I think we need to stop and agree upon one thing about christianity.

If everyone truly lived just like Christ did, would the world not be a better place?

The real spirit behind christianity is exactly that, become as much like Jesus as you possibly can. It has nothing to do with pomp and process, doctrine and dogma, it has to do with living your life as holy as you possibly can.

If everyone could see what christianity should be, and the true will behind it; then all of this stupid banter that goes on would stop.

Instead of, "Christians are asshole oppressors"; we would fairly say, "The Catholic institution of the medieval era were asshole oppressors".

Just something I wanted to get off my chest.

Reducto!

I think this is the first time I'm able to take an antagonist's role on all Totse'an discussions of Christianity.

I vehemently disagree.

The genuine worth of a man is ultimately tested by conflict and war. Man is by nature a warrior, and he could not express this innate existential desire if he is taught to graze alongside a race of domesticated, pacified sheep that the Nazarene would have humanity become.

Not to mention that the idea of a personalized God is the catalyst of cosmic quintessential dissolution against which all right-thinking men should revolt.

We disagree.

But I can't really argue against you because we just have basic differences in opinion that are just that, opinions.

Let's discuss, then. What is it in life that truly verifies a man's virility and sense of worth?

If someone says 'sex'...

"As long as humans have been building monuments, the designs have included this shape. It is pleasing to the human eye and for a good subconscious, if not conscious reason. The erect male penis is a symbol of male virility. It is an expression of strength and power the world over.

You see it everywhere if you look; the obelisk in Washington D.C., the Eiffel Tower in Paris, and in church steeples in nearly every town and village in the land.

They are upright pillars, and all symbols of an erect male penis." http://perdurabo10.tripod.com/id885.html

*LMAO*

I agree with you man. But the thing is, the same could be said for any pretty much any religion. Also, you could find an atheist that follows the the ways of christ much more than a proffesed christian, or the other way around. People, including me, respect religious values, but just don't believe many aspects of these religion.

Another thing is, Christianity as an organized religion has pretty much preached but not practiced Christs teachings throughout history. There's modern examples in Latin America that point otherwise, but even with charity's, Christianity as an institution, like Islam, has in my opinion, been a merdurous counterproductive force throughout history. Again, I still think it's teachings are great, but all those things prevent many people from attaching themselves to a religion such as Christianity.

Feel free to comment on my ramble.

quote: Instead of, "Christians are asshole oppressors"; we would fairly say, "The Catholic institution of the medieval era were asshole oppressors".

I just have to point out such oppression continued on well past the medieval era, 'cause I'm an asshole.



[This message has been edited by great_sage=heaven (edited 01-26-2005).]

Digital_Savior:

Of course. If I ruled the world, I would put monuments of my cock everywhere I looked.

"These certainly are warm and pleasant looking plains... but it's missing something. AH! Make a monument to my dick!"

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

"As long as humans have been building monuments, the designs have included this shape. It is pleasing to the human eye and for a good subconscious, if not conscious reason. The erect male penis is a symbol of male virility. It is an expression of strength and power the world over.

You see it everywhere if you look; the obelisk in Washington D.C., the Eiffel Tower in Paris, and in church steeples in nearly every town and village in the land.

They are upright pillars, and all symbols of an erect male penis." http://perdurabo10.tripod.com/id885.html

*LMAO*



Aww, don't start with that. Now I'm gonna be seeing phalluses everywhere!

*looks next to monitor at CPU standing upright* AAAH!! Dammit!

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

Let's discuss, then. What is it in life that truly verifies a man's virility and sense of worth?

Compassion and love.

That's a woman.

Why?

Any reasons other than the effect of the socialisation process? Gender (as distinct from biological sex) characteristics are pretty much socially constructed.

Sean, I'd like to agree with you, but for realistic reasons I can't. Jesus pursued spiritual enlightenment and selflessness. If everybody was like Jesus there would be no pride in accomplishment; without this, no accomplishment except accidental, means no inventions, means life would be a lot worse for everyone, means the world would be a lot worse for everyone.

You know what Jesus would be called nowadays?

A bum. In order to become like Jesus, we would have to quit our jobs, roam from place to place depending on charities and miracles of God to get us food everyday. And most of all, we'd have to live a Christians are supposed to, a hard feat of 90% of Christians in this world.

quote:Originally posted by Krispy:

And most of all, we'd have to live a Christians are supposed to, a hard feat of 90% of Christians in this world.

100% of people, not just Christians.

I don't mean physically move around and preach and shit.

I mean the basic care for one another, judge not lest ye be judged, carry one anothers burdens, etc.

It's a good message that's lost on alot of people because of the institution of christianity.

quote:Originally posted by aTribeCalledSean:



If everyone truly lived just like Christ did, would the world not be a better place?



I would agree to that. Jesus was somewhat of a bodhisattva. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) I like to believe that all that "you must believe in me and me only" stuff was added to the legend later on by other people.

"Living beings are numberless; I vow to serve until all are liberated.

Ignorance and grasping is boundless; I vow to transform and uproot it all."

-Vows of the Boddhisattvas

My beef was never with Jesus, really, just the organized religion Christianity has become over the centuries. And honestly, I don't even care about that, anymore. Just a bunch of teenage angst, I guess.

I can't beleive the sort of conversation which is going on here.

I've been spending too much time in SG.

inquisitor_11 and aTribeCalledSean:

No. Compassion and love are the cornerstones of feminine instinct and the holiest of her obligations. It is neither an expression of any sense of masculinity, nor is it a pathway with which man finds his place in the world.

A man fights for ideals and his genuine passions. Compassion and love are personal and are directly focused on communication the likes of which only a woman's intuitive nature can master.

Compassion and love, when properly applied, can be more effective in certain conflicts than any amount of violence.

Any man should know this if he wants to live up to his full potential. All things have their place.

History proves otherwise, and stocks of men that believed what you believe have died fruitlessly because of it.

I think it is more appropriate to ask what SHOULD be the regard of esteem by men, rather than what IS.

I think love and compassion are 1,000 times harder to exhibit in moments of trial or adversity than is violence and hatred.

It is so much easier to lash out - strike your enemy down.

This is exactly why God/Christ taught "turn the other cheek", "love thine enemies as thyself", and "thou shalt not kill."

I strongly believe that the measure of a man should be determined by his love and compassion.

Simply because people who follow that line of thinking have been murdered, does not make them "less" admirable.

It makes their opponent's more violent.

Jesus could have been a wicked Kung Fu fighter for all we know...but he chose to exhibit the qualities of someone saturated by his love and compassion for mankind. (as a matter of fact, being the son of God meant he had the power to annihilate us, but he didn't)

We tend to admire people who survive tough situations, or rise above less-than-desirable results.

If we use THAT as a measure of a man's worth, then it is obvious that love and compassion win over violence and animosity anyday.

Why ?

Because they are harder to accomplish.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

inquisitor_11 and aTribeCalledSean:

No. Compassion and love are the cornerstones of feminine instinct and the holiest of her obligations. It is neither an expression of any sense of masculinity, nor is it a pathway with which man finds his place in the world.

A man fights for ideals and his genuine passions. Compassion and love are personal and are directly focused on communication the likes of which only a woman's intuitive nature can master.

How different would the world be, do you think, if WOMAN had been created first ? Or (if you don't believe in such things), how different would it be if women ran the show ?

You could say the measure of a man is how he displays his masculinity, but that focus' solely on men.

Women can never be truly masculine, because it is not in their nature.

But both men AND women have the capacity to love and show compassion.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

History proves otherwise, and stocks of men that believed what you believe have died fruitlessly because of it.

What was the desired result, and who set the margins ?

What I mean is, by using the term "fruitless", you propose a scenario in which only one sort of fruit would have been acceptable.

Who determined that, if that was the case ?

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

History proves otherwise, and stocks of men that believed what you believe have died fruitlessly because of it.

And countless more died believing as you do, following their leaders into pointless wars.

Like Digi was saying, any man can fight because it's easier to do. It's what is expected of us. But, it takes a real man to travel the harder path, especially when our culture goes against it. I'm sure you'd agree that a sign of character is ALWAYS doing what is best, NOT succumbing to peer pressure like any kid would do.

Not to say that stuff like pacifism has any merit, however. Combat has its place too.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



I think love and compassion are 1,000 times harder to exhibit in moments of trial or adversity than is violence and hatred.

It is so much easier to lash out - strike your enemy down.



http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

"It is much easier to satisfy your desires than to deny them."

I'm very happy my thread has turned out the way it has so far. I think I have a knack for starting these actual discussion threads rather than intellectual piss contests.

I'll wait for Tyrant, because I think Digi and a few others have covered my side pretty well.

Digital_Savior:

I think it is more appropriate to ask what SHOULD be the regard of esteem by men, rather than what IS.

Why should the regard of esteem by men be anything separate from what he is?

If he exhibits strength and power as a virtue, and creates civilization thus, what standard should be set against him?

Not to mention that it is a thousand times more difficult to meet a circumstance with courage and stalwart fortitude than to cower and submit with acquiescence, like a beaten Nazarene.

And what of corpses can be admirable?

Women can never be truly masculine, because it is not in their nature.

But both men AND women have the capacity to love and show compassion.

Certainly, they both have the capacity. However, those respective capacities are far from equal because of the different natures of Man and Woman.

AND it by no means contains the formula by which a man knows and can express himself.

And by "fruitless", I mean "died without getting what they wanted."

Sorry if it sounds disrespectful, but this is a topic I'm quite passionate about... Keep in mind who I'm related to. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

Tesseract:

The men of whom I speak did not die in vain, like the cowards you venerate. By their blood is the course of history shaped.

And I certainly would agree that a sign of character is ALWAYS doing what is best, and not succumbing to peer pressure like any kid would do. I would, however, disagree than a man who died for his general did so with anything but pure devotion to the cause for which that general stood for, and the eternal principles for which this man died. What have YOU done to earn the authority to deem it fruitless?

aTribeCalledSean:

Perhaps to better identify my discourse with your response to my question, let me ask you this simple question:

What man has ever found himself complete through compassion and love alone?

*whispers*

...Jesus.

I said, "What man?"

Thank you, finally someone who gets what Christianity's about. I personally don't believe it, but at least some get the actual meaning, and won't tell me i'm going to burn in hell for not believing in god, the majority of christians today are self-ritious pricks.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

The men of whom I speak did not die in vain, like the cowards you venerate. By their blood is the course of history shaped.

And I certainly would agree that a sign of character is ALWAYS doing what is best, and not succumbing to peer pressure like any kid would do. I would, however, disagree than a man who died for his general did so with anything but pure devotion to the cause for which that general stood for, and the eternal principles for which this man died. What have YOU done to earn the authority to deem it fruitless?

What cowards do you think I venerate? And what exactly is so cowardly in trying to find (but NOT relying solely upon) peaceful alternatives to warfare? I haven't named any names, so I'm not sure I know whom you're referring to. Martin Luther King? Gandhi? Truman? If we are to debate these finer point, perhaps we should define them.

You seem to find dying for pure devotion to a cause admirable in and of itself. Couldn't the men I've just mentioned, and those who followed them, be looked upon as generals and soldiers for their respective causes? Are they less respectable or victorious simply because the weapons they used were not the killing kind? Indeed, it could be said that these men were even more purely devoted in their "fight", because they believed they would die to win it. Where is the cowardice here? And by what authority do YOU call it so?

As for any authority either of us might have, I'd like to know what you would consider proper credentials for it. Scholarship? Being a soldier? Having followers of our own? It's kind of a funny question. But realistically, we're all just batting around opinions here. What does authority matter?

[This message has been edited by Tesseract (edited 01-28-2005).]

1. Avoiding confrontation as the supreme doctrine by which all actions are decided is the ultimate manifestation of domestication and the act of survival for its own sake.

2. Martin Luther King and Gandhi didn't die for what they believed; their deaths were circumstantial. A martyr is someone who is conscious of the fact that his death is the undeniable catalyst to the realization of the cause he fought, and now would die, for. They were both assassinated. I don't know what you mentioned Truman for.

3. Martin Luther King and Gandhi fought for democratized sheep-herding - something I despise with every breath in my body.

4. No, I don't think the men you mentioned can be considered generals and soldiers because they were not commanding armies, but merely addressing crowds. Significant difference.

5. Concerning authority, I recognize the intrinsic worth of a man who is willing to devote all dimensions of himself - physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual, simultaneously - to the cause for which he struggles. I do not recognize any authority in a man who is not willing to make all sacrifices and utterly give all of his might and spirit to his life's animating principle.

6. Authority is crucial in this matter because YOU claim that soldiers are pressured into fighting. While that might be true in the modern world of the demos, this is not the circumstance I am concerned with here. I am simply stating that, modern situations notwithstanding, soldiers actually desired to fight in wars because the goal of that war was something he genuinely believed in.

I'm waiting for ATCS to respond.

1. I'm not advocating this (nor is anyone else here, it seems). I don't know how much more clearly I can say it.

2. They died because of what they believed, and fully expected to be killed long before they were. Your definition is a little bit off, btw. A martyr is someone who makes great sacrifices or suffers much in order to further a belief, cause, or principle. (dictionary.com). These men were martyrs. I mentioned Truman because, while he could've continued to bomb and burn Japan flat at the end of WW2, he didn't. He excercised a little compassion while also warring with Japan. Unless you're chinese, you probably think the world is better for it.

3. There might have been a little thing about freedom involved.

4. "Merely addressing crowds"? They led whole movements, in an organized fashion. This involved quite a bit more than just giving speeches.

5. In that case, I do have authority. I am a seeker, and have been since the day I was born. I would fight beyond my last breath to be able to continue.

6. Ok, if we ignore modern circumstances (by which I assume you mean the past several hundred years), I'll admit that leaves me on unfamiliar ground.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

I said, "What man?"

Haha, now see. In that statement you are agreeing with Jesus' divinity. Thusly he is correct, thusly you have no argument.



[This message has been edited by aTribeCalledSean (edited 01-29-2005).]

No I didn't, no he isn't, yes I do.

Well, Jesus is a person.

He is either Divine or Man (arguably both).

Because you said he wasn't a man, it implied that you meant he was divine.

If he is divine, then his teachings are correct, and he is correct.

So, what did I get wrong here?

If Jesus is divine, he cannot be considered in the category of men with whom we are concerned - un-divine, infernal men trapped in an epoch where no legitimate and reliable connection with God can be made.

1 Timothy 3:16 - And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

God was manifest in the flesh (as Jesus Christ), so it is possible for Jesus to be both God and human.

That is, if you believe the Bible is true.

^And that right there is one of the main reasons why many people can't attach themselves to the religion. It doesn't mean they can't live a virtuous life.