Unwashed Village
General Discussion => Unwashed Village => Topic started by: Chucara on August 27, 2007, 05:46:47 PM
-
Take your pick in the poll, and state your opinions below:
I'll state my somewhat controversial viewpoint here:
I am, at best, an agnostic. I think all religious books are written by men, and as such, tell more about the society in which they were written than they do of the deity they portray, if such an entity exists.
I think religion is a major contributor to conflict around the World. - Protestant/Catholic in Northern Ireland, Muslim/Anything else in the Middle East, Christian/Anything else during the Crusades, Something/Something else a million times throughout history.
Now, I'm not saying that religion is responsible for all war, humans manage that on their own - but it is just another thing we can disagree on and fight wars over. I think the prime contributor is territorial disputes/power.
Aside wars, many other bad things has happened in the name of religion: The Inquisition and various other witch hunts, Tom Cruise becoming a complete idiot and various acts of terrorism.
Humans seem to have a almost tribal like trend to band together against "the enemy", but question is:
If we had no religion (or to some extent, everyone had the same), would there be less terrorism/war/Tom Cruises?
My view is Yes. Most recently, religion is being using as a distraction by dictators to turn the peoples anger towards external enemies rather than the problem that occur in their own country.
Please note that all religion should be counted the same. IMO the only difference between Christianity and Islam is 400 years of technological and sociological progress.
-
Take your pick in the poll, and state your opinions below:
I'll state my somewhat controversial viewpoint here:
I am, at best, an agnostic. I think all religious books are written by men, and as such, tell more about the society in which they were written than they do of the deity they portray, if such an entity exists.
I think religion is a major contributor to conflict around the World. - Protestant/Catholic in Northern Ireland, Muslim/Anything else in the Middle East, Christian/Anything else during the Crusades, Something/Something else a million times throughout history.
Now, I'm not saying that religion is responsible for all war, humans manage that on their own - but it is just another thing we can disagree on and fight wars over. I think the prime contributor is territorial disputes/power.
Aside wars, many other bad things has happened in the name of religion: The Inquisition and various other witch hunts, Tom Cruise becoming a complete idiot and various acts of terrorism.
Humans seem to have a almost tribal like trend to band together against "the enemy", but question is:
If we had no religion (or to some extent, everyone had the same), would there be less terrorism/war/Tom Cruises?
My view is Yes. Most recently, religion is being using as a distraction by dictators to turn the peoples anger towards external enemies rather than the problem that occur in their own country.
Please note that all religion should be counted the same. IMO the only difference between Christianity and Islam is 400 years of technological and sociological progress.
First off, there's a difference between faith and religion. Faith being the belief in a God we can't see and religion being the man made traditions based on faith. I make that distinction because I think the world would indeed be better off without religion. However I would never say it would be better off without faith. Personally I think Jesus shakes his head sadly at many christian traditions. For instance, at one church I went to there were rules about employee dress that would have turned Jesus away at the door if He showed up wearing sandals.
A friend of mine made a bumper sticker that says, "Jesus hates religion". While that might be a little strong, I think it's more right than wrong.
-
First off, there's a difference between faith and religion. Faith being the belief in a God we can't see and religion being the man made traditions based on faith. I make that distinction because I think the world would indeed be better off without religion. However I would never say it would be better off without faith. Personally I think Jesus shakes his head sadly at many christian traditions. For instance, at one church I went to there were rules about employee dress that would have turned Jesus away at the door if He showed up wearing sandals.
A friend of mine made a bumper sticker that says, "Jesus hates religion". While that might be a little strong, I think it's more right than wrong.
Excellent point, and a very good description of what I feel is the problem with many modern religion. I am surprised that you have this opinion however. It seems to be in conflict with (as far as I understood, anyway) your literal reading of the Bible. I you think that the rules of some churches are a problem because they are made by humans, yet you consider the literal wording of the Bible to be true. In my eyes, the Bible is also a product of humans. Even if the original text was directly written from the word of God, it has been the subject to many reprints and edits during the ages.
-
First off, there's a difference between faith and religion. Faith being the belief in a God we can't see and religion being the man made traditions based on faith. I make that distinction because I think the world would indeed be better off without religion. However I would never say it would be better off without faith. Personally I think Jesus shakes his head sadly at many christian traditions. For instance, at one church I went to there were rules about employee dress that would have turned Jesus away at the door if He showed up wearing sandals.
A friend of mine made a bumper sticker that says, "Jesus hates religion". While that might be a little strong, I think it's more right than wrong.
Excellent point, and a very good description of what I feel is the problem with many modern religion. I am surprised that you have this opinion however. It seems to be in conflict with (as far as I understood, anyway) your literal reading of the Bible. I you think that the rules of some churches are a problem because they are made by humans, yet you consider the literal wording of the Bible to be true. In my eyes, the Bible is also a product of humans. Even if the original text was directly written from the word of God, it has been the subject to many reprints and edits during the ages.
The translations have been shown to be completely accurate every time older copies are found (Dead Sea Scrolls, etc).
My literal interpretation of the Bible is due to my belief that it was written by God through men which is basically impossible for a non-believer to understand.
-
I think religion is important, but no more than language or art or other expressions of culture/faith.
And not to be directly argumentative, but I think the assertion that the bible has remained completely accurate over thousands of years of translation is just ignorant. The point of this forum isn't to get into that discussion, so we can move that to another topic, but the translations of the bible that exist TODAY contradict each other, and I don't see how it's possible that they all came from the dead sea scrolls if they don't say the same thing.
Anyway, I think Islam is closer to Judaism than Christianity sometimes, mainly in regards to how many daily rules are laid out in scriptural law (times per day to pray, dietary restrictions, etc). Christianity is (to most christians) kind of Judaism 2.0, in that Christians (except for some groups) trace their identity back to Jews who accept Christ as the Moshiach (Messiah), so they see that all the daily rules are not divinely interpereted but rather expressions of faith.
To answer the question, I think that religion is good, as long as it's given a proper place in the world as cultural expression. I think the western ideal of social contract that essentially legitimizes all government would be completely pointless if we were all nihilistic.
Conversely to your initial point, I think that the world would be a worse place if those cultural expressions were made illegal. If they had never existed in the first place, I dunno.
-
Conversely to your initial point, I think that the world would be a worse place if those cultural expressions were made illegal. If they had never existed in the first place, I dunno.
The idea of the discussion was if it had never existed. I am very strongly against any kind of censorship, be it towards religion, video games or anything else (except Tom Cruise).
-
I think religion is important, but no more than language or art or other expressions of culture/faith.
And not to be directly argumentative, but I think the assertion that the bible has remained completely accurate over thousands of years of translation is just ignorant. The point of this forum isn't to get into that discussion, so we can move that to another topic, but the translations of the bible that exist TODAY contradict each other, and I don't see how it's possible that they all came from the dead sea scrolls if they don't say the same thing.
That there are existing translations that aren't accurate is true. Especially now that certain groups have decided to take gender away from God and such in various translations. However any of the reliable translations (KJ, NKJ, NAS, NIV, etc) are all accurately translated. Having said that, I know the catholics have the Apocrypha as well and protestants don't. So if you are referring to that then you would certainly know more about it than I would.
-
In response to Chucara: Okay in that case I can't say for sure. I think people will always wonder what happens after they die, and some form of questioning religion will always have existed. But if the point of the question is whether people would have had that curiosity but never established systems to define them, I think the world would have been better, just leaving that open for discussion. But as a catholic I love religion, not because I think I am (or anyone else would) go to hell for not going to mass, but I like mass because I get to meet with other people with the same faith and express the same things. So I guess if the question is would the world be better without the crusades and tom cruise but still keep church, then yeah I'd be down. But part of the identity I got (when I converted in college) came from catholicism, and without that I'd be different. Better or worse? I dunno. Different for sure though.
In response to Brugdor: I didn't mean just the "apocrypha," which are made up completely of old testament books, so I don't think those cause much division except for historically. I mean that current translations you listed (namely the KJ versus the NAS) contradict each other on minor points which to me don't matter, but that cause divisions within churches. I was "interdenominational" christian before I converted to catholicism so I personally own a KJV, NAS, and NIV study bible in addition to the NAB (New American Bible) which is the official bible of the American Catholic Church. We can discuss this in another thread, I don't wanna threadjack Chucara here, as it's not really the point. But I think your case for divinely inspired text requires that the spirit of the text and the letter of the text have to be identical, and they're all very different.
-
Religion isn't bad in itself, its extremist, unquestioning belief which is bad.
plus, the view that there is only One correct religion which still mystifies me and trying to convince other people to accept your world view?
I say to them 'you know what, you believe what you believe and leave me to believe what I want. It bears no relevance to you whether I get to heaven or not so why are you trying to convince me to accept your God?'
at this point they usually say its 'Christian Love and Charity'. 'Yeah? What about the Crusades? Not terribly charitable there were ya? Hitler said he was a Christian, what do you make of that?'
Usually the ones who have only read the Bible will be running away, whereas the ones who have had a bit of time to read and think about what they believe in will enter into what usually turns out to be a good debate.
I dont like how religion teaches unquestioning faith as a virtue, the more you don't question, the more Holy or righteous you are....hmmm.......controlling much?
I used to say I was agnostic but now I know I was just holding onto the indoctrination I got when I was a kid. I've read and learned and now I'm the happiest little Atheist you'll ever meet.
-
We're holding some religion classes in the Vestibule right now.
Currently there are only openings for... um... *cough* er... wenches.
Bring wine.
-
Hitler said he was a Christian, what do you make of that?'
And I know this guy Joe who thinks he's the Queen of England but that doesn't actually make him the Queen of England.
I take it from your stance on the crusades that you think the Muslims were holding all that land peacefully until we evil christians came along and killed them? ::) I'm not saying I agree with everything the crusaders did but those wars typically get painted with a very one sided brush by non-christians.
-
I'm not saying I agree with everything the crusaders did but those wars typically get painted with a very one sided brush by non-christians.
Except for the fact that it gets painted very similarly by Christians as well. Just ask all the various Orthodox Arabs and Greeks. My girlfriend finds your statement extremely laughable.
-
I'm not saying I agree with everything the crusaders did but those wars typically get painted with a very one sided brush by non-christians.
Except for the fact that it gets painted very similarly by Christians as well. Just ask all the various Orthodox Arabs and Greeks. My girlfriend finds your statement extremely laughable.
I'm not painting it that way at all. I just said I didn't agree with everything they did. There was even a group of christians a few years back that traveled the route of the crusades and stopped to apologize to the Jews and Muslims along the way for the actions of the crusaders.
However people tend to whitewash the actions of Muslims (Persian empire) that helped to cause the crusades as well.
And is it just a given now that if I make any statement in the debate forum you are going to be a colossal troll and try to put words in my mouth?
-
I wouldn't be surprised if the Jews and Muslims apologised to were anything less than friendly.
Yes, apologising seems nice, but ultimately does nothing.
"Thanks. You're not the ones who needed to apologise, since the perps are already dead, and thanks again for bringing up a painful memory."
I find religious wars amusing. As if their punishment after death for not following your faith wasn't enough.
To me, it smacks of not thinking your own all-powerful deity can handle things himself.
Heck, it was one of the laws in the 'old testament' Qur'an. Don't claim religious reasons for fighting a war. God is quite capable of fighting his own battles. He doesn't need your help.
How they managed to murder it into "kill the infidels and get your virgins now!" is waaaay beyond me. Some serious Balseraph action there, methinks.
-
I only approve of religions that enforce my infallibility and demand its followers pay tithe, direct-deposit, into my savings account.
Thanks to the magic of interpretative mysticism, these requirements can be stretched to most of the existing ones.
Now pay up or burn.
-
Sorry, I work for the competition.
He says "Nice try. Use more lotion"
:P
-
I'm not saying I agree with everything the crusaders did but those wars typically get painted with a very one sided brush by non-christians.
Except for the fact that it gets painted very similarly by Christians as well. Just ask all the various Orthodox Arabs and Greeks. My girlfriend finds your statement extremely laughable.
I'm not painting it that way at all. I just said I didn't agree with everything they did. There was even a group of christians a few years back that traveled the route of the crusades and stopped to apologize to the Jews and Muslims along the way for the actions of the crusaders.
However people tend to whitewash the actions of Muslims (Persian empire) that helped to cause the crusades as well.
And is it just a given now that if I make any statement in the debate forum you are going to be a colossal troll and try to put words in my mouth?
What are you going on about? I wasn't even talking about you painting anything. You made a statement that non-Christians paint it with a very one-sided brush. I made a statement that there are many people with Orthodox backgrounds take the same view as those non-Christians. My girlfriend and her family for one. You do realize that Orthodoxy is Christian, right? The Catholic Church really didn't care what religion the Arabs were, they slaughtered and raped them both equally. After all, those Orthodox followers weren't "real" Christians in their views anyway. When they got sick of the Arabs, they proceeded to attack the Greeks and Slavs. After all, diplomacy had failed in getting the Orthodox Church back into the fold (though, it was the Roman Catholic Church that actually split off from Orthodoxy, thereby making all Christian denominations other than Orthodoxy rogue sects), so conquering them was the next best thing.
And why are you even bringing Persians into it? Nowhere in my post did I mention Persians. You are aware that Persians are not Arabs, right?
-
Besides, Brug, if I wanted to refer to you, I wouldn't say "some Christians" I would address you directly like I'm doing now.
-
What are you going on about? I wasn't even talking about you painting anything. You made a statement that non-Christians paint it with a very one-sided brush. I made a statement that there are many people with Orthodox backgrounds take the same view as those non-Christians. My girlfriend and her family for one. You do realize that Orthodoxy is Christian, right? The Catholic Church really didn't care what religion the Arabs were, they slaughtered and raped them both equally. After all, those Orthodox followers weren't "real" Christians in their views anyway. When they got sick of the Arabs, they proceeded to attack the Greeks and Slavs. After all, diplomacy had failed in getting the Orthodox Church back into the fold (though, it was the Roman Catholic Church that actually split off from Orthodoxy, thereby making all Christian denominations other than Orthodoxy rogue sects), so conquering them was the next best thing.
And why are you even bringing Persians into it? Nowhere in my post did I mention Persians. You are aware that Persians are not Arabs, right?
Because basically here and in the other political thread you seem to be making a habit of taking something I say and twisting it to have a new meaning. Here you say your gf finds my statement laughable because she feels that christians paint the crusades with a one sided brush and yet in my statement I said I don't agree with everything the crusaders did.
As to why I brought up the Persians - from wikipedia
"The Seljuqs (also Seljuq Turks, Seldjuks, Seldjuqs, Seljuks; in Turkish Selçuklular; in Persian: سلجوقيان Ṣaljūqīyān; in Arabic سلجوق Saljūq, or السلاجقة al-Salājiqa) were a Sunni Muslim dynasty that ruled parts of Central Asia and the Middle East from the 11th to 14th centuries. They set up an empire known as "Great Seljuk Empire" that stretched from Anatolia to Punjab and was the target of the First Crusade. The dynasty had its origins in the Turcoman tribal confederations of Central Asia and marked the beginning of Turkic power in the Middle East. They are the ethnic ancestors of the Western Turks, the present-day inhabitants of Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Turkmenistan, and they are remembered as great patrons of Persian culture, art, literature, and language.[1][2][3]"
These were the people that attacked the Byzantine empire which turned around and asked the EU christians for help thus setting in motion the first crusade.
-
My girlfriend does not find your statement laughable because she feels Christians paint the Crusades with a one-side brush. She finds it laughable that you accuse the Muslims of tending to paint the Cursades with a one-sided brush when the Orthodox Christians share that one-sided view. I never disagreed with your statement that the Muslims view it that way. My point is that it's not only the Muslims! And many are fully in the right to view it one sided because the Arabs were for the most part not the aggressors. They pretty much kept to themselves. Particularly the Christian Arabs. Not that it helped them in any way when the Catholics decided to go a-warring.
I'm also fully aware of the role the Persians played. However:
1) I was not talking in any way about the Persians, so bringing them up in response to my point was irrelevant.
2) Why not bring up the Kurds and the Turks as well? They were just as guilty as the Persians. (When Egypt invaded Jerusalem it was being ruled by a Kurd.)
-
My girlfriend does not find your statement laughable because she feels Christians paint the Crusades with a one-side brush. She finds it laughable that you accuse the Muslims of tending to paint the Cursades with a one-sided brush when the Orthodox Christians share that one-sided view. I never disagreed with your statement that the Muslims view it that way. My point is that it's not only the Muslims! And many are fully in the right to view it one sided because the Arabs were for the most part not the aggressors. They pretty much kept to themselves. Particularly the Christian Arabs. Not that it helped them in any way when the Catholics decided to go a-warring.
I'm also fully aware of the role the Persians played. However:
1) I was not talking in any way about the Persians, so bringing them up in response to my point was irrelevant.
2) Why not bring up the Kurds and the Turks as well? They were just as guilty as the Persians. (When Egypt invaded Jerusalem it was being ruled by a Kurd.)
Except I wasn't specifically talking about Muslims in the post you were referencing. I said "non-christians" and I was aiming that comment mostly at Sweatpea since she's the one that brought up the point I was rebutting.
-
Religion is irrelevant - it's spirituality that matters.
Religions are just different brand names for the same product. And what's really important is the product, not the wrapper. Throw the wrapper away I say.
-
And what's really important is the product, not the wrapper. Throw the wrapper away I say.
You heard it. Straight from Turjan, people.
Religion Sucks. :nice:
-
Turj, why is it you always get in there and say stuff i want to say before i get the chance? stop reading my mind you evil genius!
and brug, i pointed out the crusades cause it was a religious war, which wasted a lot of time and caused a lot of suffering. its like the Israelites in the OT, they went and massacred all the other nations cause they didn't worship their God but a lot of people don't see it for what it is cause 'God told them to'. And the crusades also partly came about cause the knights back home got bored and didn't want to become obsolete.
I have nothing against people with faith so don't feel like i'm trying to say you shouldn't believe in God cause i was faithful before i realised what I believed in wasn't actually an Almighty being but thats a story for another day.
But when religion is the reason given for invading a country and causing havoc I know people overlook it cause we've all been taught that religion has special rules and can't be criticised.
they did an experiment with some elementary kids, I forget how old they were, old enough to be able to form an opinion anyways, where they told them the story of Joshua taking over that city they invaded.
about 60% said that Joshua did the right thing cause God had commanded it.
30% said that he should have kept some of the livestock for themselves
and only 10% said what he did was wrong.
they were then told the same story but in stead of Joshua, it was a Chinese General and some neighbouring tribe.
70% said what the Chinese general did was wrong
and i cant remember the rest of the figures.
point is, when taken out of a religious context, most people will be able to see that invading another country, killing everyone and taking all their stuff is bad and wrong. its also morally wrong for people to stand back and not interfere when religious differences are cited as the reason for starting the war in the first place. I just don't understand how the religious think its ok to force their ideas onto someone else, just cause its in the Bible doesn't make it right.
and those christians that went through apologising to everyone?! how self-centred would they have to be to think what they did made the slightest bit of difference to anyone apart from themselves?
i watched this programme about these american evangelists who went to russia to try and spread the word of god and came across these guys who were on their way to the market to sell their homemade vodka but had become trapped in the snow.
the christians REFUSED to help them get out of the snow because it was against their beliefs to drink which can lead to immoral acts. IT WAS THEIR FUCKING LIVELIHOOD!!!! yeah, keep your morals but let the guy, the guy's wife and kids die of starvation. the christians just gave them bibles and went on their merry way. i know lots of christians like that and it sickens me that they think they are morally righteous and look down on anyone who don't fit into their idea of a perfect person, based on a book that they pick and choose bits to believe in and other bits to dismiss as allergories and symbols. Abraham didn't really frighten the shit out of his kid by putting him on an alter, Job didn't really commit incest by sleeping with his daughters but jesus really was the son of god and he really did perform all those miracles!
like turj said, its all about packaging and the sooner people realise that the better and let everyone else get on with things.
i realise this has turned into a bit of rant but so long as there are people out there, either on the small or large scale, who try to force others to live by their ideals then there's still work to be done to try and show them that everyone is entitled to their own opinions and so long as those opinions are not directly harming anyone else then we should leave them well alone.
i'm not just talking about religion, i'm talking about political views and anything else out there thats up for debate.
whatever gets me through the day might not be the same as you but so long as i'm not harming anyone, that doesn't make it wrong.
-
i watched this programme about these american evangelists who went to russia to try and spread the word of god and came across these guys who were on their way to the market to sell their homemade vodka but had become trapped in the snow.
the christians REFUSED to help them get out of the snow because it was against their beliefs to drink which can lead to immoral acts. IT WAS THEIR FUCKING LIVELIHOOD!!!! yeah, keep your morals but let the guy, the guy's wife and kids die of starvation. the christians just gave them bibles and went on their merry way. i know lots of christians like that and it sickens me that they think they are morally righteous and look down on anyone who don't fit into their idea of a perfect person, based on a book that they pick and choose bits to believe in and other bits to dismiss as allergories and symbols. Abraham didn't really frighten the shit out of his kid by putting him on an alter, Job didn't really commit incest by sleeping with his daughters but jesus really was the son of god and he really did perform all those miracles!
Like any group of people we have people that claim to be part of our group and aren't and we have people in our group that are idiots. I've run into both. I don't drink and I would have helped those people to get out of there.
-
the happiest little Atheist you'll ever meet.
Sounds like a Children's book. =)
In the land... over the sea... sat the girl The Happy Sweatpea...
Is the fields of high blowing wheat... sat the girl: the Happiest Atheist you'll ever meet.
With her dog that's she nursed... by the way dog is God in reverse!
-
I like that poem :)
I was trying, obviously unsuccessfully which is no one's fault by my own, the point that the problem with religion is that it enforces the idea that the more you mindlessly follow holy books the more virtuous you are.
-
I tend to freak out the religious nuts out on the main road in the CBD.
They can't fathom why "I welcome the coming oblivion"
But in reality, it keeps them quiet long enough for me to make my getaway >.>
-
or
'who cares about climate change when there's the 2nd coming.'
i actually know people who say stuff like this....and i used to get embarrassed for them cause they dont have the inclination to be embarrassed for themselves. I dont talk to them anymore.
-
My view of religion is that it has always been a form of social control, when handled properly it can been a fantastic way of communicating some high minded ideals of social order to the uneducated masses. Unfortunately human nature tends to distort the tool organised religion can be.
Oh and: TJC FTW ;D
-
or
'who cares about climate change when there's the 2nd coming.'
i actually know people who say stuff like this....and i used to get embarrassed for them cause they dont have the inclination to be embarrassed for themselves. I dont talk to them anymore.
That's a foolish attitude for them to have.
If you believe in the upcoming Rapture it's still horrible to think you don't have to care about the planet. From what I remember in the Bible there's a reference to the inability to predict the time and date of the Rapture. Something about God coming like a thief in the night. Also there's a few passages about taking care of the planet.
If you don't care about the planet because of the end of the world aren't you going against what's in the Bible?
Brug could probably shed some light on this.
-
yes, it does say that in the Bible which is why they're also told to be constantly vigilant against the devil who could swoop in and steal your soul at any minute.
it gets to the point when thats all they care about and nothing else matters.
-
If you don't care about the planet because of the end of the world aren't you going against what's in the Bible?
Brug could probably shed some light on this.
Well I had kind of decided to take a break from the debate forums but as I was asked to clarify this point, I'll attempt to do so.
I honestly don't know if the Bible has any specific scriptures calling believers to take care of the planet. However I do feel that we should. I've said here before that it really angers me when I see certain things going on like the dumping of waste into the oceans. I feel ilke God gave us this place to live and we should do the best we can within reason to take care of it.
I'll look around a bit and see if I can find any specific scriptures about it. I kind of doubt they are there since nothing is jumping out at me atm.
Edit - Oh and yes there are scriptures that say that only God knows the time of the rapture (although "rapture" is never used in the Bible).
-
I'm paraphrasing but I seem to remember something along the line of:
I the Lord have given you these animals... you have lordship or the responsibility FOR the animals.
Ah. I think I found what I was looking for.
"The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. "
It's the Garden but it's reasonable that God would want the same care to be extended to other areas outside the Garden now that they're out of the garden.
AH here's another.
"And the nations were enraged, and Your wrath came, and the time came for the dead to be judged, and the time to reward Your bond-servants the prophets and the saints and those who fear Your name, the small and the great, and to destroy those who destroy the earth."
Oh. This post is directed toward the people that don't care about the planet. Since I'm posting quotes in response to Brugs post it might come off like I'm trying to convince him. I just want his feedback on their quotes. I believe Brug isn't the type to go: Well... the end is coming. Who cares about the sludge in the river?
-
Oh and yes there are scriptures that say that only God knows the time of the rapture (although "rapture" is never used in the Bible).
That's because it wasn't written in English.
-
Oh and yes there are scriptures that say that only God knows the time of the rapture (although "rapture" is never used in the Bible).
That's because it wasn't written in English.
*smite*
:P
-
Omg. I got quoted?
XD
Sorry, side-tracked.
I believe the word you're looking for Brug is ZING!!
:P
-
ZING is in the Bible??
*wonders what context*
-
ZING is in the Bible??
*wonders what context*
Smite begat Burn; and Burn begat Zing; and Zing begat Pwnd and his/her brethren.
-
How leet.
-
How leet.
Cut and Pasted from the leet bible.
3z3k13l 25:17: Th3 p4th 0f th3 r1ght30us m4n 1s b3s3t 0n 4ll s1d3s by th3 1n3qu1t13s 0f th3 s3lf1sh 4nd th3 tyr4nny 0f 3v1l m3n. Bl3ss3d 1s h3 wh0, 1n th3 n4m3 0f ch4r1ty 4nd g00d w1ll, sh3ph3rds th3 w34k thr0ugh th3 V4ll3y 0f D4rkn3ss; f0r h3 1s truly h1s br0th3r's k33p3r, 4nd th3 f1nd3r 0f l0st ch1ldr3n. 4nd, 1 w1ll str1k3 d0wn up0n th33 w1th gr34t v3ng34nc3 4nd fur10us 4ng3r th0s3 wh0 4tt3mpt t0 p01s0n 4nd d3str0y my br0th3rs! 4nd, y0u w1ll kn0w my n4m3 1s Th3 L0rd wh3n 1 l4y my v3ng34nc3 up0n th33!
-
J35u5 w3p7.
n00b.
XD
-
no more leet!!!! its giving me a headache and I dont like the fact that I can read it, its soul destroying stuff.
and i didnt mean to imply that brug would destroy the world, he's too big and cuddly and bearded for that, but just saying i know people who only read certain bits of the bible cause thats the bits they're told to read by church elders, with an agenda.
ah church politics, dont miss it at all
-
no more leet!!!! its giving me a headache and I dont like the fact that I can read it, its soul destroying stuff.
I feel the same why when I read Fark and I understand some terms. What terms? Oh... I don't think I should say but it's 'out there'.
=/
I was innocent until the Internet came.
-
I'm not sure what scared me most; the fact that I read that leet perfectly of the fact that I heard it in the voice of Jules from pulp fiction. I spend too much time in culturally, and possibly morally. bankrupt pursuits.
-
I'm not sure what scared me most; the fact that I read that leet perfectly of the fact that I heard it in the voice of Jules from pulp fiction. I spend too much time in culturally, and possibly morally. bankrupt pursuits.
I too heard it in the voice of Jules.
(http://home.tu-clausthal.de/~ifjkl/pics/samuel_l_jackson.jpg)
-
Thats my wallet. The one with "B4d M07h3rf***3r" on it!
:P