0
0

[–] SarMegahhikkitha ago 

Because you're under control.

0
2

[–] antiracistMetal [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

By who and for why? Demons? To take me from God? Or secular Jews? To exploit me for money? Who is controlling me and how can I rid them? Prayer? Is prayer the only way? How can I rid them without prayer?

@chirogonemd @peaceseeker @bojangles @heygeorge

0
1

[–] PeaceSeeker 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Exorcism. So a priest's prayer. With holy objects and what not.

@chirogonemd

0
1

[–] PeaceSeeker 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

For the same reason that people throughout the world take the name of Jesus Christ in vain, but not Buddha, or Krishnu, or Allah (or at least no where near as commonly): because demons don't give a shit if you say "Oh my Krishnu" in vain, because doing so does not jeopardize your soul. Likewise, the fallen intelligences / separate substances / angels whisper in the ears of skeptics to raise every objection they can against the true faith, but put forth no such effort with respect to the other faiths - because there is no point.

If you want an answer that you'll actually believe: It is the same as the reason why Christ performed no miracles in Nazareth - there was no faith there precisely because everyone knew Him from the time He was a child. They were too used to Him to take Him seriously. Likewise, in the West, people are accustomed to Christianity from birth; its influences are everywhere. When they think of nonsensical theism, they think of Christianity. But yoga? Buddhist meditation? Muslim calls to prayer? That stuff is foreign, and foreign stuff is automatically cool.

To speak honestly, I believe it is a combination of these two points that leads to the roadblocks in the way of skeptics such as yourself.

@chirogonemd

0
1

[–] chirogonemd 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

You're starting to sound like me now, Peace.

Warning, this will get you called a faggot.

@antiracistmetal

0
3

[–] antiracistMetal [S] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Faggot.

People have been saying "Krishna" all day long every day for thousands of years longer than anyone has even known Jesus Christ.

I picked "Catholicism" because it sounded particularly fairytaleish. I ask you to explain this, and you say demons are whispering in my ears. Oh, okay, using an additional fairytale to support the original fairytales. Don't you see how you build your house of cards constantly? You always add an additional ontological element to explain a problem with the previous one. Why does Christ seem so cartoony? Demons of course. Why do demons seem so cartoony, or do such and such, or have such and such absurdity? Why, the bleepblorps of course. That explains it. And why the bleepblorps? Look we can do this all day. Just trust in the God, angels, Jesus, existence of demons, and bleepblorps, and you'll go to Heaven.

Your idea that Christ won't perform miracles in Nazareth is fucking ridiculous. It doesn't matter how skeptical you are. You start raising bodies from the dead, and people are going to take you seriously.

Yoga is not ridiculous. Buddhist meditation is not ridiculous. Muslim calls to prayer are not ridiculous. Foreign stuff isn't automatically cool.

Yoga can be many things, but let's call it clearing the mind of its contents.

Buddhist meditation could be lots of things. There can be demons and spirits and reincarnation and karma, and lots of metaphysically absurd things. But it can also involve just staring at a colored disk. Just staring at a colored disc is not nonsensical.

Muslim calls to prayer might be some different things. But they believe in one true creator God, who supposedly is the same as the God of Christianity and Judaism, unless you're a faggot like @SarMegahhikkitha and racists who think that Allah and God are different, even though they both are used to refer to a singular all-powerful creator God. It's only when Muslims start talking about their final prophet that absurdity enters, but that's no different than you guys yammering on about Jesus.

Demons are working overtime to keep me from Advaita. Catholicism pushes me away with its cartoonishness. It's not a matter of foreignness being cool. I am evaluating the ideas of cultures.

The cultural idea that I am identical to God is more attractive to me in a "copernican principle" sort of way, more so than the idea that God would have to incarnate himself to bridge the Is/Ought divide. Sure, I get that there's an Is/Ought gap, and that God is what Is, and the world Is what Ought, and so by God coming into the world, the Is/Ought gap can be bridged. Fine. I get it. There is a certain coherence there. It makes sense. I could object. I could fight it. But it's reasonable enough. It's philosophical. It's not cartoonish like Jesus flying around and teleporting.

But there's still the copernican principle consideration. If I am God, and you are God, and he is God, and everyone is God, that goes well, a lot better, with Ontological Monism, than a system which has a triune Godhead where I am distinct from the Christ. This is not an Ontological Monism. Being at least a dualism, monism is more attractive to me ontologically because of aesthetic and parsimony considerations.

Faggot.

Drinking blood in the form of wine is CONTINGENT. Praying to the one true God is NECESSARY. Believing God had a son 2000 years ago is CONTINGENT. Believing there is the one true God is NECESSARY. Believing the Godhead is triune is CONTINGENT. Believing that God is wholly one and in no way three is NECESSARY. The Islamic God makes a lot more fucking sense than your cartoonish flying teleporting wine-blooded God.

@sarmegahhikkitha @bojangles @chirogonemd @heygeorge

0
1

[–] PeaceSeeker 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Your idea that Christ won't perform miracles in Nazareth is fucking ridiculous. It doesn't matter how skeptical you are. You start raising bodies from the dead, and people are going to take you seriously.

It's explicitly mentioned in the Bible in order to emphasize the importance of faith.

53 When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there. 54 Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. 55 “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at him.

But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town and in his own home.”

58 And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith. (Matthew 13:53-58)

It's not cartoonish like Jesus flying around and teleporting.

You're (if I may say so) overly analytic mind deprives you of the ability to appreciate the essence of man's nature, which is corporeal as well as spiritual, thus justifying the existence of what might seem to you merely cartoonish simply because they are so blatantly corporeal / visible. There are very good reasons that this physical manifestation and visible miracles should play a part in the whole story.

God didn't send His son to do miracles for the angels, or become Incarnate so He could sacrifice His body for the angels, because the angels lack bodies and senses of that sort to begin with. They are pure intellects. Plus, because of an angel's nature, by sinning they were immediately condemned once and forever, whereas man has at least some time to make mistakes and repent insofar as his corporeal life continues.

Drinking blood in the form of wine is CONTINGENT. Praying to the one true God is NECESSARY. Believing God had a son 2000 years ago is CONTINGENT. Believing there is the one true God is NECESSARY. Believing the Godhead is triune is CONTINGENT. Believing that God is wholly one and in no way three is NECESSARY.

The Eucharist isn't technically necessary for salvation, although the grace it dispenses is incomparable, so this first sentence isn't that outrageous. The others are. They really amount to the same thing: the Trinity - that God has a Son, and also the Holy Spirit. This does not violate the simplicity of God so He remains one. It is precisely the Trinity that helped reconcile the Aristotelian conception of God as a merely final cause, never interacting with the world nor having any reason to. The Trinity does not separate the oneness of God, but explains how He can be both the final cause and the efficient cause of all creation; that He can have an Image of Himself which He Loves and uses for conveying His Word to creation.

@chirogonemd