I don’t see anyone trying to cheat death, and I don’t see what this supposed “spiritual hole” (as yet undefined, I see) has to do with it.
Everybody, with no exception, will die. There are no vampires.
So, folks: what does “spiritual” mean, and what is the nature of this “hole”?
[quote=“Chris”]I don’t see anyone trying to cheat death, and I don’t see what this supposed “spiritual hole” (as yet undefined, I see) has to do with it.
Everybody, with no exception, will die. There are no vampires.
So, folks: what does “spiritual” mean, and what is the nature of this “hole”?[/quote]
The intangible.
Like friendship? Or knowledge?
Here’s an aspect of religion I can’t abide. It’s the way religion can twist people’s minds into thinking like monsters.
In the wake of the Colorado shooting tragedy, pastor Jerry Newcombe not only blamed the shooting on the America’s supposed loss of fear of God (which is insane in itself); he went on to say that it’s not a tragedy for the Christian victims, but the non-Christian victims are now burning in hell. :loco: 
“If a Christian dies early, if a Christian dies young, it seems tragic, but really it is not tragic because they are going to a wonderful place… on the other hand, if a person doesn’t know Jesus Christ… if they knowingly rejected Jesus Christ, then, basically, they are going to a terrible place.” - Jerry Newcombe
:fume: :raspberry: :loco:
[quote=“Chris”]Here’s an aspect of religion I can’t abide. It’s the way religion can twist people’s minds into thinking like monsters.
In the wake of the Colorado shooting tragedy, pastor Jerry Newcombe not only blamed the shooting on the America’s supposed loss of fear of God (which is insane in itself); he went on to say that it’s not a tragedy for the Christian victims, but the non-Christian victims are now burning in hell. :loco:
“If a Christian dies early, if a Christian dies young, it seems tragic, but really it is not tragic because they are going to a wonderful place… on the other hand, if a person doesn’t know Jesus Christ… if they knowingly rejected Jesus Christ, then, basically, they are going to a terrible place.” - Jerry Newcombe
:fume: :raspberry: :loco:[/quote]
:roflmao:
I have decided that if anyone religious asks me if I’m religious or not, then I’m going to have to say that I believe in Thor.
Thor is great! Thor is strong! Thor will be my chosen god from now on! Anyone claiming that Thor does not exist is blasphemous and is a “hater”. Thor is the only one god in the universe!
Thor is a superb example in my opinion, which only religious folks can get a grip on, or should get a grip on anyway as they seem to have too tough a job getting a grip on there being no gods at all. I figure that since they are inclined to believe that there can only be a god, then Thor should be the best, kick ass god out there. Thor would kick the ass of any other god in the cosmos! Thor would make them all weep like babies and beg for his almighty forgiveness!
Thor told his other demi “God” that he could mess around for seven days and make some trees and people. It’s up to Thor what happens people! Thor is the human equivalent of Chuck Norris I’m telling you. God? He doesn’t even have a proper title! Thor couldn’t be bothered to give him one as he wasn’t worth the energy.
Thor is king! Thor is the truth! Any other god sucks Thor!
Religion sucks because it makes otherwise intelligent people completely unwilling to change their views based on new knowledge, new evidence, and new theories. The average scientist probably changes his beliefs and opinions a hundred times throughout his life as our knowledge and understanding of the world advances. The average religious person won’t change their views no matter what new evidence is presented.
In no other aspect of a religious persons life would they so strongly reject things that can be proved to be true. Yet if a dusty old book implies otherwise, that’s it 
Everyone is beliving something. It can be called as religion or it can be called as idea. I also known that people beliving other people too. FOr example, in a horrible stuation, chirstian wants help from Jesus Christ, a muslim wants help from Allah (God) or if you dont belivie religions you will call someone you love such as your brother or your sister, even it can be your pet too. So, human are weak they have to belive something, it unnecessary to inquire.
(At least this is what i belive. It might be wrong 
also im open to new ideas) :eh:
Religion is politricks, and by extension, war, by another means.
As much as morale is vital, creating spirituallly artifical constructs is plainly just not on.
I suggest we just keep our tongues firmly in cheek, and turn it not.
The real question is ‘Who has the the best art?’ I’d say the Catholics and the stoners. You don’t want to be stuck around a table with either though.
Stop making sense.
Yet surely, the protestants, the jews, and why, even those wily Americans, have all made some fine inroads unto art.
And surely discount not, the brits.
[quote=“TheGingerMan”]Stop making sense.
Yet surely, the protestants, the jews, and why, even those wily Americans, have all made some fine inroads unto art.
And surely discount not, the brits.[/quote]
Maybe, isolated instances. It’s hard to care, though. I’m fairly sure my theory is watertight.
[quote=“Ermintrude”][quote=“TheGingerMan”]Stop making sense.
Yet surely, the protestants, the jews, and why, even those wily Americans, have all made some fine inroads unto art.
And surely discount not, the brits.[/quote]
Maybe, isolated instances. It’s hard to care, though. I’m fairly sure my theory is watertight.[/quote]
Emphasis on “fairly”.
We’ll take that maybe.
But you lose us with the “isolated instances”.
We are dicussing art, within the realm of religion?
Is not all art isolated, an instance, most especially when confronted with doctrine?
The catholics have it on the themes, but I dare say there is more…
[quote=“TheGingerMan”][quote=“Ermintrude”][quote=“TheGingerMan”]Stop making sense.
Yet surely, the protestants, the jews, and why, even those wily Americans, have all made some fine inroads unto art.
And surely discount not, the brits.[/quote]
Maybe, isolated instances. It’s hard to care, though. I’m fairly sure my theory is watertight.[/quote]
Emphasis on “fairly”.
We’ll take that maybe.
But you lose us with the “isolated instances”.
We are dicussing art, within the realm of religion?
Is not all art isolated, an instance, most especially when confronted with doctrine?
The catholics have it on the themes, but I dare say there is more…[/quote]
Them Baptists get the win for the tunes
I can’t see youtube vids where I live, not that I’d click anyway. I have no idea what baptists are. Britney Spears and the Waltons?
[quote=“TheGingerMan”]
We’ll take that maybe.
But you lose us with the “isolated instances”. [/quote]
You has a point.
[quote=“TheGingerMan”]We are dicussing art, within the realm of religion?
Is not all art isolated, an instance, most especially when confronted with doctrine?
The catholics have it on the themes, but I dare say there is more…[/quote]
Same thing, at the basic impulse. Yet you have the tards who try to regiment the social, using others’ art: a clear case of the artist having no conception of what I believe you term ‘the perimeter’. But then there are those who do it without art. At the end of the day, I’ll take my orders from the people who thought up ‘Job’ than ‘Wealth of Nations’. From a man who believes in talking giraffes not from a man who believes he and his associates have a divine right to rule because they are richer than me.
The proddies are responsible for ‘The Word’, Euro-contextually, for sure.
John Donne was for sure a man who saw the possibilities in both kinds of Anglo giraffe-communion.
[quote]Same thing, at the basic impulse. Yet you have the tards who try to regiment the social, using others’ art: a clear case of the artist having no conception of what I believe you term ‘the perimeter’. But then there are those who do it without art. At the end of the day, I’ll take my orders from the people who thought up ‘Job’ than ‘Wealth of Nations’. From a man who believes in talking giraffes not from a man who believes he and his associates have a divine right to rule because they are richer than me.
The proddies are responsible for ‘The Word’, Euro-contextually, for sure.
John Donne was for sure a man who saw the possibilities in both kinds of Anglo giraffe-communion.[/quote]
I concur, except for bit about art and the perimetre.
Here, it truly must be said: art, to my mind, entails going a bit beyond.
Though you are well right to qualify, some have no conception.
Art for art’s sake is all very well, but for it to be remarkable, rules must be broken. With past due and full recognise.
And to bring it back on topic, there is always Joyce to remember.
Talk about a conflict of spirituality.
Well, what I meant was that those who use others’ art to rule: the Bible, the Koran, the mysteries, to divide and conquer: fuck 'em. Make yer own. Hands off. It’s ours.
[quote=“Ermintrude”][quote=“TheGingerMan”]
I concur, except for bit about art and the perimetre.
[/quote]
Well, what I meant was that those who use others’ art to rule: the Bible, the Koran, the mysteries, to divide and conquer: fuck 'em. Make yer own. Hands off. It’s ours.[/quote]
Damn.
You are in top form.
Using the written word for profit, greed, and malice.
Is evil.
But surely, it is the nature of the beast?
In that religion has always, for better or worse, both eradicated and elucidated texts?
Thinking about the library here.
Burnt down by one.
Built up by another.
I reckon well that we are now in one of those in flux windows of time.
Should art emit the immediate?
‘Text’ is new in my country. 1600s stuff. We’re a group of Odinist, Maryan peoples.
A strawman.
And the strawman and the wicker man perversion are often connected.
So, yeah, fuck the proddies. Verdi’s Requiem is both jazz and anti-jazz.
Must one always be so sideways?
Yes.