dimreepr

But if gays weren't hated in the first place, he wouldn't hate himself/them because he wouldn't care.

I’ll go a little further; ‘disarray’ you’re clearly an intelligent person, maybe top of your class, but academic intelligence isn’t the only type of intelligence that counts, to assume otherwise moves self indulgence into the arrogant box.

To answer an earlier question “you were not making an effort to explain what you meant by the word "content"” The standard definition is “a state of happiness and satisfaction” but these are both emotions and therefore fleeting, whereas it’s perfectly possible to, permanently, live a contented life. So my definition is “a state of being that accepts whatever is happening now”. I don’t know if “Jesus” existed, I don’t care and I’ve no doubt he wasn’t divine, but someone started it all and since whomever that was, is the source of the NT then, yes, of course he was teaching them the NT.

But where was the wall?

The only facts in this thread are bibles and religions exist. And digging holes long after the prise is found, is frowned on when you're already out of your depth.

Hmmm, let me think... perhaps we should probe the origins of Abrahamic religions, as per the OP.

I refer you to post #111

But it's part of the thread, and should be addressed.

Have you read this thread?

No it's not; it's one thing to protect people in an artificial/man made environment, but only arrogance would lead one think we could tame nature quite so easily.

Hate is hate, whatever the source.

It's not the first time in this thread, please explain how being content has anything to do with entertaining? “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.” – Mathew 5:17 The OT was a bible out of its time, much like the current version, he was teaching them what it was trying to convey using the NT; after all he wouldn’t need to reassure people if they didn’t think he was trying to abolish the law or the prophets. As time increases and full understanding gradually moves towards no understanding; at some point on the scale politics take over and from that point on the bible becomes a clarion call. For a more recent example of this process, look at what's happened to the 2nd amendment. Understanding the words and understand the concept are two entirely different things; to fully understand a concept, all the nuances and traces of meaning need to be extracted, from the words, and understood, not just the headline acts. Why do you think prophets pop up at different times rather than an occasional cluster? You don’t always need words to understand how to be content, sometimes life provides the answer. The problem is, whilst I understand the concept I don't fully understand the words, so my lack of eloquence impairs my ability to convey meaning, sorry about that.

Firstly, please stop putting words in my mouth and attacking them, there’s a phrase for that. Secondly, you acknowledge the bible we read today is not what was originally written and so impossible to fully understand, as I’ve explained, making any scholarly investigation pointless. And thus making the rest of your post pointless to read (so I didn’t). Sorry I lied and read on, this makes no sense to me, please explain. Only by completely contradicting it. I was right and can't be bothered to point out everything wrong.

It's a famous cultural reference betwixt Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton.

Why not, Paris does...

Or, at least make some sort of sense.

Because you're not making sense. Reality is real, whatever you may think.

I think it means, art is subjective, all meaning is yours alone.

The media promoting revenge as a means to an end seems very wrong. Edit/ cross-posted.

Politicians, right or left, would never do that; they’d just get a minion to do it for them.

You’re conflating my position with ‘Prometheus’’, they’re similar but not the same. My contention is that the ‘bibles’ (of the major religions) were written to teach people contentment and are full of stories that were designed as metaphors/analogies to convey understanding rather than taken literally; the inclusion of the OT in the Christian bible seems political (maybe in order to confuse), let’s face it, how can one forgive unconditionally and, simultaneously, demand an eye for an eye? Christianity, among others, spread far and wide, superseding local deeply held ‘beliefs’ along the way; how is that possible for a philosophy that doesn’t use fear as a motivator? In anticipation of your use of ‘hell’ as a fear motivator; most beliefs have a version of hell, so either the idea was good or the threat of a different version of hell, that wasn’t a deeply held belief, was more compelling; are you a gambler because I’ll take that bet.

Fighting a terrorist is like fighting one’s own imagination; I can think of some scary shit but I can imagine scarier.

This is why a quad core processor isn’t, always, four times faster; sometimes we have to go the long way round.

Consensus determines the overall majority, whilst morality is an individual position.

Why limit profit potential?