You Know His Name Wasn't Really Jesus Christ, Right?

kesk2006 · 2 years

I'll bite one last time, just for fun...

Popeye is a god?

FTFY.

And, ... In his world (fictional cartoon characters), yes he is 'a god' -- a being - a (fictional) human being (one of many such beings). But he is not "God".

So, eat your spinach and you, too, can grow up to be like Popeye - a being.

And, finally, the Jesus I've come to know would probably nominate John the Baptist for this.

Live long, prosper, party on, and be excellent to each other.

Amen.

kesk2006 · 2 years

When I was growing up learning such phrases, it was "Jesus H. Fucking Christ" (still not sure what the "H." stands for), but basically yeah... I don't feel that there are any "bad words", only bad intent. I have no problem with profanity, per se. However, it's also worth noting... If you're a heterosexual dude, you'll probably have to hook up with a pretty skanky chick if you can't speak any other way.

smoothmann · 2 years

The mayor of my town gave all city employees the opportunity to take a half day off work one Friday (with pay) to volunteer at the Humane Society. 400+ people took the offer. They were overwhelmed with excess people and didn't know (at first) what to do with all of them. Eventually, they distributed them around to various foster care homes (where volunteers house and feed the overflow). If you suggest this to your own mayor, make sure you suggest that he give the Humane Society some warning.

EDIT: he/she (wasn't being sexist, just using English the way it works)

kesk2006 · 2 years

It's also worth noting that "taking" is also misapplied as "saying" or "speaking" (my understanding is that this is the common interpretation in Jewish tradition - not to "speak God's name"). My take on it is that it's about vanity, specifically...

God's name being "Am" (or "I am"). Exodus 3:14 (KJV) And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

... thus, I interpet "taking the Lord's name in vain" to be "asserting oneself for the sake of personal vanity".

EDIT: That having been said, perhaps it's time for me to abandon this 6-day-old username and get one that doesn't hold any sort of implication that I might be using it out of vanity (even though I used it to "spread the word").

EDIT: Possibly my final use of this username. I want to offer this perspective for those whose native language is English and who have very little knowledge of any other language(s). A better understanding of the translation of YHWH to English can be gleaned by running it through Spanish first. An approximate translation of YHWH into Spanish would be "Yo soy que soy". In Spanish, however, 'soy' translates to 'I am' in English... most of the time. But 'Yo' is the first person proper 'I' ... and a literal translation of "Yo soy que soy" to English would be "I I am that I am". But... a more accurate translation of 'soy' to English includes the fact that 'soy' is like saying the English contraction "I'm" .. that is, 'Yo' is implied with 'soy' - 'soy' is literally 'am' with an implied 'Yo'. Resulting in the following translation (my preferred for my understanding):

YHWH

to Spanish...

Yo soy que soy

and therefrom to English...

I am that am (or: I being [<--] that being.)

And finally adding further this quote from Wikipedia

The biblical law does not prohibit the use of the Name, but it warns against "misuse", "blaspheming" or in ordinary terms, "taking lightly" the Name of YHWH.

... I.e., Don't go around claiming to be (or acting like you are) God. (you might get crucified)

NOTICE: "Am Is God" claims nothing about me, other than my personal understanding of God's name (feel free to snoop around at my other posts referencing God/God's name. I'm not perfect. I made a few mistakes here and there. But I'm not ashamed to have delivered this message). Now, I'm gonna retire this username and come back with one I'll be more comfortable with.

Peace.

AmIsGod · 2 years

I don't know a great deal about medieval Christianity specifically. Is this the era from which the Arthurian Grail quest comes?

AmIsGod · 2 years

Only thing I know to add to this is "dots" in the Yin/Yang symbol. Yin has a "dot" (a "little bit") of Yang within it, and vice versa. Neither is purely one or the other.

AmIsGod · 2 years

I see what you did there.

AmIsGod · 2 years

I see what you did there.

AmIsGod · 2 years

I see what you did there.

AmIsGod · 2 years

42

FTFY ;)

AmIsGod · 2 years

Giving you an upvote, despite all of this scientific "evidence" to the contrary. We understand the world through our perception and our ability to communicate those perceptions meaningfully, even if not "purely rational" from a scientific perspective. Good analogy. Thanks.

AmIsGod · 2 years

My favorite, so far. :)

EDIT: It embraces the context of the question, re: "the way reddit works".

EDIT: (recursively) ditto. ;)

thewatershed · 2 years

Change occurs when those being oppressed by the institution (the flock which is being beaten by their shepherds) decide they want something different. Christianity has a long history of this (for better and for worse, I might add).

BritishEnglishPolice · 2 years

"ChristmaHanuKwanzaakah" annoys me. I saw someone add 'boxnew' to the end (boxing day, new years day) and just facepalmed.

... but I can't help thinking that a logo which embraced religion without embracing institutions would be cool. I'm not a graphic artist, though, so I wouldn't be much help here.

BritishEnglishPolice · 2 years

please explain.

This is /r/religion, not /r/Christianity.

EDIT: Good question. Have an upvote.

thewatershed · 2 years

It might help you understand the definition of 'scapegoat' if you look at it as a transitive verb. I have no problem with you labeling Jesus as a scapegoat. It makes perfect logical sense. He was a scapegoat, and wrongfully so. That's the whole point. The crucifixion of an innocent.

EDIT: Upvoting you for unintentionally backing Christian dogma.

davin3000 · 2 years

I pondered this...

here

and

here

However, when I solve cryptograms, it's not a narrative alone. Think of a "where's waldo" picture ... I'm visually seeking recognizable patterns.

For example XOHX, is most often either THAT or ELSE. If I see it, I glance around for XO? (for THE). There is narrative, but there is also visualization. And, as I've become more adept at these puzzles, the narrative has become less and less, and I solve them faster and faster (after 20 years of practice, I do them in my head. no pencil required. in about 5 or so minutes) with almost no narrative. Similar to Rubik's cube... when first learning, there is MUCH narrative (okay. I see this here and that there, and I gotta do this to get it that way ... and so on) accompanying the visualization of how to accomplish the narrated movements. Once you get to doing a Rubik's cube in under 5 minutes, there's little-to-no narrative; just reaction and movement.

Having presented all of that, now I pose this (ala NaviRedShoes burning couch example, which I believe is usually the equivalent of demanding your brain to solve a cryptogram or rubik's cube in under five minutes - RIGHT F-ing NOW, through some sort of neurological endorphin rush thing)...

When you hit your thumb with a hammer... or when someone startles you... causing involuntary curses (Ow! G D MFing SOB! or Why the F--- did you do that!?) ... Is there any thought at all? Do you select those words? There is obviously language (which is what the mental 'narrative' requires). But is there thought?

The human brain-mind relationship is very complex and subtle (especially after I tried acid that one time... 22 times).

EDIT: And what about this guy's thoughts?

Jamon · 2 years

All alone in my imaginary forest with no one to hear what I think.

luminosity11 · 2 years

Why don't we just avoid any confusion and call everywhere "/home"?

FTFY

luminosity11 · 2 years

Don't be so sure.

AmIsGod · 2 years

My favorite book on Eastern thought is: The Tao of Pooh.

The title of the book is a very clever play on words (Pooh, Pu), but the book is even more cleverly insightful as it uses the characters of Winnie the Pooh to illustrate various Taoist tenets and principles.

I highly recommend it.

Specific to your inquiry, I'd point to Taoist Pu, or p'u, "the uncarved block".

EDIT: spelling.

AmIsGod · 2 years

So, it would seem then that it isn't always wrong to generalize, but it is wrong to always generalize. Did I get that summary pretty close?

AnnArchist · 2 years

Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Cupid, etc. are secular traditions, embraced to varying degrees by different religious and societal sects. Last time I went to my mother's for Christmas, my niece was "Santa". In our tradition, Santa distributes the gifts that are under the tree. Many religions do not embrace "Santa Claus" because the tradition has been hijacked by commercialism (which, by the way, I agree is somewhat ... hmmm... repugnant; because it encourages lust and greed), and because modern media has turned a few lines of poetic verse (e.g., 'Twas the Night Before Christmas) into an ever increasing number of 'song and dance routines' (I enjoy the entertainment value of, for example, The Santa Clause, with Tim Allen; but, I make no pretense of it being a documentary).

As for...

believing in something you can't see, hear, smell, taste or feel

... I believe in my sentience. I believe in my self-awareness and my ability to assert the existence of it (e.g., the simplified Cartesian assertion "I think, therefore I am"). See my comment here, where I present a philosophical definition and argument for the existence of God, based on some fairly well accepted philosophical foundation (Plato).

Pilebsa · 2 years

It can happen with or without religion. See: Caylee Anthony

AmIsGod

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login