Coffee with Jesus

You ever notice how much time some black people used to devote to talking about a skin colour they didn't even have?
You ever notice how much time some women used to devote to talking about a privilege they didn't have?

Perhaps self-righteous cocky anger really wasn't the most effective tool.

http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/02/shut-up-thats-why.html

I advise you to read the apocryphal book "The Third Book of Enoch"
link here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch

tell me what you learned from this?

book remained at the Slavic and Greek had secret information about paleocontacts with other residents of the universe, from which there was a human race.

who would not be difficult to translate into English, to give a link to Slavic book
http://old-ru.ru/03-50-1.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlFhaGXAp0E

I just had to make this pun before i got to sleep
No thank you il take my coffee black

/giggles
Ok night yahl never mind me

Jesus was a sith Lord

"I am the way the truth and the light, no one gets to the father but through me"
Meaning only if you enter the darkside will you understand the grace of god

"He who is not with me is against me"
Well pretty clear on that one

In the last supper Jesus taught his people the value of eating humans with his own body as a example
Um yuck

Paul was a Sith Lord under Jesus
He told his people to arm themselves and declare war, he told the early church to put on the full armor of god and declare war on the romans. Weill the burnt down rome so it looks like they took his ideas.

Here I disagree) Nero burned Rome in his madness, and Christians declared terrorists. We in Ukraine is similar.

MJ Hannigan wrote: Jesus was a sith Lord

"I am the way the truth and the light, no one gets to the father but through me"
Meaning only if you enter the darkside will you understand the grace of god

"He who is not with me is against me"
Well pretty clear on that one

In the last supper Jesus taught his people the value of eating humans with his own body as a example
Um yuck

Paul was a Sith Lord under Jesus
He told his people to arm themselves and declare war, he told the early church to put on the full armor of god and declare war on the romans. Weill the burnt down rome so it looks like they took his ideas.

MJ Hannigan wrote: Jesus was a sith Lord

"I am the way the truth and the light, no one gets to the father but through me"
Meaning only if you enter the darkside will you understand the grace of god

"He who is not with me is against me"
Well pretty clear on that one

In the last supper Jesus taught his people the value of eating humans with his own body as a example
Um yuck

Paul was a Sith Lord under Jesus
He told his people to arm themselves and declare war, he told the early church to put on the full armor of god and declare war on the romans. Weill the burnt down rome so it looks like they took his ideas.

Are you being sincere or are you joking?

MJ Hannigan wrote: Jesus was a sith Lord

"I am the way the truth and the light, no one gets to the father but through me"
Meaning only if you enter the darkside will you understand the grace of god

"He who is not with me is against me"
Well pretty clear on that one

Maybe Jesus and Paul just had very specific ideas about what was really "Christian" and decided that only certain people who were with him on that could truly be considered believers and "understand the grace of god".


Is that a qualification for being a sith?

McMiklosh wrote: Nero burned Rome in his madness, and Christians declared terrorists.

The second part is correct. The first, however, is in severe doubt by modern historians and rejected by a good subset thereof for a number of reasons.
I myself had a chance to review some of the original latin reports of the event. While the evidence on both sides was largely inconclusive, the accusations against a mad Nero along with defense of the political persecution victim Christian groups were generally more abrasive and coming mostly from pro-Christian spokespeople despite them being in a minority which would make us expect their honest statements to be less represented in the records.
Juvenal and Statius were poets, and, more importantly, satirists. They were in the business of painting caricatures of events. Suetonius was born some five to six years after the event and could thusly only write what he was taught or what he made up, since he hardly had any evidence to review or politically neutral statement to hear. He also added that Nero announced that he would burn the city. I am still looking for a verification of this. Cassius Dio was born some one hundred years after the event and was convinced by that above mentioned argument from Suetonius. This leaves only Pliny the Elder as a remotely reliable source who despite not holding a political or military office at the time, waited ten years before publishing how certain he was of Nero's involvement while his contemporaries spoke their mind right away.
No doubt the opportunity to badmouth and use as a scapegoat the already largle disliked minority Christian community, be that for religious or, more likely, political reasons, was quickly seen and ceased. Whether the accusations against them were legitimate remains an unanswered question for now. With the political pressure on what was a fringe messianic cult back in the day it remains however a more likely scenario and so does an accident appear more likely than Nero's involvement in the Great Fire of Rome in July, 64 CE.

Um I can look for my old post about Christianity being the religion of Sithism, however that would not be the point.

For me seeing little puff pieces about Jesus as well as Bruce Lee just give me the old motivation to post some things to generate discussion on the differance as it pertains to truth.

And on a side note per the bible there are plenty of passages that support my conclusions and this piece did upset one or two dozen people when i first resented it, but such is life. At times we need to look into the mirror and see what is truly there not just the pretty things we want people to see.

If you want a great read on this wonderful religion just look up "The Witches Hammer" and learn for yourself first hand how the church dealt with those who did not follow the path of Jesus. Look for yourself what happened to those who refused to turn away from their relgions and become Christians. What followed with a pool of blood that was larger and thicker then even a sith lord could have created.

Brenna wrote:

MJ Hannigan wrote: Jesus was a sith Lord

"I am the way the truth and the light, no one gets to the father but through me"
Meaning only if you enter the darkside will you understand the grace of god

"He who is not with me is against me"
Well pretty clear on that one

Maybe Jesus and Paul just had very specific ideas about what was really "Christian" and decided that only certain people who were with him on that could truly be considered believers and "understand the grace of god".


Is that a qualification for being a sith?

I am wondering which god you are speaking about? In the bible pardan the English translation and name changes used by the church but when the god of christian mythology spoke to people in the OT he always referred to himself as "i am the Lord YOUR god, the god of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob." Does that not sugguest in and of itself that he is not saying that he is the only god instead he is saying he is just the god of said group of people?

MJ Hannigan wrote: I am wondering which god you are speaking about? In the bible pardan the English translation and name changes used by the church but when the god of christian mythology spoke to people in the OT he always referred to himself as "i am the Lord YOUR god, the god of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob." Does that not sugguest in and of itself that he is not saying that he is the only god instead he is saying he is just the god of said group of people?

No.

Jews believe that God created the entire universe - the heavens and the earth. He then created man and woman and they multiplied. God then chose a group of people (the Jews) and he became their Lord. They were Gods chosen people, but God always remained in their minds the ultimate creator of everything.

If you want a great read on this wonderful religion just look up "The Witches Hammer" and learn for yourself first hand how the church dealt with those who did not follow the path of Jesus.

You are coming to the conclusion about a religious people by judging the actions of one group. There are plenty of other examples in history of when Christians have done a lot of good, should we just assume therefore that all Christians are good? Of course not, but that doesn't mean they are all bad either.

I find your conclusions prejudice and ignorant, I would hope that as a Jedi one would look to educating oneself with Knowledge and wisdom before brandishing another group of people this or that...

Further by brandishing them specifically as "Sith" you are perpetuating the lie that there is some kind of cosmic ultimatum that divides people into Jedi and Sith. They are Christians, if you disagree with them then state that, but don't start brandishing people this and that - you have no authority to do so.

MJ Hannigan wrote: I am wondering which god you are speaking about? In the bible pardan the English translation and name changes used by the church but when the god of christian mythology spoke to people in the OT he always referred to himself as "i am the Lord YOUR god, the god of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob." Does that not sugguest in and of itself that he is not saying that he is the only god instead he is saying he is just the god of said group of people?

To me, as that statement is written, would imply that he (God) is informing whomever he is speaking with of the current situation. IE He is that persons God; and sites references to identify himself that the individual might understand.

We have a thread in another part of the site that talks about the meaning of words, ‘Words have Meaning.’ Part of the discussion also covered the history of words and how their meanings have changed over the years. The Bible as most people understand it has undergone several translations or a thousand years and the meaning of words has changed. The importance of items in stories have changed, just about nothing that was when it was written is the same as now.

I have gone back and looked at a few text written in the original Aramaic and Hebrew and translated them directly from that to modern English and discovered that many things we see as being one way were written with another meaning. And given a study of history and the importance given to social aspects thought out the course of time as the stories were collected to form what is now the Bible, I have been able to discover a newer significance to what I have taken the time to translate.

Long story short; to take something that was written a long time ago by a people and society that the average person does not fully understand or appreciate and offer modern interpretation is… unwise at best.

This is kind of an awkward position to be in for me, but I do have to try and defend Christianity here, just a wee bit.

MJ, religions, just as any other proclaimed ideologies with mandated and prohibited beliefs, particularly such that are based on authority in place of evidence, by their very nature tend at some point or another to become increasingly violent against deviants or unbelievers. That is true for Christianity but it is also true for Islam most prominently, still very prominently for young religions such as Mormonism, JW and scientology, and to less prominent degrees for Hinduism, Judaism and others. Strictly speaking, there are ways to interpret the core doctrinal issues of even so seemingly benign religions like Baha'i, and given enough time, the day will come that they, too, will do the inhumane in the name and because of the nonsense they believe.
Now since just about every structure with mandated and prohibited beliefs has the potential to be like this, therefore any and all religions are Sithistic by your criterion. That is not something you said, but the criterion you employed to conclude that about Christianity to comparable extent applies to all others. That of course shall marvelously backfire rendering any system of beliefs you have, if you do have one, just as Sith as what you accuse them of being. If then you are going to deny this, you will employ a fallacy known as special pleading, whereby your and your religion alone shall be excluded from the general rules you judge others by, rendering the entire rule arbitrary at best and likely less than perfectly honest.
On the other hand, if you shall agree that as all others so yours, too, is a Sith religion, then the Sith religion label becomes meaningless as it applies to the entire set and draws no distinction, no lines, no 'fines'. The Sith religion label thusly has no definition that would make it an actual word.
Now, by no means I am saying that Christianity is benign, much less has always been benign in the past. But if you want to put it into a new subset, make sure the subset is well defined and not so by virtue of arbitrary assignment of elements.

Akkarin wrote: You are coming to the conclusion about a religious people by judging the actions of one group.

I think Hannigan made a conclusion about the religion, not about all who claim adherence to it. It would still be unjustified in that any label should not be judged by the people who claim it but by what it means for itself. If a Christian is a person who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ, then I shall judge Christianity by those teachings. If they turn out to be benign but the followers are bloodthirsty xenophobes, so be it. If the teachings however are encouraging bloodthirsty xenophobia, no amount of good claimants who'd disagree with the teachings on their own morality will redeem the teachings themselves. But I don't think that Hannigan generalized over all Christians. Just over Christianity herself.

Akkarin wrote:

MJ Hannigan wrote: I am wondering which god you are speaking about? In the bible pardan the English translation and name changes used by the church but when the god of christian mythology spoke to people in the OT he always referred to himself as "i am the Lord YOUR god, the god of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob." Does that not sugguest in and of itself that he is not saying that he is the only god instead he is saying he is just the god of said group of people?

No.

Jews believe that God created the entire universe - the heavens and the earth. He then created man and woman and they multiplied. God then chose a group of people (the Jews) and he became their Lord. They were Gods chosen people, but God always remained in their minds the ultimate creator of everything.

If you want a great read on this wonderful religion just look up "The Witches Hammer" and learn for yourself first hand how the church dealt with those who did not follow the path of Jesus.

You are coming to the conclusion about a religious people by judging the actions of one group. There are plenty of other examples in history of when Christians have done a lot of good, should we just assume therefore that all Christians are good? Of course not, but that doesn't mean they are all bad either.

I find your conclusions prejudice and ignorant, I would hope that as a Jedi one would look to educating oneself with Knowledge and wisdom before brandishing another group of people this or that...

Further by brandishing them specifically as "Sith" you are perpetuating the lie that there is some kind of cosmic ultimatum that divides people into Jedi and Sith. They are Christians, if you disagree with them then state that, but don't start brandishing people this and that - you have no authority to do so.

I agree there is no ignorance there is knowledge and if you need more lessons on the topic feel free to send me a message we can arrange something over skype if need be.

Gisteron

I would imagine it is a good thing that I do not hold to religous dogma to keep myself from the dangers you mentioned.

I guess it's great that you don't employ arbitrary special pleading. So how do you respond then to the criticism that your illustration, of what a Sithistic religion is, does not discriminate by any variable criterion and is therefore either obsolete, since we have more widely understood and more linguistically fitting labels, or, in the worst case, ill-defined?

Gisteron wrote: I guess it's great that you don't employ arbitrary special pleading. So how do you respond then to the criticism that your illustration, of what a Sithistic religion is, does not discriminate by any variable criterion and is therefore either obsolete, since we have more widely understood and more linguistically fitting labels, or, in the worst case, ill-defined?

1. Normally over the net it is in text, or perhaps a vid, in person it is normal verbally with nonverbal cues.
2. Yes
3. maybe
4. no