Quote from: Mr. Psychologist on December 01, 2015, 11:34:39 AM

Quote from: Jim on December 01, 2015, 11:33:51 AM

Quote from: Mr. Psychologist on December 01, 2015, 11:32:37 AM

Why can't people just pick nice halal avatars ;-;

Also, because I live in America not Bongistan

Degenerates like you belong on a cross.

same

oh

Quote from: Mr. Psychologist on December 01, 2015, 11:34:01 AM

Quote from: Jim on December 01, 2015, 11:33:15 AM

Quote from: Mr. Psychologist on December 01, 2015, 11:32:37 AM

It's a fine line between turning a blind eye to a bit of a borderline avatar and going all out.

Naru wasn't allowed his one in a similar vein, you wouldn't be allowed that one.

Why can't people just pick nice halal avatars ;-;

What is offensive about snow?

Allah forbids water from appearing in a solid form, that is why there is no ice in the middle east.

I'll just draw a picture of Muhammad and put it in the avatar then so it's okay

provided it's sfw, that's fine

Quote from: Mr. Psychologist on December 01, 2015, 11:32:37 AM

Why can't people just pick nice halal avatars ;-;

Also, because I live in America not Bongistan

Degenerates like you belong on a cross.

Just rant about the government or something.

Open up serious
Copypaste random thread
Speech is already done for you

koneecheefuckingwa

Farther than you could ever imagine

You're gonna leave em all behind

Well we had a whole hentai thread so you might like it here

Just to clarify for the new lads, this is in anarchy where the normal forum rules don't apply. It's a timed occasional event rather than a permanent board, don't go posting NSFW stuff on the mains because that will end up in us having to clean up after you.

The current er, loophole that we permit for linking NSFW content (within reason) is as follows

NSFW tagged thread
Spoiler that describes the NSFW content
The content linked to, not embedded, in said spoiler.

And suddenly Jews Workshop seems to be good value for money.

Not the best screenshot but



Literal Rape Incarnate

Fuck Deathclaws, Stingwings, Cazadors, Sentrybots, Reavers (Fo3) and anything else.

These fuckers are just the embodiment of this man

Psy.

this is a good way to end up as an inpatient tbh

oh x oh

LC x alcohol

I got completely lost in the formatting of this, so I just cut it down and made it work sort of in MS word lol
Hopefully it still makes sense.

Quote

Hmm, all fair enough criticisms really.

The only thing I'd question there is the whole bit about christ's church, he never made a church it was his followers that did. His whole deal was reaching out to the downtrodden and condemning those who sat up high on the altars to look down on the non-clergy (I forget the opposite of pharisee), unless of course as you've pointed out the thousands of different versions of the bible tend to get a bit prone to personal tweaking and the one I read as a kid skipped the part where he laid out the plans for a pope.

Papacy is essentially a Roman attempt to take Christianity by the reigns, so you really won't find it backed up by scripture unless you jump through a lot of hoops and REALLY overemphasize Peter's importance.

He did, however, establish a Church in the NT.
 "You are Rock and on this rock I will build my Church." (Matthew 16: 18) -Jesus is building his church, on the rock that is the apostles
"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven."(Matthew 16:19; 18:18)
"Receive the Holy Spirit, whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven, whose sins you retain, they are retained."(John 20:23)
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," (Matthew 28:19)
"if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth." (1 Timothy 3:15)

Ahh fair enough, I was confusing the two there.

Quote

I guess the reason I prefer(*?) CoE/Protestant branches over catholicism is it seems a bit more focussed on the teachings and community rather than a lot of the traditionalist things that go with Catholicism.

The problem is that without tradition, you can make a mess of the teachings.

True enough, but at the same time when tradition becomes dogmatic that brings out more problems imo.
Take the female clergy part for example, there isn’t really a good reason why a woman can’t be a vicar, priest, bishop or the like other than established tradition. Unless you adhere to ideas like original sin and blaming the womenfolk for the suffering of mankind which is pretty uh… archaic… to put it mildly.

Quote

This is obviously only what I've seen in the UK, but your typical protestant church isn't adorned with gilded furniture and expensive as all hell architecture. There isn't money pouring out of every part of the church, with the money that would be spent on that sort of excess going into community projects instead.

While I agree wholeheartedly with religious institutions being active in the community and helping those in need, I think it's silly for an organized religion to overemphasize modesty when it comes to places devoted to their god. If you can build a Church, God's house on earth, why wouldn't you make it as ornate and grand as possible? He's God, he's far above modesty.

Well that would usually come at the expense of those who could have benefited from the money more, the use of church money to feed the homeless spreads the good word far better than a gaudy pillar of vanity.
This might just be down to a matter of taste though, but spending money on ornamentation should come after you’ve spent money on reducing suffering in the world. Which is of course a losing battle, but the fight is what matters anyway.

Quote

Catholicism always seemed a lot more removed from this, with the division of clergy and congregation a lot more defined.

Well yeah, you don't want just any idiot representing the church. Clergy should be well-trained, although they are just people and should be treated as such. I don't know how catholicism is with laypeople but in orthodoxy members of the congregation carry some weight. It is crucial, though, that the people running the Church know what they're talking about and the history of what they're talking about. Some guy off the street just won't do.

Well naturally, if you are going to preach you should know what you are talking about but you should be preaching in a language understood by the masses rather than one that isn’t spoken by anyone other than academics and retiring doctors nowadays.
I like latin, it’s a nice language but the average pleb in the street isn’t going to give a flying monkeys about it. Having the source material locked behind a language barrier isn’t great for ensuring the layperson’s understanding rather than just having to rely on the word of another mortal.
Which I guess you could say is exactly what the bible is in the first place, but yeah.

I could be entirely wrong and catholics now use English for their services, but afaik latin is still the done thing (generally speaking).

Quote

You have abbeys and convents where the pious remove themselves from the world to pray all day,

A good thing, for them. The world is corrupt and dirty, why would you want to be close to it?

To follow jesus’s example would be my thought. He didn’t hide in a cave away from the world and pray from dawn til dusk, he was right down in the filth and squalor teaching those who were cast out.
You can’t really do a lot of good in the world if you live in a nice enclosed building whilst the world around you is full of strife.
 

Quote

services in a language next to nobody speaks anymore and the ritualistic stuff that goes on with incense/Eucharist etc.

Tradition, which is important not only as it ties into the theology, but also as a way to fortify community and identity within the church.

I get that it’s important but eh, it doesn’t click for me.

Quote

None of that really appeals to me, it always struck me as the people being more important in the faith than the traditions.

*?
Prefer isn't really the right word, since that would imply picking one over the other but I'd say I find it more agreeable for the reasons above.

different strokes

Indeed, I think that’ll be the crux of the discussion really <.<
 

if Ankara takes part in the Syrian war and cooperates with the US and helps ISIS.

I'm hoping this is either a mistranslation or a confusion on the part of the speaker, but they do know that for once Russia and the US are on the same side here?

Even if the west is being tsun to putin over it.

Quote from: Mr. Psychologist on November 30, 2015, 10:50:06 AM

Quote from: Cyrus on November 29, 2015, 07:00:41 PM

I consider protestantism a shit meme and I don't see myself stopping my criticisms of it.

I'm kinda curious as to why you think this, it's never struck me as all that bad as compared to catholicism.

Sola Scriptura (which ironically has no scriptural basis), and an excessive focus on individualism that leads to schismatic tendencies.

Sola Scriptura is one thing, but without an adaptable semi-central authority you wind up with a million interpretations of a two thousand year old text. And instead of debating and working with other theologians to work out how best to interpret the scripture, you have people treating a millenia-old book with seemingly contradictory messages as infallible, with every single one convinced his interpretation is totally right. It's a similar problem to the treatment of the Quran in Islam, only compounded by the fact that the Bible, unlike the Quran, has been through a dozen translations in dead languages before it reaches the modern reader, and even then varies somewhat depending on what version you get in your language. There isn't even a universally recognized canon in protestantism, so some branches omit books and include some that other branches omit, and you get shit like the Mormons writing new fucking books. Without apolistic succession and respect for thousands of years of Christian history and tradition, focusing on scripture alone will get you into a fucking mess.

It's also developed ridiculous levels of individualism that lead to new schisms literally every day. First ol' Marty Luther broke off from Rome with the backing of power-hungry European kings, then Henry VIII decided that getting a divorce was worth breaking off from the Church. So you have this historical precedent for taking your ball and going home when someone disagrees. While today you have Oriental and Eastern Orthodox finally wrapping up a millenia-old issue on the nature of christ and working to come back into communion, and people constantly looking for ways to bridge the deep divide between Roman Catholic and Orthodox christianity, new Protestant denominations pop up left and right. It's absurd. Instead of working to reestablish communion amongst themselves, Protestant leaders bail on their current church and take their followers with them at the first sign of disagreement because "lol i read the bible this way and its infallible so i must be right". There's no collaboration or cooperation at all. That's how you wind up with the same holy book spawning "God hates fags", "The bible says no h8 so pls allow transgender lesbian clergy", along with inane cults like Mormonism. This is not a problem for Catholicism or Orthodoxy. And today you see the schismaticism reaching it's logical conclusion, the "I love Jesus but hate religion" types who never set foot in a church and decide for themselves that the Bible is somehow only subject to their personal understanding. This attitude completely destroys Christ's Church and makes communion impossible.

TL;DR Martin Luther is a fag

Hmm, all fair enough criticisms really.

The only thing I'd question there is the whole bit about christ's church, he never made a church it was his followers that did. His whole deal was reaching out to the downtrodden and condemning those who sat up high on the altars to look down on the non-clergy (I forget the opposite of pharisee), unless of course as you've pointed out the thousands of different versions of the bible tend to get a bit prone to personal tweaking and the one I read as a kid skipped the part where he laid out the plans for a pope.

I guess the reason I prefer(*?) CoE/Protestant branches over catholicism is it seems a bit more focussed on the teachings and community rather than a lot of the traditionalist things that go with Catholicism.

This is obviously only what I've seen in the UK, but your typical protestant church isn't adorned with gilded furniture and expensive as all hell architecture. There isn't money pouring out of every part of the church, with the money that would be spent on that sort of excess going into community projects instead.

Catholicism always seemed a lot more removed from this, with the division of clergy and congregation a lot more defined. You have abbeys and convents where the pious remove themselves from the world to pray all day, services in a language next to nobody speaks anymore and the ritualistic stuff that goes on with incense/Eucharist etc.

None of that really appeals to me, it always struck me as the people being more important in the faith than the traditions.

*?
Prefer isn't really the right word, since that would imply picking one over the other but I'd say I find it more agreeable for the reasons above.