quoting Leviticus to state that homosexuality is "an abomination" - but then, following Leviticus, so's eating shellfish! However, given the political stances you and I have, my other reasons for having misgivings on the rise of evangelical Christianity in the American government will not likely be regarded as valid by you.
• I am thinking of how verses are cherry-picked to indicate how certain things are taboo "in the eyes of God", such as quoting Leviticus to state that homosexuality is "an abomination" - but then, following Leviticus, so's eating shellfish! The irony of this is as delicious as a skewered shrimp! You just did the exact same thing you accuse Christians of doing--you picked a verse out of context and then used it to "prove" how ridiculous it is. And to top it off, it's not even an accurate comparison! Pardon me for not falling for this well-cooked canard.
• you picked a verse out of context.... I don't see how I have picked the verse out of context. I used the verse to show how others have quoted it out of context. How is it not an accurate comparison?
• I for one am glad that f8xmulder now has his very own thread to play around in.
• Why bother arguing with someone whose sacred duty is to never even consider that they may be wrong? I can understand actual direct, trust in god, but to blindly trust people who claim to speak on his behalf defies common sense and just smacks of being (like political beliefs) something we believe because our parents did. Faith in that situation becomes the device to keep you from ever having to turn that sword on dear old dad or mom when everything you've been brought up to take for granted suddenly starts to sound pretty rediculous. A mind in that state is just holding on to dear life to presupposed conclusions.
• > What gun would Jesus pack? i reckon he'd buy local
• Of course the role of the Bible in Christianity has changed radically down the years. In the day before Wycliff it was available only in dead scholarly languages that not even all of the few literate could read, let alone the oi polloi. This was a good thing, and kept the bulk of the flock in line, despite the odd outburst of Arminianism and the like. The busybody Protestants, rejecting our Holy Mother the Church, seemed to feel they had a divine right to subject Scripture to their various tiresome interpretations and disputations unhindered by the guidance of one of God's anointed, leading us finally to the horroshow that is contemporary evangelical 'Christianity'. Oh for a latter-day Brother Torquemada to silence these prideful sinners.
• I've joined a new church recently, the Iscariotians. We have faith that Judas the tax collector was the REAL messiah, and thus advocate a high-tax fiscal environment, informing on your friends, and the silver standard for currency. Just like Judas, we firmly believe in death and taxes! Oh, you're all like "blah blah blah heretic burn you at the stake". But need I remind you that - were it not for the actions of a certain treacherous disciple, damned for all eternity - Jesus would never have had the opportunity to be crucified and rise again? Truly I say unto thee, greater love hath no man than to give up eternal life for his "friends".
• quidnunc, I believe it's my sacred duty to shoot you and your entire heathen horde of Iscariotians. You're standing between me and my god. It's like when I'm at the mall, and there's somebody totally blocking my way to that display of really cute shoes.
• HA - too late! We're all committing suicide in imitation of our Lord! YOU SNOOZE, YOU FUCKING LOSE!
• I grew up Catholic. I attended a Catholic high school. I went to college at the College of the Holy Cross and St. Bonaventure University. I received my BA in Theology. Ironically, it was my theology work that made me begin to question things. I quickly realized that the nunber one reason I was Catholic -- and the number one reason that anyone has whatever faith they had -- was because my parents taught me to believe in Catholicism. I thought how arbitrary that was. I would have likely believed in Islam or Judaism or any other faith had my parents taught me to. That did not seem like a good reason to believe in all of the Catholic and Christian teachings. But it did not mean that those teachings were wrong, too. In my theology courses I learned a lot about sacred texts in all religions. I learned how the Old Testament was written by many authors -- most unknown -- over a great amount of time. I learned that many of these books contained stories that were taken from other non-biblical religious texts. I learned that early Catholic Church -- which was largely responsible for the selection and official stamp on the books of the New Testament -- went through periods of tremendous corruption. I had a professor explain that the four Gospels were chosen for marketing reasons more than anything else (one to appeal to the Jews, one to appeal to the Romans, etc.) and that Gospels which taught that God is inside of you (a bit of an Eastern influence) discouraged church attendance and the accompanying tithes so they were eliminated. I did not wake up one morning and decide that Christianity was a hoax. I examined my beliefs and the basis for them over time. More and more it seemed to me that it was unlikely that magic books were written years ago by unknown authors, brought together by a potentially corrupt organization, and chosen for reasons other than authenticity or holiness. More and more it seemed unlikely to me that I was among the minority of people who was lucky enough to believe in all of the things about God and religion that were true. Does it mean that the Bible is not the Word of God? Of course not. Maybe it is. But maybe any religious text is. Maybe any book is. How would I know? Would I know because of the inner strong feelings I have about God's presence in my life? Everyone has those feelings in every religion. I want very much to believe in some sort of God. So I look for some sort of proof in my daily life. Sometimes I think I experience or see things that suggest there is a God. I treasure those moments. But a collection of books that generataions of people have taught their children is holier than other books is no longer satisfactory proof to me that there is a God.
• Well that's very interesting but I'm afraid you are still going to hell, sin-bitch.
• I'll see you down there.
• bernockle, that was extremely well put. It's like what I would have written if I was able to string three coherent sentences together and what I've always believed. God is more present in small ways in my everyday life than in a book that was written by fallible humans. And quidnunc, how dare you and your heathen horde stand between me and my god by committing suicide, which is against our beliefs? We'll shoot your corpses with our Holy Glocks of Faith on principle!
• That's not just figurative, metaphorical language. Actually, that's exactly what it is, both figurative and metaphorical. There's no evidence in the New Testament that Jesus ever carried a sword, so: figurative and metaphorical. The rest of the passage can easily be read as a metaphor for the conflict a convert should expect in personal relationships, powered by a 'reformist' and controversial ideology. It's the same pattern shown by cult recruiters today. "Your family will tell you that you're wrong. Your friends will tell you that you're wrong. Stay true to the message that you can only reach heaven by contributing to the purchase of another yacht for L. Ron Hubbard. Blessed be his name." Of course, the Bible is filled with fascinating contradictions, the biggest of which would have to be that the Old and New Testaments describe completely different gods. One is the god of a largely nomadic people: harsh, unforgiving, menacing, arbitrary. The other is the god of a people who have become urbanized to the point where not only can a priest class be supported, but religious mystics can survive as well. Where the OT's god liked to get his genocide on, the much more sophisticated conceptualization of god in the NT only requires one man to die for the sins of all humanity. It's also difficult to imagine the god of the NT making the sort of wager with Lucifer that the god of the OT does, which results not only in the persecution of Job, but also in the casual deaths of a number of others (hey, they're only servants), just to prove a point (eg Job 1:13-15 "The oxen were plowing and the donkeys were grazing nearby, and the Sabeans attacked and carried them off. They put the servants to the sword, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!").
• Intersting conversation. I look forward to checking in later when you've reached unanimous consensus.
• I look forward to checking in later when you've reached unanimous consensus. I reached unanimous consensus on this topic at about the age of 14. I have, however, experienced some technical difficulties in getting anyone else to agree in the years since.
• when you've reached unanimous consensus. It'll happen one day, I'm sure...
• Not to unnecessarily stir the pot, but the reasons I do not any longer believe in the Bible, let alone subscribe to the notions of it being god-breathed, infallible, and/or inerrant, include such issues as the polytheism of the old testament (most specifically in the pentateuch), the dubious provenance of many of Paul's letters (with the attendant theological variations and conflicts), and the proof-by-assertion belief of the need for blood sacrifice. And don't get me started on Revelations, the strongest case of all that the canon is deeply and irredeemably flawed. Just ask Martin Luther.
• f8x - I love you for your patience with those of us who haven't/can't make that leap of faith that seems to sustain you so well. I, like some others I can think of, love "spirituality" even if we don't agree with the specifics of your faith. We sometimes like to argue the nits, and, in our need to be "right" can irk an internet friend that we wouldn't tackle IRL. But, if you think about it (and I'd guess you do) that sort of "right" is completely internal, in spite of the polemics you see here. I also love you because you brought bernockle from a drive-by comment to an explanation of why he believes what he believes. In spite of those of us who don't agree with your beliefs, you do spark good conversation. And, I love berkockle for dealing with the issues. (Though, I'm not sure I want to get too close to him - I'm cynical enough without being infected with the "just the facts" take on life that he seems to espouse.) And, for the rest of you, yes I am an unashamed hippie.
• If God existed, and he really wanted you to do something, you would find it written in pillars of diamond (or some such) in every language that has been or ever will be written, on every continent. A structure that could not be forged by any technology that was known or would ever be known to man. "God wants his followers to carry a weapon that meets the following specifications...". That is if he didn't use his omnipotence to simply engrain the knowledge of his will into your very being "this is the way I want it, and if you will keep faith with me you will do things THIS WAY." And if he's not going to tell you what he wants, and you will be left to guess after millenia have diluted his teaching through a grand game of telephone, then what is the point of telling you anything at all. Clearly the truth can be arrived at without help from him, or he doesn't care if you have access to the truth or not. But only a very few people really believe in God anyway. If most people who claim to actually did, they certainly wouldn't live the way they do. And that people do not act the way they would if they truly thought there was an omnipotent being that would judge them by their actions, is the biggest proof that most religions are sham social organizations centered around the big lie. Pat Robertson is just a bigger liar and socialite than most. The whole idea that some weapons are more suited to God's followers than others is just gilding the lily.
• I asked a friend how I could possibly try to show everyone what I see so clearly in my head and heart. He didn't know the answer. And there may not be one. Maybe it's something that comes to you, like in a dream that you wake up to, not quite remembering the exact nature of it, but feeling impulses of it, vague tendrils that drift and curl. Maybe it's an act of God upon an individual. Light by itself cannot be seen if the source is hidden or there is nothing to reflect it. That's how I view the Truth, and I just wait for that something to appear, to be illuminated. It is frustrating, though, feeling helpless like I do. I'm sorry I can't explain things better.
• Good discussion, but I'm still distracted by f8x's "well cooked canard." Isn't that a duck casserole or something?
• Mord, you haven't considered God's subtlety. He or she or they did express what he/she/they wanted us to know thousand of years ago. Often, spoken at first, later written down. Many of them say "here's what I really want you to do." in different metaphores, but there are some similarities that you can string together. I tend to think that "God" is man's realization that certain behaviors, moralities, ethics, make life more fruitful, and believing that there's at least one supreme being out there gives people a reason to come up to those standards. The "supreme being" thing for me is pretty much a way to help people act toward others as they wish others would act toward them. But "very few people really believe in God?" Maybe on the internet, but, at least in the US, the majority believe in some god that they've defined in a way that allows them to follow the morals they think are right. Kindness gets lost in many of those beliefs. I'd guess that you have a view of "god" that they don't recognize, but is your "god" any more authoriiative than yours - I really think you have one, you just don't call it GOD. The thing is that your beliefs, my beliefs, their beliefs are subject to arguement, but the focus of any of them, in my opinion, is to get away from the personal perspective and go on to what makes it best for humanity. Centering on your own thing ignores the fact (for want of a better word) that we do have to deal with the rest of the world. And, that their beliefs have as much authority as yours and mine do.
• f8x - you're not helpless, at least as far as I can see. Your faith is wonderful, even though I don't share it. Your description is very poetic, and echos in my mind in connection to my journey to find the right thing for me. So, we share a journey, if not a destination.
• I asked a friend how I could possibly try to show everyone what I see so clearly in my head and heart. F8x, don't take this the wrong way, as I do believe in a divinity myself, just not the God of the Bible. However, the same feeling you have, that same absolute faith, is also what drives some people to murder and torture others. Not talking about fundamentalists here, but people who honestly believe that God has told them to do horrific things in His name. They too see clearly in their heart and mind what they think is God's will - and they believe in it with absolute faith. So even if you could somehow show everyone what you see in your heart and mind, that absolute conviction would probably still be met with skepticism.
• Redefining God to wrap the word around an idea that is at odds with the mainstream understanding of God as patriarchal religious entity doesn't suddenly make it truth. There is no need to bring a nebulous, subtle God into my life and I have no desire to. If God wants to reveal himself to me, to make himself understood, if he exists, he is evidently capable of doing so. I have no compelling need to understand him if he's too subtle to explain himself in such a way as can't be misinterpreted.
• And when I said very few people believe in God, I'm talking about believing in the reality of God as in the reality of a $20 bill or a cliff you are about to fall off of. If God is real, than he has to be taken seriously, life-alteringly, goal-adjustingly seriously. How many people do you know who have taken vows of poverty because it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man enter heaven?
• I agree with both f8x and Mord. I have tried to avoid the god question all my life, and it always circles back to me. I resist external man-made rules that constrict me. However, I have felt that there is an overwhelming power beyond me -- a simple beauty that transcends my mortality, and that I cannot influence but I can access. So, bottom line is that I reject the bothersome rituals of established religions. But what do I do with the sense that I must subsume myself to the entity (unknown) that I desperately want to connect to? That is what is required of us -- to place that faith above all else, and that is hard, in this time and this world. I can understand the resistance. but this is one of those duh things, and I figured out the canard comment: you were not calling the poster a duck! I had never heard it before; had to get an explanation
• Mord, you're kind of sayng the same thing that I did. It takes a leap of faith to adhere to a specific religion. If that leap of faith happens for you, you'll find that god has revealed himself. If it doesn't happen, well, you just have to keep on keeping on, trying to find your own spiritual level. I'm not trying to bring any god into your life, but you do seem to be thinking about these things with some seriousness. I'm sure that f8x believes that God is a cliff that he has faced - maybe falling off of it is what gives him strength. And, I believe that we have other folks here who have dealt with the same cliff, and have adjusted their lives and their goals. I don't think that the camel/needle/rich guy/heaven is sensible, but that's just me. I do,however believe that doing the best thing you can in this life to be kind and to not hate, or do damage, and that should please any god that might exist, if there are any. And, even if there is none, those qualities are important, so matter what your wealth.
• ...and thanks for the intelligent discussion. I have come in from the cold.
• ..... So what's the consensus? Is he packin' the deadly table-turnin' he-man stuff?
• I don't know, but Buddha says that the type of gun doesn't matter, and if I aim it at someone its also pointing at myself.
• There was that thing with the sonic weapons and the walls of Jericho.
• Oh, I'll leap up to my God: who pulls me down? See, see, where Christ's blood streams in the firmament. One drop would save my soul, half a drop. Ah, my Christ!
• Jesus loaded one bullet And spun that cylinder round He put it to his head A click was the only sound Then he smiled at me And slid that gun my way I suddenly decided It was a good day to learn to pray
• O Abiezer. One of my very, very favourite plays. Seeing it on this thread is a breath of outdoor air.
• Why is god brought into this? The gods are aware there must be wars untill there there is pecae in the world but the gods strictly speaking do not condone violence. Anyway I gotta get my license, I got a shot gun set aside for me, and theres some ducks that are in need of barbecue sauce. wuhoo.